bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

438

Joined

2 yr. ago

Do you know how loud a gunshot is..? And he thought the sound of an acorn hitting the car was a shot fired by the suspect inside the car he's standing next to? Either he's lying or he's remarkably stupid, either way he should not have a gun.

Wait...are you suggesting we solve a problem? Or even two problems simultaneously? That's absurd! We need tax cuts, deregulation, and corporate bailouts....I may not know the problem, but I know the solution. /s

Multi-party, new party...maybe...but single party, I'm not sure I've heard anyone advocate for that, certainly not a lot of people.

I just know it happened. Maybe it's not crystals forming in the brain, but that does happen, which was the point of my comment.

For something that totally happens, Google is completely unaware of it. Why can't you just accept you're wrong? Sounds like you confused what you heard.

LSD is one of the most potent, mood-changing chemicals. It is manufactured from lysergic acid, which is found in the ergot fungus that grows on rye and other grains. It is produced in crystal form in illegal laboratories, mainly in the United States. These crystals are converted to a liquid for distribution.

Created as a crystal, not crystals in the brain, seems like the most likely explanation.

She’s a pretty amazing song writer, which is really uncommon for pop stars.

Just because you make pizza, doesn't mean you don't make great pizza. I'm not saying she's out here making $0.99 Mr. P's Pizzas ("fabulous" in their own right).

Then you also have to consider that she’s Gen Z, has been doing this for 18 years, and has managed to stay fairly relevant most of that time.

I've considered it, but it's not true. She may appeal to Gen Z but she was born in '89, making her dead center of being a millennial.

I've never said she's bad, but if you've ever listened to more complex music, her's isn't that. She's great at what she does, and seemingly smart and levelheaded, and that's fantastic. But to say her songs are masterpieces that are like beautifully woven tapestry of lyrics and music, I don't see it. And, in all fairness, if they were, she'd probably have a fan base 95% smaller.

She's smart and not lazy. A lot of people get fame and money and massively shift their focus. Longevity is probably the toughest part, not going crazy, and remaining relatable to young people while simultaneously having millions of dollars.

Think of a dish made by a world class chef, that food is probably exquisitely crafted using unique and fresh ingredients. There probably aren't that many people out there who truly appreciate it, and probably a lot who just think it's weird.

Now think of pizza. It's relatively cheap and broadly appealing. It wouldn't be put in the same class as the food prepared by the chef, but a lot more of it gets consumed.

Taylor Swift is talented, pretty, affable, has a superior work ethic, and makes music that's catchy and easily digestible. Like pizza, her music appeals to the broadest group of people.

Have you considered inserting disc 2?

Caps student borrowing. According to the bill's fact sheet, the bill would cap student-loan borrowing at $50,000 for undergraduate students, $100,000 for graduate students, and $150,000 for students in graduate professional programs.

What four-year school can someone attend for $50,000? That was the yearly cost of attendance when I went to college twenty years ago. Granted, I attended an expensive private university, but I assume most schools have caught up in the past two decades.

Will this bill essentially price out low income kids?

Not 'negative articles', he said 'most articles

Yes, the articles were negative in their views.

Again not an, most. That is dishonest and disingenuous. Either 'you're' looking specifically for feminist articles negative towards men, or 'you're' being dishonest.

At this point you're (2nd person, singular) either stupid or spectacularly dishonest. You keep referencing most, so apparently he needed to cite, with links, 50.1% of all articles by feminists or you'd bring your same criticism. Guess what, "most" could be true and he could only cite a single article. They are not mutually exclusive. (I've never accepted or rejected the most claim). Maybe the majority actually are negative, maybe he's only read three articles by feminists and at least two were negative, maybe he only reads negative articles, and yet you still attack most. Rather dishonest.

Caitlin Moran even wrote a damn novel on issues and challenges facing straight, white, able-bodied men that need to be solved.

