Dude, Tony Todd as Venom sounds epic. I can’t wait to see how well he does with the role.

Thanks for all you’ve done, I hope this place just keeps growing!

Ah yes, I knew Demolition Man was an accurate prediction of the future. Thanks for confirming the direction we are headed in!

I’m so glad I have a career where I’ll never have to worry about crap like this. I’d love to see how the higher ups would like it if they had to be on camera the whole day with AI watching them for mistakes/phone usage.

As much as Canadians like to believe conservatives and moderates don’t exist up here, we actually do. You don’t even have to be right wing to oppose the LGBT conglomerate.

I’m a bisexual, socially liberal moderate who doesn’t like LGBT politics. It’s got nothing to do with being religious. In fact, it’s the way the LGBT ideology resembles a religion that I have the biggest problem with. They have their sacred idols, their dogma, and their blasphemies. They ignore science that disagrees with their beliefs, and they mark you as a heretic if you don’t subscribe to their tenets. The only thing they’re missing is a deity.

I know it’s hard to believe, but you can be sex positive and still not be alright with pride parades where people march in bdsm gear. You can think drag shows are fine while still thinking they don’t need to be in our schools.

And, really, that’s what solidified my stance against the LGBT political lobby. They won’t leave our kids alone. I’m one of the most live-and-let-live people you will ever meet. When you start trying to indoctrinate my kids because you believe your ideology is the norm (or should be), that’s where my accommodation ends.

I accept you for who you are. I respect your existence just like I respect anyone else’s. But your ideas are not neutral, they are not without harm, and I’m the one who gets to guide the developing values of my kids. You’ve been in control of the direction of our society for too long. It’s time to draw some boundaries.

Playing devil’s advocate only makes you look like an asshole if the person you’re talking to has a closed mind. The entire purpose is to bridge the gap between two sides in an argument by acknowledging the positives of something they disagree with.

In essence, if someone has to play devil’s advocate with you, you’re probably the asshole. Otherwise you would be able to relate to and understand people who disagree with you without treating them like a monster.

A good example of where this can help is in politics. Political discussion is full of people talking past each other instead of trying to understand each other. If you could understand each other, it would be much easier to find compromise, which would make everyone feel heard and lead to the most reasonable outcomes when you consider the voice of all parties. But it’s much easier to label your opponent an idiot or a devil than to grapple with their actual problems.

This is a bit of a misconception. Wealthy people don’t get that way by not working, and they tend not to stay that way if they don’t continue to do so. The difference is that the work they do isn’t the physically laborious kind.

Wealthy people often work 60+ hours a week. They are constantly traveling, making deals, finding new investments, researching, etc. That’s how they get wealthy in the first place, and that attitude doesn’t go away just because they hit a certain level of income. They are self-motivated to keep pushing.

The issue is not so much that wealthy people don’t do any work as it is that the value of hard labor has been devalued, while the benefits of labor have been siphoned to the top 1% for too long. Those benefits have to be redistributed throughout the system in a way that continues to encourage necessary production, without discouraging high performance individuals from creating value through high level trade and investment. Finding a better balance while taking that all into consideration is not an easy task.

This is a semantic argument made to ignore the issue. The reality is that social media platforms effectively have become the “town square” where ideas are shared. Stifling legal speech in that environment is very effective censorship of ideas.

You can argue that corporations have that right because they own the network. I disagree. Curation of what can be said on their platform turns them into a publisher, not a communications provider. Any lawyer active in that space could tell you how insanely detrimental it would be for that distinction to be made, at least in the U.S.

Imagine your phone company deciding you can’t say certain words to other people using their service without facing dropped calls, suspensions of service, or being banned. All because your legal speech goes against the morality of the majority.

That’s essentially what social media does at the moment. They are legally defined as, and receive the benefits of, a communications service. But they are acting like a publisher, deciding what is and is not allowed to be said. It’s a serious problem.

Why should a creator be responsible for the voiced opinions of their fans? That standard makes no sense no matter how you slice it. A creator’s job isn’t to police their audience, it’s to provide information/entertainment.

Just because he has the power to censor people you don’t like doesn’t mean he should, or that it’s a reasonable ask. Instead of passively alienating you by not acting, censoring those people would actively alienate them. He’s much better off letting individuals take responsibility for their own comments, rather than joining any given side’s thought-police.

As soon as you create the standard that you are responsible for what your fans say and do, you’ve lost. You can immediately be held accountable for the speech of the worst of them, and good luck regulating that.