I had been planning on deleting my… I think 15 year old account? that I haven’t touched since baconreader stopped working but hadn’t pulled the trigger yet because I put so much work into those years of posts. But, you make a good point. I may need it for a thing someday.
#2. 100%
Tired or not, you’re absolutely right.
Yeah, me too. I just started on that med, and I found that I have to schedule my meals with reminders and then force myself to eat some of them, or I will go the entire day not remembering/wanting to eat.
My understanding is that when they bite you, they also inject a bit of anticoagulant to prevent clotting as they suck blood out. The foreign material creates an allergic reaction that itches.
I don’t think there would be much of an evolutionary advantage to irritating your victim until they start a pesticidal war against you and your kind.
And in my hair, promptly ripping a chunk of it out of my ponytail.
You’re right; I don’t have to be offended or take it personally. As such, I am neither offended, nor am I taking any of the comments in this thread personally. This is mostly because I’m addressing the issue at hand, not the person involved, so there is nothing to be offended by or about.
My point is that, you’re attacking the person, not their ideas. I get that it’s irritating to have someone question or throw a wrench into a post that was just supposed to be a good-old offensive time. Like I said, I’m no Musk lover, and I enjoy hating on him too - above bar or otherwise. But, OP brings up a good point by saying we should focus on the issues at hand as opposed to attacking what the person looks like. Also, since this is a public thread on Lemmy, if a person is willing to comment, it is obviously assumed that said comment then becomes the business of everyone on Lemmy (and, quite honestly, the entirety of the internet). Otherwise, why post at all? Is discourse not the point of this entire platform?
I don’t think OP is a “fuck head” simply because they want to draw attention to the actual issues instead of being focused on circle-jerking about peoples’ unspecified hate for Musk. I don’t think they are offended by the post, just that we should be a bit better about the focus of our discontent. I get where you’re coming from though, it’s a shitpost community, and circle-jerk hate is very satisfying. As said, I, personally, do enjoy it, but I’m not the greatest human being, and I sometimes like to give in to that less reasonable part of myself. If that’s the kind of thing that you want to post about, that’s fine. Do it! Just don’t be surprised when other people call you out on your logical fallacy. Otherwise, if you think there is no fallacy at play, then you may not actually have any counter-arguments to the ideas and claims that Musk makes, and that is where OP’s concern lies.
You seem like an intelligent person, so I doubt your only reasons for disliking Musk are simply corporeal. I think you should continue to have fun with shitposts like this while OP should continue to draw attention to the fact that, while this feels good, it’s not the actual issue that we’re dealing with, nor does it provide a solution.
I think it’s more about the ad hominem attack. I don’t love Elon Musk by any stretch of the imagination, but I don’t like him because of his ideas, beliefs, and the impact he’s having on my country. It has little to do with how he looks or the shape of his body. It’s his ideas and their implementation that people disagree with in actuality.
Attacking how he looks is just a lazy way of attacking someone without putting in the effort to refute the beliefs and ideas he has. Sensitivity isn’t what is bothering OP. It’s that we’re missing the point by focusing on blind dislike instead of attacking the reasons that generated the dislike.
Americans tend to misunderstand what our version of “free speech” actually means and how it came to be part of our Bill of Rights. People see it as an excuse or opportunity to say whatever they want, but it was created specifically because people in Europe were often imprisoned for speaking out against a king. So it really only applies to the government. You can’t be imprisoned for speaking out against the government unless you are actively threatening imminent harm against specific government officials or spaces. People forget that there are real-world implications to their speech from groups that are not connected to the government. That said, I do see the erosion and dilution of these rights happening through the control of government enterprises and corporate decision-making.
I would also like to believe that unrestricted free speech is great no matter where or how it occurs and no matter who it is directed at. But, as you’ve said, and as I’ve experienced in my lifetime, completely unregulated speech often ends in a lot of undeserved hate toward “unwanted” groups with a lack of thoughtful discussion. I’m still not sure if this is because some groups end up being “louder” in terms of their reach, whether it’s through censorship, popularity, or monetary worth, or if people actually agree at the core of their selves. Either way, hate is a form of control. How dare you be different than the rest of the accepted group?
