I just realised this is the gaming equivalent of people whining about benefit fraud. "What if someone gets a thing they don't deserve?" Um, you can go on with your life and not care? What if thousands of people *don't* get things they *do* deserve because you're being an ass about it?

Tbh I understand that more (for all I disagree with it), because people had many many years to develop that nostalgia before JKR showed her colours.
On the other hand, some random celeste mod? Why are they so attached?

The irony of someone whose whole supposed deal is "science > religion" throwing a fit about someone asking for evidence sure is something.

Personally I'd be less concerned about what may have contributed to her self-harm and more concerned about what may have contributed to her murder, but I guess I just don't understand what it's like to be a parent something something.

no u

Sounds like a problem a childish bitch would have tbh

That is how social media works, yes. If your moderation sucks people are going to yell at you about it. If you refuse to do better they're gonna keep yelling. Deal with it.

No see, he's just speaking an unusual political dialect, so when he said "taking on Reform" the " 's policies" was silent.

You might be interested in this then: www.utupub.fi/bitstream/ha...

Master's thesis someone did on the representation of queer identities in Discworld.

Unlikely unfortunately, people have been saying Fide sucks (for various reasons) for years and they're still going, so most likely this will barely move the deal.

Removing recognition for one organisation does nothing to deligitimise an *entirely separate* organisation which happens to do a similar thing. The point does not stand in any way.

Actually scratch unclear - your phrasing was fully inaccurate, because noone has mentioned the possibility of ceasing to recognise the ECHR as a human rights organisation.
You *are* aware the the ECHR and the EHRC are different things, right?

No, I was replying to the hypothetical removal of the EHRC as a body. If you were talking about the ECHR the whole time then a) Your phrasing was incredibly unclear; and b) That's an entirely different organisation and once again I don't see how us having one affects our membership of the other.

Bro that's a whole different sentence.

If it were removed, I'm not convinced that would be meaningfully different to the current state of affairs. The organisation is not fit for purpose, and that is not going to be resolved unless it is acknowledged. I also don't see how acknkowledging the EHRC affects our staying in the ECHR.

Recognising the body exists and recognising it as a human rights organisation are very different things.

"We support trans rights" is not a policy, it's a statement of values. The *policies* would be about the specific ways they *show* that support. Voting on those is reasonable, but I don't think the "For the many, not the few" guy should need a vote to tell him to support human rights for all.

There's a tweet I wish I could find, from a tabletop game designer being asked her opinion about house rules - my recollection is she said something on the lines of "There is no wrong way to play the game, do whatever you want so long as you're having fun."