Reading the article, it seems like the user did, and resumed the argument for the sake of our entertainment rather than a decade of festering resentment :)

I think it's a term that, in this context, is used to denote someone who's either formally or informally (never worked out which) in charge of pushing legislation on a specific topic

I think both sets of civilians have the right to expect a life free of military oppression and terror, largely uninvolved with the actions of those in charge.

it's deeply infuriating and heartbreaking each time I see stories about a given military organisation taking it out on people just living their lives, from Ukraine to Russia to China to Palestine to Israel and so on: innocent civilians dying (or worse) because of the decisions of military forces & their leash holders.

doesn't work for some mothers, through no fault of their own. not to disagree with the sentiment, just to remind that it's not an option for everyone :)

I've had friends compare the vagueness of neurodivergant to the vagueness of being "queer" (i.e. LGTBQ+)

it's a generic catchall that tells a listener that there's something there without having to share details you might not be comfortable with/ they might not want to get lost in the weeds over.

I figure there's a valid use case for a catchall generic term

GDPR is a protection that applies to European citizens, regardless of where they're situated. companies don't get a pass because they blocked IP addresses coming from Europe.

now, enforcement outside the EU is a challenge, but the law is written in such a way that it covers the personal info of every EU citizen regardless of location.