Not a financial hardship; I talked about that in some other message. I meant a physical hardship. Dude is basically a bear. I’m sure sweats are more comfortable for him unless he invests part-time-job level energy into finding good suits.

As much as I love Fetterman, I’m with the Republicans on this one. It’s the same reason you can’t curse in court, you have to stand up at the appropriate times and outwardly agree to show seriousness for the proceedings, etc: We’re here for a super important reason. Whole people’s lives will be changed based on what we do here. Take it seriously or GTFO.

I get that Fetterman is huge and wearing a nice suit every day would genuinely be a hardship for him, but there has to be some kind of solution that doesn’t step us one step closer to fistfights and drunk congresspeople on the floor. I don’t think MTG should be able to yell and be generally awful, I think Boebert should get in some sort of trouble that a private citizen wouldn’t get in for being publicly a drunken tramp, and I think everyone in congress should still have to wear suits. It’s important, take it seriously.

It’s like one of those Ernest Hemingway one-sentence stories, that all by itself tells you 100% of what you need to know.

The owner of a meat business in western Michigan was ordered to pay $1,143

“Two months later, we wouldn’t even be here,” the judge said, noting that the teen soon would have turned 18 years old.

“Ionia County is a farming county, and I know a lot of people in this county view children working, sometimes around dangerous machinery, as part of growing up,” [the judge] said.

He said the boy was warned to never put his hand inside the grinder.

What the FUCK

You’re not going to want to hear this, but this logic (i.e. “But MY side is the RIGHT one, so it’s different”) is exactly why the right wing thinks Trump shouldn’t go to prison and it’s okay when they cheat in elections.

I do agree with you that the left wing is the right side of history. That doesn’t mean someone who’s on the other side suddenly shouldn’t be an executive of anything.

You’re not going to want to hear this, but this logic (i.e. “But MY side is the RIGHT one, so it’s different”) is exactly why the right wing thinks Trump shouldn’t go to prison and it’s okay when they cheat in elections.

I do agree with you that the left wing is the right side of history. That doesn’t mean someone who’s on the other side suddenly shouldn’t be an executive of anything.

Why was appointing Eich as CEO so controversial? It’s because he donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, which was a proposed amendment to California’s state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

I want to try a thought experiment. Imagine that you observe this comment in reaction to the above:

I just don’t get why the author is so pissed about their political contributions. Guess what, people who are involved in big business are usually right-wing and support right-wing organizations. Shocking. Who could have known. I don’t even want to imagine how the author comes to the conclusion that this is some big conspiracy but I think we all know what political spectrum that guy belongs to.

What I just wrote is a mirror-image version of the top rated comment on that article from a few days ago about the Mozilla foundation funding left-wing organizations. Do you agree with one of those statements and not the other? If so, why?

It is one-sided to say that someone involved in Brave should only be “allowed” to do so if he doesn’t support anything conservative. Just as would be one-sided and wrong to say that Mozilla shouldn’t be “allowed” to support left-wing organizations. Flipping it around, and looking at the reaction when it’s the other way around, is an easy way to analyze your own internal reactions on it.

(Generally, I’m in agreement with the idea that you shouldn’t use Brave because of all these other shady things; just this one part jumped out at me as one thing that’s not like the others.)