Another…not exception, but special case, I guess: the 3A has been invoked, like, once. But it's something that actually was happening elsewhere, it's just that the scope is so narrow and the restriction so straightforward that it's never been tested

since we're talking about VP agnew, how many people know about his racist novel involving israel and lesbians

And not even Zionism is *uncritically* supporting the State of Israel

I didn't take advantage of post-Easter candy sales but I might drop by the dispensary today

And particularly if we're talking about a de facto secular, post-Enlightenmet sort of person who (without necessarily realizing it) understands "motivated by religion" to mean "not done for actual reasons"

This dovetails with the idea of "religion" as severable from culture; someone who doesn't see Jews as an ethnic group will think of a "Jewish state" as a theocracy (if possibly a benign one) and that state's actions as motivated by religion

Republicans dispute both of those things, and so Muscular Democrats don't approve of them, but they seem like they should be uncontroversial, especially the first

The term implies that people arrested for or adjudicated guilty of crimes are still people, and it implies that being arrested or adjudicated guilty is the relevant factor, not (ostensibly) committing crimes

I can't readily think of an objection to it that isn't "oh, you think criminals are *people,* you soft-hearted lib?"

I guess USA Facts is like People for the American Way where with a name like that you expect very different politics than they actually have

Well, yes, but that's not as many people as we would like

This is probably just as well, because it meant the "actually, this technology is bad" reaction happened before the stuff could get a foothold

The less charitable one is: Israel is Jewish, ergo Israel is religious, ergo Israel was established as a repressive theocracy, ergo Hamas is fighting repression and theocracy

I think a lot of anti-Zionist Western leftists think Hamas are the same kind of communists they are. The charitable explanation is rose-colored glasses

(This, I think, is what Murc's Law is a more specific version of)

Ah, the religious minority paradox

Thing is, that being the case is obviously indistinguishable to you (or me, or whoever) from a sincere but erroneous perception that it's the case.

I’m not a lawyer, and I’m exhausted, so I can’t say exactly which part of the constitution forbids it, but if the constitution does not forbid the president from suing the government in his personal capacity and then ordering the government to settle in his official one, it forbids nothing.

The arrogance of "we don't need to convince people we're right, because we are" combined with the arrogance of "whatever other people do, we're going to do something else"?

I have some bad news about the prevalence of antisemitism

My wife and I watched a guy demonstrating one on YouTube. All three of us agreed that the cost to usefulness ratio is extremely lopsided even just in terms of the cost of the machine in dollars

An "I believe" sticker with various symbols and the accompanying slogans: Black Lives Matter; Science is Real; Love is Love; Women have the Right to Choose; Trans Rights are Human Rights; Diversity Makes Us Stronger; The American body politic must be purged of fascism and reaction with the purifying flames of a Second Reconstruction; Kindness is everything.

Unironically my ideology (apart from a very pedantic philosophy of science point).

This is why the champion of the Folk against those elites, who got a corresponding tattoo and proudly displayed it for almost 20 years, is so popular with this set

How did you even get those words in that order without crashing the keyboard?

If G-d lived on earth, people would break G-d's windows

Ah, but no one is an island

Does "appear to mirror" mean he made up something to get mad about?

Or rather, that he invented a tenuous connection to something he's already (inexplicably) mad about so he could be mad about that some more?

Ah, the better 2025 movie directed by Anderson and featuring Benicio del Toro in which questions about the female lead's paternity proved central to the plot

Yesterday on Smith Street in Brooklyn I saw someone who looked like Boris Johnson, in a suit and apparently drunk at like 2 PM

From what I understand, the Costume Institute is funded (almost?) entirely by the Gala.