If you ever try to tell someone the publicly released undisputed facts of the Iran-Contra affair, you will come across like a conspiracy nut because what happened is so utterly absurdly criminal and yet there were virtually no consequences for anyone involved. One fall guy went to jail for a while and then came out as a Fox News correspondent.

"The famously conservative president of the United States illegally sold weapons to a radical Islamist terrorist organization in Iran (the US's mortal enemy in the middle east) and then used the proceeds to fund Central American guerrilla fighters that were also narcoterrorists? And nothing much ever came of it? Hah, as if!"

Your description actually illustrates how terribly inaccurate the metaphor was. If enslaved people imitated the people who enslaved them, they'd be sitting in a rocking chair on a porch sipping lemonade.

The US has a unique and relatively recent relationship with chattel slavery so people are more sensitive to it now.

The earliest record of the master/slave terminology being used in engineering is 1904 by which point slavery was already outlawed in almost every country, including the US. You're right to say that chattel slavery in the US was a uniquely grotesque form of slavery, but there is no system of slavery in history where slaves are primarily imitating their masters. No matter what anyone's sensitivity to the topic is, it's a bad fit for what's being described.

To what extent are those behaviors something inherent to the neurological condition versus something exacerbated by the conditions that society places on those people?

There people who argue that transgenderism shouldn't be tolerated because there's a strong correlation between being transgender and being depressed to the point of suicide. They believe that "humoring" the "sickness" just leads to more suicide. But the reality is that transgender people aren't generally depressed when they're part of a supportive community rather than being alienated.

I'm not an expert in neurology, and I acknowledge this is a large degree of speculation on my part, but maybe these outcomes can be different if we collectively approach the matter with more understanding and empathy. If the tantrums truly can't be helped, then create space for the tantrums to happen in a way that minimizes disruption to others and doesn't elicit judgment.

As a manager I've been on the receiving end of a very aggressive tantrum directed at me from someone who reports to me that I suspect may be on the spectrum. He didn't feel like I was paying enough attention to his work, and rather than bringing it up to me in a respectful and constructive way, he had an outburst one day where he scolded me in a very demeaning way, essentially accusing me of being negligent as his manager. I suspect a lot of people in my position would have escalated that to HR right away, but instead I took the time to listen to his grievances and acknowledge that I could have done some things better as his manager but also that he is accountable for communicating his needs to me in a timely and respectful manner. He acknowledged that he could've handled the situation better and we came up with a system that makes it easier to get what he needs from me.

In the end no one's feelings needed to get hurt, no one's career needed to be damaged, and no one needed to deal with HR, because I was willing to understand the outburst for what it is and not take it too personally.

If they ever go public then yes, enshittification is guaranteed. As long as they remain a privately held company, there's a chance they can hold the enshittification at bay.

It sure worked out positively for her Walz pick.

I really can't feel bad for these women that get involved with jackass conservative men. There were plenty of signals that they either ignored or saw as green flags. For her to be in her position is either extreme negligence or sheer karma, probably the latter.

But I feel very bad for any children that land in that position. They did nothing to deserve what they're going through.

Yeah this election is do or die for Trump and I'm sure he knows it. He'll probably make good to flee to Russia if he loses and whatever coup attempt he makes doesn't pan out.

And you think lending validity to Israel's claims that its actions are purely to defend itself from a bigoted terrorist threat is going to help anything?

There's an enormous gulf between asking nicely and spreading imagery that implies you want to literally murderer all Israelis. Have you considered that the most effective action may exist somewhere between those two positions? Also I'm very mad at you right now for making me sound like a centrist. Blech.

"what could I have done as Winston Churchill or (I think it was) Truman."

These people were influential but did not have unilateral power. In their position I would have tried to establish refuge for Jewish people and grant them protective status. Then because of how racist and dumb society was, I would have lost my political position and my influence.

I can't be bothered to read any of that unhinged raving in detail but this line jumped out to me and the irony is just delectable:

You have a serious ego issue where any time someone challenges you, you have a full on fucking meltdown.

Clearly I'm the one having the meltdown here 😂

I imagine the number goes up considerably when you account for showering, washing clothes and dishes, and water used while cooking. It would go up even more if you account for the water used to produce the food consumed by the individual.

The only thing Bolton didn't like about Trump was that Trump hesitated to kick off WW3 in his first term.