The correct response to some old geezer demanding to see your daughter's genitals is to break their nose.

Worth reading the whole news article here - not only was this guy yelling at the girl, but also the 9 year old has two moms and the moms were also getting called “groomers” by the man and his wife.

#LateStageCapitalism

(sigh)

It wasn’t boomers who made it impossible to survive on a librarian or gardener’s salary - it was rich people. 

Plenty of boomers work as librarians, teachers, gardeners, and so forth, and are finding that as the cost of living skyrockets and corporations take over more and more of the world, that their salary is no longer able to support them.

And thus you have boomers - who understand how much you want to be a librarian because they also work as librarians - going bankrupt, losing their homes, drowning in debt, and dying because of unaffordable healthcare. And they get why you’re becoming an IT specialist instead of a librarian - because they! Know! That you can’t survive! On a librarian’s salary anymore!

On the flip side, the rich people sucking money out of every service and person they can! Aren’t! Always! Boomers! Tons of them are Gen X! And an increasing number are millennials! I haven’t seen a Gen Z billionaire yet but I’m willing to bet there’s a couple by now!

Oh, and it’s not like they “don’t know” how much people want to do these sorts of jobs - they do! That’s how they justify underpaying people, because it’s your passion, you don’t ~need~ to be paid a living wage for your passion.

You have more in common with poor boomers than you do with Kylie Jenner (born 1997). Go and talk to them. Organize with them. You’ll find they have a lot to offer once you stop dismissing them as rich old folks who ruined the economy.

As someone with a super leftist boomer father I feel this

Is it Possible for an Idea to be Beyond Your Skill Level?

                I think writing as a skill is often underappreciated. In that, I mean I think even writers hold ourselves to a standard that no other creator does. Out of all the skills or hobbies, it’s probably one of the least physical ones, which is often seen as the “benchmark” for skill, or the limiting factor in someone improving something.

                For example, musicians get more nimble and can reach their notes quicker and more accurately, allowing them to play more difficult pieces. Athletes get stronger and gain in endurance, allowing them to score more goals or otherwise go farther in the season with their team.

                I see writers all the time who believe they should be able to do anything because they don’t have that physical benchmark to limit how far they can go, and then the draft doesn’t come out how they wanted it to, and they get discouraged.

                Here’s my take, writing as a skill is just like any other. It needs practice. It’s not something you’re either born with or not, it needs to be developed and strengthened.

                With that in mind—I promise your idea isn’t beyond you. No one is ever going to finish a perfect draft on their first try—that’s never how anything works, and it has nothing to do with how “talented” you are.

                Rewrite the scene until it’s capturing what you want it to. Rework that character until they are who you need them to be. Edit until your motifs are coming through. It’s all practice, every draft is another practice towards nailing the end product. Do you think artists nail drawing hands on their first try? What about on their tenth try?

                So why are you holding yourself to this idea that it’s taking too many drafts to perfect?

                It’s okay to keep trying. If you’re really struggling with realizing a concept, take it out of its context. Write the character you want to see in different situations separate from your project. Read how others have done something similar, take notes. Gather sources and inspiration for what you want to do. Reach out to other writer friends for advice.

                Overall, don’t not write because you think it’s beyond you. With a little bit of work and practice, there’s no story you can’t finish.

                Good luck!

It's also okay to say "this concept is beyond my skill level...right now," and leave something to wait for you to be ready for it.

Middlegame waited patiently for ten years while I got good enough to write it.

People who refer to medications which many people have had incredible success with as "poisoning themselves" on the basis of "I personally had some bad side effects" confuse me, and always make me a little wary of potential dogwhistling, even though I'm not always entirely sure who they're whistling to.

Like... medication side effects can vary, quite drastically. This is true for most medications. Sure, some people get on hormonal birth control and it makes their periods light and predicable, clears up their acne, improves their mood, completely cures their vaginal dryness and as a result drastically improves their sex life, and otherwise just generally feels like a miracle drug; and sure, some people go on it and gain weight, have a major depressive episode, develop severe chronic migraines, are one of the vanishingly rare-but-serious cases that develop deep vein thrombosis, and just generally have a terrible, horrible, utterly regrettable time on it. But some people are prescribed albuterol and it completely clears up their asthma symptoms and is the best thing ever, and some people take it and still have asthma symptoms and also suffer from heart palpitations, nausea, shakiness, dizziness, and bouts painful urination. And uh... in general, you don't see people who fall into the later camp going on to social media and saying "I’m so tired of poisoning myself with asthma medication and I’m mad that I’m expected to!" – mostly people who experience severe side effects on albuterol just tell their doctor about those side effects and explore other treatment options.

