It’s very similar to the concept of blood libel I think, just directed at a different group than that term usually refers to. Which, given what that kind of thing historically has led to, is extremely concerning coming from such a public figure.

Meanwhile, if successful, they’d probably complain about traffic and blame it on cyclists being slow in the car lanes

I’ve seen a number of people suggest it might have been originally implied to be a fig or date, given the age and habitat of those fruits, not that it really matters what species

Realistically she’s got quite a few of those, but when given a bad but not fundamentally different from what one had before option, and a make everything far worse option, and a situation that makes trying to choose a third option an exercise in futility, the choice is a no-brainer.

Because the candidates do have those responsibilities, but have shirked them. Ideally, we’d want a better voting system, that didn’t mathematically garuntee that only two viable parties emerge, so that when the politicians refuse to use their power as they should, people who will may be chosen instead, but we don’t have that, and changing that is a long and difficult process that only gets harder if the more authoritarian types get power anyway. If you’re in a lifeboat with holes, and there are two people that have rigged things so that one of them is going to be in charge, and one wants to stop bailing out water and the other wants to scoop it back into the boat, then even though those two aren’t following their responsibilities, it doesn’t mean you should stop bailing the water out, because it has to get done by somebody or you drown. And if you have a say in which of the two is in charge, the guy that just wants to sit there uselessly is still the option you must pick, because at least they aren’t trying to undo the progress you’re making. Ideally you’d want to figure out how to undo the rigged system too, but you have to deal with the water first, lest you all drown fighting over who’s in charge.

You couldn’t make any movie today, because you probably arent someone that knows how to make movies, and has the relevant equipment and team of actors on hand, and even if you do or try to get by with the sub-par equipment on like your phone camera or something, one day just isnt enough time to make a whole movie in.

It would be kinda funny for someone to make something that starts as a horror movie but then everyone acts in a sensible manner without contrived reasons for their efforts failing, resulting in the whole dangerous situation falling apart over the course of the plot until its more a sort of parody of horror movies than a proper example.

Can’t forget the three day challenge

They really do get a lot more reverence today than they deserve. Like, I get most historical cultures don’t stack up the best with modern moral standards applied to them, but like, based on what I understand about Sparta, if the place were somehow transplanted through history to the modern day as it’s own country, it would probably end up some sanctioned pariah state out of sheer disgust for how it treats it’s own citizenry and handles it’s foreign diplomacy.

To be fair, most professions that would be needed to survive in an apocalypse or rebuild society, aren’t things that an already functioning modern society can support everyone doing anyway. We need farmers and carpenters and such, but we don’t need so many as to have openings for a majority of the population to be them, these days.

• invade a country

• Country starts building weapons

Who could have predicted this?

If Zelenskyy seems like a fascist to you, one wonders how you’d react to an actual fascist.

Similar can be said of a number of our enemies today though, especially Russia. This isn’t to say that we support the Ukrainians purely based on empathy or that the US isn’t still an exploitative power, but just deciding that anyone that doesn’t like the west must be good will inevitably lead one to bad conclusions, because no country does literally everything wrong, and because oftentimes, the enemy of your enemy is just another enemy who’s interests happen to be misaligned with the first one.

Imperial Japan rather famously fought against the United States and various Western European colonial powers. Had you lived back during the second world war era, would you have viewed them favorably?

I’m not arguing that this idea in particular is necessarily a good one, just that the concept of making the service more efficient has merit. Obviously, to actually see the benefits, the idea in question has to actually succeed at making the service more efficient.

It shouldn’t, though to some extent, it operating more efficiently can be a good thing if the efficiency gains can be gotten without significant detriment to service, because then more money is available for either improvements to the mail service or for other services. Profit does not impy efficiency of course, but making something more efficient can make it more profitable.

A great way to tell if they mean “anti-imperialist” as “against the conquering and subjugating of other groups” or instead just “in favor of anyone that declares themselves to be against the United States and Western Europe.”

It could be the aro in me talking, but I don’t really understand how people can get good sleep in the same room as one another, let alone the same bed. Having someone within the immediate vicinity, even an extremely liked and trusted person, seems like it would be a distraction at best and at worst cause anxiety over if I was making it harder for them to sleep

Tbf, if you didn’t know who these people were, none of them look like they’d necessarily be bad neighbors just on account of this picture. Trump even looks uncharacteristically friendly here, and Vance just looks like some random Joe out in the yard with his family

the main argument I see for rail is that it doesnt get stuck in car traffic, which should make it easier to keep to a reliable schedule and speed, and that it can have a higher capacity per vehicle. Those would seem to indicate that it should be better than busses for routes that are very busy, provided of course that the rail infrastructure is actually good (able to do a reasonable speed, have reasonable reliability, and separated from other modes of transit to as to not cause conflicts at crossings). If your trains are so slow you can beat them by walking, and directly cross the roads and bike paths, then its not trains as a concept that are the problem, its that you have rather bad trains.