ShellMonkey

Actually I've seen considerably little about her, and not a big surprise since her biggest fame is being the wife of Donnie. Might sound like an article trying to drum up a trend to give her some attention.

Tooke a bit to explain to my kid why I was giggling when I realized the spirit of B&B was alive in a show he was watching.

https://youtu.be/Gl1sBnNfXnI

You wouldn't have happened to grow up watching a lot of Beavis and Butthead did you?

Well hell, turn about is fair play and all, let's see those ones for Trump/Musk.

This user particularly has been a lot of them that I've seen.

Should clarify that you mean the Trump admin, otherwise people might get the wrong idea.

I can tell it's not separate, rephrase it though and you can get "they can think she was a DEI hire, or they could not think of her (not know she exists) because she wasn't hired because of some element of her racial background (in the event that they didn't have a DEI policy)".

I'm not seeing how one can read that differently. Is it supposed to be 'they could think that or they could not think that'? Because while true, that's just assuming people would change their thinking spontaneously.

Edit, I think a lack of punctuation is the problem. Two different reads depending on where you put a comma.

"Or they could not think of her at all, because she wasn't hired due to some aspect..."

"Or they could not think of her at all, because she wasn't hired, due to some aspect..."

The first comma isn't there in the OOP either way, so mentally putting it in makes sense, the second one completely changes the context though if you mentally insert on there. So I'd call it very awkwardly written, heck I'm not attached to this person and I read it in the second way at first brush. Particularly easy to go that route since 'not think of at all' would make it sound like they're not around to be thought of.

So I'm not fan of the tankie trolls, but I can see this one as valid. Someone could be hired for perfectly legit reasons but still have people think it was a mandate just because they fit one of the protected classes. A comment like this one in the middle could readily imply that they wouldn't be hired if not for a DEI policy. It's one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't things, you're going to have people making assumptions on why someone got hired or not, with or without a formal policy.

DEI, or as it used to be called affirmative action, is a tricky thing to balance in the business world. Theoretically a given workspace should resemble the community around it. If the applicant pool doesn't match up to the population though that's really hard to do. So when they ask those demographics questions on the app, in theory it should be that if half your applicants (assuming equal qualifications) are group X and half are group Y then so should your hired staff, regardless of the community makeup.

The complaint you present is that there should be several exceptions to the waiting period. If you believe that phrasing it as cooling off is a problem then the simple solution is to say all purchases of a firearm have a waiting period, no exceptions. Crisis of specificity resolved.

Of course the go to argument then is 'but my 2A' at which point you end up down some rabbit hole where people argue they should be able to own a fully automatic field gun if they want to because reasons...

Frankly I would have it go further, require a full background check to be recently completed, expand it it to a week, cap ammo volumes, enable red flag provisions, and entirely ban full classes of high capacity and high cyclic rate weapons.

Your comparison to a simple tool or invoking of a self preservation is absurd on its face to the point of not being worth proper answering. I've handled guns virtually all my life, took a state safety course at a around 10 years old that's marked on my licence 30+ years later, and take a fair pride in picking off a dime size target at back yard range lengths.

Introducing a minimal delay on the flow of weapons into the already saturated hands of the public is a pittance of a concession if it stops even a single person from go out after a drunken fight and decide to shoot someone, or an isolated depressed individual to say this is the night to die, or to keep another of the far too frequent school shootings from happening. You provide this picture of a walking arsenal coming in and needing to get yet another gun right this moment as though they where an addict needing a fix as some argument against the law.

Can't have people take couple days to cool off when they go to buy s lethal weapon

Can't say I've ever seen anyone defend the system in play, just recognizing that it exists and until it's changed in whatever means possible that playing the protest/spoiler is likely to make things worse.