Ideology to some extent is behavior, or at least helps determine behavior, when people act in a manner consistent with their own ideological positions. I can see an appeal to "allow all ideas as long as they don't make trouble", but when the nature of most ideologies is to include something along the lines of "it is a morally good thing to spread this ideology to other people" to a lesser or greater extent, and some ideologies require harmful behavior for one to act consistently with it, the conclusion that seems obvious to me is that believing in certain ideologies is itself bad enough behavior for it to be justifiable to exclude those people from a given online community, because such a person will either cause trouble or be a hypocrite. And after all, ideology isn't some immutable inherit trait, a person can change one's ideology and people often do.

All that being said, that particular statement isn't really a clear statement of ideology at all. I disagree with it's implication, but all it really does is demonstrate either a misunderstanding of what harm reduction means, or a viewpoint that is too black-and-white to allow for it, which can be a feature of too many ideological positions to narrow it down.

Tbh I don't think I actually listened to music at that age, of my own accord rather than hearing what someone else around had on anyway.

Unions would be useful even then, and if american history over the past decades is any indication, strong unions might be necessary to keep those laws too, lest capital use it's influence to erode them without an organized force to counter it.

Why would the universe being a black hole invalidate religion, any more than, for example, the universe being really big already does? Don't most religions focus more on some entity or entities they think made or govern the universe more than what physical processes are "used" to do that, or what the ultimate shape of the universe is? Even when a contradiction is found, it's easy enough for a religion to just say "well, that was metaphorical", or "just the limited understanding given by (insert deity here) to our ancestors" or something along those lines to make it fit.

I've long found the notion that the lesson of Jurassic Park, if a fictional story like that must be taken to have one, should be something like "science/genetic engineering is bad" or "you can't control nature" to be a bit silly, given that, well, it's a zoo. With pretty big animals, to be sure, but dinosaurs were animals still, not kaiju or dragons or whatever other fantasy monster, and some genetically modified to be somewhat bigger and lack feathers would still be such. It's a story about some people building a zoo badly because they didn't do their due diligence about the animals they had and cheaped out on staff and the systems they had for containing the animals, and somehow people get the take away that "these animals are special and can't be safely contained" rather than "letting rich people cheap out on safety is a bad idea".

Were one to write a broadly similar story where someone cheaps out on a park containing elephants and tigers, and they get out and maul some people, it'd be obvious, but give the tigers scales and make them born in a lab and suddenly it's a monster movie.

I mean, the guy is a lawyer, I'm not sure I can think of a profession with a more "generic person in a formal but not fancy outfit" stereotype than that.

Well, I've been losing sleep and having anxiety attacks over the possibility that he might worm his way back into office again, so no sympathy

You would think Israel, of all countries, ought to know how blatantly evil this kind of stuff looks.

By that metric, kelvin would be even better though.

As a former cashier (grocery store not walmart admittedly, but I doubt things are that different), I dont think weird uses for the items are the way to go, the cashier is barely even going to notice or care what you're buying. what I bring to freak out the cashier, are some item that needs ID to buy, some big heavy item with the barcode removed so that it will take a bunch of lifting and turning in a hopeless effort to find it before someone eventually has to go find another one and bring it over, and a propane refill if walmart does those (at my grocery store the process to go find a full one was a pain, especially in the winter since they were outside). Further, I try to buy these items with the help of a ton of expired and unexpired coupons mixed together, several gift cards, and a stubborn half-deaf old person who wont take no for an answer.

The ironic thing is, conflating any and all criticism of the state of Israel with anti-semitism could be argued as anti-semitic itself, because to suggest that jewish people in general and the Israeli state/military are one in the same such that criticism of the later is also hateful towards the former, is also to suggest that jewish people as a whole are responsible for the actions of Israel.

As cultural groups as a whole are inherently unable to be guilty of crimes (since even if a large number of people belonging to one commit some crime, such a group will also contain members that cannot be guilty of it, like young children), but states and similar entities, being organized and capable of decision-making, can be, then any attempt to link the moral culpability of a state and that of a cultural group is inherently to apply unfair accusations to that group, and thus hateful to it.

I mean, the United States has, to be fair, developed a food culture that emphasizes using a lot of meat, especially over the past century or so. It's not surprising that people from an area that eats so much meat, who go vegan, are going to want to look for ways to still make dishes familiar to them