This is absolutely not equivalent to the paradox of intolerance. Taking the stance of “you’re wrong to wish such torture upon anyone for any reason” almost immediately before wishing such torture upon someone is, by even the most generous interpretation, blatant hypocrisy.

No shit…

Hold up…

You’re wrong to wish such torture upon anyone for any reason, no matter what they’ve done.

You should be raped and stabbed until you understand why you’re wrong.

I heard the guy boiled a pot of water earlier in the day, so, you know, clearly it’s justified…

/s

For reference, the first “A” stands for “ALL”.

I agree with all you’ve said, and I tend to add both systems when expressing a meaningful measurement. My statement is pointed more towards situations where someone hasn’t done so and it throws some poor soul into a meltdown.

Counterpoint: there is no continent named “America.” “North American,” “South American,” and even “Central American,” or “Latin American,” for added specificity, are completely sufficient demonyms for the denizens of the continents (and subreigon) writ large.

Regarding weights and measures:

I don’t think in metric, and there’s a strong possibility that I never will. I came of age in an educational system that taught metric units alongside imperial, but also in a day-to-day world that heavily skews towards imperial units.

If I see metric units that I can’t immediately interpret in my head, it’s absolutely trivial for me to get the conversion by other means. It’s equally as trivial for someone who uses metric to make the opposite conversion.

Anyone losing their shit about it is acting performatively.

I think the man currently lacks relevant feet…

Maybe someone who used to be a huge asshole? Out there making sloppy steaks in Death Valley with the Dangerous Nights crew.

Like sand.

This is the original game. Settlers of Kalguur is the newest league (think “season”) launching at the end of this week.

PoE 2 goes into early access sometime later this year, whenever that is. Regardless, they’ll be two distinct experiences, with many players planning to devote some time to both.

If you’re interested in starting PoE, my general advice is that the best time was yesterday. In this case, with a new league starting this week, I’d still encourage anyone to play around in the non-league standard just to get an early feel for things before Friday. PoE has a notoriously steep learning curve, so it’s never too early to log a few hours and experience the opening acts.

I’ll indulge you one more time in this comment chain.

Or is this one of those situations where you think the world runs on “should” and not “is?”

If I were as inclined to feign offense, I’d cite this as an implication that I’m someone who cannot differentiate reality from fantasy. Some might even call such an implication a thinly veiled insult, but only if they didn’t intend to throw rocks before hiding their hands.

Instead of interpreting it in such a way and clutching my pearls about it, I chose to meet you with the same energy.

Your point regarding the communities you moderate is 1) irrelevant and 2) not a road worth going down, regardless. It’s at best an attempt at a flex, and does not belong in this conversation.

Back to the actual matter, every statement you’ve made in these comments, barring your most recent response, absolutely exhibits a dictionary definition defeatist viewpoint. Why take umbrage to having it pointed out as such?

This marks the end of my engagement with you in this chain of comments. Any further responses you make are for your own gratification.

I responded to you in kind. If you consider that insulting, then examine your own contribution.

You’ve graciously answered my question by way of your response. Thank you for that. I wish you the best in your march into defeatism, and sincerely hope you’ll refrain from dragging others along for the ride.

Then it’s option two for you, is it? The one where we allow bad actors to dictate because we believe they won’t play fair?

If that’s the case, you don’t have anything to worry about because all is already lost. “Despair is a narcotic. It lulls the mind into indifference.”

Or is this one of those situations where you’ve already seen that you’re wrong, but you’re too stubborn to admit it and compulsively need to have the last word?

I addressed what you’re alluding to. Second paragraph, third sentence. If we reach a point where precedent doesn’t matter regarding eligibility, all bets are off anyway.

I said nothing at all about how the courts would rule, only that we have prior examples of how eligibility has been determined.

If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled. If you instead prefer to lament the possibility that those rules will be ignored, twisted, or rewritten, then it logically follows that any candidate will be subject to bad faith jurisprudence. At that point, all bets are off anyway, and the “question” of AOC’s eligibility as a candidate has no bearing.

Fret and panic if you feel that it’s your best course of action, but poisoning the discourse with that sort of nonsense is counterproductive.

The three basic requirements are clearly laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither the 14th or 22nd Amendments apply.

It’s cut and dried, with precedent. There is nothing remotely questionable about her eligibility. If the concern is that the opposition party doesn’t care about precedent, then the rulebook is completely tossed out anyway and we’re dealing with a different conversation altogether.

Anyone pushing the narrative that she does not meet the basic requirements is either engaging in pointless hand wringing, expressing ignorance about the requirements, or actively spreading a falsehood.

Or you might not be.

AOC is eligible. She would meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution at the time of her inauguration.

People continue to spread misinformation about her eligibility.

You’re misinterpreting the simplified version of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. I don’t know if it’s by way of malice or of ignorance, but the end result is that you’re confidently wrong.

The requirements set forth in the Constitution say nothing about any arbitrary cutoff date to gain ballot access. Don’t believe me or the Constitution?

How about The Hill:

“First: Yes, she is old enough to run. The minimum age to be president is 35. Ocasio-Cortez will celebrate her 35th birthday roughly three weeks before Election Day 2024.”

Or maybe you will believe it from Oliver Willis:

“Can she run? AOC was born on October 13, 1989, which would make her 35 years old on November 5, 2024, which will be election day. To run for president, the Constitution requires a candidate to be 35 years old or older. AOC would be constitutionally eligible to run for president in that year.”

If those don’t tickle your fancy, how about Fox News:

“However, Ocasio-Cortez would be eligible to serve as president or vice president in the 2024 campaign cycle, narrowly making the age cutoff. She will have turned 35 by Inauguration Day on January 20, 2025.”

If you still need further sources, maybe ABC can provide both information and precedent for you:

"Does the age rule apply from election day, or inauguration day?

It applies on inauguration day — which these days is usually January 20, in the year following the election.

That means a candidate can campaign in a primary race, be nominated as their party’s candidate, and even be elected to the presidency at 34 years old — as long as they’ll be 35 by the date they take office.

Back in the 1972 election, one virtually unknown Delawarean senator-elect reached this age minimum by the tightest of margins.

Joe Biden was 29 when he was elected, and had just turned 30 by the time he was sworn in."

She’s eligible, and you’re propagating a lie whether you intend to or not.