I said all these brands feel the same but when I’m having a Rockefeller moment I will only fuck a cored out block of real grass fed butter because margarine will never be butter.
If you want Biden to win vote for Biden. Jesus fucking Christ.
Gaming primaries is a potentially valid idea but in what world do you think voting for the other candidate in a winner-takes-all election would help your desired candidate win?
I mean statistically in a state THAT red your there will never be enough blue votes to overcome the stupidity of the rural class, so it may not matter. Still voting for the off brand inside a 2 party system is a very bad habit to encourage. Just vote for Biden.
If that were the case anymore, it would’ve happened after the 1912 election when Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive party got more votes (27.4%) and electors (88) than the Republican Taft (23.2% of the vote and 8 electors). But it didn’t. Things went back to normal after that. That was also the election where the Socialist party gained the most votes (6% of the vote and 0 electors).
The Republicans and Democrats are here to stay until our voting system is overhauled.
I bet Trump is perversely happy he got shot. He can be a Real Brave Man, now. How much attention it gets him. How much more clout he believes he will get because he will weasel some political capital out of it. Heaven help us if the shooter was liberal, this man is fine with dog whistling violence and more than a few of his followers are itching to engage in it. It won’t matter one whit how many people have been killed or hurt by right wingers.
On Jan 6 Trump noticed that a lot of the crowd would not pass the magnetic detectors to get in close for his speech. He realized it was because they were armed. “Take the fucking mags away” he said. Because he knew he was going to be up there behind bulletproof glass.
They even managed to get a triumphant picture out of it. The Secret Service is surrounding him, he’s bloody but holding his fist high, and the American flag is perfectly framed in the background. This shit is going to pump his polling numbers. All he has to do is put whatever fake nationalist bullshit he wants over that picture for 30 seconds and it’s an instant ad in battleground states.
Are you u all living in rosy mc Rosewood Santa’s little safe harbour everything is fine and dandy rainbow world? Or are you all lying through your teeth?
Letting someone in your home with clearly visible psychological issues, in your circle of trust, filled with those you hold most dearly and packed with your dearest memories, that place… And then letting someone in you know nothing about?
Hell fucking no.
In the real world letting some rando homeless dude in your home has a 50/50 chance of ending up in crazy town. There is a high probability that you, yours or your stuff get fucked up. I cannot and will not accept those odds. Even a 2% chance of shit happening is a risk I’m unwilling to take when it comes to my kids.
Would I help him? Maybe. It depends on some factors (like can I at that specific time, did I help him out earlier, do I have cash on hand) Would I let him in? No f-ing way.
So real answer: money: maybe, eat & drink: anytime. Clothes: I’ve got some you can have, no problem. Bath and clean: nope. Never.
This is my thought as well. Even if things go well this time, who’s to say they will not feel entitled to come back. Maybe with or without your knowledge.
I’d send them away otherwise I might start getting a regular visitor to my house asking for stuff.
While I do agree with you. Your wording could be a little bit better. You seem like a glass half empty kind of person, and I can respect that. However your statement makes it seem like all homeless people have some kind of dangerous psychological issues, and that is a wild accusation. Mental health problems come in all shapes and sizes
As someone with diagnosed mental health issues, I can tell you that I mean no harm. But sadly, the pure difference in perception paired with unfamiliarity of the two parties makes the situation insanely dangerous, not the person.
You never know why the person is in this predicament and if they have a tendency towards violence, robbery or other things. I‘m not saying they are. I‘m saying you have to assume they are before making that decision. Can you defend yourself against a pulled knife or even gun, do you have enough mental capacity to observe them at all times. Those odds do not look good.
So, although I would never willingly look down on folks less fortunate than myself. I too will never ever let a stranger into my house if they raise any concerns.
Very better wording. Sorry if I was seeming like a dick. I’ve always had the view that people generally mean no harm, but might have articulated it in the wrong way. I’m definitely trying to work on that with myself as well. I also have mental health issues, and I was homeless for a good 2 years of my life, and would have been longer if a person didn’t invite a scruffy person into their home and show them goodness and ask for nothing in return.
After I typed that, I had to think about it for a bit. I was probably one of the few lucky ones. I’ve had the experience working in movie theaters, and I’ve encountered many homeless and have had good and bad experiences. The bad is more memorable (which probably says more about human nature rather than social conception at this point), but had many great experiences with homeless people. I have stories, but I’ll save them for the sake of typing a shit ton lol.
