Which is interesting, because the point of the phrase is to imply something is so commonplace that it practically has no value. It’s so commonplace you can get a dozen of them for a dime!

So technically while the relative value of the dime in this phrase decreases, the relative value of the phrase itself increases as the dime’s value ever further approaches negligible, ever better emphasizing the point!

Words are fun.

I agree entirely and will add that hell, I even miss the satisfying sound of the CD drive opening and closing slowly with its mechanical whirr

You are welcome to challenge my comments, Flying Squid. I lob zero objections.

You’re right, and I don’t intend to either.

Are the contributions of prior peoples rendered moot simply because their ancestral language is no longer being spoken?

Why is a larger or longer empire inherently a better one? I don’t care about conquests and empires, I care about cultures, peoples, and innovations.

And frankly regarding religion, I don’t think which delusion has the biggest fanbase is a valid indicator of anything more than popularity, tbh (especially when a good number of that “popularity” came at the end of a sword).

All that being said, I have to admit I didn’t expect my off-hand quip in response to the memeification of the Roman Empire was going to get me into a debate with the official Roman Tourism Board, so I do have to admit that I feel a bit unequipped in this conflict.

edit: typo and expanding

Only if you decide to rank accomplishment solely based on footprint.

I’d argue there is vastly more to heritage and history than simply “but how much land did they conquer?”

I believe you are being what RPG circles call a “grognard”

I never think about the Roman Empire; why would I waste my time thinking about second-rate Ancient Greece?

I fully agree with all of this and will add that he’s also obviously a nazi or at least nazi-sympathizer as well.

I definitely wasn’t speaking about Elon fucking Musk here because he has never been directly responsible for anything of value in the world, far as I can tell.

But still abstractly my point stands, assuming we’re identifying people with actual contributions to society rather than just the money to buy the contributions of others.

Maybe the better approach is that we as audiences should understand that no real person is a saint and that whether or not it leaves a bad taste in our mouths, otherwise morally reprehensible people can still be responsible for profound achievements and progress.

Somebody else brought up Freud already, who many would call a deeply unethical man and whose conclusions are often debunked or thought better of in the modern era… Yet the impact of Freud, despite these shortcomings, remains basically inarguable.

I think the problem is that in the past 20 or so years we’ve started to read acknowledgement in media as endorsement by media, but those are two very separate things.

Also unable to load this image on boost Thunder

On boost Thunder I’m seeing “unable to load image”

edit: ooops wrong client

My friend, I regret to inform you that you are misunderstanding the meme

I’ve been to Mexico like 6 times.

The first 5 times were all excellent trips, wonderful places, wonderful people.

The sixth time, we were all literally robbed by Mexican police officers at the airport who claimed we couldn’t leave the country without paying an “exit tax” of $200 USD each, and told us we either paid and got on our flight home or we didn’t pay and they took us to prison.

I don’t go back to Mexico now.

deleted by creator

This is almost an appealing idea in a parallel universe where religion doesn’t exist, but unfortunately that’s not the one we live in. This conflict is one that extends to nearly every avenue, but at it’s core, it’s a religious one. Unless we’re ready as a global community to finally denounce religion and call the practice of it a silly and fruitless endeavor, which to be clear, we aren’t, then we’re never going to get anywhere pretending we can ignore the religious aspect of it. And that includes your utopian suggestion, which aside from all of its other very real problems would also likely enrage an enormous religious segment of the world who would see some of their holiest lands reduced to mere merchants dens. Even if you perhaps try to protect the religious sites, now you’re effectively enforcing a concept of religious sanctity on the global community, which is no less likely to offend.

Your idea is well-intended and nice to think about, but unfortunately unrealistic for many reasons, starting on the ground floor with problem of religion.

Whether a person believes they have divine inspiration or not, it is still their choice to follow it. In fact, that’s a key tenant of the faith in question. A deluded person is deluded; we don’t have to and shouldn’t indulge their delusion as if it was reality. And to be clear I’m not talking about religion here, I’m talking about genuinely mentally ill people as you describe. If a mentally ill person truly believes they are a duck it does not mean they are a duck, even if they choose to behave like one. When a mentally ill person believes they know the holy spirit Spirit it does not mean they know the holy spirit, even when they choose to behave as such.

I don’t agree with your interpretation of constitutes an intrinsic quality. I do agree elements within organized religion exist to prey on various vulnerabilities, including those related to brain chemistry, but I don’t think those pressures or vulnerabilities absolve you the responsibility of thoughtfulness and choice. I have suffered from a genuine mental illness my whole life, and that fact does contribute to my choices and and may explain some of my behavior, but it never absolves me or excuses my behavior. Religion may arguably be a difficult or loaded choice, but it is absolutely a choice. A person isn’t a Baptist in the way that they might be inherently and intrinsically gay; a person chooses to be Baptist, even if that choice is one of passive cultural acceptance.

But the reason it was banned was clearly identified as being because it is symbolic of a religion. Based on that, how wouldn’t a cross necklace also qualify?

You say that as if atheism is just another religion, which is missing the point. It’s not an unreasonable bias if the government agrees with me that 2+2=4 and that those trying to convince you 2+2=3 are doing you intellectual harm. I know religious people love the “but atheism is just another kind of religion!” adage, but it doesn’t hold water. Nobody is being denied human rights in the name of just atheism, nobody is being oppressed by just atheism.

Remember when we were kids and we were told not to judge people by how they look or other factors they can’t control, but rather to judge them by the things they say, do, and think? Yeah somewhere religious people started this lie that religion is some intrinsic part of being, like sexuality/sexual identity, but this isn’t the case. Religion is a choice. Religion is a belief. Exactly the kind of thing you should judge people for, same as any of their other beliefs or opinions.

The idea that a government shouldn’t endorse atheism, or at least legislate from an atheistic point of view, is insane to me, tbh.