Under the new guidelines, anyone who has recently had sex with a new partner or multiple people and has also had anal sex would have to wait three months to donate
Those taking oral medication to prevent HIV infection, called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, still have to wait three months from their last dose to donate blood. People taking long-acting PrEP injections have to wait two years before donating.
Separation of church and state was created to protect both the state AND the church. Churches are not supposed to be political organizations for their own good. Dividing into camps along political lines and shouting at each other is what happens out in the world. It’s not supposed to happen at church.
Dividing into camps along political lines and shouting at each other is what happens out in the world. It’s not supposed to happen at church.
Wait, I thought this was their main feature…
The comedian Emo Philips has a well-known joke about religion that may explain some of the decline in membership… “Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over."
There’s nothing special about churches. The ACLU has the same tax breaks and associated restrictions.
It’s why the ACLU is actually 2 different organizations. There’s the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation. ACLU is a political lobbying group that is directly involved in political activities and therefore has to pay taxes and donations to it are not tax-deductible. The ACLU Foundation other is a legal services charity that is tax-exempt and donations to it are tax deductible.
Churches simply don’t have the direct political arm. If they do, then they should be taxed. I once saw a church lose it’s tax exemption when the pastor told the congregation they should vote for Obama.
If churches should be taxed then all non-profit organizations should, and you therefore shouldn’t be able to make any kind of tax-deductible donations.
If churches should be taxed then all non-profit organizations should, and you therefore shouldn’t be able to make any kind of tax-deductible donations.
Churches literally don’t have profits. There are no shareholders or anything. There are employees, but pretty much all non-profits have staff, and paying staff (who still have to pay income tax) isn’t “profit.”
The only issue I have with auditing them is that the vast majority of small churches that are struggling to keep the doors open literally can’t afford an audit, and the big, corrupt churches enriching corrupt assholes are still technically non-profit and won’t be hurt.
Why is Softbank involved in so many business investments that go sour? I’ve lost track of the number of articles I’ve read that go something like, “Softbank invests in X. X’s value is tumbling.”
I think a lot of the issue is that softbank had the idea of if they can invest a bit and get a good amount of growth, how about they invest a ton more from the outset and "guarentee" insane growth. They did that with a few startups and it worked, then they did it with WeWork and it spectacularly backfired. The basic premise of WeWork was pretty sound until the real estate market started going up in price, which kind of blew up the margins that WeWork lived in. That and a frankly financially crazy CEO kind of ruined it.
I think the special part was having smaller rental spaces and that feeling of having coworkers in an office that weren’t actually your coworkers. I used to deliver to a lot of we work and we work type places and I sort of got the appeal for startups. Some definitely didn’t have privacy like another commenter mentioned.
In the beginning, WeWork definitely was about renting to smaller companies (or individuals) at reasonable prices, providing decent (if not upscale) accomodations. That’s probably a decent little business.
But their CEO had (or at least, promoted) delusions about WeWork providing a fundamentally different experience. Some of those delusions were IIRC software projects he claimed would allow renters to automate and improve their network and electricity use. He sold this bullshit on talk shows, and gave this as a reason that WeWork wasn’t just another renter of office space. In reality, they didn’t have the expertise to do anything like he claimed, and it all came to nought.
Maybe if he hadn’t been spending money like a fleet of drunken sailors, much of it on himself or vanity projects, they might’ve not cratered as badly, or at least as quickly.
And that’s a perfectly reasonable business, but nothing revolutionary.
If their business would have been co-working franchises, in the sense that you can have an office everywhere and with some set standards, it could even have been a good business. But it’s low-margin, nothing like Google or Facebook.
Maybe I’m desensitized, but I honestly don’t remember any gay moments in this movie. There are obviously plenty of guys wearing really “flamboyant” outfits, but it was contrasted with their toxic masculinity (i.e. behavior mostly associated with the types of people who actually tend to be homophobic), which is what made it so goddamn funny.