Truly free speech can only work in a place where the populace is fully educated to the best of their ability and are knowledgable enough to be able to appreciate the struggles of people who come from different circumstances. This is along with the understanding of objective research and its importance. So, I struggle with the concept also. I’m big on the idea that no one should be restricted from access to knowledge and learning, so it’s difficult to simultaneously agree with a lack of acceptance for full expression of the truth as you see it.
Fully free speech can only occur successfully in a place where everyone has equivalent access to opportunities for growth, education, and financial success. In an educated society, free speech should not need indoctrination, control, lies, or exploitation of any group to have an effective discourse. But, I doubt personal self-interest would allow the rise of ideals like this to occur in actuality. There’s always someone who is constantly looking out for what they can gain, control, and manipulate in order to amass as much power as possible. Power is a heady drug, and some people are more susceptible to its charms than others.
So I, too, am on the fence about this issue. I don’t know that we will ever be able to come to a consensus on how to manage it since it is incredibly difficult to weed out the self-interested players. Our solutions thus far have been too simplistic for such a nuanced issue. Atrocities or no atrocities, American concepts of free speech are based in situational history, and due to the understandable skepticism of the colonials, it is metaphorically written in stone in our country. As such, it is both amazing for giving us the ability to condemn and chastise governmental decisions and changes directly and without fear, but it is also terrible because it allows people to use this loophole to exploit their fellow man (i.e. creating said atrocities for money and hiding it under the guise of freedom). Unless the speech meets a very strict and difficult-to-reach specificity or you have little to no money, you basically can get away with whatever.
Society is often caught up in the whirlwind of others’ opinions, and those opinions come from a place with an obvious connection to personal self-interest, so I agree that it should not be the determining factor in this discussion. Inherently, society is going to pick whatever benefits are presented to them directly in the short term, especially if everyone involved is on board. What is good for all doesn’t matter at that point. I appreciate that some still believe in our concept of free speech, but in reality, we’re not reaching the goal that others may think we are. We continue to have the same struggles as we slog through figuring out what free speech truly means in practice.
Please don’t give too much credit to our concept of free speech. Is a beautiful idea that covers up exactly what you forecasted: we are headed down the very road we feared. Hopefully, our constitution can withstand the onslaught, but I don’t have a lot of hope left anymore in our ability to do what’s best for ourselves nationally, locally, or personally. I hope that someday we reach the ideal, but as you said, I’m not sure if it’ll ever be settled.
I think it looks legit. I’ve had several different cheeses that look like this, especially aged ones. Usually, I don’t buy that big of a chunk of the wheel, but it looks right to me.
I’m sure you’re aware, but some people seem confused, so I’m going to post a link here to the poem that is being referenced above.
As a woman who can’t pee while standing, or at least in a way that prevents pee from getting everywhere, I very much appreciate my winter, indoor plumbing for the everyman and all the people who make it happen. And when it’s the holidays, and I’m drinking, I appreciate it even more. Cold outhouse seats suuuuuuck.
Cheers to remembering how much worse it could be and how the little things we take for granted do matter.
Absolutely; I agree. I appreciate your thoughtful response. There are always going to be selfish people and users in every gender, and they do give the whole group a bad rap. I’m never going to say that all women are above the description the poster I replied to gave. And, like you said, we can call these specific people out while still uplifting others who don’t engage in such behavior.
The poster that I was replying to seemed like they had been burned by a person like that, and while I understand that it must be awful to experience being with someone who uses you only for what you can provide and that it can easily make you jaded, this particular post comes off like they have extended that bitterness to the entirety of women, whether or not those women have chosen (or seek) a partner with wealth. It’s frustrating to watch so many great women be reduced to greedy users, and I don’t want to allow the continuation of someone spouting blanket assumptions toward my gender without addressing it. That’s how I ended up with a multi-paragraph response to a simple statement.
