Mnemnosyne

Well if one of the forms is going to become the neutral, how about making the feminine form the default neutral instead, eh?

Or they could lower their corporate profit margin so neither is necessary. Don't make excuses for them and act like there's not a huge amount of money being hoovered up by profit.

Hah, meanwhile I think partner sounds bad, because it will never stop making me think of a law firm.

Depending on where you live and when you began behaving like this and calling her your wife, you may in fact be married.

Recent times have shown two important things to me.

One: People want to create regardless of any reward related to it. The excuse that people need to be rewarded in order to do anything valuable is completely wrong. People, in general, want to do things that other people find valuable and beneficial and bring joy to other people. We are very social, and that desire is nearly universal. If one has no concerns over their continued comfortable existence, then the vast majority of people would dedicate themselves to something they enjoy which is also useful and helpful to others.

Two: People will very happily give rewards to those who create things that they want and enjoy. Even people who themselves have little, will give some to those who have brought them happiness and joy with their work and effort. We see this in all the people donating even when they receive nothing in return for it.

Point two suggests that universal income is theoretically unnecessary, but point two is unreliable. Yes, people will give, but they won't give in a steady, reliable way that can be counted on to meet another's needs regularly. And just as importantly, they don't really give if the quality of the creations are low, which...fair enough, however, this limits the potential creator's ability to practice and get better, since they cannot devote their efforts to the thing they enjoy that would, if they got good at it, be enjoyed by many; instead they are forced to devote their efforts to continued survival and comfortable existence.

Many criticize the frequent content updates, often cosmetic, as overwhelming. However, it’s optional, and no other industry receives flak for releasing more. I’ve never seen anyone complain about too many Lays or coke flavors.

Lots of people complain when some product they like is no longer available in favor of a 'new and improved' product. Remember 'New Coke'? Patches and updates to games are the same thing, especially ones that significantly change the gameplay.

I, for example, liked Overwatch during certain time periods. That game is no longer available. There's certainly people who play League of Legends or DOTA that feel the same way, though I wouldn't know - the game they liked was at a certain point in its development, and since then changes have made it no longer the game they like. Same applies to a lot of MMOs - I liked Ultima Online, EverQuest, World of Warcraft, and others, but the games I like no longer exist even though the games technically exist.

The problem isn't easily solved either - no updates may make some people happy but others will not be happy. The resources probably don't exist to continue splitting the game and maintaining a stable version of an online game at each iteration, and even if they did, the player base would become too diffuse to be able to actually keep the game enjoyable with sufficient players. But it might be a fair criticism to say that updates come too fast for some of these games, and we need more time between them, or various other things. And there's nothing wrong with people just griping, even if it's something that can't reasonably be stopped.

Yes! That is exactly who I thought it was supposed to be until I clicked and read what the prompt was.

Yeah, that's pretty likely - also the judge probably doesn't want those hacks on the Supreme Court to have the slightest figleaf of an excuse to stick their noses into this on appeal.

Providing global Internet is worth it. That said, I'd much rather see it done in a non profit way, and definitely not under the muskrat's control.

This shouldn't be a problem based on how they think abortions work...the woman didn't go out FOR an abortion, she was out shopping and decided to get one, like picking up a snack on your way out of the market!

Seriously it's deranged. If they behaved generally like they care about the 'children' and the women, I could accept they're at least acting in good faith according to their dumbass beliefs, but they don't seem to care except for outlawing and restricting women's activities, so it's clear that those who say the point is just to subjugate women are right.

While this is currently true, there isn't any logic in one of these activities being treated significantly differently than the other, except where risks are concerned. If the sexual favors entail no additional risk (for instance, if they do not involve bodily contact, but merely putting in a show) then although society treats them differently, I would argue it shouldn't.

I am always opposed to child protection because 99% of the time in politics, this is precisely what they are doing - trying to make it unacceptable to criticize whatever they're pushing.