if the FDA is dismantled to syncopats
Did you mean sycophants? Psychopaths? Something else?
- 15 Posts
- 37 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: February 10th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
10·11 days agoWhy not post the original article? Here it is:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/03/22/irs-tax-revenue-loss-federal-budget/
Does the US have whistleblower protection laws that would make it easy for a judge to rule this illegal?
The CDC site provides the missing answer to the obvious question:
As of March 6, 2025, a total of 222 measles cases were reported by 12 jurisdictions: Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York City, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington.
She seems both qualified for the job and motivated to stand up to the Trump administration’s aggression, both of which are important qualities in a leader of a US state that happens to be the world’s 5th largest economy.
EDIT:
For those who downvoted, perhaps you could use your words to explain what you disagree with in my comment, and why? I don’t know Kamala Harris all that well, so if there’s something important that I’m missing, I would like to know about it. A downvote doesn’t help anyone.
But without it, your post very much was just another person using the word as though it was fine to say and weird that people wouldn’t say it.
No, that’s something that came entirely from you. My comment merely pointed out a failure of the article to say what it was talking about.
It’s important to be careful when communicating with others about issues that feed strong emotions in us. It’s all too easy to project meaning that isn’t there, and mistakenly vilify someone based on our own biases.
And with it being at -5 when I posted, I wasn’t the only one that read it that way.
Yes, and at least some of that was surely due to the influence of your comment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect
You even felt you needed to correct it after I left.
That’s faulty reasoning. What I added was not a correction, but an explicit statement of what should have been obvious to a reader who wasn’t looking for a quarrel. In other words, I went the extra mile to do the reader’s job for them. My addendum doesn’t imply fault in the original.
I did this only because I’m familiar with the way misguided replies can lead to toxic snowballs on web forums, and I noticed that your comment had the potential to start one.
In retrospect, with the added context, I can see what you originally meant.
A simple “I’m sorry for mistakenly chiding you” would have sufficed here. Good day.
As my post would have referred to your first sentence absent the second.
There was never a point where my comment contained the first sentence absent the second.
And you’ll notice everyone read your post the way I did before you edited it. When I came along, you had -5.
Bandwagoning is very common on web forums. People are easily influenced by the first reply they see, and will often click a vote button before thinking about what was actually written.
The paragraph I added was to try to guide people away from that bad habit once the bandwagoning had already started. It does not imply fault in my original comment.
When I am the listener or reader, any time my first impression of a comment is negative, I consider it my responsibility to stop and consider other meanings before crying foul. That’s the only way we can avoid miscommunication, after all, since it’s not possible for a speaker or author to predict every potential misinterpretation, and the burden of avoiding it should not be entirely on them. I wish more people would do the same.
They edited their post to be completely different from when I replied.
No, I did not. I added a second paragraph to address your obvious misinterpretation.
The first paragraph is what you replied to, and remains intact. You could have tried to understand it on its own, but instead you chose to look for an excuse to chide a stranger. That was unkind, unwarranted, and unnecessary.
The question asked by [email protected] stands.
The edit to my comment merely added the second paragraph, which explicitly spells out what should have been obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills, or failing those, at least a modicum of simple human kindness.
Keeping the other branches of government in check is point of the US Congress.
So far, this Congress has enjoyed extraordinarily high quality of life (funded by taxpayers) for relatively easy work.
They have also played a big part in allowing things to progress to this point.
Now it’s time for them to step up and do their fucking jobs.
If they feel threatened, then I would suggest they get the help of a government agency equipped to protect them. If that’s not enough, they have plenty of money to hire supplementary guards.
Useless headline. The R-word is apparently “retarded”.
I spell it out here because this isn’t mentioned at all in the article. Figuring out what it was talking about required finding and reading text that was embedded in an image on x.com.
Hey OP, this post doesn’t meet the requirements of rule 2 or 6. Can you please find a news source that does, and post that instead?
Altice failed to terminate repeat infringers whose IP addresses were flagged in these copyright notices, the lawsuit said.
So the record label thinks it should have the power to cut off people’s internet service, upon which most people depend for at least some basic essentials of living, by simply accusing them of copyright infringement.
I hope the record label is severely punished for this abuse of the (publicly funded) justice system.
I’m going as far back as the 1400s, and your 1810 usage doesn’t match any common meaning of “snuff out”, so I don’t think it really applies here. But thanks for the interesting etymological diversion. :)
In any case, polygraphs still cannot put an end to leaks, so I stand by my original interpretation.
I see your line of thinking, but let’s also remember that polygraphs wouldn’t end leaks even if they really were lie detectors. The most they could do in that fictional scenario would be to reveal the leaks; to sniff them out. To snuff them out would require some additional, separate action.
Also snuff out applies to candles only because the snuff is literally part of a candle’s wick. The phrase is not being used literally here, which leaves us with the common non-literal meaning: to murder.
I still think the most charitable interpretation is that author confused it with sniff out, and failed to consider the grisly meaning of what they wrote.
I’m with you.
Also great: Willow, Tombstone.