If you don't want to be on hormonal birth control, then like, obviously that's your choice? And not everyone can be on any form of hormonal birth control – for some people, literally all of the many options on the market have side effects too severe to consider. But that's such a personal thing, and if a medication - any medication! - is causing you that level of severe side effects and you haven't at least brought those side effects up with a doctor who is willing to listen to them and take them into account like a normal medical professional, then imo it's a wild thing just write off the entire drug class as "poison". Like idk how else to say this, but your experiences are not universal, and generalizing them out to an entire population in a frankly really patronizing way is irresponsible unless you are secretly a peer reviewed large-sample-size study... and honestly even then.

For what it's worth, also, the types of drugs where I've seen this specific rhetoric are pretty much exclusively:

I'm not quite confident enough to say for certain that there's a pattern there, but idk, I've got an inkling that won't quite go away.

Also I find it really sus that this person seems to think their options are “hormonal birth control” and “abortion.”

Fam. Listen to me.

CONDOMS.

C O N D O M S.

They’re readily available! You can use them with spermicide if you want an extra layer of protection! They’re the only form of birth control that also protects you from STDs*!

A PROBABLY-INCOMPLETE list of your non-hormonal options:

—diaphragm (requires a doctor to be properly fitted)

—spermicide (no doctor required)

—condoms (no doctor required)

—latex-free condoms (no doctor required, but somewhat less effective than latex condoms; it’s best to use these with spermicide)

—frotting/dry humping, mutual masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, fingering, handjobs

YOU HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS. WHY ARE YOU JUMPING STRAIGHT TO AN EXPENSIVE MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

Call me paranoid, but to me this sounds an awful lot like a forced-birther wanting “evidence” to show how murderous those horrid pro-choicers are.

*except herpes and genital warts. These can be caused by skin contact.

Message AF!!

THE POST OFFICE DOES NOT COST MONEY

IT IS SELF FUNDED

THE. POST. OFFICE. IS. SELF. FUNDED.

THE POST OFFICE IS SELF FUNDED I AM GOING TO KEEP FUCKING SCREAMING THIS UNTIL THE PRIVATIZATION ARGUMENTS CEASE

SOURCE BECAUSE I AM A GOOD SCIENTIST: https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/

exhale

and

prepare coffee

Elon Musk: the most dangerous Antisemite

Hey non-Jewish leftists and progressives who consider yourselves allies to Jews or, at a minimum, not antisemitic: now is an exceptionally great time to step up

This is shockingly similar to Henry Ford — i.e. an automotive mogul seen as an innovator in the general public uses his fortune and outsized influence to establish a large media presence and spread antisemitism.

There are some important distinctions, but nothing that makes me feel better about the situation.

1. At its height, Henry Ford’s publication, “The Dearborn Independent,” had a circulation of 900,000. The largest circulation in America at the time was 950,000.

2. Ford marketed explicit antisemitism, which eventually led to the downfall of his publication — you’ve probably heard of “The international Jew” and “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

3. Ford was eventually forced to publicly apologize after he made the mistake of attacking Jewish attorney Aaron Sapiro for more than a year, until Sapiro eventually sued Ford for libel (i.e. he fucked around and found out lol). Ford eventually lost the case and was forced to publicly apologize (his apology was written by associates and his signature on it was reportedly forged). The magazine was shut down soon afterwards.

Despite everything, Ford was able to secure his position in history, albeit with some, um, unfortunate footnotes and the occasional caveat being mentioned.*

All in all, this feels very similar to Trump copying David Duke’s run for the Louisiana legislature, but that’s a story for a different day.

* some additional footnotes and caveats:

- Hitler quoted Ford in his infamous book

- Ford was a notorious union buster

- Ford received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle in 1938, the highest honor a foreigner could receive from Nazi Germany, with personal congratulations from Hitler

- After issuing the aforementioned “public apology” in 1927, Ford said that he would like restart the publication of “The International Jew.” In 1940. 13 years later.

