To play some devils advocate here, this is still a very sensitive subject. Not because the kids don't have a right to that care but because kids are kids, and things can change drastically for them as they grow. For every kid who genuinely needs that care, there is another who doesn't but is searching to discover themselves. Some forms of affirming care are safer than others, but others can have drastic life long effects on growing people. Unfortunately there are also some parents that will force care (or lack thereof) on kids in one way or another.
I think that therapy and understanding should be promoted heavily for kids so they can identify and understand how they feel and why, but blanket statements are challenging because they can be very easily spun (ex. All the "the left wants to force drugs on kids" bullshit that gets spouted.)
Not saying that I'm right or that you're wrong, but I think this is a discussion that still has to be opened/presented further for it to gain traction in the public eye.
The thing these articles are doing (which sensationalist articles always do) is taking a few people's opinions and spreading it across the entire blanket "they" of whatever opposite side the article references. It appeals to people because its easier for people to generalize the whole group than to point to a niche section.
This one in particular takes a few people who are interested in the secretary of the Navy and says they're upset at the choice, which they might be, and spins it into "They're all upset at what their leader did."
You can find this rhetoric all over the political spectrum, whether it's copium or relishing. Take it with a grain of salt.
You are not immune to propaganda.
I think this is mutual in that I prefer women just have a hobby more than anything. It's a weird feeling when someone genuinely tells you they do "Nothing really" and you find out they're genuinely serious.
I do wonder if there is some value in like a "protestor defense volunteer". Like a group that their job is just to protect the people in protesting areas, regardless of affiliation or reason. Can't call it a problem if everyone gets defended while exercising their rights, and then protestors don't have a reason to bring guns.
Edit: I guess that would normally just be the police?
Obviously you just mandate your game and console be always online and at that point you may as well just live stream the game to their house, don't need to download if you never actually own it right?? Make them pay per the minute of game time and only unlock the next level after they've played long enough! Hell! Why even sell a game?? Just have people pay you for the right to advertise that they paid for it and charge them a daily subscription to keep the rights! Nobody owns anything but you! Art and entertainment is merely a vessel to siphon money from the masses! Purchase their souls for a hit of dopamine! Rent them their own eyes!
Eh, it's also a bit of a teaching opportunity with kids. A decent parent will teach kids which things are okay to hit and which ones aren't, and this is something that can help with that. Someone's probably going to get hit once or twice yeah. But kids also get mad when they can't stick forks in outlets. I don't see this toy being any worse than a sword or gun toy.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic but "digital only" means the only way to put games on the device is via digital downloads (aka from the web store downloaded via internet).
Each company tries this because it effectively eliminates the third party/aftermarket sales and gets them a monopoly on prices. Never have to lower the price on a game to move physical copies of you don't have physical copies to store, so games no matter how old can stay at full price for as long as they like. Don't have to cut your margins by selling at a reduced price to a third party to resell so all the profit comes home.
I know why companies do it, it makes sense financially. But turns out a lot of people aren't fans of not being allowed to have the option to physically own their own media, even if they don't always do it.
We are winning the war with Eastasia
We have never been at war with Eastasia
Stuff like this is also why a lot of companies have also moved away from pensions, one it's expensive, two mismanagement, but it turns out that offering to pay someone for free until the end of their life doesn't make shareholders happy, so fuck the employees right?
Weren't they superceded by LCDs not LEDs? The whole big thing with Nixies was that you could display digits but if one filament burned out (which it relatively quickly did) the whole bulb was bad and even then you had to pump power into them and use these complicated plugs.
Enter LCDs, they take ages to burn in, you can run them off a coin battery for literal years, and they're a dozen times cheaper to make.
Honestly yeah. My hopes are at this point our electoral process does exactly what it just did. It's clear a lot of people went out and voted for him. Not a small group but a ton. And my resignment has just been "Okay, this is what you asked for, buckle up".
It's gonna suck ass and I really hope they don't start some bullshit that makes them squeak out of the mess they're about to step in. (They'll definitely try to) But let's give the American people exactly what they asked for and just try to stop the house from catching on fire while they realize what a bad idea it was.
Additional edit: idfk man. Scream it from the rooftops if you want to. Clearly something needs to be done about this shit, but I can tell straight off from this article that it's just a tee-up for them to go "look how dramatic the snowflakes are" or whatever bullshit they're spewing this week. Fuck these guys, and all the bullshit they want to pull, but playing into their hand like that is hard to avoid.
Pretty sure they're joking. Not sure how much, but that seems to be the tone they're giving. "Oh yeah let's do the thing they said we would haha". It's not very funny but it's like someone getting a gun and saying "Time to shoot up a school hurr hurr"
Not that that makes it any better, but still. Something important to keep in mind, you go blasting this around with "look he said it!" And they're just going to laugh at you for believing getting upset.
Edit: I'm not saying that this is okay at all but the guy in the article definitely has the tone of "oh yeah let's tell them we are gonna start up the murder machine out front" I understand that there are a lot of people that do stick to this rhetoric. But I pretty much guarantee that in the context of this article it's bait to get people to go "he said he's gonna start up his murder machine!" And then they'll go on some rant about liberals or whatever else.
The guy is still probably an absolute shithole but you need to be able to recognize when they are setting people up for a punchline that furthers their agenda.
It's just like the church guys who stand outside with the old "god hates (slur)" signs. They believe it, but fighting them or screaming about it just pushes their agenda. Condemn them, call them out, but hysteria just gives them ammunition.
Catholic Church: "Um actually she's not a minor, she's a 3,000 year old diety that just looks like a-"
It's not like "oh dear God" levels of bitter but it's enough to just be like "pteh ew" and spit it out.
We can't accept that as inevitable. I don't like it either but there has to be some way that we can avoid this "there's gonna be civil war" discourse, because all it does is wind people up
Captain: "What happened? How did you die?"
Wan: shrugs
I don't care if people are have to be led there with a lollipop and a soda if it gets people voting. Civic duty is important, but people need encouragement.