MBech

nice, spicy pillow in my eye socket.

I think I get your point, but if your business isn't contributing money to youtube, you're not really business. You're not contributing anything of value to Google if you don't bring money to the tabel, and why would they give half a shit about you then? I'm not saying it's right, but that's capitalism for you.

Depends on the debate. The government can't stop them from debating. If you host a debate though, without any government affiliation, you're not forced to let them attend. In the same way, if you own a forum on the internet, you can silence anyone you want to. The literal ONLY thing the first amendment protects against, is government persecution for speech. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how people react to said speech. Just because someone cries "Muh first amendment!" doesn't mean you actually have to respect them. You can shame them, silence them, ostracise them. Put up billboards telling people how fucking insane they are. Take out an ad in the local newspaper to display their bullshit in an attempt to shame them into submission, tell them to go fuck themselves. If they're in your house, you can toss them out. YOU can do whatever you want. YOU can't breach the first amendment, only the government can.

First amendment only protects you from being persecuted by the government. Being ostracized, shamed and unfortunately attacked in the middle of the night by anonomous people isn't against the first amendment.

Those meaning I've heard, but never "original"

I've never heard that meaning of vanilla.

Yea, seems a bit like survivorship bias. Do I believe this person would've done something horrible? No, then again, I don't know them... But do we hear about every angsty teenager who has gotten reported through something like this? No. Why don't they flaunt how much they may or may not stop violence? Because you can't really brag about data that is intirely comprised of "maybe this could possibly have happened i guess".

More like the e in egg

Holy shit, I hadn't bothered to look the blocklist up because I figured I wasn't THAT radical, but I'm in bby!

Edit. Only one from my instance. I'm the black sheep in the family!

The jobs were never going to follow either way. It was a way to make more workers so they could pay everyone less. If there's 100 people practically begging for your job for half the pay, good luck negotiating a raise.

Sure, but we don't have to go all pasture fed. Maybe just 10x more space for them in their stables could be a start. Would it be more expensive, absolutely, but either people will have to eat less meat, consumption has almost doubled the past 70-ish years, or they'll have to pay more for it.

I'm not saying people shouldn't get to eat meat, I'm just saying it's rediculously cheap for what it is, and really not needed in the amounts people eat.

I don’t really disagree with you, but land area isn’t actually a significant factor. When you consider how much land is used to produce feed for the pigs, it’s clear that the stables themselves take up very little space.