the_inebriati

Have you thought to see what other things are in the same category (IARC 2B) before contributing to the misinformation? It includes such "noxious" things as aloe vera and working as a carpenter or dry cleaner. It's basically meaningless other than "there is a small body of weak evidence suggesting it may have some effect on cancer and we think there should be more research".

also, telling someone they should feel bad and stupid (along with the other language you used) is a bit rough for a discussion on artificial sweeteners

Nope, sorry. If you're a moron contributing to health misinformation you deserve the abuse you get. Too many good people died because of them - I don't even care if you're stupid or malicious anymore, I have no patience for either.

I have particular contempt for OP jUsT aSkInG qUeStIoNs with their "Make of that what you will". It's cowardly, slimy and shameful - if you're going to be an idiot at least have the conviction to stand by it.

I believe it is demonstrable that social science as a field has been a victim of intense ideological capture

"I don't like how facts hurt my feelings so I choose to ignore them"

What a truly fascinating way to view the world.

If you actually believe that, surely you're not going far enough though? You can follow your logic to its conclusion:

People need water that isn’t full of whatever runoff dupont feels like dumping in 10 miles up the river

Actually, some people have no water at all. We should literally expend no effort into cleaning up water until every single human on the planet has access to some form of water.

People need shelter that doesn’t make them unable to afford food.

Actually, some people can afford neither food or shelter, and so we should not expend any effort in providing them with shelter until every single human on the planet has access to food.

It's almost like we're a complex society that can address more than one societal issue at a given point.

That doesn’t scream “easy” to me.

I can't tell if you're taking the piss or you genuinely think 10 seconds of effort is "hard".

If anything, I think LJ missed a trick by not having the option of doing a double subscription (so £3.99), and saying the extra £2 gets split between the instances, weighted by the time you spend time on them.

I think I might have felt differently at a stage of my life where I didn't have nearly as much disposable income as I do now.

Over the past few years, I've adopted the attitude of trying my hardest to pay for the things that I would be genuinely disappointed if they went away.

I have system-wide ad block, so the $20 or whatever for Sync actually bought me nothing other than the knowledge that if LJ decides to pack up Sync and go and work for a FAANG instead, I don't need to feel guilty.

This attitude would be unrecognisable to my younger self.

not wanting to pay a subscription fee

It's a one-time $20. It's literally in the meme were both commenting on.

Maybe wherever you live. In first world countries, it's fairly straightforward.

There is seemingly no easy way to synchronise settings over accounts. This makes initial setup with multiple accounts frustrating, and future changes a little annoying.

Set up account -> Backup -> Switch to new account -> Restore

Thank god we've got people like you to incessantly whine about it and show how little they care by commenting about how they don't care.

Not at all more obnoxious than the original post.

supreme court legislation

The supreme court does not legislate. No court of any kind should be legislating. That's the damn problem.

The reason the US is in the position it's in is because while the rest of the world was going through its bodily autonomy revolution and democratically legislating abortion access, the US relied on a judicial decision (without a lawmaker being involved) based on a fragile foundation of "right to privacy".