TheDoozer @ TheDoozer @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

923

Joined

2 yr. ago

I was with you (to a degree)until:

they’re supposed to miraculously become an expert in navigating a potentially life-destroying minefield, where the only two outcomes is magically getting it right, or risking a non-trivial probability of incarceration and a criminal record when they (invariably) get it wrong?

This is some nonsense. The worst the man will get (barring some VERY unacceptable behavior on his part) is yelled at by an angry (and probably shitty, if all the man did was politely approach at even a remotely reasonable time) woman. Which, turns out, is something women deal with from shitty men fairly regularly. It turns out, when you are interacting with strangers out in public, there is a small chance you are going to interact with an asshole. That doesn't mean you should be a hermit, that means you met an asshole. And if everyone you meet is an asshole... you're probably the asshole.

But nobody is going to jail or having life-shattering consequences for saying hello to a woman they don't know.

THAT BEING SAID, if we, as men, are regularly told that approaching a woman in public is uncomfortable, unpleasant, or downright scary for women, decent men won't want to approach women in order to avoid making them uncomfortable.

My personal experience has been to the contrary, and have struck up conversations with a number of women I didn't know in public, and never had a particularly bad experience. Maybe I am generally non-threatening, or maybe I have better social skills than some, but if all a person who rarely interacts with women hears is that initiating any sort of contact is unpleasant to the woman they talk to, I can't imagine they'd be inclined to strike up a conversation. And if they do make women uncomfortable (due to poor social skills from... not regularly interacting with women), it only reinforces that belief.

What's the answer? I don't know. But it feels like making men who care about the feelings of women uncomfortable with approaching them does nothing but leave the ones who don't care. I think the message needs to change.

Technically an amendment to the constitution, the third section of the 14th amendment, that nobody who has engaged or helped an insurrection can hold office in the government or military (except with a 2/3 majority of congress).

Yeah, there was already established law to prevent him from running for president. It got ignored. He ran anyway. He won anyway. He became president anyway.

Any of these legal mechanisms only work if they are upheld.

I had understood it to be even worse:

The sacrifices at the temple were expected to be pretty much perfect, and had to be found acceptable by the temple priests. So the merchants would get "pre-blessed" sacrifices that they would sell at exorbitant prices to the pilgrims, who would have the sacrifices they brought deemed "inadequate" by the priests.

So if you brought an animal sacrifice, you'd still have to buy another (costly) animal. If you brought money, you'd be forced to exchange it at a significant loss.

The whole thing was an obvious scam, and Jesus was killed over it (and the rest of his message). I don't believe he was God Incarnate, but I'm still a big fan of Jesus the man.

I'm pretty confident that all would have gone about the same way in this era.

I think you're missing the point. Personally, when I watch those movies, I think about whether the guard who just got turned into a parapalegic was just an ex-military guy who picked up a security job. For that matter, I wonder about how many people joined the German military in 1932, with no idea what their country would become. They still had to be fought through to affect the leader. Yes, any given grunt, any given infantry, is hurt considerably more than the big fish, but the way of the world is that a lot of little fish must suffer before the big fish feels it.

Not every big fish can be luigi-ed. Some have a security detail.

You know in those movies where the hero has to beat the living hell from a thousand grunts before they are able to get at the boss? And you don't feel too bad for the grunts, even though they're not millionaires or the guys doing the big evil stuff, because they chose to align themselves with a villain like the boss?

It's kind of like that. If people don't want to own a Tesla because they'll be targeted for aligning themselves with Musk, Tesla's stock goes down, which hurts the boss.

I'm not saying I support it (and I'm not saying I don't), but saying that this is hurting the Working Class and not the real Bad Guy is missing the point.

I'm imagining [Jay Baruchel].(https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0059431/).

The Trail of Tears was always taught to me as a black spot in our history, a horrible thing that we (the United States) did to natives.

Damon? Do you mean Dicaprio?

Can't you setup a structure where people from both sides would together commit to voting third-party?

