Re-read the thread. CAREFULLY.

Well that plus my last comment where I straight up said “I didn’t say it was the worst take”. I feel like you’ve gotten totally confused

If you want to be pedantic, I also didn’t say it was the worst take, and you didn’t actually say it was the dumbest

It’s not a perfect take, but I’ve seen so many takes insanely worse than this one that I am genuinely unsure what evoked such a strong reaction to it. (Particularly since you provided no explanation.)

Yeah, in order to have the slightest chance of doing most of these things, America would already have to be a lot better.

“But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the martini in front of me.”

The difference is that I encounter people frequently here who talk like they learned nothing about why you often have to vote for the lesser evil, whereas basically the only time I hear anything about championing Hillary, it’s by people like you positing this hypothetical person that you attack.

People who have thought about it critically for 3 minutes

Yeah, the problem is that if they asked me to make a list of the top 10 people who definitely should not get this award, there’s a good chance I would have put these two dudes on that list. They might as well nominate Donald Trump at this point.

Yeah, I think of it as a critical thinking short circuit mechanism. It’s a means of justifying any policy to their voters without actually having to list its merits or defend any harm it does. The voter thinks “smaller government = more freedom and more money for me” and their brain stops there.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/internet-of-lies/

No, it’s just that your response was absurd. You didn’t answer my question, rehashing some points that I had already addressed and not answering my question. I found your response repetitive, uncurious, and selfish to the point of parody.

I was starting to write a different kind of answer, and I thought, why am I indulging this person who isn’t even taking the time to process what I’ve already written?

And women

Won’t someone think of the poor coffee snobs who want their coffee just so, but don’t want to have to make it themselves at home? We can’t sacrifice their ideal coffee temperature at public establishments just to save some people from horrific burns — people who are probably wearing the wrong pants anyway, and therefore are kind of at fault too, when you think about it.

What if you bought an ice cream cone and it was so cold that you had to get skin grafts to repair the damage to your lips? And not only that, but the owner of the store instructed the employees to make it that cold?

The McDonald’s woman’s risk calculation was probably “if this spills, it will hurt” and not, “if this spills, it will do permanent, significant damage to my body”.

Why would anyone prefer living in a world where some property of any item you buy could intentionally be set to dangerously extreme levels?

It’s because the AI has no idea what reality is. Note also that Elaine’s praise took on the perspective of the wearer.

Also if he ran in the very next election, he’d be 66 at his inauguration. Not exactly achieving our goal of injecting some youth into the presidency!

Pretty sure it’s coming from the rats

I love the idea of the villain explaining the whole thing to the captive and at the end being like, “okay, I’m about to put the blindfold and noise canceling headphones on, so this is the last chance for any other questions about how this works”