Supernatural’s whole story arc was based on this (and it worked for them). Inevitably, to beat this big bad that the brothers have absolutely no business going toe-to-toe with, they must do something that is bound to catch up with them, but it’s either that or the world is fucked. Then the next thing is even worse, and they have to do something that will bite them even worse in order to stop the world from getting fucked. And it just keeps ramping up, they keep losing more and more of themselves and punching so far above their weight class that they end up… well, no spoilers, in case somebody wants to watch (and I don’t know how to do spoiler tags).

There’s a point when Sam has some injury, like a broken arm or gunshot wound or something, and he’s talking to a nurse or doctor who asks him to rate his pain from 0, which is no pain, to 10, which is the worst pain he could imagine. He gets a thousand-yard stare for a second and says “3.”

I appreciate the write-up, thank you! I feel like a lot of this is semantic differences. I’ve always thought of socialism as any public funds used specifically to help citizens (e.g. social security, medicare, unemployment, UBI, etc) and Communism to be the public owning and running the means of production, and distributing goods thereof, and the stateless, classless, moneyless society to be the ideal utopia it aspired to (similar to Star Trek). From your comment, I see that what I call Communism, you call Socialism (which explains a lot of confusion from discussions in the past with self-described Communists I’ve known), and the nameless Star Trek post-scarcity system you would call Communism.

Do you think it is possible to slow-roll the transition peacefully, though? If, for example, instead of the government bailing out industries, they bought out industries on the cheap, slowly growing and monopolizing like Google or Amazon have? Or do you think the rich would simply block that from happening?

So I will admit that I am ignorant of a method of attaining Communism that isn’t at the end of a rifle, and thus authoritarian by nature (and fully accept that, to a degree, Capitalism is also at the end of a gun, but typically less overt, or often directed without instead of within). The only nations I’ve seen flying the red flag have appeared highly authoritarian (and I’m not going to get drawn into a “USSR and PRC aren’t/weren’t authoritarian, and DPRK is actually a utopia!” discussion, so if that’s the direction this is going, let me know and I’ll politely see my way out).

I’ve seen in the lower comments that Socialism would be used as a gateway to Communism, but I am unclear about the transition from “everybody’s basic needs are met via taxation and distribution” to “personal property is abolished” (as I understand Communism to mean, please correct me if I’m wrong). Plenty of European countries have had (for the west), strong seemingly socialist systems, but they don’t seem to be deliberately angling toward Communism, for example.

So I’m curious what this peaceful Capitalist to Communist timeline would look like.

The origin and story of Dogman is certainly dark.

I thought they accidentally got rid of Black Friday with their anti-DEI measures?

Whether this was deliberate or not, it’s still pretty funny.

I take it back, if it wasn’t deliberate it would be especially funny.

Whoa, NFSW tag that!

…okay.

Maybe… don’t draw attention to it. Let this one slide. Give him a win. Let’s not make fun of him for doing a good thing, even if it’s for a silly reason. Hell, if it ends the Russia/Ukraine war with no loss of land for Ukraine (I would argue, best case scenario), and they want to give him a Nobel Peace Prize, let him have it. Remember, Kissinger got one, it’s not like it’s meant anything for a loooooong time.

Take what you can get.

Leaving before the rush?

I, due to volunteering my seat on an earlier flight to get a voucher for a future flight, got put into first class on my replacement flight.

When I was sitting down, and the woman next to me pulled her legs up so her shins were parallel to the front of the seat (this position), my mind was blown.

That is not the problem. Population declines as countries move to first world status, and I think the people not having kids due to financial constraints are few and far between. Otherwise population would not start and continue diminishing as an area becomes more affluent. People have less (or no) kids because they don’t want kids, don’t want a bunch of kids, and can reasonably expect the kids they have to survive to adulthood. And access to birth control, education, and other opportunities (mostly for women) makes having less kids (by their own desire) possible.

So bringing capable workers in means they pay into taxes that support the aging and school-age population, and never had to have their school-age years paid for. They’re a productive member with half the cost over their lifetime.

It’s a no-brainer… as long as you’re not worried about changing the… shade or hue… of your population over time.

Our replacement rate has been low for a long time, but our population has stayed relatively steady… because of immigration.

Low replacement rate is only bad if you’re racist/xenophobic. Otherwise there’s usually (in a supposedly first-world country) an easy solution.

And if you think this is a dig on specifically the US, it isn’t. Japan and South Korea are about to have insane difficulties with a very obvious and simple solution, and the US had that solution and are destroying it in favor of racism and xenophobia.

I would absolutely react more to my child getting killed than literally anyone else on the planet, what are you on about?

Though in fairness, if I had powers, I don’t think it would be a pursuit of justice or launch me on some path of heroism. Somebody would just die badly (assuming the initial killing was either deliberate or through willful neglect).

deleted by creator

I think people haven’t gotten to the point of arguing with you because they have no idea what you’re trying to say.

To be clear, I’m not arguing with you either.

I feel like “render unto caesar what is caesar’s” to mean “pay your taxes. The money you’re using is theirs. Your faith and beliefs aren’t really part of that.”

Which is really funny in the current political context.

We get it! The metric system is better! Geez.

In a practical sense, identifying as lesbian makes it clear who they are interested in. Who they are should already be understood.

Honestly, non-binary hetero would be considerably more confusing. I at least know with a non-binary lesbian that they like women.

Are you sure?

It’s used for bad things, but there’s nothing wrong with the term and is generally good practice.

Get some sun, but in moderation.

Help people, but in moderation (don’t set yourself on fire to warm others. In other words, practice self-care)

Eat in moderation.

Exercise in moderation.

Play video games in moderation.

Hell, brush your teeth in moderation. Don’t strip the enamel brushing 8 times a day.

Work in moderation.

Doom scroll in moderation. (stay aware, don’t get to the point of crushing sense of despair)

Basically, most things are best practiced in moderation. And if one feels compelled to do harmful things, doing them in moderation can help mitigate the damage.