Because that might require honest, open communication. And result in more satisfying relationships, wherein the parties to the relationships can actually get what they desire. Who wants that? /s. Hmm, is there a polyamory magazine on the Fediverse? I hadn’t looked… dang, I searched, yielded nada. Am I obligated to make one, now? We’re building a whole new social media. Each contributing as they will.
While it’s not my bag I very much believe people should love the way that makes them and all fully consenting members happy, but there’s not a lot of people that want to be part of something like that tbh. The polyamory itself I mean, not the sub. You should totally make a sub if there isn’t one
Because that might require huge, boatloads of cash. And result in more satisfying prostitutes, wherein the parties to the relationships can actually get paid.
Well yeah. That’s a lot more fun then a conversation. And if you don’t care about your relationship anyways, why does it matter how you end it really? Might as well cheat
Edit: okay I’m being downvoted so I should mention that I know this “breakup strategy” isn’t for everyone but if you don’t mind permenantly burning a bridge, to me there is no harm in it. As long as the person you are cheating on them with knows what you are doing and is okay with it
If you don’t care about a relationship, the other person still might, and them being hurt should matter to you.
End the relationship since you don’t care about it anyways, to let the other person move on with the least lies and sense of betrayal, and then fuck everyone you wish.
Cheating isn’t a way to end a relationship, cheating is lying in order to keep it longer.
Well yeah, but you could say the same about hitting a pedestrian with your car. To you, there’s no harm. But the person you’re cheating on, the person who’s trust you’ve violated, who’s time you’ve wasted, who feels stupid and used and humiliated after the relationship is over, there’s a lot of harm for them.
That’s rather selfish. There is harm, but not to you. You’re okay with hurting other people for your own gain to avoid having one difficult conversation. I can only assume that you wouldn’t feel good if a partner treated you like that, so why do so to them? Either you have a general lack of empathy, lack introspective ability, or are just perfectly okay with the idea of being cheated on, and also the idea of someone else hurting because of your own actions. I’m fascinated, and also recommend you try consensual polyamory next time instead.
Because they’re too selfish and gutless to end the relationship. Slme people need monogamy and some need multiple partners, they should be honest aboit that and avoid having relationships with those who aren’t compatible.
Not from the US and I don’t understand why one would support a candidate just because he survived an assassination attempt. Can somebody explain the logic behind this?
I guess it made him look stronger or cooler or something. He’ll probably also use this to say that Democrats are trying to kill him, insinuating that they don’t mind killing people to achieve their goals.
So I guess past experience, basically? We’ll see. Political violence is not justifiable but no one really likes that orange prick except his little goon army so we’ll see how long the sympathy lasts.
American here, I haven’t heard one peep about Trump getting more support because of this outside of Lemmy.
Whether or not the Trump campaign can spin this in their favor depends entirely on the motive of the assassin. If they were just some nutjob, there really isn’t much they can do.
If, on the other hand, the assassination attempt was politically motivated, there are two ways I can see this whole thing being spun:
“The other side knows I’ll win and the only way to stop me is to kill me. If you don’t like them, vote for me because I scare them and they hate me.”
“The other side is so evil and vile they would stoop to try to kill me rather than have a fair election”.
In the event that the assassin wasn’t some flavor of crazy, spin number one is more likely than spin number two, but they’re hardly mutually exclusive.
Not to the “base” of either of the major parties, no. Those voters are already committed to their candidates.
This election is likely to come down to independents and undecided voters. Where that messaging could matter is with people who are unsatisfied with the Democratic party AND dislike Trump.
The idea that “they hate me enough to kill me” might be compelling to someone with a strong dislike of the Democratic party, perhaps enough to get them to hold their nose and vote for Trump. That being said, I wouldn’t even venture a guess at how many people that would be.
It’s not a purely American phenomena. It paints a candidate in a human light, as they “survived” a very public “tragedy”, yet are still strongly pursuing what they think is right.
It’s a humanizing event.
This is not a pro trump comment.
Edit but this is certainly not a pro violence comment either
Depending on how the event is spun (story-wise), an attempt like this could make the other candidate’s party seem unhinged enough that one of their members would do (and apparently fail badly at) this. This, making the target, and their party by association, seem more noble than thay may be.
To a lot of people, whether the shooting is or isn’t affiliated doesn’t really get questioned no matter what they hear, as what party would hurt itself? They’ll immediately think there is some conspiracy (the human psychology loves these rabbit holes) to make it seem like any favoring affiliation to the target’s political side is staged by the other.
The states are wrong. That’s a sausage roll, and it’s been a sausage roll for decades. The whole “pig in a blanket” thing is a new thing from people that basically reinvented the sausage roll and didn’t have the sense to check if it already existed.
I’m not exaggerating when I say that wars were started over less, and Australia and the UK would probably happily have their finger on the nuclear button if America doesn’t come to its senses and just embrace the correct food names…
Anger aside, I’m absolutely shocked that Greggs hasn’t tried to make its way stateside. Extremely cheap, fast food that’s greasy as fuck, has barely any nutritional value, and so convenient that you can just eat it out of the bag - sounds like an American dream.
Extremely cheap, fast food that’s greasy as fuck, has barely any nutritional value, and so convenient that you can just eat it out of the bag - sounds like an American dream.
I’ve found American food is generally less liquidy grease than british food. Americans don’t want fried chicken dripping in grease, they want it dried then covered in various sauces. Also places like golden corral and cracker barrel already exist and are kinda dying
No idea why this is downvoted, America does love a condiment. Thankfully, sausage rolls are extremely dippable, and some people do decide to dunk them in all sorts. It’s not something I’d do, but I’d tolerate it.
I’m not exaggerating when I say that wars were started over less, and Australia and the UK would probably happily have their finger on the nuclear button if America doesn’t come to its senses and just embrace the correct food names…
I’m all for American versions of things, but please get these staples of British cuisine right.
Kind of ironic this is where you’re making a stand.
The first known use of the recipe for pig in a blanket, the American cuisine, was in 1940 by the US military.
The first known use of the recipe for pigs in blankets, the British cuisine, was in 1957 and was inspired by British soldiers who tried the American version during WWII.
But the American monstrosity is a rip-off of sausage rolls, which originated centuries ago. They gave a name to something that they should have known to already exist. Frankly, I’m all for revoking America’s independence and returning them to secondary colony status over this…
I live alone and have a bad habit of verbalizing my thoughts; my worst nightmare is accidentally forgetting to mute myself while saying some inane shit into the call
I used to do this constantly but I had to break myself out of the habit. On long drives, I’d forget I would have passengers and blurt out half a sentence before realizing.
It also led my step mother to try and convince my dad I was schizophrenic at the time since I would do it in the house as well when I thought no one was around.
Mildly annoying since it was just an easy way to think things through, I never saw it as a bad habit.
I agree that I think it is fine to speak one’s thoughts aloud, but since most(?) people have negative reactions to it I do consider it a bad habit. Fortunately no one has reacted to me doing it as strongly as your step mom to you! Sorry you had to go through that.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.