That doesn't matter you numbskull, she not only endorses but is the enforcer and overseer of the racist system that does execute black people regularly (and they do it with trials or not, it doesn't matter - it's literal state murder with racist motivations). Your position is the same as "but did HITLER pull the lever that released the zyclon b gas?"
And yes, Harris actually did convict people, including black people.
Well... 
Earth becoming more like Venus is an inevitability in the high hundreds of millions of years (and for scale, multicellular life has been around for roughly 5-600M years, with the more than 3 billion before that just being simple single-celled prokaryotic life), but that is completely independent of anthropogenic climate change, it is because of the expansion of the sun towards it's red giant phase. In terms of being habitable to life, Earth is easily past the half-way mark already, no matter what. However, that is far enough out that it doesn't bear worrying about and isn't something we can have any sort of impact on.
That said, the climate change that we as a species are causing right now could lead to a runaway greenhouse effect on much shorter time scales. The fact is, there have been times in Earth's history where it has been so hot that complex life could mostly only survive at the poles (with the equator being a death zone to all but simple, single-cellular extremophiles) and there have been times where Earth was encased almost entirely in ice except perhaps at the equators - not just our usual conception of an ice age, but "snowball earth," and this was likely caused by certain forms of simple life, fascinatingly enough. The feedback loops we are triggering right now have a potential to drastically change the composition of the atmosphere on a far shorter timescale, one in which we are talking about an end to most complex life (obviously ourselves included). It was almost certainly volcanism that caused Venus to go from a mostly habitable planet to the completely, utterly inhospitable world it is. Volcanism has also been responsible for extreme heat and mass extinctions on Earth, but obviously it never tipped over into Venus-like territory. The thing is, right now we're changing the atmosphere at a rate far faster than volcanism has in the past! And rate of change matters a lot with this kind of thing. I'm repeating myself, but again, it is not a certainty but it is a possibility that anthropogenic climate change could hit tipping points that Venus-ifies Earth on a much shorter, nearer term than anything relating to the expansion of the sun, on time scales that are worth worrying about (if we value humanity as a whole), and is the sort of thing we can have an impact on.
The question is why won't you condemn the aggressor and stop putting the onus of peace on the people who are being murdered by an aggressor?
The people being murdered... Oh, you mean the Russian-speaking population of Eastern Ukraine? The ones who the openly fascist banderite government (that coupe'd the democratically elected government in 2014) were trying to ethnically cleanse when Russia stepped in and prevented it? Yes, I do support those people of Donbas, and seeing as they support Russia, you should too if you care about innocent people getting murdered. Similarly, I condemn the aggressors, the aforementioned banderite Ukrainian fascists and their NATO backers.
I'm not the person you were asking, but yes, I also support the people of Western Ukraine, the vast majority of whom do not want to fight in this war but are being press ganged, literally kidnapped off the street by the Ukrainian government and shipped off to be cannon fodder and die on the front line. I fully support them and advocate for the immediate end of this war so that no more of them will die needlessly in this senseless meat grinder that NATO and the Ukrainian government insist on perpetuating despite their inevitable loss. If you care about human life and if you care about justice, then you would completely support Ukraine immediately accepting this peace offer. If you think human life is cheap (especially if it's foreign to you) and that Ukrainian working class people are expendable and should go ahead and die for the sake of lines on a map that favor western countries, then yeah, that would be in line with cheerleading for the Ukrainian government and opposing the offer of peace.
Russia is neither fascist nor "the aggressor." Anyone who doesn't recognize that Russia entered a civil war where one side (a coup government with an actual fascist military that openly admits their fascism) was trying to ethnically cleanse the other side (who are speakers of the Russian language) doesn't know what the fuck is going on and has almost certainly swallowed gallons of propaganda.
could stop it at any minute by returning to their own territory
And then what would happen to the people of Eastern Ukraine, the Donbas? They would get ethnically cleansed. But I guess you don't give a shit about that? Or you literally didn't know about that?
and admitting that they're simply the bad guys in this war?
Baby-brained simplistic bullshit. No, Russia is not "the bad guy" in this war and you need to expose yourself to more of the world than fucking marvel movies. Also, the word fascist has a meaning, it's not a synonym for "bad guys," and if you had any exposure to the world beyond your little bubble from which you lap up propaganda like it's ice cream, you'd know that (for example) the US just as if not closer to being fascist than Russia.