- It’s just my personal opinion, but we probably shouldn’t honor literal nazis, but whatever

- To this day, no one at my synagogue will buy a ford car. I don’t know if this is the norm in other places, but I imagine that it’s not uncommon.

- Yes, I’m aware that nobody explicitly praises Henry Ford anymore, and everybody knows what a shithole he was. While “Henry Ford hated the Jews” is a common refrain, specific knowledge of his hatred is lacking, and I think it’s important to point to explicit hatred in the past, because hatred is normally hidden nowadays and needs to be identified outside of the group receiving the hatred.

This is an incredibly important addition

On a Wednesday morning in May, Hannah got a call from her lawyer—there was a warrant out for her husband’s arrest. Her thoughts went straight to her kids. They were going to come home from school and their father would be gone. “It burned me,” Hannah says, her voice breaking. “He hasn’t done anything to get his bond revoked, and they couldn’t prove he had.”

Hannah’s husband is now awaiting trial in jail, in part because of an anti-pornography app called Covenant Eyes. The company explicitly says the app is not meant for use in criminal proceedings, but the probation department in Indiana’s Monroe County has been using it for the past month to surveil not only Hannah’s husband but also the devices of everyone in their family. To protect their privacy, WIRED is not disclosing their surname or the names of individual family members. Hannah agreed to use her nickname.Prosecutors in Monroe County this spring charged Hannah’s husband with possession of child sexual abuse material—a serious crime that she says he did not commit and to which he pleaded not guilty. Given the nature of the charges, the court ordered that he not have access to any electronic devices as a condition of his pretrial release from jail. To ensure he complied with those terms, the probation department installed Covenant Eyes on Hannah’s phone, as well as those of her two children and her mother-in-law.

In near real time, probation officers are being fed screenshots of everything Hannah’s family views on their devices. From images of YouTube videos watched by her 14-year-old daughter to online underwear purchases made by her 80-year-old mother-in-law, the family’s entire digital life is scrutinized by county authorities. “I’m afraid to even communicate with our lawyer,” Hannah says. “If I mention anything about our case, I’m worried they are going to see it and use it against us.”

Covenant Eyes is part of a multimillion-dollar market of “accountability” apps sold to churches and parents as a tool to police online activity. For a monthly fee, the app monitors every single thing a user does on their devices, then sends the data it collects, including screenshots, to an “ally” or “accountability partner,” who can review the user’s online activities.

For Hannah’s family, their Covenant Eyes “allies” are two probation officers in Monroe County’s Pretrial Services Program charged with scrutinizing their web activity and ensuring that Hannah’s husband does not violate the terms of his bond while using one of his family members’ devices.

Covenant Eyes doesn’t permit its software to be used in a “premeditated legal setting,” such as monitoring people on probation, according to its terms of service. But public spending documents, court records, and interviews show that courts in at least five US states have used Covenant Eyes to surveil the devices of people who are awaiting trial or released on parole.

Neither Covenant Eyes nor multiple officials in Monroe County responded to repeated requests for comment and detailed questions about the app’s monitoring.

While the use of Covenant Eyes in a criminal-legal setting likely only represents a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of people under court-ordered electronic surveillance, the stakes are still high for those required to use it. The app’s accuracy could determine whether a loved one lives at home or behind bars. Legal experts say that its use raises serious constitutional and due process concerns.

“This is the most extreme type of monitoring that I’ve seen,” says Pilar Weiss, founder of the National Bail Fund Network, a network of over 90 community bail and bond funds across the United States. “It’s part of a disturbing trend where deep surveillance and social control applications are used pretrial with little oversight.”

[...]

Jonathan Manes, an attorney at the MacArthur Justice Center’s Illinois office, says the surveillance Hannah’s family faces likely violates several of their constitutional rights. “This feels like an extraordinarily intrusive violation of the family’s First Amendment rights to be able to access the Internet and communicate without being monitored,” he says. Manes adds that because the software effectively enables continuous and suspicionless searches of the devices of people who haven’t been charged with a crime, the family’s Fourth Amendment rights were potentially violated.

Lastly, Manes points out that by indiscriminately surveilling whatever the phone is displaying, the app could collect sensitive data that includes the family’s communications with their lawyers, as Hannah feared. “It’s interfering with his right to speak in confidence with his attorney,” he says of Hannah’s husband. “It’s impeding his ability to prepare a defense and exercise that Sixth Amendment right.”

