Blurayhidef was also banned, if memory serves me correctly.

Probably about 5'4" or 5'5" for me. Any shorter and the height difference would be too great considering I'm 5'10".

If it means anything, my current boyfriend is 5'7".

1. Climate Change. I believe that humans have had a noticeable effect on the climate and we should doing more to prevent further impact. Ignoring the 'is climate change even real?' aspect, I also believe that moving towards green energy alternatives makes a lot of economic sense in the long term.

2. Abortion. I'm a bit split on this. I'm definitely for abortion staying legal, but I have trouble trying to place proper regulations on it. I'm internally debating whether to make a cutoff at when the fetus has a good chance of viability (typically 24-27 weeks. Incidentally, current research is showing this is when the nervous system has developed to a point where it can interpret pain.) or have no cutoff at all. Slightly off topic, but I think our society places an unnecessary stigma on parents who decide to put their newly born child up for adoption. I have a feeling (though I have no data to support this feeling) that there exist some mothers who would be open to carrying a child to term and put the child up for adoption, but instead opt for abortion early during pregnancy so they don't have to worry about ridicule from loved ones.

3. Gay Marriage. I see no reason to bar same sex marriages under current secular law.

4. Trans Bathroom. I'm obviously biased on this issue, but I feel like pre-existing laws already take care of the 'man claiming to be trans so he can spy on women' situation. As such, new laws assigning bathroom usage based off of biological sex will create far more issues than they solve. Looking long term, I am in favor of single stall unisex restrooms hopefully becoming popular in the US.

5. Gun Ownership. I'm in favor of universal background checks. I used to be in favor of a ban on high capacity magazines, but I'm not anymore. In theory I support including the no fly list as part of the background check, but currently the no fly list has shown it contains many false positives. So I can't support integrating the no fly list to the background check at this time.

6. Capital Punishment. In theory I am in favor of capital punishment for the most extreme of crimes, but in practice I can't support it. Humane (as in not cruel and unusual) capital punishment currently costs more than life in prison and there is the issue of false convictions.

The current iteration of The Daily Happening was created in 2010 (about 7 months before the April Fools incident). Honestly, TDH at this point is more active than OT even though there are far fewer users on there.

However, the one you're probably thinking about is The Foreign Grounds. I think that one was made a little over a year before TDH was (so mid 2009), but was shut down because another OT user at the time threatened legal action against the site.

There were two different waves of 'damage' and both have been mentioned in the thread already. The more lenient ToU helped contribute to it slightly, but the main thing was the site redesign. Now, at this point even the defectors have adjusted to the "new" design, but a lot of us are much older now and have found other communities.

1. The thing about the relational distance between the 5 data points. This doesn't match up if you do this yourself with Obama and Ah'nee's birth certificates (both of which are easily found online). The distance from 'Honolulu' in 6a to 'Oahu' in 7b is off by a couple pixels when you account for relational distance. The relational distance from Honolulu in 6a to the check boxes in 6d and 7e don't match either. So this argument is just factually not true.

2. The angles aren't even close to correct. The first date on Obama's is almost half of the incline as Ah'nee's first date. The second dates are similar, but Obama's is at a slightly steeper decline.

3. The bit about the check mark in 6d of Ah'nee's birth certificate being directly pasted onto boxes 6d and 7e on Obama's. The X in Ah'nee's 6d check mark is a pixel more to the right than in box 6d on Obama's (relative to the inside of the check box). The X in Obama's 7e check box is vertically higher by a couple pixels compared to box 6d on both certificates. So this argument is also factually not true.

I guess you're "It's crazy how the left quickly turned into uneducated conspiracy theorists." comment gets flipped on its head when people take literally 10 minutes to actually look at the facts.

Obviously we are free to speculate, but that's not something that you or I can confirm. Either way, the decision to ban him looks bad on the university.

If it is like you said, then the university is willingly trying to silence the anti-PC crowd.

If the university actually has security concerns, then it shows that they are incapable of fostering an environment that encourages discussion of unpopular viewpoints.

I don't like Ben Shapiro or Milo. I have never listened to any of Shapiro's speeches, but I know that Milo's speeches are pretty popular with a fair number of conservatives and refusing to allow him to speak allows the anti-PC crowd to paint the picture that progressives are not willing to hear their concerns. I don't agree with the anti-PC crowd, but I believe that the best way to counter their points is to listen to them and engage in a civil debate.

Agreed 100%. I despise Milo. Heck, I'm even okay with Twitter banning him because there is good evidence that he committed libel by knowingly retweeting posts created by a fake tweet generator in an attempt to defame Leslie Jones. Obviously a private institution like DePaul University isn't required to follow the same first amendment rights that the federal government is, but the university not attempting to get the event back on track makes our side look terrible.

And he was banned from DePaul University because of security concerns. The Chicago Sun-Times and The Chicago Tribune both stated that a DePaul spokeswoman said the following:
"DePaul University’s Office of Public Safety determined, after observing events which took place when Mr. Shapiro spoke elsewhere, that it was not in a position to provide the type of security that would be required at this time.”

I think I need to give the exact details of the incident @sSubZerOo is talking about.
Milo Yiannopoulos was invited by a student group of DePaul University to speak on campus. As part of the agreement, university officials stated that the student group needed to hire external security for the event. During the 'speech', members of BLM marched onto the stage, grabbed Milo's mic, and pretty much put the entire event on hold. The student group requested for their hired security to intervene, but the university prevented them from doing so. Not long afterwards, the student group called the police but the university turned them away and stated that they had the situation under control.

Something that SubZerO did not mention is that recently Ben Shapiro was scheduled to hold an event at the same university, but that was cancelled because the university could not guarantee his safety.

Now, I don't particularly care about the legality of the Milo incident, but what I do care about is that that the anti-PC crowd was easily able to portray the university (and college campuses in general) as not being open to policy discussions.

You honestly think that we don't take anyone else's feelings into account? Every time we trans people use a public restroom we have to do a mental calculation to decide whether to risk our personal safety (and out ourselves in the process) or possibly make someone uncomfortable. Here are my following options:

Use the male restroom. I have been on hormone replacement therapy for over 2 years at this point. I look, sound, and act like a woman. Not only is there the possibility of being assaulted if I intentionally go into the male restroom, but my presence (as someone who by all means looks like a normal woman) is bound to make the men in the restroom uncomfortable as well.

Use the female restroom. This comes with its own challenges. If someone finds out that I'm trans, then I risk public humiliation and, again, possible assault (the beating of Chrissy Lee Polis in 2011 is just one example). If I'm not found out, then it's just a normal trip to the restroom.

With this in mind, I'm guaranteed to have a negative and/or awkward experience if I use the male restroom, but there is the possibility of me having a neutral experience if using the female restroom. With that said, I haven't used a public restroom in over a year. This isn't a big deal for me since I'm a borderline recluse and I have a long history of paruresis so I'm used to avoiding public restrooms, but others are not so fortunate. A 2013 UCLA study surveying transgender people in Washington DC (typically thought as a liberal city) found that 54% of transgender people reported health effects such as dehydration, kidney infections, and UTIs as a result of 'holding it' until they get to a restroom they're comfortable using. 58% of people reported avoiding going out in public due to a lack of safe public restroom facilities. In relation to this case, 10% of people reported skipping or dropping out of school due to not having proper access to restrooms.

Again, you're out of your mind if you think that we don't care about anyone else's feelings other than our own. You're better than this, LJS.

@the actual topic: As mentioned before, this is just a stay on a lower court's order. While I don't particularly agree with the stay, I can see why the supreme court would want to actually hear the case and set a precedent.