if it were 77 square miles of conjoined twins, sure. these sea grasses are all connected. one root system, one organism.

you have it exactly backwards. most expenses like payroll, R&D, expansion etc are tax deductible. when business tax rates are higher, there is more incentive to invest back into the business which reduces profits which reduces tax burden.

when tax rates are lower, there is more incentive to just milk existing profits since they aren't being taxed much, and to perform stock buybacks and boost dividends to raise stock prices, etc

i mean, we literally JUST saw this happen with the Trump tax cuts. the VAST majority of that money went into stock buybacks, dividends, and discretionary CEO bonuses. only tiny fractions of it went into large-scale wage increases or other business-building investments.

or, look at how much expansion happened during the Eisenhower era, when corp taxes were around 90%. businesses were growing like crazy.

by that logic, we might as well eliminate corporate taxes completely. businesses would love that. but why would they love that, if we are the ones paying their taxes?

because its not that simple, obviously. businesses ALREADY charge as much as they can for products & services. if you raise taxes, they can't simply pass all of that along to customers. if customers would pay a higher price, THE BUSINESS WOULD ALREADY BE CHARGING THAT HIGHER PRICE.

Biden has not denied this, and why would he? Leveraging foreign aid to get a corrupt prosecutor fired is neither illegal nor immoral. Quid pro quo is not inherently illegal. In fact, the vast majority of international diplomacy involves quid pro quo between countries.

It would be illegal if Biden leveraged US funds for PERSONAL gain. Leveraging it for something the US Govt and the rest of the international community wanted? Nothing to see here, move along.

the internet is a very big place. you may have encountered someone like that, but they are by no means a large or representative contingent

you are absolutely allowed to not care. what gave you the impression otherwise?

have you ever personally interacted with someone who demanded that you affirm their gender repeatedly? such people probably exist somewhere, but they must be pretty rare, as i've never encountered any. and i interact with trans and ninbinary folks on a weekly basis.

if that's your idea of a meltdown, i would again question YOUR sensitivity. and yeah, please, throw back the curtain, show everyone the truth, you're fighting the good fight here!

i think it is you who don't understand free speech. you can say what you want, but others do not have to give you a platform to say it. and it does not mean you are free from social consequences. try telling your boss that he's a stupid asshole that can go fuck himself! see how well that free speech works out for you.

you seem to think that free speech means you can say anything you want, anytime you want, with no consequences. well that just ain't so, it has never been so, and it will never be so. sometimes you will get fired, sometimes you will be shunned, sometimes you will get punched in the face. none of those prevented you from saying the thing, and none of those prevent you from saying it again in the future. in none of those cases has your free speech been infringed.

and yet, many people seem to find the site useful, that was my point. perhaps they find it useful despite what you describe above. perhaps they find it useful BECAUSE of what you describe above. not having a specific example to refer to, i will simply shrug and say who knows? probably some of both.

yes, there are surely folks that feel strongly about this being a bad change, that is not surprising. there are always folks resisting any sort of social change, whether for the better or worse.

ok, but it's part and parcel, right? there is opportunity cost to the CoC, there is opportunity cost to having disrespectful moderators, there is opportunity cost to getting rid of moderators for their actions, etc. and it will all add up to some positive or negative value in the end. which i did say said in my previous comment - the very first one you replied to, i said "maybe it will work out for them, maybe it won't, but that's for them to try and find out."

as for CoCs being a net positive or negative, it would seem pretty strange if every instance ever of adding one resulted in a net negative impact to the site. perhaps you mean it does more harm than good more often than not? that's plausible, but it would be pretty difficult to objectively measure. maybe they feel they will do a better job than others have done. a bunch of moderators leaving in protest is not a good start, but again, any social change will have a lot of resistance. they are assuming the long term results will be a net positive, and that's their risk to take if they want.

yes, of course it is reasonable to state one's opinions about the change and stop using it if one doesn't like it. my issue was not with that, but rather the last line -

give an opinion about what the site should be, then turn around and say that others cannot do the same? now THAT is some big fuckin balls.

"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" - Walt Whitman

As it turns out, *I* care very little what *YOU* think. you don't like my tone? you think i'm too demanding, because i said "just fucking do it" instead of "oh please won't you consider doing it"? bully for you.

no, i don't care whether you itch to use that word or not. i was making an analogy about socially acceptable speech.

no, but i might mock people that try to twist the idea of free speech to defend their shitty behaviour. free speech is about what the government and laws prevent you from saying. when other citizens tell you what you should or shouldnt say, or when companies kick you off their platform or fire you for saying things that create a hostile envorinment for others, that's not a free speech issue, it's a normally functioning society enforcing its norms and customs.

note that the entire paragraph started with IF. it was a hypothetical. you cut that part out.

i'm not sure what mechanism you think i have to FORCE people to do anything, but i assure you that such a mechanism does not exist. anything that any of us say to each other are merely suggestions, regardless of tone.

if a sarcastic reply is 'being a dick' and all it takes to upset you, you have far thinner skin than the trans and nb folks you probably think are being sensitive

my suggestion is that you shouldn't misgender someone. if they say they are a female and to use she/her pronouns, and you instead use he/him pronouns, you're being a dick, don't do it. assuming you are male, you would probably get annoyed it if someone repeatedly called you she/her, so please extend the same courtesy to others.

if they say they are nonbinary, and to use they/them pronouns, and you think that singular 'they' is a butchery of the english language, take it up with shakespeare and the bible who were using singular 'they' many hundreds of years before your great grandma opened her legs for your great grandpa.

your remarks are 'valid' inasmuch as they are your opinions, and you are entitled to them. many people might disagree with you. maybe 57 million, give or take?

i don't know what the opportunity cost of these changes are. their future growth or shrinkage will be one way to assess that. i said as much in my previous comment.

CoCs can be valuable in that they act as a consistent, referenceable written record of a site's goals, values, rules etc. moderation and ranking systems are also useful. both can work together, as the CoC helps inform the moderators and voters. otherwise they could be moderating or voting capriciously or inconsistently from one another, or not in line with the site owners' intent.