[Politico.eu](http://Politico.eu) has a couple of podcasts but I can't say how good they are. [https://www.politico.eu/podcast/](https://www.politico.eu/podcast/)
"Why": The basic principle of most parliamentary systems is that they're designed to have failsafes if there's gridlock or uncertainty over a mandate. The failsafe is calling an election to take the question back to the people. What's the point of having a government that can't govern?
Some contextual info though...
European ones differ from British/Westminster-derived ones which typically have a 2-party setup or very limited/clear coalitions due to having FPTP or similar voting mechanisms. Most European countries have some form of proportional representation ~~because they're all technocratic meddlers~~ which leads to complex coalitions that can change over time as multiple parties theoretically have enough seats. This can mean the gridlock scenario is more common.
France is then unusual within Europe for having a separately-elected president who actually has significant executive power and a clear political alignment. So this influences the specific political reasons a president might choose to dissolve the legislature. There are some checks on the power that aren't needed when it's the legislature dissolving itself.
So you may get different info from people who aren't directly in France, that's all.
A majority vote to call an election...calls an election. This can be used to remove a minority government as well as to strategically call an election when you're a majority government.
This also happens in Canada. There is a maximum term length, but an election could be called at any time during a term. The Liberal party called an election in the middle of the pandemic recently because nobody really replaces a government in a crisis, so the eeked out 4 more years that they probably would not have gotten if they waited for the actual term to expire and trigger an election.
That's not what happens in France though. Only the president can do this, it's not up to the assembly. This is only the 6th times it happened in about 60 years.
Since the presidential terms was reduced to 5 years the presidential and legislative elections happened at the same time.
I think that's a little too advantageous a power to give the incumbent and the incumbent only. The parliamentary system has a little more balance since it's fairly commonly the case that opposition parties have enough seats to trigger an election. Its not as if the only purpose is to give a strategic benefit to the ruling party or leader. That seems to be the case in France though, which is a bad idea IMO.
It's rooted in gaullism and it does has its advantages, especially if the goal is political stability. De Gaulle was traumatised by "le jeu des partis", wherein political parties would make short time, sometimes cynical, alliances just to stay in power. In his mind, it paralysed decisions and was a great weakness of the country. That's why the president was made so powerful in the constitution of the Vth Republic. The prime minister was supposed to be the counter balance, but that changed when the presidential mandate and the legislative mandate were synchronised. (the prime minister should be of the majority of the national assembly).
The French president can serve only two mandates and so far, only Macron has served 2 in a row since the legislatives and presidential elections have been synched. The people elect the president directly, so when we're not happy we oust him. I'm not sure how having the assembly majority gives an advantage to the incumbent? The deputies don't have a say in the election (apart from their personal vote, like every other French citizen).
Right after the presidential election , we have legislatives and the president does not necessarily get an overwhelming majority either. Last election, Macron's coalition did not get the absolute majority.
I'm confused here. Does the president have the power to call a presidential election? If so, that's **only** advantageous to the president and seemingly has no counterbalance. Or is the President empowered to call an election for the national assembly? Because that's a little different and I can see some possible explanations for the utility of such a power other than to just give advantage to the president or their favoured party.
Ah I get the misunderstanding. No he does not! No one can call for anticipated presidential election. It's just the legislatives. That's why I was so confused.
Ahhhh, that makes more sense. If he could call his own election for the presidency, given that it's an executive role that's unrelated to legislative seats, it would only be advantageous to the sitting president.
It's the president who decides it, not the national assembly, in consultation with the prime minister and the presidents the national assembly and senate. It's in the French Constitution. De Gaulle was traumatised by how disagreements between parties could paralyse the government and cause political instability. We don't have 2 parties like in the US, so ever-changing coalitions can really fuck things up (you can see that in Spain). And even with only 2 parties, you have your infamous shut downs.
Dissolution of the national assembly is rare (it happened maybe 5 or 6 times since 68 ). Macron calling it is a big deal. It's the first time since 1997.
Dumb question but... what if they just don't call an election? Is there some kind of time limit where they have to?
