Really not interesting analysis. Four "concentrated episodes" totaling 30 years, hardly "concentrated episodes", especially when you have a "concentrated episode" that lasts for fifteen years. It's extremely unsurprising there are periods of inflationary growth that's higher, and some lower.
Here's a helpful map of cultures with transgendered subsets that are accepted in society. Cultures on every continent have a deep historical record of transgendered folks.
> That's really where most of the heartburn started, as far as I can tell.
The "heartburn" really started when conservatives decided they could exploit hatred of the other by attacking non-binary folks. They got a "spokeswoman" who finished sixth in the NCAA swimming championships (no future professional career potential) to spread their hate and divisiveness.
It allowed Republican politicians to claim children were allowed to identify as animals and use litter boxes in schools. Spreading lies to breed hate.
It's just a modern application of the playbook against other races (which has also been revived).
> "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - President Lyndon B. Johnson
Product liability is a subdivision of tort law that allows for recovery for damages caused by the makers or distributors of a product. This case has nothing to do with Section 230, the plaintiff successfully argued that the product was defectively designed and caused harm to the plaintiff.
Section 230 immunity is not a shield against all liability, it's only a shield against hosting problematic user content.
>This is not at all like smoking where 15% of smokers will get lung cancer.
Unfortunately for you and social media sites, the legal standard for defective products has no "percentage" of people harmed to incur liability. Product liability is showing product was defectively designed and caused foreseeable harm to a specific plaintiff.
> absurd legal reasoning
It's certainly not surprising you think protecting minors in legal cases (she was a minor when the case was filed) is "absurd legal reasoning".
Addressing the actual legal questions in the case might be more fruitful than hurling shit against a wall.
Yes, I think you can make an argument that the jury verdict was in line with the law... if that's the case then I think the law here is ridiculous. I can read what the law is, we're having a discussion. If the story of the woman who was burned by McDonald's coffee was posted here you would have people arguing for and against whether people should be able to seek recourse in courts for harms of that nature.
reply