I think I can relate, somewhat. It's not easy, constantly being rational in the face of evil depravity. A just mind seeking a clean pattern of cause and effect can't be blamed when it starts asking "where is the sword of the innocent", and I personally get how that morphs to "Ok, will somebody give me the sword?".

I'm there myself today, on other news. Beware the thoughts, however. There's a difference between wanting to wield a sword to protect and one to punish; one is swift and necessary, the other opens the window to festering and becoming the abyss.

I wouldn't weep at a swift and ignominious end now, and I certainly would personally swing down that figurative blade and go to sleep soundly but never with the idea the monster could be made to comprehend if I taint myself to the same level of depravity, best remain a monster-lite. Because even that course of action I'd take is not without its own brand of reprehensible in the just world I'd rather live in.

"Hey this sounds like--"

Notices community

"--Oh. Wait, was I on Lemmy relaxing or avoiding work?"

There's many answers but I genuinely fear they're too lost in the weeds of abstraction.

The truth is still simple; Power is useless to the common* (read: average and averagely distributed) person. It doesn't grow crops, shoe horses, or help your fellow man, inherently.

The common person has real concerns to worry about, leaving the search of the trappings of power for the uncommon.

Uncommonly good* (read: beneficial for the doer and the common person) is harder than uncommonly evil* (read: beneficial for the doer but detrimental to the common person); this is simply entropy, and it readily maps to humankind's so called capacity for thought.

That it only takes a bit of shared effort to make lasting structures to help others and fight off sociological entropy is an uncommonly good realization:

The common man has labors to do, the uncommonly good servant a statistical rarity and the uncommonly evil servants and the structures they engender to keep them in support (entropy begets entropy) a hurdle that by the point of realization takes an uncommonly amount of uncommon good to overcome.

TL;DR: Human nature + time + compounding apathy in those in a position to nudge things when they were easier to nudge = a need for collective awakening to course correct. We've gilded the lily on our sociological underpinnings but have yet to truly revolutionize, only iterate.

I sometimes think the only people who hate capitalism more than leftists are "successful capitalists". It would help explain why they've always trended towards fascism since before the term was even coined.

Part of Fiction writing 101. The more things you need to 'effing name, the stupider the wordplay gets.

Lots of visual references to make those puns work on Pokemon designs usually.

Kanghaskhan (Garura in Japanese), is a giant Kangaroo thing with built-in laminar armor reminiscent of Mongolian make.

At least Kanghaskhan made it to the list of B-tier sound puns to go with the visuals (and Genghis was a ruler, keeping the pun from the Japanese name that is "Kangaroo Ruler").

Not all Pokemon get the same wit applied to their puns, some get really groan worthy if examined haha.

How were you born with shovels for hands and how do you so bravely face life in spite of it?

Man woman TV Camera Person, his arms wide.

Too pricy. Good ol' depression is free and can overpower hunger signals if you languish long enough.

What a sandwich of a comment. Agreeable point - what a tremendous assumption filled leap - agreeable point. I am reeling.

Unironically yes. All of that comes at less expense to humankind, too. Even accounting for you.

Lad, women are tenser at first fucking's because, in theory, you're both getting used to each other and what most turns on the machinery of arousal. They tend to feel smoother, slicker, and downright hungrily pulling, when a woman is most aroused. You are self owning a tad bit to any one who knows how to lay a proper lovin'.

The dictionary is...literally (hello self-evidence) full of words for which there has long existed an 'Objective Definition' but which usage has brought a consensus based 'Subjective Definition'. Etymology is the study of a shifting process, and both you and them are correct:

Them in the expected usage a publication should use to apply it to a discreet entity, and you in the fact that the subjective shift in meaning gives us words that map anecdotally to our lives.

Truly...language is awe-some.

You're missing the vital forest you started on by getting stuck defining trees it looks like, but I get it.

Minorities are treated by a separate physical rubric by law enforcement and even the court of public opinion. The biases abound, yes. And those absolutely involve secondary physical characteristics, of which biologically speaking are...things that exist. Like skin color is one.

