Flowering and fruiting plants generally need bees, birds, etc. for pollination and seed spreading.

Ants vs. a live crab

Moisturize me!

Don’t be a jerk.

Thanks for your completely sincere suggestion, which I’m sure was made in a good faith effort to have a mature and intelligent discussion on this topic, but I’m actually very well versed in LGBT+ history already.

Cardassians like Tekeny Ghemor and Aamin Marritza are right in line with the point of Trek.

Oh, FFS. Never mind.

That utterly misses the point of Pride. It’s not about revenge, it’s about reconciliation. It’s not about hatred, it’s about love. It’s not about divisiveness, it’s about coming together. It’s a good thing that police, etc. want to be in our parades. Excluding them actively harms the progress LGBT+ people have made since Stonewall.

Shouldn’t we be working against that, though? Isn’t that the whole point of Pride… AND TREK?

I’m obviously asking why no cops. I don’t believe you didn’t understand that. But clearly, you’re not willing to discuss it, so I’ll withdraw the question.

Don’t be obtuse.

But that’s not the part I’m asking about.

What’s with these “no cops at Pride” comics?

Kirk penetrates an alien organism in order to destroy its reproductive organs.

Not exactly the same problem. In the same way that gun control doesn’t address the problem of hostile foreign militaries. Yes, both involve guns, but the laws and policies that address one are inapplicable and inappropriate to the other.

The law in question addresses the problem of foreign adversaries having easy access to manipulate US public opinion. The law you suggest addresses the problem of advertisers having that access. Both are serious concerns, both need to be addressed, but they are not the same problem and the solutions are markedly different.

require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired

That would be a very different kind of law from the one we’re talking about.

That’s the opposite of what the court said.

Well, no. The courts struck down Trump’s Tiktok ban because he used an executive order that overstepped his authority.

Tiktok has been a subject of national security concerns since at least 2020.

That’s a separate issue that could not be addressed with this kind of law anyway.