Umm...and? One person wrote a novel? A novel isn't an article and one isn't most! Obviously OP is right because you didn't even give links to most articles. See how easy it is to be a dishonest interlocutor and not meet people where they're at?

If feminist PR sucks, you're reading right-wing articles/twitter posts/apparently reddit posts according to another post of theirs.

That actually doesn't follow at all. Feminist PR could suck and none of those things be true. Mainstream media, like "most" media, likes to present items that will drive clicks and viewership. People with preposterous views have an easier time getting traction because their comments will drive interaction. So the majority of feminists could be levelheaded and pragmatic, but the minority with outlandish takes on issues will likely get more press attention.

OP had mentioned feminists being bad at PR and then mentioned negative articles.

They supported that with the Twitter content being bad PR and an article they remembered seeing. OP also responded to you saying that they didn't maintain a log of all feminism articles they had read. Apparently you expected them to source links to all the articles they've read in the past.

No one's going to do that, if they do supply links it would only be one or two, at which point you'd have made your "that's most" comment, which was the whole point. You're a dishonest interlocutor.

What examples?

The ones you were given.

The guy said look on twitter on National Men's Day,

No, they didn't. They told you to look at a specific account on a specific day.

and a reference to an article (without linking to it) for a hand sweeping 'Most articles written by feministsI’ve read love to stereotype and bash men.'

Yes, which you could have easily googled if you wanted to read it.

Regardless you asked for examples, and then upon receiving them stated "that's most?". No amount of examples was going to be sufficient, your response would have been the same regardless. Your original question was dishonest in that you weren't interested in the answer.

Edit: As for your definition, I don't think anyone opposed that definition. Feminism is a large banner under which a lot of groups identify. So your extremely generic definition doesn't encapsulate all persons or groups.

How dishonest can you be? You specifically asked for a link to ANY of these. You got a response that gave you some examples, and you respond:

So an article, and some twitter comments. That's not exactly "...most articles written by feministsI

You didn't ask for most of the articles and it isn't reasonable to expect someone to provide you 50-100 links.

If you have a genuine disagreement with what they provided you should present that, but as it stands you're being terribly dishonest and disingenuous.

Except that gerrymandering would only affect a presidential election in Maine and Nebraska. Also known as the only states that apportion their electoral votes based on congressional districts.

Regardless, it's a FPTP system, so a candidate with 50.1% of the vote takes everything, no gerrymandering needed.

Is the driver Mr. Sexy, or are they talking to me?

Buckle up, Mr. Sexy

Hehehe.... OK.

Some House progressives voted against the package, saying it wouldn’t do enough to slash child poverty.

Never let perfect be the enemy of good. In a Republican-majority House did they honestly expect anything better was possible?

No, not a simple blanket ban. But as the article mentions they can make it more difficult to access. The article referenced tying Title X funds to not counseling, referring, or performing abortions. Trump did this in his first term, leading to nearly 200,000 unwanted pregnancies, according to the article.

The FDA could disapprove abortion drugs, meaning all abortions would have to be surgical. So on and so on, every federal agency limits access to abortion.

Who exactly is running the country while you have successive elections that don't net a winner? After each election failure do we have another primary? Do you have any idea how expensive it is for municipalities to hold elections?

To be clear, the highest midterm voter turnout was 49% in 2018. So if literally everyone who voted had voted for the same candidate, the candidate who received 100% of the vote would lose; under your system, no one would ever win.

Even in 2020, only 66% of eligible voters turned out. It's unlikely any presidential candidate could win given those turnout numbers.

Not trying to be rude, but this might be the stupidest idea I've ever heard. You'd literally bring government to a screeching halt because no one could get elected.

And if that were the only concern, then it wouldn't matter. It's when a population realizes that they have nothing left to lose, that they might as well follow the fascist dictator into wars to reclaim glory, in the hopes that tomorrow will be better. The next fascist might well attack NATO, then we're all in it.

Of course, poor, beleaguered and impoverished countries always choose liberal democracy.