I get what you're saying and while I don't know why other folks are uncomfortable with that, but if I clocked things right, your original point (paraphrased below) is damn right imo:

Whether a 16 year old child is American Samoan, Black, Hispanic, or White, they are still a child, however large or mature the specific kid's genetics may have rolled them to appear. Further, it is fucked up for cops to default to feeling more threatened by the bigger/more developed ones, to have more bombastic reactions, as does tend to happen.

This is reality for minorities; my large colored ass doesn't get away with certain behaviors even as the affronted party, unfairly as it is.

Case of not seeing the wit for the trees. In the topsy-turvy landscape of the last 8 years or so, the problem is that "dripping with" part. The weirdos do always go for the double-down after all, so adding more starts risking confusion with that tactic of theirs.

You are off your rocker, and dangerous to those you share a play space with, wow. I pray you're that visibly unhinged where others can be warned before they risk their reputations, sanity, or comfort near you.

The person you unloaded that reply on wasn't even the one you originally replied to. Are you okay?

Before you get too affronted by my maybe not super politic words below, understand that you should imagine me in chaps, a chest harness, and a bull horns headpiece if it's the Halloween Munch, vibing.

A sex club is to advanced empathy as differential equations are to little Timmy's arithmetic problem, do you not realize this?

It's a firehouse turned upon hearing someone say their mouth is a mite dry. It's just the reality: They're literally categorized as 'non-mainstream' spaces precisely because they do not easily fit the currently mainstream view on sexuality or mores, pretty much nowhere.

Not to mention, not the environment to throw in those you suspect of bigotry or misogyny jeez, they're supposed to be spaces kept clear of that sort of baggage and drama so their purpose can remain clear, consensual, and to the point.

No organizer is going to host a "gawk at our ladies react, learn our etiquette" event, and if they did, that would only maybe help the sort of folk you're accusing these people of being mask and pass at the Munch.

Not improve their lives long term in any way. There is a reason why you still have to get to a dedicated space to see the things you mention play out as normally as they do, where they are maximally normalized.

People generally can't act how they do in there in any other social setting and they're spaces where the things you learn can only translate to your life in some ways (more compassion, better lover, learn to seek and engended enthusiastic consent, etc) but even that generally requires the person going to be arriving ready to take some learning out.

I thought I had a problem with taking a point or two and stretching them across a handful of paragraphs. I no longer think I have a problem and indeed have learned a few things to limber up and aim for greater mental gymnastic heights.

You're not just a fly in history's wall, to hear you retell it, you can read hearts and minds better'n than most deities too. A graph tells a shaky story but your certainty of the intent of every actor involved is inviolate?

Please don't write back at me, for the first time in my life, I comprehend the fear of my acquaintanceships and the long rambling.

In 1998, Baker, Ruoff, and Madoff that the organism is most likely a species of Mycoplasma called Mycoplasma phocacerebrale.[7] This Mycoplasma was isolated in an epidemic of seal disease occurring in the Baltic Sea.[8]

It's not that we don't know what causes it, and it can be cultured from seals and has been. It's that in order to empirically and categorically say in any way that matters that the organism is definitely the cause of seal finger...

You would need to be culturing a person infected with the disease from whom treatment is being withheld. Either against their will or with their "consent" wouldn't matter. As we know what the disease can lead to, the ethical course of treatment is clear: a bunch of culture ruining antibiotics injected into you. Right away, without delay.

Because asking or even taking advantage of someone declining treatment to assess and write the confirmation study that says "Mycoplasma phocacerebrale definite cause of seal finger" goes against a lot of ethical science limitations.

This is what makes the donating the affected limb of someone who never got care for science post-mortem also work as both a neat joke and ethical loophole. Researchers could accept that gift, ethically.

If you both let it, it's assumptions all the way down. If you look closely, you'll even spot the communication problem in microcosm.

That...that's the point of the anger at the corporate greed.