I don't have to go any further than the FIRST conclusion to think that he fucked up, and hope that the experience of being yelled at will teach him a lesson about choosing his words carefully.

(Yes, even MORE carefully than just adding a disclaimer in parenthesis)

What I hoped to accomplish was get Will Stancil to concede his contradiction. And he literally just posted "okay I laughed", which is basically the greatest success I could have reasonably hoped for.

Show's over, you can go home now.

He didn't say "you ARE a piss baby" he said "you're crying LIKE a piss baby".

This is certainly not a TACTFUL way to describe how Will Stancil behaves every day, but nevertheless it is factually true that he does a lot of complaining.

I had to copy the text by hand, and mis-typed it.

Immigration drives housing demand. To say it "causes homelessness" implies that it goes without saying that the supply can't keep up, which is debatable, and more importantly it is a CHOICE to put it that way. A very BAD choice, better left un-made.

yesterday, Will Stancil said people shouldn't assume every description of a problem also includes an implicit assignment of moral blame, and then get offended by that assumption.

He basically described the process by which anyone gets offended by ANYTHING, but only he gets to do it apparently.

I do not agree that "Homelessness increased primarily because of integration" deserves a free pass against criticism. Not even AFTER reading the stuff in parenthesis.

It is, at the very least, an EXTREMELY tactless choice of words. And at worst it's a smug Nazi hiding behind plausible deniability.

I'm not Will Stancil, so the fact that *I* can see it doesn't contradict anything I said yesterday.

wait, isn't this guy just "describing a problem"? and aren't you "assuming it includes an implicit assignment of moral blame", exactly like you were complaining about just yesterday?

Is there a truly categorical difference, or do you just not appreciate being on the RECIEIVING end of it?

This crazy assumption goes the other direction too: you can't accuse the Jews of being MORALLY to blame for a problem, without a million people pointing out that something else "causes" the problem!

Ugh, people are so UNREASONABLE!

Not that I'm an advocate of home births, but an event that only happen to one person out of a hundred, over the course of their entire lifetimes, is "pretty rare" in everyday terms.

It's not the LIMIT of how rare something can be, but I wouldn't call it common.

in 2008, there were republicans who subversively helped Obama's primary campaign because they *assumed* a black guy with a name that sounds vaguely Muslim could not possibly win a general election.

Now you say foreigners are undermining Jeffries' leadership? Don't threaten me with a good time.

Like there are only two possibilities. Either the Democratic Party is GOOD at politics or all of this is incredibly earth shatteringly unpopular and I think presented with those two choices one is obvious

Nobody opposing Mamdani is "Left wing", especially not the Democrats.

I've never heard of such studies. And I can't possibly imagine it's because GAMERS of all people neglected to inform me that something offended them.

To be fair, I draw a distinction between genuine, sincere, committed Nazis, versus sophomoric contrarians who just think triggering libs is "funny".

Both need to be punched, but in the latter case you get to watch them learn an actual life lesson:

Turns out, having a broken nose ISN'T funny.

Even if it did turn a profit, that would just create a new pile of money, and then they'd be BACK AT SQUARE ONE of having to figure out some flashy new way to conspicuously squander it!

Truly, the burden of being rich never ends.