While it doesn’t work as well with or as your joke, the ATF is actually now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. So we need to add the E as well and we can spell FACET, which is less fun. Or use M for Marijuana and spell FMEAT.
But they gave their honest pov as a representation of white people in general.
Yeah, but until relatively recently, white folk didn’t think that way. At all.
Edit: Also, to be clear, what we currently call the “confederate flag” wasn’t associated with the entire rebellion. It was the battle flag of a specific army, the Army of Northern Virginia. It was mostly moved to irrelevance by everyone other than confederate apologists until the civil rights era when old-school racists started to put a bunch of confederate statues up everywhere and promoting the flag as a symbol in an attempt to frighten Black people fighting for their rights.
Even before World War II, cracks were evident in the foundation of the flag’s status as a symbol of heritage. Occasional northern and African-American voices questioned the wisdom of displaying a flag they associated with disunity or treason. And young white southerners began using the flag in distinctly non-memorial ways as a symbol of regional identity.
The growing battle over the post-Reconstruction South’s established racial order of Jim Crow segregation resurrected the Confederate flag’s use as a political symbol.
Supporters of the States Right Party (aka the Dixiecrats) in 1948 embraced the flag as a symbol of support for segregation. Although the Dixiecrats emphasized Constitutional principal, “states rights” in the 1940s and 1950s translated, as it had in the 1860s, into the purposeful denial of fundamental human and civil rights for African Americans.
The explicit use of the Confederate flag as a symbol of segregation became more widespread and more violent after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision. Southern states resisting federally-mandated integration incorporated the flag into their official symbolism.
Not the same person but I googled “causes for secession” and clicked the first link.
don’t even know enough to care in the first place.
but ultimately it’s the user who decides to use the service, and how to use it.
So you admit they don’t have access to the knowledge needed to make better choices for their digital security. Then immediately blame them. I think your bias from the point of view of a one that is already more informed on this sort of thing. If they don’t know they need to know more, how can they be expected to do any research? There’s only so much time in a day so you can’t expect people to learn “enough” about literally everything.
What? If there’s someone walking around punching a bunch of people in the face and I’m very anti-face-punching, 100% I’m going to go against my principles of not punching the one time to punch that person in the face. They should then, hopefully, understand what their actions were doing to those around them and develop a sense of empathy.
What were you saying then? What was your point of saying “not always the case.”?
So we’re protecting the system against the outliers? So we’re blocking naturally muscular or otherwise more athletic cis girls from playing? Really tall basketball players? Runners who are just naturally faster? How do you judge they fall too far outside the median range?
Or have you given this no thought and you just think boy things are for boys and girl things for girls and you stopped learning at age 3?
I don’t know that you need a semicolon but you could definitely use one, and that would probably be the best way. Semicolons are for when two complete sentences are related. But they can still be formatted as two sentences, or even the same sentence with a comma. Many sentences contain parts that could be standalone sentences. But reading back over the original sentence again I would probably say it can just be rewritten to be more straightforward.
“Another aspect to this video is that Somerset, when actually trying to write some of the material himself, produced complete garbage.”
Mostly I’ve just been reading a lot of philosophy recently which tends to run on a long and complex sentence structure that’s unnecessary and could be a lot simpler, so this kind of thing has been at the front of my mind lately. That’s probably the only reason I even noticed in the first place.
I have no issue with the content provided, but I wanted to give a little constructive criticism on the structure of your writing. Real small. When you say,
There was another aspect to this video, which was that when Somerset actually…
When you say there is a thing, the reader is going to assume the next thing you write to be that thing. So you don’t need the “which is that.” You can just launch right into what you’re going to say, you already set it up. You basically said “I have a thing to say. The thing I have to say is this:”
Everything else is informative and well presented. No other notes.
It could also be the fact that a Mon-Fri 9-5 job just isn’t the norm and often isn’t enough for one to live for a majority of Americans, so they have less time to learn, then make those repairs. In addition, prices for tools and materials have obviously gone up, making those repairs more expensive than “back in the day.”
Say your AC stops working at the height of summer. You go online and download the manual from the manufacturer, follow the directions to diagnose the issue. Awesome! You know what’s wrong, you just need to make a special trip to the hardware store (maybe where you live isn’t close to one since brick-and-mortar is more and more rare) and you can’t afford to wait for it to be delivered. So you buy the part and tools required at whatever price they’re selling for there because you can’t shop around. You don’t have another day off until next week, so you try to work a little bit every day on it, but you’re tired from your two jobs and only have a few hours free every day really. You’re having to stop and start constantly so you never get any momentum going on the work and it’s taking forever and the whole time you don’t have air conditioning so it’s hot as fuck. You don’t really know what you’re doing so it’s slow going. You’re losing sleep because it’s so hot and at least one of your jobs is physical and tires you out before you spend an hour tinkering with it every night. The little time that you normally get to spend with your kids is taken by this repair, and it takes almost a full week, and you have to hope you didn’t make a small mistake, because again, you don’t know what you’re doing and you’re just going from the manual, like “back in the day.” Or you could just dip into the savings and hire a guy to come out and fix it in an afternoon.
