Depending on your definition of ‘sidekick’, these may also count:
There might be more I’m forgetting.
It’s also just generally not a good train of thought regardless of the quality of the media or the individual person’s enjoyment.
For instance - my wife struggles to maintain an understanding of the story of whatever she’s watching unless she focuses completely on it, meaning if we want to discuss what we’re watching we pause the TV to discuss and then press play again. If we talk throughout something or she’s on her phone, she misses out entire pieces of critical dialogue or visuals that carry the story and so she ends up not being able to follow it and then therefore doesn’t enjoy it at all, or alternatively she has to ask what’s going on which kinds ruins it for both of us.
It makes no sense to make some weird inference that because of that, she’s somehow more susceptible to marketing or doesn’t know how to spend time with groups of people. Both are definitely untrue. I think it is fair, however, to assume that she probably wouldn’t be good friends with someone who is as judgmental as the previous poster, so at least they got that one right.
Yeah, it’s hard to imagine two strangers sitting at a chessboard at the park when one goes “LOL checkmate d00d u suck bro!!”. People are far more willing to be toxic arseholes when they don’t have to look the other person in the eye. Anonymity allows for the worst behaviour a person can engage in - just look at platforms with forced anonymity like 4chan. The more anonymous you are, the more of a dick you’re willing to be.
Seconded. Dude is absolutely one of our worst exports; not that far behind Rupert Murdoch.
Particularly in academia, which is a broad field that seems to draw in some seriously smug arseholes.
It’s the eyes that give people away. Stand in front of a mirror and practice smiling with your eyes. Your cheeks should raise to the extent that it very slightly closes the outside corners of your eyes. If you smile with your eyes but leave you mouth lax, you have resting smile-face.
From the article:
Her ex-husband – and Tyler’s father – Jayson Boebert was famously arrested in 2004 for exposing his genitals in a bowling alley where minors were present. Rep. Boebert, who was 17 and not married to him at the time, was one of the witnesses in that case. He got four days in jail and two years probation for lewd exposure and public indecency.
And it’s obvious that your comment was entirely unnecessary.
It might be a bit naïve to assume that wasn’t the initial plan. I’m not sure which is the case, but I wouldn’t put it past the right-wing coalition parties to be knowingly creating an enemy to have them attack you so you can attack back with the force of a thousand suns. It’s a pretty smart plan, they’ve just bungled what they thought would be the international response because the West has always backed Israel 100% without a hint of criticism.
The issue when discussing abortion is that there is no generally accepted point in which a blastocyst/zygote/foetus becomes a fully-fledged, sentient being. Some argue that the point of conception instills personhood; others make arguments based upon how developed a foetus is and if it has differentiated sensory organs; some make an arbitrary distinction based on the elapsing of time; and others still agree that personhood is conveyed only once a baby is born and survives labour.
Those arguing this point have a tendency to become entrenched in their opinions, be it because of religious or cultural norms, or even just the basic human condition of stubbornness. This creates permanent rifts between people who share FAR more in common than they differ.
My personal opinion is a technocratic one - I don’t believe that this decision should be made by anyone other than relevant medical professional(s) and the pregnant person. That means that legislatively (or constitutionally), I’m advocating for no legal restrictions on abortions whatsoever and empowering health professionals to determine what is reasonable or safe.
This position is often (intentionally) misunderstood as not believing that the unborn have rights as well - they absolutely do. I’m a child protection caseworker and we regularly work with pregnant people who show signs there may be risk of harm after birth (issues like substance abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence, disability without sufficient support etc.) in order to preserve the best start to life that an unborn child can have. I just don’t accept that there are any circumstances under which the right of an unborn child trumps professional medical opinions. Doctors are best placed to determine when and if an abortion is appropriate or necessary.
Each individual maintains the right to not have an abortion forced on them, but then gains the right to engage in an abortion if it’s medically safe and sound.
An argument could be made, sure, but I don’t think it would be effective. If a person has the capacity to willingly murder their family members over an issue of eviction, then I don’t know how much capacity for reform they have. They pose an imminent and ongoing danger to anyone near them; an unacceptable level of risk in a tolerant society.
