It’s part of a shifting norm and shifting norms are always controversial. Especially norms that involve opening up bodily autonomy, dignity, or respect to previously excluded groups.

Even though we generalize that we’re attracted to categories like men and women I think most people are only attracted to a handful of singular people rather than a whole gender (or a more muscled or less muscled subset of one).

Yeah and also your comment might be illegal in the US soon

Boys becoming Men, Men becoming Bears

This is not a right wing resource, but if you’re interested in learning about the arguments and historical evolution of ideas that underpin economic liberalism/neoliberalism, I highly recommend Geoff Mann’s Disassembly required : a field guide to actually existing capitalism. It’s concise, relatively short, and treats the ‘other’ side like rational actors (which is important for understanding, I think).

Ofc this would only help understand people who are quite well informed.

https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781849351270

I guess I’m worried primarily about internal enemies too, but I don’t think we’d agree on which entities are the problem for some reason…

i are, I generally have to make about the corrections per message in order for it to even be legible

(left it in all its glory for you guys)

Me too, eyelash extensions that rival the city’s stadium in importance.

That’s nice to hear

Wtf, breaches aside why would a health care company be working with advert companies?

Active support of something totally morally unacceptable seems more morally culpable than refusing to participate. I don’t think most people are consequentialists—the how matters.

To me if a certain method of organizing fails to give people power over their own needs without infringing on the needs of others than it should be avoided. Privatization of -everything-, which is core to ancap theory, is itself an aggression. The enclosure movement in the UK is a good example. The ‘best’ way for people to organize would incentivize people to be good towards each other and good stewards of the planet. It would not allow one person to gain power over anyone else’s right to exist. You should be highly skeptical of a movement whose theorists support slavery, free market organ sales, etc. which are antithetical to freedom of the individual (at least one person in the relationship is getting the shitty end of the deal).

Related to bargaining, I read the wiki article on Iran’s nuclear program the other day and was surprised at how hard they are trying to do their nuclear program “by the book” while the US keeps blocking everyone else from agreeing that they’re entitled as long as they follow the guidelines (paris agreement etc).

~50% of the voters*

It would be interesting to look at generational differences in what people consider a splurge at the grocery store nowadays. Things like chips that didn’t used to be luxury priced cost $5-$6 dollars a bag now. I’ve always considered items more than about $4 (for individual items) to be expensive.

Things that I ate regularly that have drifted into “splurge” territory for me in the last few years:
-chips
-Veggie italian sausage
-Naked juice/bolthouse juice
-grapes
-chocolate chips
-pineapple juice
-potato bread
-salad dressing
-croutons
-yogurt
-cottage cheese

I always imagine it going:

Uni admin: “They’re approving kids for how much?! Well fuck $3000 a semester, let’s triple it!”

And now universities depend on that increased revenue and there’s no simple way to roll it back.

If any of this recognizably lasts 1000 years I’ll have a better opinion of it, ancient egypt is still smirking at us

Hundreds of years of infighting

Somehow I don’t think insulting people is going to get them to want to participate in your shit show

I haven’t played around with them, are the new models able to actually reason rather than just predictive text on steroids?