No, it's not. It's based on the Czech word "robota", which means "forced labor" - it's derived from the terms for serfs and slaves. But the word "robot" itself was actually invented for the play.

Considering Wikipedia has listed R.U.R. as being written in 1920, and premiering on the stage in 1921 for over a decade, it's hardly like this is unknown information in English, either.

Also, my copy of R.U.R. lists the original publication date in addition to that edition's copyright.

I really feel that the implication was to have an implied "with impunity" at the end of that sentence. The comment really reads that way to me, but was left off by her because people typically don't say it while speaking because it's implied by the tone.

No. The implication is that Amazon is taunting Senators because they feel above the law. Nobody is pushing for them to be unable to tweet what they want. The issue is that Amazon is doing so with no fear of repercussions, because they believe themselves so big that they should be immune to them.

The implication was not that they should not be allowed to heckle. It's that Amazon feels like it can heckle with impunity, and no fear of repercussions. Put simply, they're flaunting their power and taunting the Senators, saying "you can't do shit to us."

Not really. It's mostly because it's not cost effective. Every generation and brand of TV has its own version of the software made for that particular type of TV. They simply don't find it worthwhile to try keep dozens of different versions of their software up to date just for the few people who still use the built-in versions on several year old TVs.

You're trying to ascribe to malice what is better attributed to laziness/apathy.

If you have a game console you don't need the TV to have any streaming apps. Every console for the last few generations has had apps for almost all the streaming services. If you've got an Xbox or Playstation you'll not only have pretty much every app the smart TVs have, but you'll actually be getting updates to them! Most TV streaming apps stop getting updates within a year or so.

Perhaps, but what's happening to conservatives isn't that, for multiple reasons.

First off, it's not universally about conservatives, or even Republicans. It's about people being dangerous, supporting dangerous and harmful ideas, and blindly supporting those who push these dangerous ideas to the front. And that's the prime difference - these are people actively advocating policies that seek to dehumanize and harm others.

Secondly, this isn't due to a simple random aspect of the circumstances of their birth, but due to choices they consciously made. Nobody is being targeted because of who their parents were. They are being targeted because they themselves chose to do the things they are getting in trouble for.

Third, this is not a permanent and irrevocable situation, nor was it even immediate. If Gina Carano posted an apology and said she didn't realize how stupid what she'd been saying was, she'd probably have gotten a pass on all of this. But this wasn't the first issue, she'd been warned several times what could happen, and she kept posting things that were more and more unacceptable to people. Even now, if she were to come out with a true apology, and show that she really believed she'd done wrong most people would be willing to give her a second chance (although it may take a year or two of her not posting stupid crap before people believed her).

Fourth, there is no dehumanizing being done here. People were told Jews, gays, etc. were less than human. Nobody is saying that these people with extreme conservative views are less than human, just that their actions make them out to be assholes, or at the most extreme saying that they're possibly mentally ill. Neither of which is viewed as subhuman and unworthy of human rights.

Yes, it is an offensive comparison. Yes, it's a bad faith argument making use of false equivalency. But as the post relies on the base statement being "the holocaust and larger systemic Jewish persecution is one of the worst things ever" I don't think it's correct to label it as anti-Semitic. Her post is problematic in many ways, but labeling it as anti-Semitic distracts from its actual problems.

No, what she posted actually stated that the scope of the holocaust was worse than most people think, and explains how widespread and systemic it was. It is in no way trying to downplay the holocaust.

You're falling into the trap of assuming that all false equivalency arguments are done to downplay the severity of something. This is the other type of false equivalency - you try to make something seem much more severe by comparing it to something very obviously bad.

I don't think it trivializes the holocaust. It doesn't at any point say that it wasn't an absolutely horrible event. What it does is it attempts to make a bad-faith argument about how "bad" Republicans have it right now. This is a false equivalency argument. False equivalency arguments can be used to either claim something isn't as bad as it seems, or that something is worse than it is - the use in this case is the latter, not the former.

Y'know, of the two political parties, both have been unhappy about various election results over the last decade, but only one of the parties showed up armed, stormed the capitol, and attempted to kill elected officials they disagreed with. If one of the sides is looking for a "final solution", I think it's probably that one.

Hey, I'm not saying the comparison isn't both misguided and borderline whataboutism when put in context. I'm just saying it's not actually anti-semitic, as it requires belief that the Holocaust happened, and that it was wrong.

Really, it's not this post that's the issue - it's only bad within the context of her other posts, because she's comparing being a republican in 2021 with being a Jew in 1940s Germany, which is one hell of a stretch. But even so, reading this particular post as anti-semitic, even in the larger conspiracy-nutcase context, is one hell of a stretch as well. The post only works if she is saying anti-semitism is real and is a bad thing.

The variable rate on the loan is not 0%. You're talking the Fed rate, which is not what homeowners get. The best rate I've seen for home loans is around 2.5%, and getting a variable rate could cut that down to maybe 2% - which again every loan officer and Realtor out there is going to advise you against getting, as it'll screw you when rates go back up.