TL;DR: I like the cut of your jib, you seem very intelligent, and have good points. However, I still believe the whole argument comes down to pessimis vs optimism. I’m a very long winded person, so tldr are hard for me
Thank you for your opinion, every individual is different. Homeless does not inherently equate to psychological issues nor drug addiction.
Sometimes people just had their house destroyed from a hurricane or tornado or whatever, and insurance done fucked them over, if they even had proper insurance in the first place.
Sorry you’re getting downvoted, but you got my upvote. Thank you for having enough of a mind and soul to care. 🤗👍
While I wouldn’t say that’s right, I also wouldn’t come right out and call it wrong either. This very much engages with the “Selfish Gene”, an heuristic model of thinking about evolution from the perspective of the gene itself instead of populations.
As an added amusement, the book “The Selfish Gene” came out in 1976, and is the source of the word “meme,” used somewhat differently than it is now, naturally.
Yes, and as per the blog the other user linked people have a habit of posting Medium links under the guise of providing supporting information. Given you made a claim “x proves y” you and other people who post Medium links like this probably know “but here’s a link to my blog that is also just my opinion” probably doesn’t hit the same.
I feel the need to remind you that many members of the LGBT+ community have rebuked all preferred pronouns. Take for example Lily Cade and the other lesbians in the BBC’s infamous article, “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women”. Lily Cade in fact called for the lynching of trans women.
The queer community is no monolith. There are transphobes within the community who refuse to be associated with trans people like Me, and want us pushed out of the movement, denied healthcare, driven to suicide, or indeed even lynched. I do not think you should be basing your opinions of trans people on what these bigots say.
I have reported your comment for deliberate misgendering, and I am asking you once again to edit your comment to use a trans person’s preferred pronouns. This is so that you have every opportunity to do the decent thing, and so that if you do not want to act decently, your intent in this abuse is clearly demonstrated.
You know those aren’t the members I’m referring to. I haven’t referred to you by the wrong pronoun or misgendered you. I simply haven’t capitalised non-gendered possessive/adjective pronouns. You think these should be capitalised due to identifying as a goddess. As someone else mentioned it reeks of co-opting trans issues. Anyway, given you’ve reported me, I’m going to leave it here.
Utter nonsense. Your argument is that because you can imagine a god and spread the idea they are real. The logical conclusion there is that anything you can imagine is equally real. Bigfoot really is wandering around a forest, spaghetti absolutely does grow in trees, and the moon landing was definitely on a sound stage (but they also really landed on the moon because I can picture that too).
So then what’s the difference between “the gods” and something purely fictional, in your view? Because if there is none than this whole thing seems like just an exercise in surface-level semantics.
The gods are mythical, whereas Frodo Baggins is fictional. People believe in myths. Though of course it’s a fuzzy boundary. You can arrange various characters on a spectrum from myth to fiction. For example, Zeus is pure myth, Lucifer is an originally fictional character that has almost entirely become mythical, Achilles is sort of directly in the middle, Sherlock Holmes is a highly mythologised fictional character, Gandalf is a fictionalised adaptation of a myth, and Jake Sully is pure fiction because nobody gives a shit about him.
Ah, so the difference is the weight that people assign the idea.
Do the gods exist for an atheist who contends that all of the things you called “mythical” are in fact purely “fictional”? Or does a lack of belief among some individuals not matter because the gods are a social construct?
A lack of belief among some individuals matters, but not enough to stop a god from being a god. Because, as you say, gods are social constructs. If we consult Merriam Webster and skip the silly monotheist definition, a god is “a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers”. Note that this definition doesn’t say the being must actually have these powers. They must only be worshipped as such. The belief is the important thing to the definition, not the truth. This is because divinity is socially constructed. You can’t deny a god’s divinity except by denying the faith of their followers. If you accept that the worshippers really do believe their god is a god, you must accept that the god is a god. They may well be an undeserving god, or a lying god, or a false god, but a god they still are. If you want to tell Me that Thor isn’t a god, I’m going to demand a historical source based on the Eddas, or say you’re wrong. Divinity is like a job. If everyone agrees that Mr Smith is a plumber, and His boss pays Him to fix toilets, then Mr Smith is certainly a plumber. It doesn’t matter if Mr Smith has never fixed a toilet in His life, society has decided He’s a plumber. He could be an incredibly shitty plumber who doesn’t know anything about pipes, but He’s a plumber.
In fact, let Me go back to the original article and restate its conclusion, because I think you may have been misled by My use of the term “god” to refer to the gods, as you seem to consider “god” a loaded term:
The gods are psychic parasites made out of thoughts who live in the collective consciousness of humanity and really are living beings, capable of taking action as psychic parasites who can affect people’s minds. This is not to say the myths are literally true, but rather to say that the myths are alive. That they feed upon worship and command legions of followers from their palaces within our imaginations.
