100% this; cheese on its own is always a wonderful snack.

then when I see people talk about biracial people, they’re out there saying shit like, “Biracial people look different from Black people. They are racially ambiguous, have light skin, and have curly hair instead of coily hair. They can never truly understand the monoracial Black experience.”

Because this is bullshit that any reasonably aware black person who’s spent time in community with other black people would shoot down immediately as nonsense (it also isn’t even accurate; while I have wavy hair, my brother’s is coily such that he grew out both an afro and dreads just fine).

This part’s also only my experience (and may differ from yours) but I find that kind of discourse only really happens online, where there’s no social pressure to slap such inanity down.

There’s so much art about the biracial experience and how you won’t get treated as anything other than just black most of the time by society that such discourse feels like a psyop; I wouldn’t put much of any real stock in it, honestly.

I know most social convention is interpersonal and not objective in any real way but it’s still so surreal to hear people refer to it as an older term when we were still using and teaching it as terminology at my college’s Queer Student Union about 10 years ago; like, hardly ancient.

Not to mention that, for the longest time, that was the one they went to because science didn’t really have any kind of reasoning or theory for how it’d’ve come about and was considered, at the time, unknown; but, in our current present, now we do. Funny how science works.

Will happily accept a snack if you’re holding

To be fair, I’ve never known a cat who wouldn’t.

He looks like such a nice lad.

How does that pain compare with the back and the leg?

Ah, a meetcute is a word (people may spell it normally with a space) for the moment in (usually) fiction where the two love interests meet for the first time and it’s clear to the audience they were meant to be.

Basically, the exact contents of the word: meet-cute = cute first meeting moment.

My comment was basically a joke, that this seemingly awful first experience was when these two people knew they were meant for each other (possibly, the intense eye contact might be the cute indicator of such a moment; that kind of thing. The absurdity is most of the joke).

Let me know if anything still isn’t clear!

And we can create data structures and algorithms that fit a more functional style without relying on imperative assumptions of how data should be handled. Data structures like vlists could be applicable, for example.

This is their meetcute.

Eh, I get it. The equal operator creates a reference but the plus operator isn’t destructive so it creates a new list and overwrites the variable b with a new list, when assigned.

Of course, this would all be avoided if creating copies was the norm; which is why I stick with functional languages.

In baseball games, it’s considered a momento to catch a fly ball (a ball which ends up being hit such that it goes into the crowd).

This is making a reference to that but with the Roman coliseum so, instead of a ball, the kid caught a decapitated gladiator’s head.

The joke is basically the inversion of expectations and, possibly, the gross out factor of contrasting the recreation of most sports with the violence of the coliseum.

ID3 tags reader/writer library in Elisp for Emacs and a unit conversion app. that’s responsive to be able to be used on mobile Linux.

That is correct; as I already said, I think this particular thing is very unlikely.

Edit: For whatever reason, I read your last sentence as “How’re you going to stop him?” and it didn’t sound like a genuine question so much just being confrontational.

Clearly, it’s too late for me, right now, and I should probably go to bed but you deserve a genuine answer.

While the taped together structure of the U. S.'s government between on-the-fly institutions and convention/norm.s is clearly not the best at stopping an individual who doesn’t feel the need to abide by them, it’s also not the best at providing a central mechanism for authoritarianism.

Elections are largely controlled by the states and, while he was able to ride a mix of reactionary xenophobia and a more traditional strain of American conservative tradition, people from that latter group were still the people largely who’d had the control of the party before he overtook it.

This hasn’t been a problem when it comes to the deference for Big Business that the Reaganite conservatism of the old Republican party favors but it’s still a group that believes in restricted governance (except when providing welfare for corporations, of course) and a deep belief in representative democracy (so long as the scales are appropriately stacked so the right sort of people are able to represent the general people).

Having grown up around these people in my community, notions like straight up suspending elections is beyond the pale; going beyond the pale is what Trump excels at but politicians generally will feel comfortable with following the crowd like that when they feel they have the crowd. Trump has not built up any kind of sense of good around that concept.

Additionally, he had a habit of picking true believers; and, unfortunately for him, the conservative moment – before becoming popularist – was deeply built around this sense of reverence for the history of the nation (the real one, they’d tell you (of course), that liberals don’t understand; that conveniently also favors Big Business).

If he had a court stacked with Alitos and Thomases, I might feel differently. But Gorsuch is a Real Believer originalist. And Barrett and Kavanaugh have broken with his line when it comes to things like this, as well; because, while I find their political beliefs reprehensible and incoherent, they still do believe in some of these notions. And Rogers has no spine but does believe in the court and, so, tries to find a middle ground, even if signing on to opinions he might not fully share.

And this extends to other positions, as well; the people Trump didn’t appoint.

Basically, you would need to strip out the strict reading of the constitution – which leaves voting to the states – that the old Republican party built its entire identity around and all the arguments they’ve made for (their idea of) small governance and the many years of precedent by conservatives arguing this very point to literally move against democracy itself and I don’t think true believers like the sort of Gorsuch are really there, yet.

Waging war? Sure; we’ve (unfortunately) been watering down the restrictions on that power for decades, now (and neocons love war so there’s probably some reason they’ve concocted as to why it’s not a violation of small governance). Etc. Etc.

But literally suspend democracy itself? I don’t think, with the people he has in power right now, he could do that. Try to influence individual states on the ground (because they control their own elections)? Sure. Outright suspend elections? I don’t think he’s built the infrastructure and packed the various offices enough, yet (and, unfortunately for him, this isn’t something handled by the Executive branch, which he has (unfortunately) largely overtaken).

It’ll be harder for him to pull that one off. Possible; but I don’t think likely.

He might want to do that but it’s not very likely to succeed; the U. S. doesn’t suspend elections during wartime. They didn’t during their own civil war: no way a foreign war would have any precedent or sway anyone.

Sitting on a cool 64, over here.

Void, fucking Durbin; just keeps voting for (and sponsoring…) the most rancid of bills on his way out.

I can’t wait to finally be rid of him, after the midterms.

And people doubt the hypercarnivore theory.

We’re all awaiting the second coming.

First Things is a “Catholic” mag. but they’re generally considered on the far right of the spectrum. Hated Pope Francis, think Notre Dame is a liberal haven, etc.

deleted by creator