• 0 Posts
  • 384 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2023

help-circle

  • I actually have another one… my now father in law, back when I first meet my wife, got me an empty dvd case of some random D movie nobody has ever heard of from the dollar bin at Walmart.

    Somehow the dvd was plastic wrap sealed and still had the $1 sticker on it, but I later opened the case up and it was empty.

    I initially took offense, because it really seemed like an insult, but it turns out that 14 Christmas holidays later and he still gets weird random useless stuff for everyone for Christmas, it wasn’t just me.











  • I feel like it’s more than that…

    When I switched to electric 7 or 8 years ago, I really didn’t like it. It was super uncomfortable and tickled my mouth.

    I just powered through it because I was told that I would get used to it.

    Indeed I did get used to it and quickly began to feel that I had never actually properly brushed my teeth before going electric.

    Part of what helps is the little extra pulse every 30 seconds and auto shut off after two minutes. Really keeps you on track with 30 seconds in each quadrant of your mouth.

    Two minutes is a long time so having the timer built into the toothbrush is super helpful.

    Only concern to note is that applying too much pressure and/or using the maximum vibration setting can be bad for your gums and cause recession.

    Be very gentle with the electric toothbrush so that you do not cause any excessive gum recession.

    Once you get used to electric, a conventional toothbrush will seem archaic.





  • So discussion of jury nullification is ok as a general topic. If someone mentions JN in the context of a crime that has not yet been committed then that’s not ok. If the crime has already been committed then that’s ok. If the crime is not violent in nature then we can discuss JN, and if we are just having a general conversation about JN that’s ok too.

    Specifically, the concern is that talking about JN in the context of some hypothetical violent crime that has not yet been committed could be interpreted as advocating for violence.

    This sounds pretty stupid so far, but my question is then, why wrap the ToS around specifically jury nullification? Why not just reiterate the ‘no advocating for violence’ policy.

    If someone is advocating for violence, then adding on some point about jury nullification is irrelevant, they are already breaking the rule.