At least Chinese hackers won’t be able to mock you for being rejected so often.

Big corporations LOVE regulations and barriers to entry. It strengthens their dominance. The little guy competing doesn’t have the legal resources to keep compliant with all these accumulating laws.

Using what definition of irony?

A situation is ironic if it defies expectation. Like how Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter, was killed by a stingray.

Kirk being killed by a leftist extremist, who thought he was a fascist, using a gun, is pretty much in line with how you’d expect him to die.

True. Most were against the violence, but many supported it.

Also, the country was founded using political violence.

Congratulations! You failed.

Sorry, my HTTP/2 brain does not understand this.

*walks away in happy ignorance*

He was reckless, no doubt. Being around a dangerous mob always is.

Maybe rift on him crossing state lines.

Very true.

Rittenhouse traveled all the way to some far off city he had no interest in. Sure, his father, grandmother, aunt, uncle, and cousin live there. Sure, he stayed with his friend who lived there. And he used to work as a lifeguard there. But otherwise, he only went there because he’s racist. That’s why he shot a couple white people.

My personal feelings do not inform this argument. What I say is wrong or it isn’t, regardless of my feelings about people or topics. I routinely argue against pro-choice arguments, for example, not because I’m pro-life, but because so many pro-choice arguments are bad. I actually support unfettered abortion and even limited legalized infanticide similar to Peter Singer, but that’s quite irrelevant to arguments I make about abortion.

I guess people in the military aren’t willing to die for anything either. After all, they wear body armor and use weapons against their enemies.

You can’t be so stupid as to think a willingness to die is the same as trying to die.

Me liking women and non-white people isn’t even relevant. If you don’t want to discuss the issues, then don’t.

Nothing I’ve seen would suggest that he was not willing to die for gun rights. Seems more like you cannot even comprehend someone being principled and politically consistent. Seems like projection to me.

It only qualifies as ironic if Kirk would not support being a part of the “price worth paying” for gun rights. Do you actually believe he would’ve only accepted the deaths of others and not of himself?

Not being mad about a fascist who advocates for public shootings as a necessity for society getting popped

So you don’t think he deserved it? Aren’t celebrating it?

I’m not opposed to public executions in general. The only problem I see with Kirk’s logic (which was that it would deter children from crime), is that only extreme violent crimes like murder would be deserving of execution. And allowing children to see killers getting killed isn’t exactly going to deter them from typical crimes, just murder.

If DEI is explicitly taking measures to not consider race/gender in hiring practices, then conservatives would largely support it.

So they’re not racist for opposing DEI, they just don’t understand what it really is, right?

This is the problem in politics when everyone is using the same terms with different meanings. Political discourse devolves into people speaking past each other with absolutely no point.

Rittenhouse defended himself against criminals trying to kill him, shooting one of them in the arm just as he was lowering a pistol to point it at him.

Nobody would be “celebrating” him if people didn’t try to vilify him and lock him in prison for the rest of his life.

you’re open to public executions in general.

You act like you’re not, in a thread of people celebrating a public killing. 🤔

I would actually be against public executions for political assassins like Vance Boelter, Tyler Robinson, and Luigi Mangione. It would radicalize more people, potentially making them more of a martyr for a cause.

That suit was moved to private arbitration proceeding and settled out of court.

And I joked about hiring women to pay them more in my other comment. It’s a joke because that implies that tech companies, publicly disclosing their desperation to hire women, are actually losing hundreds of millions (collectively billions), just to avoid hiring women. I’ve never met anyone working on tech that hates women that much. It’s one of the most liberal fields out there. They bend over backwards to be diverse. It’s a struggle because asians are overwhelmingly dominating in terms of qualification.

Yeah, I wonder why that is. Could it be that getting hired and promoted is much harder so a lot of women don’t bother? I wonder how you could fix that…

Around 58% of college students are women. Of black grad students, the vast majority of degrees go to women, 71.5% of masters and 65.9% of doctoral/medical. Tech companies are starved for female representation. And you think it’s somehow harder for women to make it?

I’m curious why you think men are under represented in college then. I’m sure it’s conveniently not because they think they’ll have a hard time succeeding and “don’t bother.”

I’m supposed to think they won’t be underqualified?

You’re clearly a heavily biased individual, so who knows what you’re going to believe.

In what way am I biased? Use statistical probability and logic to answer the question, that’s all I’m doing. If I narrow my pool to a smaller subset, then are my chances of getting the most qualified people diminishes. Right?

Yes, good thing they’re IBM and can can pick the highly qualified women from that smaller pool.

You certainly see the problem with this. They’re not the only ones doing it, and even if they were, they’re still passing up more qualified people, assuming parity in the rates of qualified people in the 20/80% distribution.

Let’s be real, when you’re looking for an attorney, the most important thing for you is how much they charge.

Wrong. Out of the three I’ve gotten, I look for their specialization to the task I want first. Notice how you completely evaded the question?

Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone’s race does not represent that constituents of that race.

If you want to talk about someone who is incredibly unqualified, he’s your guy.

Oh really, care to provide any evidence of that? I assume you’re an extremely qualified lawyer? Maybe a professor of law? (see how dumb these questions are?)

Only anecdotal.

So no.

Personal testimony is admissible evidence in court, so it’s not nothing. Just not useful evidence for this discussion.

Ah yes, the lawsuit. What happened in that lawsuit?

The lawsuit was stayed pending binding arbitration proceedings, meaning they settled privately out of court. I think the employment contract he had forced him into private arbitration.

So you want to outlaw everything designed to kill, I take it? Fine.

What about police officers that use guns to kill people who are actively attempting to kill others? If they’re disarmed, more of these people will succeed in killing innocent people, right?