Eh ltv isn't really Marx's and if it were it would be one of his many significant contributions to various fields.
Marx may not have been the first theorist to come up with it, but the LToV is still foundational to most of the economic theory that did have its origin in his work. Furthermore, Marx did make contributions to the LToV itself, and in that sense it is one of his significant contributions to various fields.
It'd still be reasonable to call yourself a Marxist if you ascribe to other parts of his framework, especially in specific academic contexts. And in revolutionary contexts I doubt most non-academic revolutionaries fully understand the mechanisms laid out in Capital, so it seems inconsequential really.
A person doesn't need to fully understand evolution by natural selection to consider themselves a Darwinist (biologically speaking, obviously I'm not talking about social Darwinism here). But if they reject evolution by natural selection as the mechanism for the diversity of species, then they are not Darwinists. Similarly, you don't have to be able to explain the LToV let alone its nitty-gritty details, but if you claim that the theory is false, you probably shouldn't be calling yourself a Marxist revolutionary.
Class analysis doesn't inherently require ltv either.
Class analysis requires a mechanism for how one class exploits another economically, a mechanism that the LToV provides.
I do think ltv makes more sense than modern models, but Marx was basically using bourgeois theory to critique itself,
And that critique is what extended it beyond being merely bourgeois theory.
and arguably the same can be done using the more abstract modern models.
Maybe so. But are those models refutations of the LToV or elaborations on it? In either case, do you have examples?
Just a heads up, OP: You posted about this in the general mega, not the newsmega.
Same, only I do it once every few months but the fasts are longer. Water fasting for a week+, when I'm not too depressed to make the commitment in the first place, does wonders for depression and anxiety. And weight. And general sense of well-being. There's good reason so many religions incorporate fasting as a spiritual practice. But rich bourgsie fucks will take, twist, and ruin anything cool like that, making it trite and part of their self-absorbed narcissism. Just like the silicon valley techbros did with psychedelics like DMT.
I had long hair in high school in the 90s and people would laugh at me and call me Fabio. It was meant as an insult and a dunk, but looking back, there are worse things to be called.
that means every old lady [...] in it should die
Something that comes to mind (ha!) as a method to try that might allow you to still do art, even really good art, would be just to lean into that apparent lack of coordination. Like, ok so your hands refuse to translate what you see in your mind's eye? Cool, let your hands lead the way. You can just leave it at that and just do freeform scribbles, that would still be artistic, even if you're not happy with the result. But you could also take it a step further and try to make it a sensory feedback kind of thing. (There's a term for it, but I can't remember--I have a bunch of brain issues too.) When your hand does something your brain didn't want it to do, pause and remake the picture you had in your mind's eye to incorporate that "error" such that it becomes the new picture in your mind's eye. Then try again with your hands until they once again do something else you didn't intend, even if that happens immediately. Just repeat that process. Incorporate the unintended into a new intention. This not only has the potential to make artwork you're truly happy with, even if it will never be photorealism or anything beyond your personal brand of abstract art, but it can actually help train your brain to get better coordination.
Sorry if I'm suggesting something you've already thought of and tried, I know it's not exactly groundbreaking, and can even just be considered a basic common practice for someone who is, say, beginning to learn to draw. But for me at least, thinking it out like that, and consciously, repeatedly shifting my intention while allowing and being accepting of "mistakes" has lead to the creation of things I'm sincerely proud of, it has gotten me closer to achieving the kind of brain-to-hands interface you describe that we both wish we had, and has just been rewarding in general.
The reason that one version of the "go off" phrase (identical in every way to the other except for one word that specifies gender) might feel to you like it has different connotations is because we live in a patriarchal society that doesn't assign value the same across all genders. That's not an excuse to use the version of that phrase which misgenders someone.
And your example is really weird and obscures what's actually at issue. The difference in meaning between the words "bros" and "sissies" goes way beyond just a difference in gender. One is a common and generally affectionate term that men call each other when being friendly. The other is most often used as misogynistic term to insult men by disparaging their masculinity.
Looks like someone couldn't handle some actual statistics when presented with them.