Before the attack, the mother of one of the suspects had called officers at 9:42 local time, and reported that when her son left, he took several of her guns and her car.

Glad, as always, that some random fuckwit can own “several guns” to be taken in the first place.

I’m not even sure it’s (usually) editorializing as much as it is looking for a word that strongly conveys “lambasting” or “deriding” but is a) at least somewhat neutral, b) understandable to most audiences, and c) not overly informal.

“Slam” doesn’t imply some kind of bias toward one party; it literally just means “To speak badly of; to criticize forcefully.” Arguably the reason you’re more likely to see it in editorializing isn’t because it’s an editorializing word but because “someone said some mean-ass shit” as a class of story is ripe for (but not inherently) editorializing.

“Slams” has the benefit of being very short over something like “strongly criticizes”, and something like “attacks” could be more easily misconstrued as “physical assaults”. Like it’s kind of just the ideal word for this even though it’s goofy if you’re like me and imagine them body slamming the other party.

(Edit: Replied to wrong comment at first. Also, I see now you were responding to the scenario in the comic, not the use of “slams” generally.)

deleted by creator

This is from the Babylon Bee.

I don’t know if you’re saying this is a tankie meme or just akin to one, but the former would be awfully confidently incorrect given a 10-second search returns the exact article.

It’s from the Babylon Bee.

So now you know exactly what’s meant by “universities”. Anyone who saw that and wasn’t immediately suspicious needs to work on media literacy.

Buddy, it’s picking the food you eat last so the flavor lingers, just dressed up in le quirky Tumblr speak. There’s no evidence this is an experience unique to, significantly more prevalent in, or meaningfully changed by autism.

Calm down.

Edit: Like there’s literally an extremely common English expression “saving the best for last” that’s near-universally understood to apply to things like food, media, performances, etc. I can’t even believe I need to explain this.

Huh, you know what, I totally skipped over the title mentally, but implying that makes it better is, uh…

Man, I dunno, I’m autistic, and I feel like this is one of those “quirky, relatable things that I’m going to baselessly ascribe to autism” posts.

This was in the context of COVID:

Nanjikana said he has taken some positives away from the experience, such as a forced break from the chaos of a global pandemic.

“I had no idea what was going on while I was out there. I didn’t hear about Covid or anything else,” he said. “I look forward to going back home but I guess it was a nice break from everything.”

Scalpers being parasitic wastes of consciousness, as usual.

One thing I would’ve initially speculated but apparently had wrong was dietary acid, which is actually lower in plant-based diets. The other would be possibly volume of food (lower caloric density), but overall, I’m willing to take the authors’ speculation as-is, as I’m sure they tried to find any relevant data when speculating about causality – much more thoroughly and knowledgeably than I could hope to.

Do you agree with this?

This is like walking onto the floor of the NYSE and asking if people agree we shouldn’t raise taxes on billionaires. Straight-up cheap engagement bait – which I’m contributing to, but at least not in a way that’s intellectual empty carbs.

Literally of fucking course everyone here agrees, OP, and you obviously know it.

To clarify, it’s specifically squamous-cell carcinoma, not all esophaheal cancers. SCC is, however, the most common form of head/neck cancer by a mile.

As the study notes, though:

As discussed above, the higher risks we observed for squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus in vegetarians, and for colorectal cancer in vegans [“although the number of cases among vegans was small”], might be due to a higher prevalence of inadequate intakes of some nutrients in these groups within the populations studied.

If so, that’s a highly preventable problem. Vegan/vegetarian diets have higher risks of certain nutritional deficiencies (and lower of others), but it’s not especially hard to have a balanced diet.

That is: if you’re doing it for health, the “fix” should already be baked-in.

Edit: Forgot to mention for anyone looking for resources about vegetarian/plant-based dieting for health, “whole foods plant-based” (WFPBD) is what you’ll want to be looking into. That’s where the major health benefits are.

Edit 2: Reading the methodology more thoroughly now, it seems like a plant-based diet was underrepresented in the data and that “no difference in cancer risk in vegans except elevated colorectal cancer” is suspect (which the authors disclaim for colorectal). a) Within the study itself, you’d think the doubled SCC rate wouldn’t just stop at vegetarians somehow (a plant-based diet is less acidic than an animal-based one, but still??), and b) it directly contradicts several meta-analyses finding an overall lowered risk of cancer in vegetarians (as this study seems to) and then another marked lowering from that in vegans. Linked above, for example, from 2018:

This comprehensive meta-analysis reports a significant protective effect of a vegetarian diet versus the incidence and/or mortality from ischemic heart disease (-25%) and incidence from total cancer (-8%). Vegan diet conferred a significant reduced risk (-15%) of incidence from total cancer.

That argument

I made no attempt at an argument in defense of anyone in that poll; I wrote the comment because I knew if I didn’t, some annoying wannabe pedant was going to come in about “hurr durr papal infallibility” not knowing what they’re talking about.

It would be more consistent to think that they are simply ignorant with regard to both doctrines.

I agree. Everything I said, as noted, was preempting misguided pedantry, not about what any of the people in the poll actually believe.

I always thought I would be, but the problem now is that it’s still basically there but hyper-decentralized and individually radicalizing in a way that’s totally unbounded by any institution.

Like I think it’s arguably gotten worse because the worst parts of faith clung on (bigotry, insularity, victim complex, magical thinking, etc.), except now wholly decoupled from any of the actually decent teachings churches would normally (nominally) profer like charity, community, humility, etc.

Oh, and as a corollary, a lot of it has just been leeched away by Trump and his cult.

Getting ahead of this before anyone mentions it: technically there’s nothing definitionally inconsistent with a Roman Catholic believing Leo is wrong in this case. Papal infallibility, in the fiction of Roman Catholicism, has critieria and limits which his words on the Iran War expressly do not satisfy.

Like obviously it’s stupid as fuck and indicates a disregard for their professed religion, but this 100% squares with said religion at a rigid, doctrinal level.

take me by the rule

Hilarious idea brought down by the AI slop thumbnail. The vulneráéilíties on that screen sure look OOTΓKAL.

Sexcellent

The Quark “Nice Cock” poster almost made me ruin my monitor with water.

Mamdani making T. Swizzle pay NYC taxes was the reason he balanced the budget? I thought it’s because he negotiated with NY state for aid (which, fair game; NYC pays more in taxes than it gets back), delayed the city pension, and is finalizing a pied-à-terre tax.

What meaningful raise on Taylor Swift’s taxes has Zohran Mamdani imposed? Did she not pay taxes before? What’s the source here?

The real world is allowed to be complicated and messy, and ironically, reducing it to “hurr durr he taxed Taylor Swift” is doing a disservice to what Mamdani actually managed to work out to balance the budget – which is imperfect, but he inherited a $12 billion deficit from a grifter. It’s good for what it is.