Yeah, this.

OP has misunderstood the joke being made ("haha this is an unfortunate picture") and is using it to be cruel to a stranger ("bUt ShE PrObAbLy WoN't mAkE bEtTeR cHoIcEs") .

Go fuck yourself, OP. You're the one that needs to make better choices.

The process of loving an institution or a country or an idea is fundamentally different from the process of loving a person.

To love a person is to accept them on every level of their being.

To love an institution is to be its harshest critic, in the hopes that we can better direct the strokes from our hammer and our chisel to reveal the sculpture within. Nobody has ever created anything beautiful by loudly claiming their block of marble is better than the rest.

Do you deny climate change on the same basis?

That's a lot of words to avoid saying you're talking out your ass.

"Yeah, I could totally tell you. Honest. Promise. No I can't because... uh... I'd have to kill you."

Sexuality

When people talk about "LGBT Pride", they're not talking about the "a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements" definition, they're talking about the "confidence and self-respect as expressed by members of a group, typically one that has been socially marginalized" definition.

It's almost like words can have more than one meaning.

Not celebrities - historical figures.

How many can you name that have been dead for at least 50 years?

Everything I've read has suggested Drew Barrymore was going unscripted until the WGA strike was over (i.e. they were fully working within the terms of the strike).

Do you have a source to suggest otherwise?

Adding on to this.

Oppression of the Poor and Injustice to the Wage Earner are two of the four Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance.

Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.

Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.

Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.

Jimmy's 5th chapter.

Companies can still exist under socialism. They can exist in very similar forms to what we have at the minute. The difference is the ownership.

I suppose the question I'd put back to you is "Do you think there is an intrinsic benefit in someone (who doesn't do the work) owning a company vs each of the workers having an ownership stake in the business?".

I don't buy this at all. The door-in-the-face strategy doesn't really work if it leaves the customer feeling like they'd rather get rid of the door and start over with a new door technology.

You can squeeze your customers in a way that doesn't make you look insane and Unity chose to not do that.

I think you're telling on yourself that you can't possibly imagine a reason for studying something other than "What will get me a job?". Which is sad.

Aside from that - it's a postgraduate degree. It's primary function is to bridge the gap between undergraduate study and a career in academia.

So yes. Obviously degrees like this are geared toward someone who has a cross-discipline interest in a particular field or topic.

I'd like to respond, but I'm going to need you to read 5,000 words on my personal philosophy towards online commenting before I do.

Do you think what is essentially "Oooh, I bet that upsets you" is conducive to good faith conversation? Or even just general pleasantness?

If I asked you "Are you lashing out from fear that you won't survive the revolution?", that would be unkind. It would come across as hostile, confrontational and I would be presupposing your own thoughts on society and your relation to it.

Instead, I'll engage with you as close to your own terms as I'm able: Do you think your country's intellectual property laws are fit for purpose?

I can think of a worse future than one where our rapid advances in technology and productivity afford us the ability to create more art and beauty without fear of destitution.

No, it fucking doesn't and every mouthbreathing moron who parrots this needs to have a long hard look at themselves.

Ronald McDonald House is a good charity. Pays for parents to stay near their sick kids' hospital. They do good work.

Stop trying to discourage people from donating to charity. You're actively making the world worse through your own ignorance.

Are you joking?

Veganism and vegetarianism is massively on the rise and firmly in the mainstream. McDonald's does a plant based burger ffs.

PETA have even managed to position themselves as a certification agency for "cruelty free". If getting companies to self-regulate and accept you as the rule maker for that regulation isn't above your standard of "working" then I don't know what is.

It's also a very culty behaviour to hate apostates even more than nonbelievers.

If the extremist freaks are going to target anyone with violence, it's going to be the perceived "traitors" who "stabbed them in the back".

It acts as a filter so that people are only expending time and resources on ideas that will likely take hold and provide value to society.

Do you actually believe that this filter is working as intended? Or do you think it ought to work like that?

In a spherical society with no air resistance I can agree with you but it feels like it would be condescending for me to point out how this system that supposedly maximises value to society is in all likelihood going to kill your children's children.

b00merang have almost every single mainstream operating system as a downloable GTK/Cinnamon/MATE/Gnome theme.

Firstly, if that is your biggest concern, then we agree far more than we disagree and we're quibbling over details (which I'm happy to do).

Secondly, who said they do?

It of course depends on what you mean exactly by a"slice of the pie" but there's lots of ownership models to choose from. Direct ownership is one. An employee owned trust is another. These are to a large extent solved problems - mutuals and co-operatives walk among us now, after all.

Thirdly, you mention the risk of setting up a company. If you're not rich, why do you have to gamble your dignity and livelihood to participate in innovation? Would the world not be a better place if you could invent and create and innovate and fall back on a basic income if it falls on its face?

Finally, even if we accidentally make things a bit too equal by giving Jim the new starter the same voting rights as Bob the grizzled veteran - is that not better than the system we have at the moment where incomprehensible hoarded wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few?