natecox

The irony of choosing the most pedantic way of saying that they’re not pedantic is pretty amusing though.

The problem with being like… super pedantic about definitions, is that you often miss the forest for the trees.

Illegal or not, seems pretty obvious to me that people saying illegal in this thread and others probably mean “unethically”… which is pretty clearly true.

(God I hope the /s isn’t necessary)

I guess I don’t understand the mastodon/twitter style feed, I’ve always found that I couldn’t seem to get a feed interesting enough to come back to.

GOP: “We only want to deport the illegals, if they want to be here they should do it legally”

Immigrants: “ok, we’ll come on this program specifically designed to allow a legal pathway to citizenship”

GOP: “No not like that!”

No they’re Mennonite, I’m pretty sure they worship a zombie.

It’s totally legal because workers have surprisingly few rights in the US today. You can still find good companies that will treat you with dignity but it’s not because they’re required to.

SCOTUS declaring full immunity for anything done as an official presidential act is probably why this term feels less hollow; last time around he had to be careful not to end up in prison, this time he has nothing to fear.

The problem is that It’s a cop out, a ruse, a diversion, a disingenuous misrepresentation of what’s happening here. It’s a flat out straw man.

Casting taking down signs that say “everyone is welcome here” as strengthening our children is simply not an assertion based in reality. Yes, we need to be real with our children so they can be prepared for the real world but this scenario is not applicable to that argument.

I would argue that taking down these signs weakens our children by sending a message that being different is bad—the exact message racists and bigots have been pushing forever. It robs them of a little bit of their humanity and we should not be tolerant of this.

If you don’t see a problem with the sign being up then I’m not sure why you needed to offer a counterpoint that we’re “over sheltering” children. Taking the time to write out a rebuttal sure would seem to indicate that you think the signs coming down are a good thing.

I strongly disagree with you.

Aside from the fact that teaching children to be inclusive and accepting is the path to these things being normal in the future, “well you have to learn to be offended” is the shield of the bully. It’s what people who want to be assholes say to protect their assholery.

But you know what, if someone needs to learn to be offended then maybe it’s the bigots and bullies that need to learn that inclusive language is here to stay and to just deal with it.

Wut? ST is a cult classic.