I didn’t think for even a moment that it would be that simple, thank you so much!

Sorry, what? Are you saying that this comment about the holocaust makes the Nazis look… better?

Have they actually got something in the pipeline.

Tough fucking luck. If healthcare is private in the US, it’s none of their business, the state doesn’t get a say.

Who’s trying to trick you into eating a sugar substitute?

Plus the reporting on it.

At a certain point, people start saying things like “X is supposed to be bad now, but give it 5 years and it’ll probably be healthy again!” or “they say you’re not supposed to do Y anymore…”.

Because, of course, most people get their information from news sources who are always trying to find the next superfood or poison that we’ve all been consuming for hundreds of years. And often, many of the things were taught when we’re younger are no longer considered correct, or at least fully correct, anymore.

So at a point people just get tired, ignore all of it, and just do whatever they were going to do anyway, because from their perspective, scientists can’t make their mind up anyway.

Not exclusively though. For many the fact that there a scary sounding chemical called MSG in their food is enough. Lots of people are obsessive about ‘additives’ and assume they are all bad.

I’ve started shooting myself with BBs, I’m working my way up to pellets, then. .22, probably going to stop before 50BMG, but before long, I will be unstoppable!

I’ve used this for distilling too, when people start talking about methanol. Even with the worst distiller in the world, you’d have to drink something crazy like 10L before it would kill you.

Obviously by that point you’d be dead with alcohol poisoning. But saying “you can safely drink 14 cans of coke a day before the carcinogenic effects of aspartame become an issue” is completely valid, and not the same as saying “drinking 14 cans of coke a day is a healthy way to live”.

Can someone fill me in on wtf is going on with drag in the US?

I’m from the UK, drag is like our longest running joke, and families go to pantomimes all the time. Recently theres been a more direct association with the LGBT community in the popular understanding of it. I’d say that most people’s view on drag here is:

• not necessarily an LGBT thing, though it very often is
• kinda traditional
• can be funny, or just a fun performance
• pretty lighthearted
• not expected to be overtly sexual by default, depends on context

Some of the stuff I see out of the US is bizzare. I realise that the weirder stuff is always going to be amplified in the news, and people are not necessarily trying to show the full context in photos. But I’ve seen shit like

• rightoids getting so worked up that the pickets outside resemble the Gaza Strip or, as I’m reliabily told, the average us abortion clinic
• performances in weird places like libraries
• people watching a clearly sexual show in dive bars with their kids in tow that look like they’re starting at a painting in a gallery pondering the meaning of nothingness and looking way out of place

Like, wtf? Drag isn’t the problem, it’s the weird-ass way that people seem to be responding to it. Go to a show if you think you might enjoy it, read up on the performance or use context ques to understand what kind of drag performance it’s going to be. Certainly don’t go for political reasons and ruin the fun for performers who are just trying to have a good time. But equally, don’t plan shows that are meant to provoke a reaction for political reasons, for the same reason.

And why the right wingers care so much if fucking beyond me. Imagine having enough free time to consider that important enough to spend your precious free time protesting it rather than doing literally anything else.

Just chill, it’s a fucking stage show. It’s like the whole toilet thing again, just hysterics over something inconcequential. I’m trans and fabulous as fuck and don’t seem to consider these issues nearly as important than a middle-aged cishet blue collar dude from Texas who may never have met a single trans person or encountered anything like this outside of the Internet.

Is only fun show, why you heff to be mad?

Public transport is great in cities, but as soon as things get more sparsely populated, you get diminishing returns. Everything takes longer, runs infrequently, and still barely gets you close.

But then if they run more frequently, they’d be empty.

Yet, where I live, they keep introducing hostile rules, new houses can only have one parking space, at a time where kids are having to live with their parents for longer, so their mobility, job opportunities, etc are really hampered. It would be one thing if there was decent public transport infrastructure, but there’s literally nothing, just people becoming ‘stuck’ because those who make the rules often don’t think about areas as a whole.

You’re right, what excuses do the Russian invaders have for Ukraine? It sure blew up in their faces. And I hope it continues to until the invaders return to their miserable little circle of hell thry built for themselves.

I guess a lot of it must be the belief that things could be better, that a country, organisation, etc is actually capable of so much more, but is holding back, and it just needs someone with the will to actually use it.