But you’re right, it’ probably just kids these days.
How can a crime vary by ideology? Criminal implies legalities. How can your ideological point of view change whether or not a law was broken?
I mean, I would say that it’s far more ethical than most billionaires. She didn’t exploit workers, she performed and the populace gave her the money willingly. It’s as ethical as one can get in the modern day where no person can participate in society without benefiting from exploitation. And as far as I can tell from some half-assed searching, her investments are in property, but not in the landlord sense. She owns rich people property. Mansions and jets and shit.
I my personal opinion, musicians seem like the most ethical rich people in terms of how they got their money. They get exploited by the music industry early on, but money primarily comes from ticket and merch sales, which people choose to spend their money on in support of the artist. People hate capitalism, but forget what it is they hate about it and just start hating the money, forgetting why it’s bad- the exploitation.
And lets be honest, those coalitions almost always end up being mostly a 2 party system with more steps. The elect a bunch of different parties, then those parties all group together in 2 sides mostly. Possibly leaving a few that aren’t included and then their votes mean nothing. It’s like gerrymandering in a different way. You don’t need to change voting districts, you just have to get another party that agrees with you on the important things to also win some elections. You could even argue that, while technically under the same name, the Tea party was kinda of that. A whole different kind of politician was voted in, with the understanding that they would just be agreeing with the Republicans on legislation. It’s obviously not quite the same, but it’s not far off.
Some of my favorite parts of One DnD are the things that Larian already changed. Starting proficiencies tied to class instead of race? Perfect. Physical features tied to race seems fine to me, i.e. elemental resistances or a free spell or 2. But linking proficiencies limited your choices when creating a new character. Some races were just built better for some classes and some are built really poorly for some classes. That was the first thing they fixed and it made me happy. WotC knows that the majority of people just want a streamlined way to have fun when playing without having to do hours of research and they’re clearly moving in that direction. If you want to have a fun game with a large player base, the entry fee needs to be reasonable. I love 5e but when I was first learning the rules and making a character, I realized that if I wanted to actually be happy with my character months later I would need to spend a lot of time planning. If you don’t already know all the features and how they work with/against each other, it’s real easy to find yourself with an ineffective member of the party if you’re just picking whatever feels fun at the time. That can put a lot of people off and the new edition is fixing a lot of that by basically including a lot of house rule stuff that people were already doing to make their own games more fun.
Well, Stalin was a fascist. And Tankies like to call everyone who doesn’t 100% agree with their radical views as fascists and like to throw out “lib” like it’s a slur to anyone they’re arguing with. I’m just making an educated guess here.
You’re allowed to disagree. This man wasn’t killed by police because he disagreed with the shop owner having a rainbow flag. They killed him because he murdered her and (presumably) didn’t surrender when they caught up to him.
I think what you’re talking about is the rest of us calling out your bigotry. That’s not oppression or control by the government. That’s society leaving you and your outdated beliefs behind.
So… your source to back up your point is an excerpt from a fictional book written by someone who’s expertise is in writing fiction?
Personally, I try not to take the word of someone who is not an expert, or at least versed in that particular area. Just because Pratchett was very a progressive writer doesn’t mean his opinions on gun control should be taken for anything more than his own personal position.
And if we’re just going to cite his fiction as his opinion, we have to assume he was also pro-police violence. I don’t know how much Discworld you’ve red, but even as Vimes progressed as a character and got better in a lot of ways, he always ended up resolving the issue by skirting the actual law and bending the rules to fit his purpose. Often he would espouse how much easier his job and the city would be if he wasn’t restricted by the law. Not everyone else, they still need to follow the law, but Sam Vimes knows better. There were even times when Pratchett would start to push back on that idea like he was going to have Vimes actually understand that police aren’t special and should be as answerable to the law as anyone… then the conflict would always be resolved by Vimes going outside the law and taking it into his own hands. He never learned that lesson. Quite the opposite actually.
So for those unfamiliar, Pratchett was so conservative, he was writing about rogue cops taking the law into their own hands before you kids ever heard those words put together.