Some people live or grew up in areas where the water source tastes weird or gross, so they might have a mental association of water with a negative quality. Some people remark that water is generally flavorless. I’ve heard this from other people on the spectrum. I prefer water with some kind of flavor. Water without a flavor is only satisfying on a hot day or if you’ve been working out. This is possibly a side effect of growing up with a high sugar diet where you expect everything to taste sweeter. So it might be attributed to the sugar industry’s “fat makes you fat, sugar is fine” lasting effect on the populace.

How would one “steal a kiss” if it was a finite resource.

Stealing a kiss is another poetic use of the term.

Also while stealing is not always “punishable by law”, it can still be classified as wrongdoing.

Depends on the context.

As an artist I find all forms of plagiarism to equate to stealing

As an artist, I don’t. Plagiarism is about failure to cite sources and copying content while claiming it’s yours. That’s not even usually a legal issue. It’s an academic issue. And it’s not necessarily immoral either. You can be accused of plagiarizing yourself by not citing that you had previously written some of the content in a previous work. That’s not even close to stealing, technically, legally, or morally.

Plagiarism is also very different from copyright violation.

and while they won’t land you behind bars, they may get you a status of persona non grata with other creatives.

And it might get you fame and fortune and acclaim from others. Depends on the context.

that’s stealing

It’s important to note that copyright violation is never stealing or theft. That’s a poetic term copyright maximalists use to morally equate two disparate concepts. Stealing and theft involves taking something that is finite and rivalrous and thus depriving the owner of it.

The law would work differently if they, as designated interpreters of the law, interpreted the law differently. If they said you can’t have infinite dark money running campaigns because that violates the rights of poor voters, then things would be very different. Plenty of SCOTUS cases have made significant changes to how the law is interpreted and enforced. Congress also seems to very rarely pass laws to counter SCOTUS decisions. So yeah, if we had fewer federalists and conservatives on SCOTUS and more progressives, I think it would have been decided differently, as well as other significant cases.

If money is free speech then anyone with more money gets more free speech, which isn’t how rights work. You have the same freedoms and limitations to those freedoms that I do, regardless of who has more money. We’re supposed to be equal under the law, but SCOTUS thinks $ome are more equal than others.

Fuck no. Studies have found a positive correlation between swearing and being more honest.

I read it as creating a mandate for the government to reduce microplastics that get into the human body because those reduce fertility and sperm count. Except in these kinds of bills, there’s always an unwritten addendum that says that the bill doesn’t apply if a perceived obligation affects a company’s bottom line

Well, evil is a medical problem for other people, like those with profitably denied insurance claims.

This isn’t a smoking gun.

You can’t trust that ChatGPT is telling the truth, but also the use of copyrighted material is acceptable under a fair use standard written into US copyright law. Whether it is fair use or not is up to a court to decide, but “without permission” doesn’t automatically mean “illegally.”

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.

I hated it when older people said this to me, so you probably won’t appreciate my perspective now, but you have a vast amount of life ahead of you with a lot more information you can encounter that will contradict what you think you know for certain right now. And you’ll encounter newer information after that that will contradict the previous new truths you felt so enlightened to recognize. You don’t have to listen to me at all of course, but if you think you already know what you believe, you don’t need to make a post here to discuss it. If you’re not open to the thoughts of others, I wouldn’t recommend wasting your time soliciting them. If you’re just looking for affirmations of your pre-existing perspectives, a chatbot might be a better outlet.

I’d recommend taking some sociology, anthropology, and political science courses in college if you’d like to delve deeper into these topics. There’s a lot of scholarship out there on these issues to explore.

The original meanings of words change over time with usage. Though they have some overlap and some differences (Brazilians are considered Latino but not Hispanic and Spaniards are considered Hispanic but not Latino), the term Latino is generally replacing previous usage of Hispanic, though Latino is likely used more in urban and coastal regions of the US and Hispanic is likely used more in rural and landlocked regions. The usage of either term won’t always be accurate and it will be an exonym used for people who don’t call themselves by that term.

You’re free to say, “I don’t identify as Latino. I’m Mexican.” Or “I’m Mexican American.” if you’re in the US. There will be surveys and polls and forms that won’t have Mexican as a choice though since they use pan-ethnic or continental terms for wide groups of people for categorization purposes. Similar to the fact that white isn’t an ethnicity or a scientific taxonomy. It’s an arbitrary designation with historical, social and political baggage.

If you have to coin a phrase for it, I’d say something like comparative minimization rationalization.