It reminds me a bit of Fargo, season 3 I think? Two of the main characters are getting constantly outplayed, but are still generally keeping to the confines, rules and routines of their regular lives. One of them, who is trying to deal with it, asks to be ‘unleashed’, to try and deal with the problem directly, no restrictions, the other eventually gives him permission. The guy sets out full of resolve and confidence, but ultimately falls completely flat, because really, pretty much nothing was being ‘held back’, and this direct approach also cost them their status. I think of it a lot looking at Russia at the moment, they could always do X if they really wanted to, but they don’t, but they could. Now they’ve crossed that line, and it has cost them dearly, but they had less in reserve than they seemed to think, now they will hint at more mobilisation, industrial capacity, etc to seem like they’re holding back.

When things are bad in some way, very few people are willing to accept that this is likely the best they can expect. The belief that they could do something if they wanted, is quite the cope, and if they actually do want to do the thing, then they will look to ‘strong’ leaders who claim to have the will to do just that. Then they usually flop.

Sometimes, though, this is completely true, as with your example, Napoleon was someone capable of unlocking the potential of France that had been held back initially by conservative ideas, then by factionalism and instability. But that was an example of extreme internal turmoil, that he was able to fix, while also being a legitimate genius, able to implement ideas decades ahead of his time, with an almost singular focus and determination. I don’t like Napoleon, but I have a great deal of respect for him, especially the earlier part of his career.

People always look for simple answers. Simple things that ‘need to be done’ to get the right outcome. It may be nationalising companies, eating the rich, building the wall, destroying Carthage or taking the Sudetenland. The question is; 1. will these actions achieve the outcomes they seek, and b) what will it cost? Because it’s easy to look at politicians as being malicious, scheming and evil, but really, if there’s such an easy fix to massively improve everyones’ lives, even if they don’t entirely agree on an ideological level, it will secure votes for them for decades, so it will usually be done regardless. The only reason it wouldn’t is when they are worried that the cost will outweigh the benefit.

I guess a lot of it must be the belief that things could be better, that a country, organisation, etc is actually capable of so much more, but is holding back, and it just needs someone with the will to actually use it.

It reminds me a bit of Fargo, season 3 I think? Two of the main characters are getting constantly outplayed, but are still generally keeping to the confines, rules and routines of their regular lives. One of them, who is trying to deal with it, asks to be ‘unleashed’, to try and deal with the problem directly, no restrictions, the other eventually gives him permission. The guy sets out full of resolve and confidence, but ultimately falls completely flat, because really, pretty much nothing was being ‘held back’, and this direct approach also cost them their status. I think of it a lot looking at Russia at the moment, they could always do X if they really wanted to, but they don’t, but they could. Now they’ve crossed that line, and it has cost them dearly, but they had less in reserve than they seemed to think, now they will hint at more mobilisation, industrial capacity, etc to seem like they’re holding back.

When things are bad in some way, very few people are willing to accept that this is likely the best they can expect. The belief that they could do something if they wanted, is quite the cope, and if they actually do want to do the thing, then they will look to ‘strong’ leaders who claim to have the will to do just that. Then they usually flop.

Sometimes, though, this is completely true, as with your example, Napoleon was someone capable of unlocking the potential of France that had been held back initially by conservative ideas, then by factionalism and instability. But that was an example of extreme internal turmoil, that he was able to fix, while also being a legitimate genius, able to implement ideas decades ahead of his time, with an almost singular focus and determination. I don’t like Napoleon, but I have a great deal of respect for him, especially the earlier part of his career.

People always look for simple answers. Simple things that ‘need to be done’ to get the right outcome. It may be nationalising companies, eating the rich, building the wall, destroying Carthage or taking the Sudetenland. The question is; 1. will these actions achieve the outcomes they seek, and b) what will it cost? Because it’s easy to look at politicians as being malicious, scheming and evil, but really, if there’s such an easy fix to massively improve everyones’ lives, even if they don’t entirely agree on an ideological level, it will secure votes for them for decades, so it will usually be done regardless. The only reason it wouldn’t is when they are worried that the cost will outweigh the benefit.

Oi, I’m moderate af and am only techy to people who don’t know the difference between a laptop and… the larger one!

I do like a community that values a free, open and decentralised Internet, Reddit used to, but seems to have lost that.

Not always, but it is when you go public. I work a lot at small businesses, lots of them have shareholders who are mostly hands-off, or would prefer a more conservative approach to protect their investment.

People who invest in non-public businesses are usually in for the long haul, and come with much greater risk.

But when you go public, your business just comes a commodity, nothing but a vehicle for a fund manager to use to try and get a higher return for their clients so they get more business and commission.

In theory, it’s a really democratic system, but the reality is that we’ve lost track of what an investment is meant to be, and the number of private individuals actually holding shares in a company directly is very low, it’s mostly fund managers who literally just want to pump their numbers for a few years, because long term, they never really beat the market.