But I absolutely agree with your assessment and really appreciate the thought and effort you put into it. It’s incredibly refreshing to be able to have an actual discussion about a topic.
Okay, I’ll bite. The reason women end up choosing to be with a man of means, and I am in no way saying that all or even most women want this, is because we often don’t/didn’t have the opportunity to gain those means ourselves which thereby impacted our ability to survive and control our own lives. This is due to the oppression of the very men that you think we seek. Over the course of thousands of years, men cultivated a world where they steadily sought, gained, and ever increasingly obtained as much power as possible. In order to gain more power for yourself or your group, you have to take away power from someone else.
One of the people or groups whose power was regularly stolen is women. I’m sure this was a slow transition over a long period of time, but it ended with a world where women were rarely allowed to gain the skills or implement what skills they had in order to earn money. If you don’t have the ability to earn money yourself, you are forced to be reliant on someone else who is allowed to earn money. My point being, if you want enough money for you and your children to survive, you basically had to marry as rich as you possibly could.
Enter the modern women’s rights movement. This is where financial freedom became incredibly important to women. We collectively realized that we, much like any other human beings in existence ever, wanted to be able to have some control of our lives, our families, and our fates. This is why we entered the workforce in droves. Women who were suffering under the control of men who beat them and their children, potentially raped them, or demeaned them regularly with the full acceptance and support of society, wanted a way out. The available options were pretty bleak, so we worked in solidarity to find another way to survive with both our physical safety and dignity intact. Now, as an obligatory caveat, not every man was/is oppressive to women. But, since men as a whole created these arbitrary restrictions on women’s lives, they are the ones who have to suffer the aftermath of this system of control that was developed, especially since they are the ones who continue to experience advantages and benefits because of those exact lingering effects.
Most women would prefer to be able to support themselves and their family while having their partner contribute equally, either through earning money or doing an equivalent share of the household/family tasks. But, since something that becomes systemic is difficult to remove, we are still trying to shake the ramifications of this exertion of control. I assure you, most women would rather have less money and more autonomy when given the option.
This brings me to the point you’re trying to make. If the “primary motivator” of a woman is to choose a man who can provide adequately for her offspring, it is only because of the lingering effects of historical oppression that men created in order to exert control over women. It’s very frustrating to be in a world that constantly tells you that you should be pursuing a partner with money so you can have a stable future, but then simultaneously reprimands you for actually making that choice. Just as it’s difficult, but required, to acquiesce to the control of the man who holds your money.
I don’t think it should be presented as though this woman is shallow or terrible for making such a choice. Who wouldn’t choose a life of stability over one of chaos or continual financial stress? I know many men who would make the same choice if offered it. Like you said, I’m sure he was doing a good job of providing for their family financially, but let’s not be too reductive about her choice to have him as a partner. You say it in such a way that you are not only chastising her for her choice of husbands but are chastising all women for prioritizing their and their children’s survival and safety. That is something that comes across as offensive to the entirety of my gender because it implies that we shouldn’t consider ourselves of value or of having worth.
You may be right that this woman chose the CEO of UHC as her husband because of his wealth and ability to support their children and family lifestyle. Most likely, she knew what her husband actually did for a living and it’s effect on the lives of others and chose to ignore or not look into the deaths, horrors, and financial destruction that were created by the company her husband controlled.
But, one way or another, let’s not reduce the struggle that women go through at the hands of historical, and often modern, men to blanketly imply that we are all naturally money hungry and that we are obviously all using men for our own gain. I’m going to go ahead and assume that women, including myself, disagree with such an unfair assumption.
Yeah, I live near a state park named “Bong.” To be fair, it was named after a person. There is also a Wang Town in Minnesota.
I’ve never seen a truer post.
What are bakery gloves? I’ve never heard of that before, and Google was not helpful.
I know that you likely meant “sweety” at the end there, but I really, really enjoyed that it said “sweaty” instead. It just tickled me in the best way.