"I can't think of many more terrifying ways to die than sitting in cramped pitch black box waiting to suffocate."
Well good news! They may have briefly known something was wrong, but they died faster than their pain receptors could have communicated what was going on. There are few times where, "they never felt a thing" are true. This is one of those times. The sub was destroyed in approximately 30ms. Pain requires at least 100ms to reach and register in the brain. They quite literally felt nothing. Arguably one of the best ways to go, tbh.
Though the optic nerve is a bit faster, they would have been able to get a couple brief images in as the eyes transfer images to the brain in about 13ms. So 2-3 images. Not enough time to realize what happened of course, aaaaand thennnn...pink mist.
That anyone would be willing to associate themselves with these grifters and their brand is as illuminating as it is disappointing. I'd say "do better" but for these folks, that ship sailed when they fell down the Fox News rabbit hole and the politicians followed them trying to get their 5 minutes of fame.
I remember when Ann Culter was as ridiculous as the brand would get. Now she's pretty much the middle of the spectrum on the right. Not even she would react to this. Unless she had a new book to grift, I suppose.
The individuals against the ruling do not understand what the ruling said. The laws about discriminating against providing service to someone are all intact. What the ruling said you can't force an individual to do something they don't believe. It is like going to a band and saying you have to play a certain type of music when they don't play that type of music. Artistic talent is a First amendment right. How many time have artists disrespected the National flag and other religious groups in the name of art, and the court backed them stating it was their first amendment right. The rights also go the other way in trying to force a person to do something they don't believe.
This is just a poor series of analogies and understanding of the conversation, the spirit of the law, and the actual real-world implications. What the court did is cut a giant loophole into our antidiscrimination laws, the ramifications of which will be clear, regressive, and will hurt many in the process.
"Forcing someone do something they don't believe" is a misrepresentation of the situation and its practical application anyway. It suggests this is about verbs. If that was the case, what this person would hypothetically be forced to do is make a website, not become gay. The former is the verb that matters here. Do they believe in making websites? Is that a service they provide? If not, then you're correct: they shouldn't be forced to make websites. You can't force me to do something I don't do. It becomes discrimination when you can and do make websites, but your fulcrum on whether to make a given website is based on the race/gender/ethnicity/sex/etc of the recipient. The problem is when you start adding prepositions. I don't make websites for... We have had effective laws in place for decades to protect against that kind of behavior for a reason, and our society has improved meaningfully as a result. The devolution of that understanding coupled with this new, jumbo-jet sized loophole means there will almost certainly be an increase in "separate but equal" shenanigans (again, real-world implications), which are and will never be equal. We've been there and done that. Why are we acting like we haven't learned the lessons of history all of a sudden?
It's like we have to relitigate lessons learned in the 50s and 60s for a generation that has all the tools at their fingertips to have been smarter than this. Like, are you a restaurant? Then you serve food. If someone walks into your restaurant and demands you create paintings for them, they are in the wrong. You're a restaurant, not an artist. If they demand you make something not on the menu, they are in the wrong too. But if someone asks you to make something on your menu, and you would for anyone else who walks in at the time of day they did, and if your refusal is purely secondary to them being [fill in the protected group]...well...now we have a problem and we should all agree that is a problem. And yet, with this ruling a business open to the public now arguably has "a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.", as Kagan noted in her dissent.
We figured out a better way about 60 years ago. If you can't see how we end up here after a ruling like this, you all are being willfully ignorant or intentionally obtuse. Pick one.
I won't mention any names (you already know who you are), but I can absolutely imagine some of you doing the pouring in this picture. In protection of this fine owner's right to be racists and bigots. Because muh freedom of speech, irrespective of the real-world impact and lived experiences that come as a consequence...because as a WASP, it really doesn't actually affect you. You know why the sit-ins and demonstrations were necessary? As it turns out, it is the actual way shit gets done; not passivity and hoping people do the right thing.
Civil Rights Sit-In at the Woolworth's Lunch Counter: Why It Worked | Time
Stay transparent, folks. You're not fooling anyone.
"When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression."
But no worries. I'll step out and let the WASPs get back to talking amongst themselves and proclaiming to protected groups and minorities how all this will actually be good, while failing to recognize the irony and arguing theories while ignoring the real-world impacts. Because it doesn't actually affect you anyway. It's just academic to many of you. Entertainment. Arguing for the sake of arguing.
Log in to comment