And I also have no idea what they’re talking about with promoting body transformation. Unless you know going in that the one actress is trans, you might not even guess she is. The main joke that even references genitalia is making fun of the fact that the Barbie and Ken dolls have nothing there…
And all this is beside the point anyway. Modern societies shouldn’t be catering to the precious feefees of religious/conservative snowflakes. They can just choose not to see this movie instead of ruining it for everyone.
I think the argument is that allowing women agency and asking men to define themselves through something other than their relationship with women is gay. So basically, violating patriarchy is gay.
I saw it in the trailer too but just in case, upcoming spoiler: maybe the whole beaching each other off scene? I can’t think of any others besides that, which if it is the one, then that’s kind of funny in a ridiculous way.
Good point, but I feel like they could probably just translate that scene without having the innuendo (like the direct translation for “beach off” probably doesn’t sound anything like the translation of “beat off”, so it would become more of a whimsical non sequitur directly translated).
I think there’s a fair amount in this movie that doesn’t really translate well outside American/Western culture anyway. For me, that scene was funny because it’s repeating a pun that points to the Ken characters’ innocence when in the real world, they’d be mocked mercilessly by some people. And it forces the audience to think about their own reactions when insecure straight men sometimes follow sentences like that jokingly with, “no homo,” to point out that, despite unintentionally saying something that sounded kind of gay, they are not in fact gay. At any rate, I don’t see this scene as an endorsement of homosexuality, but rather a commentary on society’s fixation on hypermasculine language.
Yeah, that’s what I was wondering - didn’t they just do this? I cancelled my renewal when they raised it the first time and it doesn’t close out until November. It was $80 a year when I first signed up - it’s now more than double that!
For me, the content is not very compelling / worth $168 a year. Especially when it’s evident that they’re focusing more on cinema releases now than streaming shows. No love lost here.
These companies are still in the mode where they’re pushing out mediocre content and trying to make their money back on nostalgia and merchandising and “background-content”. They’re in competition with each other to get - and maintain - as much /consumer/ attention as possible. I don’t want to speak for everyone else but I think, as /audiences/, we just really want compelling stories that are well written and well acted. As consumers, we should all open our eyes a bit to what we’re actually paying for and stop blinding re-subbing to stuff that’s not really worth it.
You’re a dumpster fire right now, Hollywood. Get your shit together.
I’m guessing that it’s due to general flamboyance? Ken saying he’s going to “beach off” the other Ken and wearing pink may have triggered their 4th grade cooties sensor.
Yeah honestly as a gay woman myself I thought there wasn’t enough LGBT representation. Apparently there are two barbies who kiss on a couch at one point but it was so quick I didn’t see it, my friend had to tell me about it. There really wasn’t a lot of any sort of sexuality in the movie. Which makes sense, they don’t have genitalia.
People don’t get that freedom from religion means that me, as an atheist, am protected from forced participation in your religious activities. That you are not allowed to use the government to compel or punish me for not participating, but that you can still participate in your religious activities.
Anyone downvoting that concept in disagreement is saying that they want to force their neighbors to be under the rule of religion.
Freedom from religion does not mean that you don’t get to practice. It’s that you don’t get to force me to live under religious rules.
I am saying we should force people not to believe in magic skymen. I am saying that we should not allow the practice of religious activity. Such activity is harmful and has no place in our world. It’s hate speech and should be stopped.
I’m not sure you’ll have too many people on that side. For one it’s definitely not hate speech, especially if you consider other religions. Someone meditating practicing some random eastern religion/spirituaity isn’t hurting anyone and isn’t trying to convert people. They aren’t spewing any form of hatred. I’m behind putting pressure on hate speech for sure, but to say all religious activity is hateful isn’t really accurate.
People should have the personal freedom to practice their religion in “private,” but as the saying goes “the freedom to swing your fist around ends at my face.” (Something like that lol) so once your religion demands that I change and compels you to force me, that’s when the religion is dangerous and should be stopped.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.