It's inferred rather than clearly observed, but:
A fun thing with any court related thread is how none of them understand how courts work and they never read anything past headlines. This leads to things like this where they don't understand it wasn't a ruling on the topic, it was just not upholding a stay while the case goes through the courts, which is why two of the progressive Justices didn't bother to dissent. The recent thread about national injunctions was similar, nobody knew what the case even meant but they were all incredibly sure the ruling meant Trump now could have Black people enslaved and elections ended. Or you get sights like Nepenthe ranting about how the Johnny Depp defamation case "didn't even set any precedent" as if that was something you could have expected from it.
On the contrary, they just wait for SUSTAH SOULJIA "i aM nOt My ANcEsToRs" NEP to give them nod to roll their hard Rs like they're in Spanish class. I wouldn't say Pill Cosby got away scott free lmfao but OJ died never having to pay for crashing out lmfao. I'm actually ignorant of the most recent Diddy thing apart from apparently baby oil being splashed out side of the courthouse so LOL I'm gonna continue keeping my head in the sand for that one. I don't have hard evidence on me right now(mobile faggot) but the Jonathan Majors situation had so many of them close to phasing out of reality trying to hold themselves back from screeching NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER!
As the great Bong Marbley once said, “emancipate yourself from mental slavery”
Of course the only mildly funny joke gets banned lmao
"Abundance" is the new name, based on a recent book by the title, for the old idea that progressives should champion the creation of so much abundance that even poverty is awesome (like in the US or Europe versus the rest of the world) rather than neurotically focus on Harrison Bergeron like schemes of forced equality. In other words, sometimes the proper role for government in a sector is something like deregulation rather greater monopolization and tax increases.
They added a clause to that rule saying "in selected cases its OK".
What could possibly be the context of this?
