For real. I’m at the point where I’ve lost my tolerance for this whole situation. If we can’t collectively decide that this is a fucking ridiculous place to be as a country and make the only choice that has even a chance of getting us out of this mess then we need to hurry up and get the collapse over with. It’s utterly asinine that we are even having this conversation.
You laugh, but we’re getting closer and closer to this every day
Fair enough. I’m glad that people have different perspectives than me so I enjoy hearing about them. It is certainly a unique vehicle and there is something slightly charming about being bold in your design choices.
You genuinely like the way they look? I’m not trying to poke fun here I am legitimately curious, what is it you like about the aesthetics? I don’t see the appeal.
There’s plenty of good men out there. Society as a whole just seems largely uninterested in men’s problems. They’re expected to always have their shit together in a world designed to make that as difficult as possible to achieve.
I’m sure some people reading that will have strong reactions to the sentiment but it shouldn’t be controversial to say that everybody has problems. If we don’t listen to them then the Andrew Tate’s of the world will step in and make them feel heard. That’s just how people work.
No one is having a comprehensive theological discussion with you jackass. We were talking about a very specific thing. Stop being obnoxious.
I know it’s tough to pay attention for four whole sentences but if you read them again slowly I think you’ll see that I did not use the words Jesus, sin, or metaphor in any form which should make it pretty clear that, no, I’m not saying that at all.
The Bible is a couple thousand chapters long. The creation story is the first two chapters. It’s pretty obviously only attempting to establish that God created the universe in some ambiguous way and move on with the story. That doesn’t stop people from inferring all sorts of things from what is essentially a poem.
Sure it is. If you want people to trust you then be trustworthy. Attempting to reclaim funds handed out during a disaster that were ridiculously difficult to obtain in the first place is not what I would call worthy of trust. If my experience with FEMA had been a positive one I’d be here saying good things about them but I’m not and that is entirely their fault, not Russia’s.
Thanks, I hope it goes better for most people. For what it’s worth the FEMA employees we talked to in person seemed to be genuinely interested in helping but that’s a big part of why it was so frustrating; the people on the ground were saying very different things than the people sending emails and approving funding.
I’m normally a big advocate of government programs but FEMA does kind of suck. My family lost a house in a natural disaster in the recent past and they were a nightmare to work with. They refused to offer any assistance without a significant amount of paperwork, they were constantly badgering us with seemingly unrelated questions, waited 6 months to pay out less than 5% of what the property was worth, and eventually decided we shouldn’t have gotten that and are still trying to get it back. On top of all that the IRS is auditing my family primarily due to this whole situation. My family is in a good enough financial position that we didn’t have to rely solely on their aid but if we did we would have been fucked for 6 months at least. The family member dealing with them still says he wishes he had turned them away and received no assistance at all.
All that to say, there’s legitimate reasons that people don’t like FEMA unrelated to Russian influence. My personal experience with them has been overwhelmingly negative to the point that I would not be happy to see them under any circumstances. I wouldn’t be out hunting them like some weirdo but that doesn’t mean I have a positive opinion of what they do.
I responded to another comment along the same lines here if you would like to see it. I would be happy to continue a civil discussion with you if you have more to add.
I see what you’re saying but I don’t think it truly works that way in practice. As an example, what do we call the fact that women can wear lightweight and breathable clothing (dresses / skirts / spaghetti straps) to work when it’s hot while men have to wear pants and long sleeves? Based on your description it seems like that would be called female privilege but I don’t think I’ve ever heard that phrase used in a genuine fashion before.
That, I think, is why the inference is drawn that men are being blamed for creating the situation when the word male privilege is used. It may theoretically refer to a concept that applies to both men and women but in practice you only ever hear about the situations in which men are seen to benefit. If we don’t have the other side of the conversation then it feels like that other side doesn’t exist even if it is intended to.
I agree with most of what you said. However, this poster seems to be framing this particular issue as an example of men enforcing a double standard on women. If that’s not what they intended to convey then they should choose a different way to express their idea that better communicates the intended message.
That question summarizes most of the problems in the US pretty damn well.
Like so many world issues, without a meaningful enforcement mechanism this is a pointless question to ask. Not to mention the added layer of irony in threatening to take military action to force a lower level of military activity.
That’s pretty clearly just a disclaimer meant to shield them from legal repercussions. They know people aren’t going to do that.
Why do you people insist on making this insane point every time? We’re talking about the unnecessary death of everything you’ve ever seen. Stop trying to lighten the mood you absolute twat.
Christian tradition, sure, but the Bible doesn’t have much to say about nipples so any specific rule regarding them seems to be more of an inference than a command.