I could do that, or I could just keep hitting “No tip” when I know they literally did nothing but hand me the thing I ordered across a counter.

For the sake of argument I could boldly reach across the counter, grab my order and walk out. Would that be cheating the clerk out of money? If that interaction is required and it costs money I’d be the one that felt cheated. That’s in the realm of Ticketmaster convenience fees

I went to a takeout place once where they ask you out loud about if you want to add a tip and I said no. It’s the most awkward thing to say out loud. At least when they ask about donating to save animals or whatever the animal isn’t right there staring you down

When you look at it as risking parenthood I think average age becomes irrelevant. I’m fucking glad I didn’t risk parenthood at 17

If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail. If jalapeno poppers make you think of politics I think I can understand why someone would ask you to ease off the politics

People always tell me I make everything sexual but like… if it weren’t for sex we wouldn’t be here so basically boners are always relevant

Yeah for example I’m just about to go hit up a political barbecue and maybe bring some political jalapeno poppers because my political friend likes spicy political food. Then maybe we’ll play some political games or something else political idk I’m kind of politically tired so maybe I’ll make up a political excuse and politically ditch early. Sometimes I like to be politically alone and read a political book or do a political puzzle

“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist” -Picasso

Thank you, Calvin! I mean Marty

Even that I’d credit more to his x

I’ll accept the friendly fire because you keep missing

It sounds like you’re fighting on the front lines and I’m the guy crossing to enemy territory to reason with them. Best of luck to us both

I think literally everything is technically up for debate. Your right to exist is an example of something that should easily win over 99% of those debates. 100% of them actually if you assume any human at all has a right to exist. Do you think a majority can’t possibly arrive at the conclusion that you deserve to exist?

I’m not saying you can talk it out with everyone, but I would reserve tribalism for when all else fails because not everyone is intentionally cackling and twirling their mustache

Yeah like I said, thankless… I’m not sure how else you expect to achieve any progress with people. The type of silencing you suggest could just as easily be used against you too. “We’re right and they’re wrong, so why don’t we just take a shortcut and strongarm them?” Your counterparts on their side are saying the exact same thing so guess how that all ends

That sounds like a strong idea. Let’s find out who disagrees with it and try to change their minds. If we get a majority to agree with that idea, maybe we can change some laws

May the best ideas win. If your views don’t hold up to criticism, so be it. I think they do, you’re just too exhausted to defend them

Yeah… it really is a thankless job changing people’s minds

Clearly we have both frequently seen behavior the other hasn’t. I’m not sure how to reconcile that but I know I’m not just spewing right wing rubbish or strawmanning. I just think most of the real progress is made through conversation and not mashing the “You’re a terrible person” button. If everyone thought the same way we wouldn’t need to fight for progress, but that’s not reality and so we need to choose between conversations and tribalism. You’re free to choose tribalism more often if you prefer, it probably feels better to do that and maybe in your case you need to do that. It can’t be easy to talk to people who on the surface appear to disagree with your very existence. But the people actually talking it through are not the bad guys, they’re the ones getting shit done, changing minds instead of escalating and further entrenching people in their existing views.

I don’t think people really mean that when they say we should allow for other opinions. If the message is clearly coming from a mean spirited place you shouldn’t need to listen to that person. From what I’ve seen, bigotry often gets defined as literally any deviation from the exact list of opinions one must hold to be considered left wing. The people attacking “centrism” seem to think half the population is irredeemably evil and has nothing good to contribute to a conversation. “Centrists” to me are people from a wide range of views who decide not to be at each other’s throats and actually talk things out. To me the people who are willing to be civil (with those who are also civil and genuine about their views) are the ones making real progress instead of essentially hoping for civil wars to break out

What do you think “centrists” believe about gay rights? Have you met one? Because I haven’t. I think they’re made up to shut out new opinions

Bruh did you even read what I said?