“This strikes me as quite chilling,” Manes adds. “It’s what happens when someone’s home becomes their jail cell, and now everyone they live with is subject to the same kind of surveillance as the person who is charged.”

Several legal experts expressed concern about the monitoring conditions imposed by the judge in Hannah’s husband’s case. But Phyllis Emerick, the chief deputy public defender in Monroe County, argues that because Hannah’s husband and his family consented to the surveillance, they gave up their rights to privacy. “He agreed that he would not access electronic devices in his household in exchange for release,” she says. “It was the family’s choice to continue living with him.”

Weiss, of the National Bail Fund Network, disagrees with the idea that any type of surveillance is permissible so long as a person agrees to it to avoid jail time. “Sure, they consented to this, but it’s at the barrel of a gun,” she says.

When I read the full article, it got even worse. This is absolutely frightful, and it's forcing the victim of this overreaching surveillance to pay a third party for the government to spy on the family. Very clearly violating the 4th and 8th Amendments.

Reddit is speedrunning enshittification.

Hypothesis: The owners of the company are no longer interested in keeping the business going, and are just trying to maximize financial return by selling off every possible asset.

In Reddit’s case, the upcoming IPO isn’t the beginning of a new chapter in the business. It’s the end of the business.

The most valuable part of Reddit is its fat corpus of content, built by volunteers over many years, suddenly made valuable for training AI. Now, Reddit’s corporate owners want to sell access to that corpus. That is Reddit’s new business. It’s not a long-term business, because the corpus will decay in value over time. But it’s enough for the owners to cash out.

I’m inspired in this thinking by yesterday’s edition of Rusty Foster’s “Today in Tabs.”. I don’t think he’s making this exact point, but he’s putting all the dots down, without necessarily connecting them.

John Gruber at Daring Fireball notes that OpenAI already scooped up Reddit’s corpus of data when the APIs were free. The data has no value anymore.

Also, on Ryan Broderick’s Garbage Day: “Platforms Don’t Really Make Sense Anymore”:

maybe this is insensitive but i think if it's such a problem to see puppy masks or bdsm harnesses at pride for u well i think you could probably just look away into a different direction. like i feel like you can just turn yr head and it won't be a problem probably anymore.

Thank you for putting it into words so well, @rootscorrode

going to steal your tags @starfleetrambo​ because you’re right

I don't care personally if people dress up as whatever and say they like consentual sex, for me it's like you do that. People like all kinds of festivals and celebrations. And it is a celebration of life and that is wonderful. But I think...that if you want to get on the good side of gay haters you might want to focus on just the fact that the same gender is the thing? Maybe start with one thing at a time? Forcing people into accepting all kinds of sex and love combinations can be a bit too much too soon. I think I get it, it's based on anger to all the people who are trying to make them feel unwelcomed and unloved. So they reeeaaally want to rub it in. Take a look at me, I am free. And harnesses and collars is the latest rebellious act. But ...maybe because the festival is so powerful in itself then maybe being gay seems less threatening afterwards? I just don't think the world is ready for that amount of change all at once. But...why not dress up and have some fun? I think ALOT of people have a problem with sex and love in general, and that goes for alot of collar/harness people as well. It's just a very sensitive subject that gets handled with brute force. But...that is how we handle sex and feelings anyways in society today so it's kinda right on time. It's hard so we protect ourselves. Because we are all really like that hermit crab, reaaaally fucking sensitive when it all boils down to our core. So I get it. I get the leather and chains and ropes and whatnot. It's us defending ourselves against the hella scary becoming One with someone. Let's not do THAT, we're just playing here...! But yeah I get it, but I don't think the world does.

Listen.

I don't want anyone to be mean to you because you seem young, or at least young in terms of exploring this sort of topic, maybe?

But you have radically misunderstood what kink is about, friend, and how long it's been around. And most of what you are assuming and saying is... really dismissive and inaccurate. You're projecting.

We don't want to rub it in, we want to express pride and joy. I don't mean shallow, individualist pride, I mean the deepest sense. True community, true LOVE for our community. Pride is an affirmation by us, for us. (Including the kink community.) Not a way to show off for other people.

The haters will never respect us no matter what we do. We aren't aiming for that with Pride or with our personal behavior. If that worked, it would have worked by now. We do not and should not and cannot build a future on the goodwill of those who do not want us to see the future.

