You know what, I’m here for it. Anytime I hear about the cicadas coming back it’s always over the top dread. People freak out, and there’s so much acting like seeing a cicada is going to grind life to a halt. Everyone seems to lean into the bit.
The fact that the growing answer to the cicadas this year is a wildly different “fuck it, we’ll eat them and then they can’t get us” could not be more beautiful to me.
I think it is definitely a weird “first world” thing. I’ve run into it a couple times on a personal level, and just about a week or so ago I got a “wait, you’re an android person??? Ugh” when trading numbers with someone for a work thing (as in this is the first time I was meeting this person, and the interaction was entirely “professional”). This is all separate from the friends I have that play it up as joke, since I’m one of the only people with an android in the group.
Idk what the kids are doing, but it’s absolutely a thing for some people in their twenty’s and beyond.
There’s gotta be some crazy scam that will work on me that I’ve never heard of. Every time a new one comes around its always something that throws a ton of red flags out the whole way. They have to be just catching people with particular blind spots
I used to think this way, until I tried writing more sci-fi and I kept running into weird moral quandaries trying to keep stuff realistic on a human level. I genuinely don’t think there will ever be a threat that could rally all of humanity at this point. Not only because I don’t believe aliens are a thing we’ll ever experience, but also because everything I’ve seen points to people being too chaotic. Even the perfect enemy (some bugs that just want to kill us all) would have humans helping them out, a contingent of people who think the whole thing is a deep fake, and a multitude of people preying on the flawed reality of those groups and others to horde whichever resource (money, food, manpower, etc.). That’s before you even get into the various well-intentioned factions that would form around a variety of “best” approaches to the issue.
I’m not even saying this in a doomer kind of way, I’m rather optimistic and believe we tend to stumble forward. I’m just saying the rally around the flag moment for humanity feels like a total fantasy.
The headline, which very likely isn’t even real, is also not inherently fascistic. If anything its more a statement on people being so stressed with life, that a fantastical idea of going off to live a sci-fi movie life is appealing.
You’re pulling the fascism from the movie, which is inherently satirical. It makes sense something like that, which was already popular, continues to be so when the satire has more real world connections. You’re on a platform with a ton of nerds, they’re gonna reference sci-fi classics. If anything I’d say that’s a healthy sign. Satire is arguably one of the strongest forces pushing back against fascism and the like on a cultural level.
The song is about two people trying to cheat on each other! Then, at the end, when they meet up and see it’s each other everything is suddenly fixed. It’s lunacy.
It annoying, but also leads to some wonderful moments. I was at small event event yesterday, when a weather alert started rolling out. I can only describe it as glorious sitting at the back listening to a sea of angry alarms, and watching people frantically try to silence their phones. Idk if that outweigh the alarm fatigue it gives people, but it was a fun moment for me.
Pretty sure I can still quote the Cloak from beginning to end if you catch me at the right time. I’m horrified by how old the video is now…
It’s the use of “rigged” that throws me. I agree money in politics is bad, and adds improper influence and incentive into the whole thing. That is not the same context that we have widely seen “rigged” used in the last 8 years. The term brings to mind GOP lies about election integrity, and bogus claims of fraud.
If this was just someone I was talking to I would brush the statement off as bad word choice, and move on if there was nothing else. With it being a statement after an election loss from someone with political experience I struggle to let it slide. Word choice and presenting ideas/policy is a major part of the job she is running for, and I think such poor word choice in a statement she had every opportunity to proofread and consider is worthy of some criticism. Doesn’t make her an election denier, or anything of the sort, but it does warrant a little slap on the wrist from the public.
Overall she’s right, but there were many better ways to say it.
This was the biggest adjustment for me with my last program. I was one of those annoying people that tested super quickly, and I developed some bad habits such as picking out the key parts of the question and immediately moving on as soon as I hit an answer that checked the right boxes. When I came up against “they’re all technically correct, but you need to choose the MOST correct answer” it was a goddamn brick wall. I adjusted and grew because of it, but holy shit do I have a new button to push when it comes to multiple choice (and trick questions, but that’s a whole soapbox).
