Omniscient is a bit of an exaggeration, I think, this is more about a belief in a philosophy, it’s about opinions. You can certainly have yours, no question, I would simply be wary and make sure the same standards of critical thinking are being applied to things we like and find agreeable as things we dislike and find disagreeable.
Strive, yes. But thinking you’ve already arrived at such perfection indicates a fundamental weakness in critical thinking.
Thinking you are always right is one of the surest signs you’ve fallen down a propaganda rabbithole.
This is such a tired old line based on the aircraft carrier rhetoric from the 60s, outdated since the Iraq wars and our own airbases going up all over the region.
Also the idea that Saudi Arabia trades in dollars because otherwise Israel would attack them fails to take into account that much of the rest of the world uses them too, since people like a stable currency that everyone else already likes.
You guys really need to update your rhetoric.
You’re probably right. Our system was not designed from the ground up to make sense though, instead its a pile of rules and customs that accumulated one by one over the past few centuries.
Our default position is always to allow something. We have to take action to make something illegal if we want to change from this default setting of “allow all” on everything. So, essentially, nobody has changed it yet.
Now, with people making money from it, there’s also going to be lobbyist money resisting any sort of change, combined with general political inertia where most people just don’t really think about it very much. Ultimately any politician that could change it is going to consider how it would impact their election chances, including things like public popularity and how it would impact doner money. Someone like AOC could take action if she felt it was important, she doesn’t need investor donations, since she funds mainly through crowd funding. A republican from middle America does need big doner money though, and would be reluctant to piss off investors and risk them supporting someone else.
So, basically we haven’t bothered to change it, and not many politicians have strong reasons to do so.
Pretty hard to boil legal, political and economic realities to a 5 year old level, but this is more an eli14 I suppose.
Another advantage of text, for me at least, is that I can read much faster than I can listen. This is why I prefer text articles to news videos, even though video can often offer extra visual information over what photographs can offer.
That said, I do somewhat agree with the article’s concern that live conversation is an independent skill and potentially has its own unique side-benefits that might be becoming rarer.
Yeah, there’s definitely a hassle vs reward calculus that quickly gets figured. Usually the hassle side of the equation is a little too high unless its something that can be quickly and easily fixed. Like if they forgot something it’s very easy to just go “oh, and can I please get …” which usually immediately reminds them and they go grab it.
Or if the food got royally fucked then engagement can become worth it, even over something harder to fix. Like, if my steak is well done and I ordered med rare, I kinda want either a new steak or a comped meal.
Yeah, it’s always surprised me a little bit just how strong they still are. While the often-online do tend to shy away from it, it’s actually still a preferred platform for the less-online, due to how easy it makes coordinating real life events. Also not the sort of segment that usually cares much about data privacy.
it’s all about that bun
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of culinary science…?
Everything else is just a really good sear and not overdoing the toppings too much. Don’t even need fancy beef, just 80/20 chuck can deliver top notch results.
I actually agree with most of that, but the couple I’m troubled by are rather important.
The main one being these slants and key details you say are omitted. Before I go into it, though, I assume you’re talking about the historical context of the conflict?
The majority of feedback offered was that it wasn’t pro-Palestinian enough.
Personally I usually interact with whichever one already has more engagement.
Yes, very normal. As you gain experience, you’ll get better at making an educated guess where a best initial grind setting for a new bean might be, off of things like source, density and oiliness. This will eventually cut down on waste, but takes practice to arrive at.
It’s pretty wishful thinking to think Proj 2025 and all the other MAGAs are going to fade away after the orange man is gone. Did you not see De Santis’ support before Trump entered the race?
Yep. And there’s plenty more MAGA assholes eager to take the reins after Trump is gone too. De Santis was just the first to try.
makes community about video game arguments.
then makes community about not arguing with me.
It certainly slows me down, maybe like 25-50%, somewhere around there. Not quite as bad as reading l33tsp34k, but still less than ideal.
I think the term ethnic cleansing is underused. It’s a strong term with a clear, unambiguous meaning that people can still stand against. It does not run afoul of the fact that when many people hear “genocide”, they don’t think of formal definitions, they think of WW2, trains and gas chambers, and attempts at thorough extermination at a large scale.
Ethnic cleansing, on the other hand, begs simple questions, like, what is the ethnicity being cleansed from? Simple answer: their land. How are they being cleansed? Killed, driven away or assimilated into another culture. What, exactly, is being cleansed? That group of distinct people right there, their name is whatever.
It’s clear, concise, and very hard to argue with from any sort of semantic position.
…egg salad?
For the record, the Constitution requires that each state decide how its electoral college votes will be distributed. The federal govt has no authority to intervene.
What dems in federal govt could potentially do is some campaign finance reform, to add some transparency to all the money that flows into PACs since the Citizen’s United ruling.