At best it proves the concept of gods exists and I doubt anyone disagrees with that, you can’t really argue that a thought can’t exist. What it doesn’t prove is that God exists as some material or immaterial entity and that’s what atheists claim, that there is no existence of any entity that could be considered a god.
Why it doesn’t prove the existence of gods is simple. If the proof is that it exists because we thought it then dragons exist, faeries exist, even flat earth exists because there are people who think it exists. I don’t think I need to bring more examples to show how ridiculous the premise is. Just because we can think of a thing doesn’t mean that thing now exists.
Dragons certainly exist. They live in books and reproduce when someone reads a book about dragons and is inspired by it. Over time evolutionary pressures have caused the more successful of the younger dragons to become cuter and more friendly, and the most successful dragons even made the leap to film. That’s how Toothless from How To Train Your Dragon came to be. He is the result of a long process of evolution of dragons. You can trace his lineage from the Beowulf dragon, to Tolkein’s Smaug, through Eragon’s Saphira, to the Toothless of the HTTYD books, and finally to Dreamworks’ movie version. Each generation trying out new evolutionary adaptations that changed their fitness to survive and reproduce, and the niche they occupy within the ecosystem that is human thought. Toothless is the culmination of those thousands of years of evolution, purpose built to fill children’s heads up with wonderful dreams.
I don’t know if you have a wife but I’m now going to imagine you have a wife. You’re now married. Now I’m going to imagine having consensual sex with your new wife. Now I’m imagining you’re killing your wife because she cheated on you. I guess you’re a murderer now, it’s true because I thought of it. Actually I thought about a lot of way worse things about you but I’m not going to go into detail about all the vile shit you’ve done, I’ll just sum it up as you being the worst human being who has ever lived. Since that’s what I thought it must be true, right?
I would prefer if you didn’t use “god” as a proper noun. The practice was invented by monotheists and is usually used to exclude other gods. It’s very rude towards other gods like Loki, Kukulkan, and Myself. None of us go around pretending we’re the only god.
This idea comes from “sapiens a brief history of humankind”. It’s a play on semantics because domestication (domo=house) basically means put in house and the evolution of wheat to be more fit to human consumption in a way pushed us towards agriculture and houses.
As a German, well, I don’t understand enough about the US side of things to answer to this, but I do always get spooked when I see nations pulling shit like that.
So, national emergencies can do some of that, but this one has more to do with financing of programs, and the legal basis for financial sanctions relating to fighting terrorism. It also allows for more flexible hiring of military officers and for there to be more generals than usual.
The actual things being changed by the emergency declaration is listed in the order.
If you have cutting edge hardware, this might be an issue. But most people don’t and for them Mint will work just fine. If you want cutting edge, don’t use Mint. But that’s not their focus at all. Mint is for people who just want their computer to work with minimal hassle.
The thing is that Linux has gone mainstream, with young adults and teens trying it out for Gaming and Streaming. The target people has changed so recommending Mint is not suitable anymore.
I wouldn’t quite go so far as to say it’s gone “mainstream” since you still have to be moderately nerdy to know about it. I get your point though. This is one of the reasons I am so happy the Steam Deck exists. Before Valve released the Steam Deck nobody wanted to make games for Linux, so Valve said “fuck it, we’ll do it ourselves” and proved it was not only possible, but a better experience overall. While not all games work, having 78-80% of your game library work on Linux, with no Windows OS performance tax, is a great experience. Even with the Proton compatibility layer games generally run faster than on Windows.
this video from last month has 600k views. Ive seen several recent linux videos with 150k+ views. Brodie, Horn and the Linux Experience constantly pull 50k to 200K views on some of their videos.
I do want to add that new games can also require new packages, the way Alan Wake II did at launch. Even on Arch you had to compile the development version of Mesa for it to run.
If you want cutting edge, don’t use Mint. But that’s not their focus at all. Mint is for people who just want their computer to work with minimal hassle.
These don’t seem like competing needs. When I think “just work with minimal hassle”, I don’t think “I need to restrict myself to outdated hardware”.
I’m perfectly happy running old packages in general. I’m still on Plasma 5, and it works just as well as it did last year. But that’s a matter of features, not compatibility. Old is fine; broken is not.
I think Mint is mostly for the “I have a PC that’s a few years old and want something easy and reliable to replace Windows with” crowd. Because it works great for that. It’s the perfect beginner distro.
kbin.life
Top