It’s really about the lack of context. Its fine if the focus was on a minority of idiots, but you should also be reporting how insignificant the support is in general and an objective look at why they’re there. I don’t have faith in most 24/7 media to do that.
You’re gonna get a lot of different answers. The primary issue we’re facing with the border right now is not so much an unprecedented wave as much as it is an overloaded asylum system. Due to how we handle claims and the lack of manpower, individuals who may eventually be denied asylum are living in the US (still unable to legally work, I believe. Someone might check me on that) for years awaiting a trial date. Republicans are tackling this issue by focusing on solutions to non-existent problems, or are tossing the issue out when it seems the outcome might benefit democrats (i.e. no border bill, because then Dems can rightfully run on progress with the border issue). Dems have kicked this particular can down the road for a bit, and recently made a good faith effort in the Senate to construct a bill that would have addressed the actual pressing issue (the degree it would help is debatable, but it was objectively progress). That bill was killed by republicans for the aforementioned political reasons.
Not a landlord, but I had a similar excuse thrown at me by a dealership. Towed my car an hour for a recall to a college town because everywhere else was booked for a while. They did close to $1000 of unauthorized work and then threw a fit when I told them I would not be paying for it unless they could show me a signed document where I agreed. When they realized I wasn’t a broke college kid after I threatened legal action and to report my car stolen if they were not willing to give it back, I got the “this was a misunderstanding, it never should have went this far” from the owner who had just called me a liar 10minutes prior. Such obvious BS
You know, from the eggshell fragments.
How much force are you people using to crack an egg?
Interestingly enough, 2/3 of those are subs I dropped within the last year or so based on a lack of quality/content for what they cost (never bothered with ESPN, NHL games are easy to find). Seems like streaming is starting to collapse a lot quicker than TV did.
So now we’re saying she actually did have both signficant political and legislative experience, but won because of a penchant for fundraising. Which is something you see as soliciting bribes. That’s a fair interpretation.
From your original comment:
That’s how Pelosi became Speaker in the first place in spite of having no legislative accomplishments to speak of nor seniority: she was simply the best at collecting fat checks from rich people and their corporations.
My gripe is why invent this idea that her taking a bunch of bribes and being good at soliciting more is the sole reason they made her speaker, with no other qualifications? She had held prominent positions within the party for a while (decades), and was minority whip (second in command essentially) for some time prior to becoming Leader/Speaker. She was minority leader when Dems took the house, which automatically makes her a major contender for the position and she was comparable to her opponents on the whole. A cursory search of her career casts a ton of doubt on your claims, and they’re obviously flawed to someone who lived through that time.
Getting caught up in bashing Pelosi waters down the legit criticism you have, and makes your viewpoint seem biased. We should be upset that her penchant for fundraising is such an asset, not that she was good at it in the first place.
Pelosi had literal decades of political experience, and was co-authoring legislation in the late 80s concerning the AIDs crisis. She became Speaker after Democrats won control of the house with her as minority leader – a position she won in 2002/2003 after being directly under it for a couple years.
I get not liking Pelosi, or fundraising I guess, but it’s bizarre when criticisms are spun seemingly whole cloth.
Come on, man, it’s “water under the bridge”. I want to contribute but it felt like we were drifting into malaphors there for a second, so I’m gonna play it by year and just see what comes next.
What is it? It feels so familiar but I can’t place it.
I mean, in context that verse is about being aware one’s belief in Jesus may cause strife with their family/community, and how Christians are meant to endure this strife without denying their faith. The choice of wording makes sense in the context of the time it was written, when affirming Christ is God would have absolutely caused some major animosity with those who don’t believe. It’s assuring the reader that the division and pain that will come from those disagreements is not lost on God, and also not something we can turn away from and ignore.
The Christians that everyone is up in arms about all the time are close to the worst representation of the faith as possible, and you can easily point out their lazy interpretations as well as scripture that, more often than not, outright rejects their twisting of the faith. Modern day Pharisees all the way. Unfortunately the church on a national level is inundated with them, and has done a poor job of separating from them.