Sage the Lawyer

Fucking what?

It is well documented that the more educated someone is, the more likely they are to vote for left-wing politics. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/

Thus the right’s war on education. They want uneducated masses to inundate with propaganda, not critical thinkers.

Also I think your definition of “nerd” is absurdly narrow. Dictionary says it’s someone who is either highly enthusiastic about a particular topic or someone who is boringly studious. That’s like, virtually everyone with a college degree. People tend to major in things they’re enthusiastic about. Or, if they’re just after the “best” diploma, they’re probably in the “boringly studious” category.

You can be a nerd about anything, and I’d actually wager most people are a nerd about at least one thing. It’s not limited to the categories you arbitrarily selected to make your point (without any actual evidence presented, I might add).

The meme says to denounce US sanctions. I think this commenter was pointing out that would also mean opposing the sanctions currently on the Russian oligarchs.

It was once a crime for black people to sit at the front of a bus in America. Guess that means Rosa Parks is responsible for the Holocaust.

Thank the gods we had you to point it out.

I get the feeling (I wouldn’t really know, haven’t been there in months) that Reddit is still significantly better. Sure, it’s worse now, but it still has active communities on pretty much any topic imaginable. Lemmy is on its way, but won’t be there for a few years I think.

Hmm. I’m annoyed at my lawyer brain, all I can think about is how this would actually be a very interesting case. At least, based on my understanding of U.S. Torts law, which is not my practice area (but which is bar tested and a required law scool course). Don’t take any of this as real legal advice.

But, there’s a concept known as the eggshell plaintiff rule/doctrine. Basically, it states that if the person you injured is unusually fragile, you’re on the hook for their injuries regardless of whether they’re a typical result of the action you took. So, here, while the typical result of pulling a finger would be a fart, the puller may be on the hook for the entire damages of a lost arm.

However, undercutting that is the defense of consent. The “victim” here clearly consented to the activity which led to the injury, and should have known that the action may likely result in the loss of an arm, based on the lack of tendons/muscles/skin/everything.

I’m gonna have to save this to show at conventions and see how people think this would play out. I’ll totally be the coolest kid in school then. In your face, Mark.