Beyond that concept, there’s very little (if any) benefit to society to reforming and releasing this man. Any work that would need to be done to ensure this man could never kill again would take a considerable amount of time. He’s already 66 - let’s say it only takes four years (somehow), then he’ll be released when he’s 70. He already has health complications which likely put his life expectancy well below average, meaning his death is probably impending in the next decade - probably sooner based on substandard penal medical care.
Trying to reform this man is like trying to keep a 21 year old dog alive - sure you can do it, and you’ll probably feel better about yourself if you do, but there’s no real benefit to the dog or society at large. He should have just been handed life without parole instead of 100 years - that seems like a sentence that could be appealed due to the silly nature of how long it is.
Israel’s strategy over the last 70 years created Hamas and has ensured that it has continued to hold power in Gaza. I don’t know what that other commenter is thinking, but I think characterising Israel’s strategy as carrying water for Hamas recruitment is a strong understatement. They’re not just carrying water; they’re pumping it from the ground, putting it in containers, divvying it up, and carrying it as far as they’ll go. Hamas exists because of Israel, much as how Al Qaeda and ISIS exist(ed) because of the US (and allied forces) and Russia.
Yeah, Israel are straight-up taking plays from the Soviet handbook here. Indiscriminate murder of civilians is okay if you get one bad dude. They’ve already dehumanised Palestinians beyond belief, it’s no wonder that they view murder of innocent Palestinians as being completely different to murder of innocent Israelis.
Hamas were voted into power 17 years ago with no subsequent elections, and won with only ~44% of the vote. The current median age in Palestine is 19.6 years old. Therefore, at most ~44% of Palestinians aged over 35 voted for Hamas, which would make up far less than a quarter of the total population - probably less than 20% of all Palestinians.
Not all Israeli parties are Zionist - it’s predominately the coalition of right-wing parties. To paint all Israeli politicians as being Zionist is a bit disingenuous, although I do admit that the vast majority of Israeli political discourse is dominated by Zionist overtones.
There are also cultural and religious minorities in Israel - predominately Christians and Muslims - and the Knesset has had a fairly stable cohort of Arab or Druze members since it was established.
If we’re talking about the current ruling parties? Absolutely, they’re Zionist through-and-through. But they’re not reflective of the whole Knesset.
There are also Zionists outside of Israel - Evangelical Americans as a group come to mind here. There are many people of many religions around the world that believe that Israel has the right to Palestine for one arcane reason or another.
To suffice: not all Israeli government are Zionists; not all Zionists are Israeli.
I think the discourse here is showing that nuance is definitely possible in social media, but that those social media that favour nuance are the absolute minority and located predominately away from mainstream social media.
I’m pro-Palestinians, pro-Israelis, anti-Hamas, anti-Zionist, anti-Hezbollah and anti-Israeli Government simultaneously, and that view seems to be pretty well accepted here.
Yeah, I did note that in the article when I read it. My comment wasn’t directed at the protest organisers - it was specifically towards the Nazis in the crowd. I thought my comment indicated that; sorry if I wasn’t clear enough.
This is just disgusting behaviour. No one should ever be calling for genocide, regardless of any circumstances. Also, why are all Jewish people being conflated with the Israeli government? Jews outside Israel have no power over its government, and even Israelis had to go through some five hung elections to get Netanyahu back in power, indicating that he clearly has less than 50% of the country’s support.
Now if they had been shouting “fuck Bibi” or “end the occupation” or “no more genocide against Palestine” I’d be right there with them. These idiots have no fucking clue how to garner support, so all they’re doing is giving Israel more moral high-ground. Goddamn Nazis need to learn some physical consequences.
It’s easy to have sympathy for Palestine; it’s very difficult to have sympathy for Hamas.
Anyone cheering on Hamas is promoting crimes against humanity which is objectively abhorrent. Anyone who cares for the Palestinian people caught up in the conflict just has functioning empathy.
It’s been Israel’s playbook against Palestine for a very, very long time.