It’s not the same. Most people calling the 2016 election a sham will admit that Trump did technically win by the rules as written, but also think that those rules are bullshit because they allowed a multi-million person majority to be shut out in favor of a malevolent moron. The people saying Biden lost are saying he literally cheated and that there’s a conspiracy of thousands of government employees collaborating to break the rules and subvert the will of the people; that the multi-million majority literally doesn’t exist. This is just as disingenuous as comparing the top secret documents that Trump hid to the ones that Biden and Pence handed over immediately on request.

You are dying on an an hill made of data chosen in piecemeal by news outlets that profit off of your attention.

mk bud. i cant believe you still dont understand why those rates are misleading. good luck out there

Your statistic doesn’t support your conclusion. His statement is not contradicted, and is in fact true.

Several articles about how poorer taxpayers are significantly more likely to be targeted:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/irs-targeted-poorest-taxpayers-millionaires-went-unscathed-2022-report

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/irs-audit-eitc-five-times-as-likely-to-get-audited/

https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-easier-and-cheaper-to-audit-the-poor

An article about how audit rates are dropping in general, and dropping fastest for those with the highest incomes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2022/05/18/irs-tax-return-audit-rates-plummet/?sh=642e0b711cca

I never said to ignore it for low income taxpayers, but the statistic you provided is incredibly misleading. Plus the IRS would recoup far more money by auditing higher income taxpayers at much greater rates.

the misleading thing about that statistic is that there are far, far fewer wealthy people than there are normal. even with the rate of audits technically being lower, the number of audits of normal people is still far, far greater, and is where the IRS’s focus truly is

being justified or not has nothing to do with whether something is violent. if someone is getting hurt, maimed, or killed, that’s violence, no matter how much they deserve it.

Meta/Facebook and Google/Alphabet are very different from Twitter/X. The first two created parent companies under which their large brand names still exist, but are now managed along with their other properties (Instagram, Snapchat, Waymo, Deepmind, etc.) Musk, meanwhile, is trying to completely burn down the Twitter brand for some incomprehensible reason.

Actually it’s worse than nothing. Youtube promotes comments based on engagement, so while only an upvote increases the tally, voting at all still makes it more visible.

Allegedly, but reddit also spent tons of money on stupid shit. My favorite example is their braindead stupid million dollar Superbowl ad, but they also doubled the number of employees to 1400 in 2021. And all they have to show for it is a slow, ugly website and a trashy, extra-monetized mobile app. Fuck em.

Damn yall must have the shittiest popeyes, the biscuits at the one near me are so good

Why are you shifting this argument so far? I never claimed the guy had tourette’s, and I never said this guy shouldn’t be insitutionalized. This is a completely irrelevant example.

The point I’m making is that the “fire” is a classic example of speech that isn’t protected in the US, but with this ruling there’s no way to prove intent. So what if I sat down and continued watching the movie afterwards? I just got over the delusion. And someone with tourette’s would probably apologize, try to calm people down, or even avoid a theater altogether. I’m pretty sure that someone with a peanut allergy can’t sue a peanut farm if they go visit and sample the produce; if you know there’s an extra danger for you specifically in performing an activity then you are responsible.

Not to mention tourette’s could never cause targeted, violent, electronic-message based harassment either. This is a focused, intentional action.

Completely insane ruling. Wild that Kagan went across the aisle for this.

the First Amendment requires proofs of mental state

So I guess it’s basically impossible to convict anyone of anything involving speech? If I yell “fire” in a crowded theater, how can you prove I wasn’t having a delusion that there was a fire? Maybe there was an explosion in the movie and I was so immersed I thought it was real!

Dude had previous convictions and spent years doing this harassing, it’s not like this was an isolated mental break. Truly insane.

Extremely rarely do racists, homophobes, transphobes, and the like specifically say “I hate x,” because then it gets harder to rationalize that away both to yourself and others.

That said, yes, she has. Lots of claiming being trans isn’t a legitimate identity. Referring to trans women as “trans identifying men.” Wrote a literal novel about trans women being serial killers, sniffing panties and hanging out in bathrooms to claim their next victims. Trying to speak for cis lesbians and claiming trans women are especially dangerous to them, despite cis lesbians being one of the least transphobic demographics and not being a lesbian herself. Retweeting hateful statements from even more blatant transphobes. Oh and I nearly forgot, straight up taking the label “TERF” and wearing it like it’s somehow a badge of pride.

I know you said you don’t want to watch some super long youtube video about it but I’m going to link to two of them anyway; it’s a complex topic! They’re pretty funny and come from the perspective of a trans woman with a background in academia. This one is pretty recent and comes with the added bonus of teaching you a lot about the history of social justice in general, and the fight for LGBT rights in particular. This one is older but is more focused on Rowling. Just keep in mind she’s done much worse since that video came out.