But you ask anyone who knows anything about fighting and the first thing they tell you to do is to cut your hair short because it’s just an easy handle to grab on to.
But you ask anyone who knows anything about fighting and the first thing they tell you to do is to cut your hair short because it’s just an easy handle to grab on to.
Not that it makes it a better argument, but the meme was that millennials were going out to restaurants for an 11$ latte and 15$ avocado toast instead of staying home for breakfast. The whole point, to them, was that coffee and avocado toast had some of the cheapest ingredients you could ever ask for.
This is called a motte-and-bailey. We were discussing a group trying to ban books about the Holocaust, and the larger concept about groups of parents being able to ban anything by whining about it enough. You put forward a different argument you think is bullet proof about banning sexual content with the implication that this argument defends the much weaker argument about banning Holocaust books or whatever books the mob may choose.
Just pointing that out. It’s a common fallacy and one that feels right, it isn’t necessarily done intentionally.
The freakout about sexual content is fabricated and designed to play to emotions. School libraries already ban sexual content. There’s no smut or erotica at them. The small handful of books that people wanted to ban were either educational or were similar to many books that were not targeted by those parent groups and the sexual situations were not the focus of the book. The main similarity was that they were about LGBT sexualities.
Because the rules are in place and curated by professionals. What I don’t want is every semi-educated group of extremists to have the ability to whine enough that they get important books banned.
I’m wondering if it’s why I don’t get so much as a rejection email for many of the jobs I’ve applied for. It always feels like submitting an application is just tossing it into the void but this study seems to corroborate that.
No, the drug Olympics gives them downers too.
You didn’t answer the question.
How on earth would what I said imply that Al Jazeera knew that October 7th was going to happen lol. There’s been threats of war between the two for decades.
I like the take that science fiction and fantasy is just a better form of fiction because you could take literally any fiction story about a mopey 30 year old who has to take care of their sick parent and a science fiction story has the potential to write an equally compelling story except this time there’s a killer robot on the loose or they’re on Mars or something.
All good stories are human stories, even science fiction. There’s nothing inherently better about setting your story in the “real world”.
I’m sure al Jazeera would have said the US has been trying to prevent an Israeli-Palestine war before the conflict happened. We can see what happened with that.
Wife wants coke, a brick of hash, bottle of pills, some meat and some sausage. Kid wants a sandwich and some ciggies.
That’s honestly even sadder. Having to commit self-harm to relive nostalgia.
On authority is used to justify the fact that many communist movements of the past turned into brutal dictatorships and that “it’s fine actually that mao starved half of China because you can’t have a revolution without being authoritarian”.
The actual paper is short and kind of stupid. What Engels was arguing in that short essay with a ridiculously outsized influence was that he was technically correct (the best kind) that anarchists are silly because any type of government someone could propose inevitably involves one person imposing their will on another like your quote says.
Really what Engels (who was a prominent communist thinker) was doing was fucking up any attempts at communist organization because now 1/3 of communists think that brutal authoritarianism is based and necessary for a revolution.
You’re definitely right that you picked apart their argument because ackshually there will always be a richest person. But clearly the sentiment is that someone shouldn’t get excessive wealth past their threshold.
How do we define excessive wealth and how do we limit it? Well there are lots and lots of proposals I would suggest reading up on some (you can Google that question to get 10 op eds that suggest 20 different solutions). I wouldn’t mind defining it as a certain percentage higher than the median wealth of the country. It would be funny to give Gabe Newell a “you won capitalism” trophy and taking excess wealth he gains.
As for motivation. It’s a much murkier subject than you imply. In an economy where the state takes every penny of a successful business’s wealth, yeah it makes sense that there’s no motivation to make a successful business. But if one could still get rich off of running a business (just not god-tier level wealth) I’m sure there would be plenty of motivation. And hell, if we give them prestige like we do now there’s tons of people who do what they do just for the fame with no profit. There’s tons of evidence that people aren’t purely motivated by the infinite profit of business people all over the world work their asses off in jobs they enjoy or respect that will never pay them Gabe Newell bucks.
All she has to do is drop the media-seeking bullshit and/or stop being a public figure. It’s free and easy.
I think “great” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
He got turned into Wallace. The titular character.
💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵🍆💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