You can't imagine a person who would excuse getting someone so drunk they no longer refuse sex as "boys will be boys" behavior or similar nonsense, but would express actual disapproval of their child entering a same-sex relationship? It doesn't just mean "convicted of assaulting a young white woman at gunpoint".

Eh, I think master is used (AFAIK) unproblematicly in other contexts like a master key, recording master, and master pattern. Converting it to "main" seems like a change or loss of meaning, but the problem may be that there is not really a consistent meaning across electronics usage to start with. I think "secondary" has some connotation of filling the same purpose or type as the primary, which doesn't really fit for m/s usage. Master/sheep is my most similar option that keeps the "m/s", but it feels awkward enough to draw attention to what it replaces. Could just do master (or main) and sub, where "sub" could mean substitute, subordinate, subscriber, [submissive,] etc. as needed.

There's more light during the summer because it all leaves the people, duh.

I always felt like it was a good idea to prefer imports from developed nations with functional, representative governments. As an American, it is pretty embarrassing for my neighbor to see my roommate's leopard eating my face though.

Is there actually something behind all these comments about his appearance, or is it just typical internet name-calling that mostly falls into the same anti-LGBTQ+ bucket?

I bet the lab folks could tell you what's in their product much better than ranchers and meat processing factories ever could. A lot of science goes into it though and some people seem to be allergic to that, at least based on the sorts of claims they make.

Isn't the problem then the abusive power structure, whether it's built on family/generation/age dynamics or something else, and that saying the problem is "incest" is de-emphasizing the more critical component (that's already avoided too often)? Not to say that incest is a good thing or even harmless, but to be strategic in framing discussions that may affect how people look at things. Missed the thread header and this might not be the most relevant place to reply, but wanted to get the thought out.

I'd be more concerned about those huge floating white blobs than a clicking noise. When those fall down, they're liable to hurt someone. Or maybe it needs to be interpreted as part of the medium? What sound effect label would you attach to attempting to fire a safed pistol anyway?

I suppose he could have gone with empty instead of safety on, but that would arguably be a less funny/absurd sequence of events and I don't think it's unreasonable to say that absolute realism was likely a lower priority than the actual point of the comic.

First sentence of the second paragraph literally says "What We Know: [woman's name] was arrested and charged ..."

Re post text: For context, Washington state is mail-only voting, so that number would (I assume) be for all votes, not just specifically requested mail-ins. I didn't see it in the article, but I wonder if that is predominantly "centralized" or "distributed" in nature; i.e. are technically-valid ballots from all voters being incorrectly rejected by the county elections facilities office at different rates across racial lines, or are there other factors like targeted disinformation, education, local infrastructure, or socioeconomics that disproportionately affect Black (or other types of minority) voters that would make them more likely to produce a technically-invalid ballot?

Those might get the same statistic, but would seem to indicate very different sorts of problems and approaches.

I'm really not seeing the flow from claiming that basically "selective breeding [some sense of eugenics] could result in biological changes in humans as it does in other animals" to being a proponent for eugenics in either a moral or policy sense. There was an naked counterclaim that it wouldn't work, but honestly that's immaterial to my first sentence, and I don't know that I believe it either. Could you create an overall biologically "better" human? Dubious, if you could define such a thing in the first place. Could you create a human with superior moral or intrinsic value? Definitely not.

It's certainly a completely bonkers statement to drop out of nowhere. There's no context given in that article nor in a few others I found, but I don't think it's unfair to assume there was some sort of context or trigger.

There was a apparently another statement about abortion and Down's that IMO just reads like an amateurish attempt at using absolute utilitarianism to make a profound, off-the-cuff observation based on a pretty ignorant set of assumptions. Yes, it's a stupid statement that makes a pretty generic argument for eugenics with other assumptions, but the core claim of "an action that causes net negative happiness in the world is immoral" is, strictly speaking, not morally indefensible. There is a correcting of facts required, but essentially the same logic is used for the fairly non-controversial (as any abortion, at least) termination of a pregnancy that would only result in suffering and a dead baby. Correcting facts is, I think, much less substantial than correcting thinking.

Is there anything else substantial I didn't see? To use just this as a basis for a declaration of "open eugenicist", to me, just dilutes very powerful terminology that I'm sure many people definitely fit.

Also, as a side note, some of the takes in some counter-articles were absolutely wild. If your position is that (even if you don't recognize it yourself) "Gee honey, I don't think we're in a financial position to try for another baby" is eugenics, it's hard to believe there is actual meaning behind any string of words you manage to get out.

What are the cops going to do? Round here at least, thought crime isn't yet a thing. It'd essentially be the same as if you said "Sometimes, I want to hurt people". If you're actually speaking with a medical professional, what you say is legally privileged information, and AFAIK for the US at least, that continues until there is reasonable belief that you will harm someone or commit a crime.

This totally glosses over the social aspect, but for any legitimate medical provider that shouldn't be a problem. I don't want anyone who needs help to be afraid of seeking it.