Kink isn't just about how you dress. Mostly you can't even tell (though a lot of kinky folks do ham it up at Pride, and I support that). It isn't about hiding from or avoiding anything or sending a message to people outside the wider kink and queer community. It isn't about distancing yourself from the world or especially your partner. It isn't for everyone, but it is a deep and deeply misunderstood thing.

And it has been here for a very very long time. It isn't new or a "these days" faddish thing, it is an integral part of our community and always has been from the first. If you're as young as you sound, MANY leather daddies have leather passed down to them from people doing this stuff before your parents were born. If you don't know the significance of AT LEAST that, please don't speak about what kink is or isn't really about.

I'm really sorry you have such deep-rooted misconceptions. I hope you understand better someday.

And Pride and kink and queerness and gayness it is a LOT MORE than same gender. There is a LOT MORE to queerness than who you love and who you have sex with. And I hope someday you understand that too.

IT’S BECAUSE OSHA REGULATIONS! A SINGLE PERSON IS NOT ALLOWED TO LIFT MORE THAN FIFTY POUNDS! BAGGAGE HANDLERS ARE PEOPLE! YOU PAY MORE FOR HEAVY BAGS BECAUSE THE HANDLERS ARE SUPPOSED TO USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM TO LIFT THOSE! IF THE TOTAL WEIGHT MATTERED SO MUCH, PASSENGERS WOULD GET WEIGHED, BUT WE DONT QUESTION THAT NOW DO WE?

It also helps with weight distribution in the cargo hold. If every bag has a max weight they can put them anywhere in the hold and know roughly how evenly spread the load is. If every bag has some arbitrary measurement between, say, 30 and 100lbs, it’s a lot harder to get that done. This is also why when flights are partially or mostly empty, they encourage people to move up in the cabin. It gives the cabin crew some peace and quiet in the back galley, and helps counterbalance the weight load of the cargo hold. There are multiple reasons for the per-bag weight-limit, and all of them are safety.

The United States government has been secretly amassing a “large amount” of “sensitive and intimate information” on its own citizens, a group of senior advisers informed Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, more than a year ago. 

The size and scope of the government effort to accumulate data revealing the minute details of Americans' lives are described soberly and at length by the director's own panel of experts in a newly declassified report. Haines had first tasked her advisers in late 2021 with untangling a web of secretive business arrangements between commercial data brokers and US intelligence community members. 

What that report ended up saying constitutes a nightmare scenario for privacy defenders. 

“This report reveals what we feared most,” says Sean Vitka, a policy attorney at the nonprofit Demand Progress. “Intelligence agencies are flouting the law and buying information about Americans that Congress and the Supreme Court have made clear the government should not have.” 

In the shadow of years of inaction by the US Congress on comprehensive privacy reform, a surveillance state has been quietly growing in the legal system's cracks. Little deference is paid by prosecutors to the purpose or intent behind limits traditionally imposed on domestic surveillance activities. More craven interpretations of aging laws are widely used to ignore them. As the framework guarding what privacy Americans do have grows increasingly frail, opportunities abound to split hairs in court over whether such rights are even enjoyed by our digital counterparts.

“I’ve been warning for years that if using a credit card to buy an American’s personal information voids their Fourth Amendment rights, then traditional checks and balances for government surveillance will crumble,” Ron Wyden, a US senator from Oregon, says. 

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) did not immediately respond to a request for comment. WIRED was unable to reach any members of the senior advisory panel, whose names have been redacted in the report. Former members have included ex-CIA officials of note and top defense industry leaders.

Wyden had pressed Haines, previously the number two at the Central Intelligence Agency, to release the panel's report during a March 8 hearing. Haines replied at the time that she believed it “absolutely” should be read by the public. On Friday, the report was declassified and released by the ODNI, which has been embroiled in a legal fight with the digital rights nonprofit the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) over a host of related documents. 

“This report makes it clear that the government continues to think it can buy its way out of constitutional protections using taxpayers’ own money," says Chris Baumohl, a law fellow at EPIC. “Congress must tackle the government’s data broker pipeline this year, before it considers any reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” he said (referring to the ongoing political fight over the so-called “crown jewel” of US surveillance). 

