“Had a relationship with …”
Sex with a minor. Hmm … sex with a minor. I could swear we had a word for that.
I often cringe a bit at the rhetoric coming out of the men’s rights corner, but the gender bias around sex with minors in so consistent.
Is it? There are plenty of Jews and plenty of Muslims who are not involved in this and see it as wrong. Plus, that’s such a broad statement as to be meaningless. We could equally say government is the problem, but there aren’t many advocating for anarchy. Or people are the problem. I’d be more inclined to say tribalism is the problem, the very foundation of an “us” vs. “them” mentality. Sometimes assholes pick a fight and call it religious. There’s a strong case to be made that war has become much more brutal and far reaching since the Napoleonic wars and the rise of the nation-state. I mean, we can blame religion … that certainly erases the need to look within ourselves and ask why humans do this to each other.
It’s a bit like pretending Nazism was a German problem and pretending like the same dark forces don’t exist now and in many people everywhere.
There are definitely some religious dickheads, but there are dickheads of all stripes.
If religion is so vile, how do we hold in tension the fact that religious people are often behind the most charity towards the marginalised and disempowered? Atheists talk a good game, but rarely leave their armchairs to do anything positive. Religion can become a tribal marker, but it also is one of the main forces working against tribalism.
That’s kind of the point: there isn’t an authority on English. The closest we come is a bunch of English elites making up informal rules on grammar, spelling, and pronunciation and judging everyone else for not using their version. … And a bunch of try-hards who enforce their arbitrary and often nonsensical 'rules '.
If it parses, it rolls.
Canned tuna fish.
IRC one of mushrooms’ main effects is to increase seratonin levels, so … Yeah, same basic thing.
I believe that “Indian Giving” is sourced in a cultural misunderstanding between Indigenous and European societies. Indigenous societies were reciprocity based, so giving gifts should be reciprocated with a gift of like value to strengthen relationships, or increase honour (social standing). The Europeans were working in a patron-client system so a gift was seen as a way of purchasing access to power through a patron. The Europeans thought the Indigenous people were paying for access to power (like a tributary), so there’s no expectation of returning a like gift. The indigenous people thought they were entering into a mutual relationship, and when a like gift wasn’t returned that was seen as reneging, so they took back their ‘offer’.
Glad to have an anthropologist kick my ass.
I suspect round one is like eating milk, and round two is a fine cheese. Or eating cabbage, and later experiencing it as a well-aged kimchi. I’m sure it’s full of probiotics.
A longer digestive system is necessary to properly break down plant cellulose. This is why some small herbivores are copraphagic (eat their own shit, like rabbits): it takes two times through to extract adequate nutrients.
I think you’re telling me you’re a woman. I want to point out that seeing a tailor is a non-sexual experience. I’m not sure I’ve ever been to one, not even a female tailor, who HASN’T made incidental contact with my genitals when checking fit, particularly in-seam. It’s a far cry from being “groped”. It’s a bit like imagining a lingerie specialist worries about touching someone’s boobs, or that a doctor gets worried about seeing someone naked.
No, they’re not worried about joggling your junk. It’s because you need something like an extra half inch in the seam on the side you dress on to leave a little extra room in your pants for your dick. Well-tailored pants are asymetrical. Not sure those of you who wear briefs need to worry about it.
I’ve found Bewley’s to be quite good with hard water too.
IMO Yorkshire does well with hard water, and takes milk well.
I’ve been wondering a lot about absurdism in humour. There are people who laugh when they see something disastrous happen, like a man reflexively trying to stop a cement truck from tipping and getting squashed dead. Or a recent news story of the only fatality in a school bus crash: it was an observer who got hit by a vehicle as he ran across the highway to see if the kids were ok. A lot of the time this laughing response to a disaster is interpreted as schadenfreude, but a good portion of the time I believe it’s absurdism.
We try so hard to have agency, to do something, but the World doesn’t give a fuck. You have two choices when shit goes so wrong: you can wail about the unfairness of it all, or you can laugh at the absurdity of our efforts in the face of the colossal chaos of it all. The laughter is stronger.
It’s interesting to me that some cultures seem to have absurd humour baked in. The Aussies and Kiwis seem to have it. They just make jokes about and laugh at the most horrific situations.
I’ve been wondering a lot about absurdist humour. Dan Carlin relates a story of an old Air Force colonel who
Lots of good articles on Canadian brutality in WW1 if you do a search. As for war crimes in particular, here’s one of many articles mentioning how Canadians killed prisoners of war:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-forgotten-ferocity-of-canadas-soldiers-in-the-great-war
I mean, we’re kind of known for war crimes too. Was anyone in WW1 worse than the Canadians?
Staaaahp! You and all your encouragement: you’re almost making me feel like I can do it today.
Holy shit! This dude’s pluralising in Greek!
Never trust a Campbell.