Conversations about impeachment just aren’t complete without the man who was impeached the best and the most!

Or set the public instance to public discussion about women’s stuff and set up a private instance with a women’s only application process that is advertised on the public instance.

There’s value in women’s only spaces, and there’s value in spaces for fathers, husbands, brothers, boyfriends, and sons to ask about women’s stuff. By arranging the communities as described they can keep discoverability, exclusivity, AND can stop getting forbidden comments from the public on their public forum.

If the community is private you might have a point, but there are very public women’s only communities on this platform who’s conversations show up in the aggregate feeds–that’s not just “conversing amongst themselves.”

Is this about the public community, Women’s stuff, federated on the public fediverse who’s posts get aggregated to the public all feed and which is accessed by a diverse set of software solutions that may or may not force the community rules to be visible before viewing post content?

I try not to engage cause I know about the community, but golly, I can’t imagine how a man might stumble upon that and interact.

Relying on a small child to stay on the ground in order to not accidentally kill themselves is a great way to end up with a dead kid.

Furniture should be anchored to a wall, guns locked in safes with the safety enabled and ammo removed, drugs in child resistant packaging locked in a cabinet, drawers and cabinets secured, etc.

Kids climb stuff, get into things, find things they shouldn’t, AND they emulate what they see their parents do. Putting something out of reach is nowhere near secure enough.

Guns should also be left in the open for children to play with since we’re on the topic of easy things we can change to threaten the life of those that may not know better yet!

There are so many cases where you must be able to use an item to determine its suitability. If brands and vendors don’t facilitate that prior to sale then I have no way to test it without buying it first. Vendors take a gamble then if the product works for me. If it doesn’t, well that’s the cost of doing business. They make money enough for purchasing wares, paying utilities, rent, and salaries, covering logistical overhead, and turning profit all from the sale of their goods. There’s no reason consumers should have to subsidize one of their risks through a special medium beyond the sale of product.

If a company doesn’t like that then they can adopt consumer friendly protections like permitting trying on clothes, test driving a car or having a tool rental option prior to sale.

But if I:

• buy a phone and realize only when I get home that the brilliant engineers forgot to allow me to set a background image
• buy a new computer and realize only when I get home that despite them advertising it supports thunderbolt it won’t actually work with my thunderbolt accessories and can’t support 3 external displays
• buy a new mouse that is enclosed in a sealed cardboard box that doesn’t permit checking the ergonomics only to realize it doesn’t work well
• buy a pair of headphones only to realize they sound bad/creak when worn/have terrible cable noise
• buy an oil filter wrench and realize I can’t fit it and my hand at the same time on the access port

Well, then, they can process a return.

That labor should be paid from the profits of goods sold and not returned–just like every other liability.