As I’ve said all along, if you import the Third World, you become the Third World
You know I think this is the closest my aggressively pragmatic self comes to feeling the juxtaposition of sacred and profane. There are two metrics that we use to describe our species: intelligence and prosocial behavior, and this flapping husk shits on both.
I was aware of much of that, but somehow never considered that other cats have multiple births, so hyenas probably do too…
It bothers me too, but it’s (sadly) actually pretty good preparation for the real world. I’ll grant you that I’m a teacher (of adults), but I hear lies all day long. I also hear the truth, and I don’t particularly mind being lied to by a student, but absolutely no way do my classes have internet outages as much as they say they do, for example.
I’ll say it. It’s wrong to sell straight apple cider vinegar and pretend it’s wine, and getting a bunch of people in on the scheme doesn’t make it better.
Signed,
About to get deported from rural Hessen
That feels even sadder, somehow
Looks like seven of them grew up Catholic, and all of those but Neil Gorsuch still are. Absolutely nuts.
The other way around: “but obviously everyone wants to be a dude, look at Mulan!” And several people whom we would today understand to be trans men.
I’m sorry, I hyperfocused hard while writing this. Tl;dr: imo knowing the audience is half of the art of all comedy, with the delivery as the other half (the craft of comedy is separate and consists of the wording and designing of a set/callback). The same applies in dating in the office and the playfighting that siblings, good friends, and romantic partners do, but that’s a really difficult thing to learn, so the general advice is not to. “Offensive” jokes aren’t unique in that regard, but because a subset of the population doesn’t “get” it, it’s seen as a pointless taboo that should be broken down.
————————————————————
That’s always the problem with jokes though. Even a hella bigoted, mean-spirited one would make someone laugh. And tbh, the exact same joke told by a klansman at a cross burning might also be told by one “victim” of it to another, with equally raucous response.
Telling people to watch out for their audience instead of their joke causes two problems imo, though. First, it puts people offended by jokes on the defensive, even if they’re offended with good cause. Second, it’s not actually the audience, it’s the interplay between audience and joke teller (and of course your delivery, if you can’t get that right, all your jokes will fall flat and jokes targeting people will generally come off as mean spirited, regardless of the person or group being targeted*): if the klansman tells the same bigoted joke to the people targeted by it, they probably won’t find it as funny, though they might have otherwise.
Learning your audience and perfecting your delivery is much more difficult than just avoiding specific jokes though, so the common advice is to do the latter. Just like most people (myself included) would advise others not to date their coworkers or customers, but at least 20% of couples I know met when at least one of them was at work. The pursuers weren’t reported to HR either, even though their behavior in many cases violated company policies. It’s always a case of knowing your audience. My husband could say the absolute worst thing in the world to me in a way that would make me laugh, but if a stranger said the same thing I’d be angry and/or afraid, depending on what the stranger looked like (a little old lady vs a giant, fully-tatted, young man), even if they said it exactly the same way.
The reason that most people don’t feel weird about the above scenarios is that everyone can relate to them. Targeted jokes don’t hit everyone the same, so some of the people who aren’t offended by being targeted don’t understand why others are.
*think about how the internet reacts to Amy Schumer making jokes about dating men, even though she’s “punching up.”
Fun fact: no!
I mean, I’d argue the emoluments clause should apply here, because poly market isn’t limited to Americans, but given that the sources of counter bets are not really public, I can see why it might not. Damn, I guess the ToS of polymarket?
What a weird response to learning something new. It must be pretty unpleasant to be like that.
No, it is an interesting question. I suspect that with such an old culture, it would probably stick around longer than the Roman one did in Britain. Maybe it would be more like the Roman culture in Germany or maybe it would be entirely unique.
Of course, to your point that it’s not a hard and fast line, I’ve seen the argument that the Roman Empire still exists in Turkey or Russia. I don’t agree, but I can see what they’re getting at.
I’m not saying this is unlikely, I just think he’s blood drunk enough to do it. Our understanding of the effects of dozens of modern nuclear bombs on an urban center is theoretical, thankfully, but even with Iran’s geography, it’s going to cause huge problems with oil production, causing downstream food distribution issues etc.
I guess it depends on your definition of society- they wouldn’t have a functioning government for a while, but the people surviving would still be Iranian and depending on whether they’re Kurdish, Persian, or other, might still have loyalty to the idea of an Iranian state.
I don’t think you can do enough damage to the people that there’s no Iranian (or Persian) state in 100 years without damaging the rest of the world irreparably. It’s not 100% clear what the death of a civilization entails, but it feels closer to wiping out the culture to me than destroying the big cities.
My point was, if he throws enough nukes at Iran to kill 90 million people, we’re all going down together.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki still exist. A nuclear bombardment powerful enough to kill everyone in Iran would almost certainly be enough that Iran would be only one of many cultures instantly erased.
God, imagine being one of those astronauts watching it all go down. You’re definitely dead too, just on a separate timeline from the rest of us, whether you for some reason try to get back or not.
What do you mean by older than the concept of white skin?
Light skin has been around for somewhere between 22-28k years. The concept of “whiteness” is a lot younger, but it’s also younger than plenty of countries (including the US), so that’s not saying too much.
I’m not trying to be combative, I just figured I’d mention the two interpretations that occurred to me first.
Plastic up, the others down
It’s because you don’t focus on your correctness and you just let yourself speak more. It’s nearly universal.
For a Klein bottle, it’s pretty fucking groß