The ODNI's own panel of advisers makes clear that the government’s static interpretations of what constitutes “publicly available information” poses a significant threat to the public. The advisers decry existing policies that automatically conflate, in the first place, being able to buy information with it being considered “public.” The information being commercially sold about Americans today is “more revealing, available on more people (in bulk), less possible to avoid, and less well understood” than that which is traditionally thought of as being “publicly available.”

Perhaps most controversially, the report states that the government believes it can “persistently” track the phones of “millions of Americans” without a warrant, so long as it pays for the information. Were the government to simply demand access to a device's location instead, it would be considered a Fourth Amendment “search” and would require a judge's sign-off. But because companies are willing to sell the information—not only to the US government but to other companies as well—the government considers it “publicly available” and therefore asserts that it “can purchase it.”

It is no secret, the report adds, that it is often trivial “to deanonymize and identify individuals” from data that was packaged as ethically fine for commercial use because it had been “anonymized” first. Such data may be useful, it says, to “identify every person who attended a protest or rally based on their smartphone location or ad-tracking records.” Such civil liberties concerns are prime examples of how “large quantities of nominally ‘public’ information can result in sensitive aggregations.” What's more, information collected for one purpose “may be reused for other purposes,” which may “raise risks beyond those originally calculated,” an effect called “mission creep.” 

"you can use your safe word but there will be a punishment"

🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

IF SOMEONE SAYS THIS SHIT RUN AND DO NOT STOP RUNNING. ITS NOT A KINK, I ASSURE YOU THEY WEREN'T JOKING

There is something inside that person they are waiting for a moment. Get out of that situation now, delete the number, change the locks and cut them out of your life.

The wildest rose is pink - or sometimes white, 

Dog-rose, bramble, sweet briar, eglantine;  

A thorn of tooth and claw, resisting blight;

Speaks first survival, not someone’s valentine.

Dog-violet’s purple - we once called it blue,

“Purple” being new, a word for modern times.

Now we laugh: “They used to think it blue?”

Now we have new words, to make fun of older rhymes. 

The wildest rose is white, or sometimes pink.

A thorn of tooth and claw and hedgerow powers.

How strange and sad it must be to think

That roses must be red: of artificial flowers –

For that’s labeling the rose as binary,

Divorced from context, as flattened red emoji:

But Rosa spans a spectrum: arbor, bush and vinery,

And there’s no straight answer in biology.

Why not have Rosa real, a thousand forms all true –

Some blooms blood-black, a prized diversity;

When eyes and words show violets are not blue,

Why not see truth? and in truth reality –

For I do love a garden, and I have roses three.

One red as rhymes, one white with faint pink edge.

My favorite’s orange-yellow, but still I love to see

The wildest rose: the answer in the hedge.

From nameless thorns, all others came unfurled -

This, then, is the complicated world.

“There’s no straight answer in biology!”

I see what you did there – and I like it!

Reminded of this again, haha

See: cops, priests, youth ministers, repressed politicians, family member.

Congratulations to The Register for what might be my favorite coverage of the indictment.

Wait, the closing paragraphs are pretty strong, too.

EXACTLY. And that is why he declared so far in advance. He thought it could thwart an indictment. 

@elodieunderglass

I don't mean to harp on this but in all seriousness, some of you really need to reflect on the level of weight that you feel comfortable plunking down in a total stranger's inbox. Like there truly are a loud handful of people on the internet who - rather than becoming more careful and compassionate and aware of others - use their own trauma as a free pass to behave with total thoughtlessness about the fact that behind screen names are real people who live in the same world with the same systemic problems as they do, and who may well have struggles and sensitivities and yes, traumas of their own.

Some of this undoubtedly comes down to a sort of survival selfishness: if you're constantly unsure where your next meal is coming from there's going to be stuff you just don't have the spoons for, and likewise when you're spending a ton of mental energy white-knuckling your way through your own problems it can be hard to focus on those of other people. So it's understandable and to some degree even sympathetic, but that doesn't make it acceptable. It is completely inappropriate to jump into a stranger's inbox and start aggressively interrogating them (eg) how they feel about CSA because they stated that Make Bullying Great Again posts are kinda concerning. Uh...bad, bro! I feel bad about it! And given that - again - you don't know me from Adam, you have absolutely no way of knowing how bad, or how close and personal any of that badness might be, and this is only one specific example among many but the point is that some of you need to seriously reevaluate what you feel comfortable saying to strangers on the internet.