Can't really do that with a First-Past-The-Post system because someone needs to get past the post. If there are four major parties (left and right both have significant numbers voting 3rd party), there would ultimately have to be a coalition or two that just ends up being the Republicans and Democrats all over again.

The system itself has to be changed first, and the two parties who benefit from there only being two parties aren't going to change it to allow for that.

In all fairness I bet he gets a lot of gender fluids going...

I thought Hephaestus split Zeus' head open to release (a fully grown and armored) Athena, who has been hammering in his head building the armor and causing him terrible headaches.

This reminds me of an anecdote talking about language differences between the US armed services:

If you told a Marine to secure a building, they would kick the door in and take control of the building.

If you told a soldier in the Army to secure a building, they would set up a fence around it and establish a sentry.

If you told a Navy sailor to secure a building, they'd turn off all the lights and close and lock the door on their way out.

If you told an Airforce airman to secure a building, they would write up a purchasing contract.

When you are talking large income to larger income, that makes total sense, but are there limits for access to things like child tax credits where if you go over you are no longer eligible, causing significant increase (I just looked, and it's at $200k single of $400k jointly, so unless you have A LOT of children, I suppose there wouldn't be a huge effect)? Similar to people on government assistance who go from getting full assistance to getting nothing at a certain income level?

I'm no expert, but I also accuse them of that.

It does suggest that the people who requested it were more likely to be near end of life, exactly when someone (generally) might want an out.

I prefer the more accurate "there is no evidence that God exists." What proof do I have there is no evidence? "Behold, my field of evidence of God's existence, and notice it is barren. To my knowledge, there is no evidence. If you have any non-anecdotal evidence of God's existence, I'd be happy to look at it, but absent that, there does not appear to be any evidence."

If pressed, there's no evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, or leprechauns either. Does that mean they don't exist? I guess that depends on who speaks first, right?

The only reasonable way to think and live is to only believe in things that have evidence they exist. To, as a default, believe in something and then require proof of its non-existence doesn't make any sense. There is literally no end of things that "exist" if you just believe in things without evidence. Therefore, requesting "proof of non-existence" makes absolutely no sense in any context except when evidence of existence has already been established (e.g. someone declaring the moon landing was faked, where there is established evidence showing the moon landing having been real. A case would have to be made why that evidence was somehow illegitimate).

I think the difference is the opera singer is their own name and you can point to some parts or performances, but the songs belong to someone else. "Toxic" by Britney Spears is considered her song... even though it was written by other people, for example. Nobody thinks that Queen of the Night is Diana Damrau's song.

And I get there's a difference, because nobody think Beyonce's version of "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" is anything but Elton John's song regardless. But the line is so blurred amongst pop singers (as some write their own and some don't) that credit seems falsely attributed often.

Basically, if you're a songwriter/composer, you have songs. If you're a singer, you have performances.

Man, I do enjoy taking the wind out of the sails of presumptuous people knee-jerking a response without knowing any specifics.

I spent most of my career flying in relatively dangerous conditions in helicopters (or on small boats, before I went into aviation) in order to save people from drowning in the ocean or freezing in the woods. I've had two coworkers who've crashed (in separate incidences), one of which was at the door sending a dewatering pump to a sinking boat. I specifically joined the service I did because, as I told the recruiter, I can choose to join, but I can't choose where I'm sent after, and I'm still responsible for my actions because I chose to join in the first place. There's nothing morally ambiguous about saving somebody whose boat is sinking.

Now, don't get me wrong, having more and more of our people being sent to "defend the border" definitely falls in the realm of "not what I signed up for," but I haven't personally been forced into that, and am extremely unlikely to.

So I may have dealt with some brown kids whose lives were threatened, but certainly haven't found any that were a threat themselves (except to themselves... boaters tend to be their own worst enemies).

I remember that time well. Mine are 5 and 10, so I'm moving out of the more intensive child-rearing time. When I retire, they should both be at or near the "too busy for Dad" time, so other than giving rides, my days should be free and clear. I'm really looking forward to it.

Good luck with the little ones!