unknown1234_5

I get what they were trying to do but it was such a cop out instead of writing an actual explanation.

I rewatched the whole show just a couple months ago and I didn’t watch TV much as a kid so I only saw a handful of episodes then. this is my current, up to date opinion.

it’s done plainly in reference to real life now, as opposed to being integrated seamlessly into the show. a good example would be the episode where the doctor had to erase his mind and Martha (a black woman) had to try and protect him while posing as his servant because it was the 1800s when they were stranded. this was still in real history (aliens aside) but was integrated as part of the plotline and not randomly mentioned with no context. a good example of when they get this wrong is the special with the meep where Donna’s daughter says something along the lines of “I’m nonbinary because the doctor-donna is binary” which doesn’t make sense in the story because the doctor-donna is binary due to Donna literally merging with the doctor, not gender identity. these things can be integrated well and when you do they only enhance the story by making it feel more realistic, but you have to make them fit the story, not the other way round.

also they don’t care that much

they mistakenly believe that the cigarette butts will biodegrade fast enough to not be an issue.

just block annoying people, then they can’t bug you any more. it’ll also help to block tankie instances.

dude must be a master baiter the way that fishing line is whipping through the air.

I don’t want to talk.

5 or 6 dollars, depending on where you’re shopping. my parents have chickens though so I grab a dozen when I’m home sometimes.

it’s unreasonable because if he does turn out to be innocent, then you ruined someone’s livelihood for no reason.

here’s the first one I found. to be extra clear given what the other comments have been assuming, I’m not saying this is the case here, only that it could be; and I’m not saying anything about women, I would react the same if the accusations were coming from men. in fact, I didn’t mention a specific gender in this thread until now.

it’s not a legal punishment but it is very much still a punishment in effect. whether you are in court or not you should still work of off “innocent until proven guilty” for the same reason the courts do. it’s wrong to punish someone until you know for sure that they did something wrong.

taking away someone’s sources of income are, and it’s wrong to do it without proof.

just like they had when amber heard straight up lied about Johnny Depp? I’m just saying that it’s too early to punish because there is no evidence yet.

it’s happened before. accusations are not proof on their own, and they are free to make. police reports are also free to make. I’m not saying he didn’t do it, but I’m saying there is no proof so it is too soon to take action aside from looking for proof.

there’s still no concrete proof though, which is my point. there may be a lot of similar accusations, but there have also been many instances of somebody being accused once and then a bunch of other people making their own false accusations trying to support the first one. I’m not trying to say he did or didn’t do it, what I am trying to say is it’s too soon to be cutting all ties because accusations are not proof on their own. false accusations are free and easy to make, and once you hear about the details of an accusation making a similar one is just as easy and still free.

irrelevant, it’s wrong to punish someone without proof.

people make false accusations all the time dumbass, for all we know this could be another amber heard situation.

they shouldn’t drop for allegations, nothing has been proven yet. as far as we know he never did anything and someone is falsely accusing. obviously once there’s proof they should stop working with him but if it’s just allegations then it’s too soon.

firstly, I clarified that I wasn’t saying it was bad. second, what other people say independent of me is irrelevant to what I said. third, I explained what the problem was that was making me say that about ubuntu in detail, cited the people saying there is a ‘wrong’ distro as a reason for doing that, and explicitly said (twice in this thread) that the only relevant things in how good a distro is are whether you like it and whether it works for you.