This is a misleading perspective. Why would you need to codify “settled law?” SCOTUS had ruled that it was a constitutional right already so you wouldn’t need a separate law.

You’re also ignoring Casey. It wasn’t just Roe.

They also don’t typically say they’re “pro-abortion.”

The infographic states “facts” that weren’t relevant at the time.

Add time tracking for time tracking with every other task.

Hey, it was a highly accurate, academically astute, peer-reviewed depiction of a scripted comedy scene!

Find a student at a university whose student accounts get access to jstor.

It might be similar to a song you’ve heard but you’re misremembering the notes of the existing song.

Maybe try playing it for an app that recognizes the song that’s playing and then listen to any songs it guesses might be the song.

This is a decent one, but a ton of the HFY stories are just so problematic. Many just feel like they’re congratulating humanity on being vicious and creatively violent, like they think the Terran Empire in the Star Trek Mirror Universe were good guys.

Otherwise, a bunch just feel lazily formulaic and repetitive with others. Take a random human trait or convention from a human culture like say…fried foods. Use an alien narrator to describe how weird they think it is to fry foods. Find an angle to portray humans as plucky and great for their fierce devotion to frying foods and involve it in a narrative about humanity winning against greater odds. “And the human just dumped the entire chargizoid corpse into a vat of boiling oil! And then he took it out with something called tongs and ate it, skin and all! And that’s when I knew I needed humans on my side in the coming galactic war…”

I guess I feel like the subgenre plays on the optimism of Star Trek utopianism, but ditches any real criticism of humanity’s past (or our present). I think the message from Orville’s Season 3 Episode 10 about what made humanity better in their past is a better heir to Star Trek utopianism than most of the HFY stories I’ve read.

This is less of an issue if you judge everything that isn’t first hand from a known friend or family member as suspect or at least just a waste of time. Facebook used to be a place to talk to people you knew in the real world. You could ignore anything they reposted and still engage with the actual examples of their own experiences that they posted. But now it’s so flooded with ads and listicles and clickbait and video clips that it’s not even worth trying to keep up with the people you actually know.

It’s still not stealing. It’s plagiarism or fraud or any number of other terms, but stealing necessarily requires the deprivation of a limited, rivalrous thing, like money or property. You can’t steal fame or exposure or credit, except poetically. And by that point, the word becomes so watered down that it’s meaningless. You might as well say I’m stealing your life seconds at a time by writing this extra sentence.

The purpose of using the term stealing here is only to borrow the negative moral connotations of the term, but it doesn’t communicate clearly what exactly is happening.

It’s perfectly valid to say you consider it morally equivalent with theft, but it’s not stealing.

I sincerely appreciate that WSJ thinks their propaganda is so important that I’d want to pay to read it.

It’s possible that they thought the first one didn’t post and kept trying. Sometimes you get a timeout error and return to the editable text with the post button again but the post already went through.

The Superman problem. Main sources of conflict tend to involve depowering, fighting another godlike, or threatening people they care about. Over and over again.

even their title is creepy, Human Resources

The only appropriate use of the term is when your cat is talking about you to other cats…