Edit: responded to post instead of comment
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 761
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 761
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Taking someone else's yogurt out of the fridge and murder are both wrong, but I'm far more concerned about the addressing the latter than the former.
It doesn't say that it's right or okay, just silly to compare the two as if they're the same.
The local bars near me have that, and I can reach them from my house.
My playlists always begin and end with Photograph by Nickleback, and in between is... interesting. I like to ease in with a few weird-for-a-bar but not bad (My Heart Will Go On, some Babymetal, etc) and work my way toward the really weird (showtunes, especially from Avenue Q), ending with the bad (like the 30 minute Sufjan Stevens song). Then Nickleback again, and back to your country music.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
So this is one of those "even things that end up benefitting men is Feminism" things.
Men having no paternity leave, but women having it, might sound like it's better for women. But instead it just makes them more likely to leave the workforce when their maternity leave runs out. Giving men an equivalent (minus medical recovery) amount of leave to be used over the first year makes it so both parents can take turns, get the child to a reasonable point of being able to be put in childcare, and allows both to return to work (if desired). And studies have shown the vast, vast majority of the pay difference between men and women is due to separating from the workforce for years after pregnancy (and subsequent pregnancies).
Paternity Leave is part of Feminism.
Zeus: Wow. Just.... rude.
I mean, only the Predator movie makes sense as they just come here for hunting.
And nerf themselves to make it better sport. Like us hunting with a bow and arrows instead of a drone strike.
"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."
-Malcom Reynolds, CAPT.
So... look, I hate having to pick at something that I generally agree with, but it wasn't illegal for women to have bank accounts or credit cards or whatever prior to 1974. It just became illegal to discriminate against women for bank accounts as of the 1974 law.
I get that it's a subtle distinction, but the reason it is important is because there are those who would think that as long as the government isn't actively oppressing a group, then it's doing fine ("it was illegal for women to have bank accounts, now it's not. Job's done!"), as opposed to recognizing that it is people who oppress others and it is the government's job (like it was in 1974) to prevent it.
Banks (most, anyway) did not allow women to have bank accounts or lines of credit. And they'd do it again (or some other discriminatory bullshit) without government regulation.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
No, because she was gorgeous and wanted by a god. She was a priestess of Athena (who valued chastity), and was raped by Posiedon. So Athena made her hideous and made her gaze turn men to stone. Then Perseus found her and cut off her head to use as a weapon.
She was three times a victim of the gods, and any telling that has her as a monster or villain doesn't get it.
The difference is if you build public bathrooms, the pigeons won't use them. If humans are shitting outside to a degree it becomes a problem, the problem isn't the people doing the shitting.
Now, if we could get pigeons to use a bathroom, or even a shitting mat, that would be an achievement.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Lol, this was the one I immediately thought of. I was going to send it to me wife followed by "Magicians."
A significant concern 80k years ago (though with lack of communication, few would know that the disembodied hand represented), not even a consideration now. 1 person dies from The Hand in the world each day? More people die of aneurysms each day, I would imagine, and it's effectively the same thing.
Also, does it stop following a given person if they escape it by the end of the day? If you could hop in a car and just drive until the day is over to escape it, it would be more of a "hey, watch out for the hand" kind of thing. But it would be so rare I don't even think it would be on anybody's mind.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
congratulations you are in the top 0.1% of parents/dads
This right here is what this whole question is directed at.
No, doing the basics does not put them in the "top 0.1% of dads," like it's some sort of anomaly (they might be, but it's not because they changed diapers). Almost every dad I know is heavily involved in their kids lives, including when they are babies. I'm never the only dad at the park or the birthday party, and everything else. I have had many discussions with other guys about taking care of our babies, and it is very clear that it is a shared responsibility.
Do more men bail on their kids or dump responsibility on their spouse than women? Sure. Is that currently the common thing, or what 99.9% of men do? Absolutely not.
Stop perpetuating this stereotype, especially in a post about negative stereotypes.
I think that it is unfortunate that he got shanked, as he was convicted and appropriately sentenced for the murder he committed. That is as it should be.
Shank the ones that get away with it, not the ones in jail for it.
I didn't watch it specifically because of Leto. I was absolutely stoked each time I saw an ad for it (forgetting that Leto was in it) right up until his stupid face popped up in the trailer.
If they had somebody else, even a complete no-name actor, I would have watched it. It is impressive how effectively they pushed away their audience.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I have made the argument to the "think of the economy" Republicans I have known for years, and come at it from a relatively heartless angle:
With automation (and now AI), it takes less and less humans to do the work. Not everybody can "start their own business," obviously, and when self-driving vehicles that don't require a human driver become effective and accepted, about 70 million jobs will disappear in a blink. And those won't be shifted to another industry, because it doesn't take 70 million people to code and maintain self-driving vehicles. And that is just the people who drive for a living. So either a significant chunk of the population is unemployed and can't buy things or live anymore without significant help from the government anyway, or everybody works less hours (and still paid a living wage) to spread out the available work hours.
If there is a UBI that effectively covers shelter and food, then people would need to work less to pay for other necessities and what luxuries they can afford. If everybody gets it, it is completely fair.
And you do this by taxing the shit out any automation (enough that the business still gets a benefit, but so does the society they are taking jobs from), and taxing billionaires.
This isn't about taking care of the sick or poor, or providing handouts, it's about maintaining society with the rise of automation, and it not being possible without it.
Those I spoke to were remarkably receptive to that argument.
That's hilarious, I worked with the guy in the video who bro-ed out with a wrench in his pocket.