There is a difference between approaching a solution with “no, it’s not good enough” and “good, now let’s make it better”. It’s not really different if you strip feeling out of it, but in a greater context, that feeling means something.

I agree with your responses, but you’re overall using the former technique. That will rub people wrong and spark conflict.

Rape is an actual crime in the UK, it’s not a crime by name in New Jersey. They’re being consistent with charges based on the jurisdiction.

…is facing at least 10 years in prison if found guilty of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault, and second-degree endangerment to the welfare of a child…

Those are the legal terms for different kinds of rape.

Son of gold would be “goldson”. “Goldman” would be a moniker for someone who worked with gold (miner, jeweler, gilder) or possessed/wore a lot of it.

Some sort of rule about verification may help your cause, and I hope it runs well for you

Without strong and trusted mods, this will be interesting…

Zelensky said something about X You said “well he didn’t do anything about Y”

That’s whataboutism. You may have meant it honestly, but ultimately what that kind of argument does is attempt to reduce zelenskys response to this action by comparing it to how he may have done something not as good in a different situation.

It’s the same statement with extra steps. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

Well, not quite. You’d have to have rights to the land to do that. Else someone could ride up and just take it from you.

So then it’s not worse?

To be fair, the line between those two is pretty thin. One does imply the other. You drawing a gulf between them is silly to me.

That’s not what blue collar/white collar crime is

If you do it for side money, you’re only accomplishing that by fucking someone else over. Otherwise you wouldn’t make money.

deleted by creator

Based on your response, I’m guessing you didn’t read about the history of the phrase that I linked, which explains what it meant and how it was used in the early, mid, and late 20th century. As well as the 21st century.

Just because you think something means something doesn’t mean it’s true.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/bleeding-heart-phrase-origin-meaning

The word’s always been pretty straightforward. I’ve never seen it mean anything performative. It’s always just a soft and empathetic person to a harmful degree.

I don’t think “blame” is the right word here. They’re/we’re looking for reasons for how things ended up the way they did.

IMO it’s unhelpful at best and harmful at worst to look at the data and the people analyzing it and approach it as a blame thing - or even to assume it’s a finger pointing game. The facts are that the voting strategies of certain groups of people changed this election. The important thing moving forward is to understand who changed and why they changed, because then those things can be addressed.

And yeah, DNC leadership is either dumb or actively malicious because they keep pushing failed ideas under a false banner.

Why should we know this

It’s an insult for being to sympathetic/empathetic and soft.

Ultimately meaning that if push came to shove, a bleeding heart would be so caught up in caring that they would fail to make a tough decision.

That’s not what those terms mean or why they are used as insults.

And, generally speaking, a few ethnic/gender groups changed their voting strategies this election, while others didn’t. The articles calling out different demographics are pointing out reality. Those shifts affected the results of the election.

That’s why they are being pointed out, instead of pointing out that one group did exactly what was expected of them and what they did last time, and the time before, and the time before…

So I’d challenge you that it’s not recriminations or gross, it’s simply pointing out what changed and how it led to us being in our current spot. You can’t fix things/change course without understanding where you are.