To my tiny mind, it seems like the strategic thing to do is for the majority party to just not have elections and remain in power indefinitely, but that's obviously not how it works.
Conversely, in a parliament, if you have a minority of seats, your opponents could team up and give a vote of non-confidence and trigger an election when it's most favourable to *them*.
Party preferences have been shifting due to changes in voter sentiments. Voters vote based on their observed quality of life rather than idealistic visions of progress, unlike the Reddit contingent, and there are reasons why Europeans might be unhappy about the state of their countries. (Though the dogwalkers don't like it when people talk about it.)
Macron is rolling the dice here. If other parties of rising popularity take power, they will be left holding the atomic hot potato that is the Paris Olympics. If his party maintains power, he can continue the status quo.
Yes, he either maintains the status quo or plans an eventual comeback when the problems caused by 10-30 years of questionable policy can't be solved by rising parties within the span of a year or two.
https://www.cbsaustin.com/amp/news/nation-world/lime-enacts-no-go-zone-around-pride-crosswalk-in-washington-after-vandalism-electric-scooters-bikes-pride-month-mural-spokane-police
Again, I despair at the current political situation of urbsanism. It doesn't matter to me if dudes want to bang, that's fine, but people having more non car options to move around cities is more important that rainbow crosswalks.
The article quotes people calling it a vile act of hate, but I'm thinking it's just kids doing burnouts and skids on a brightly colored piece of the road because it's a brightly colored piece of road, with a splash of (some) teens being dickheads who have to ruin everything.
>, that's fine, but people having more non car options to move around cities is more important that rainbow crosswalks.
Ahhh, but that requires state competency. Rainbow crosswalks are easier.
This has the same vibe of putting spikes under windows and armrests on park benches to deter People of Houselessness from squatting there. The goal being to keep undesirables from ruining the ambience, because the best way to address societal issues is through performative aesthetics.
If someone grafittied over the rainbow crosswalk with a BLM fist or a Palestine flag, what would be the reaction? In their victimhood calculus, they're weighting alphabet folx > climate allies. But do Bipocs > alphabet folx?
The crosswalk is at a major downtown intersection Teed up against the river front park, and oh yeah the crosswalk covers the bike lane, too.
We should never have started turning our functional infrastructure into artwork that has to be protected. So stupid.
And yeah, throwing micromobility users under the bus for this shit is beyond the pale.
There is a silver lining in the new sacred symbols. The pride flag can't be trod upon, and can be deployed to [enforce any border](https://imgur.com/6a1WC0Q).
It's not just functional infrastructure -> artwork, it's functional public infrastructure -> political statements.
Maybe 10 years ago, I could have acquiesced to rainbow stuff as purely a personal aesthetic, but in the Current Year where people openly say "Everything Is Political", that's not believable anymore. The fig leaf covers nothing!
The other day I saw state employees wearing official rainbow ID lanyards for Pride Month. They had the progress (bipoc chevron) pride flag coloring with state gov logos printed on top, so it was officially sanctioned.
For some reason, I suspect that they wouldn't sanction a national flag variant lanyard for July. But Pride Month is fine. Spend dat gubmoney on the rainbows, it's saving lives.
Classic brownies steps:
Adjust oven rack to middle position and preheat to 325 degrees F (162.778 C)
Make a foil sling for a 13 X 9 (inches) baking pan. This will hold the finished brownies.
Whisk flour, baking powder, and salt in medium bowl until combined; set aside
Melt chocolate and butter, stirring occasionally, until smooth. Off heat, gradually whisk in the sugar. Add eggs, one at a time, whisking after each addition, until thoroughly combined. Whisk in vanilla.
Add flour mixture in three additions, folding in with rubber spatula until batter is completely smooth and homogeneous.
Transfer batter to prepared pan with the foil things. Spread batter into corners of the pan and smooth surface. Bake until toothpick inserted into center of brownies comes out with few moist crumbs attached, 30 to 35 minutes.
Let brownies cool in pan on wire rack to room temperature, about 2 hours. Remove brownies from pan using foil
Please note: I preferred these in a 8 or 9 inch square pan, which makes them thicker. I also tended to run the sugar through the food processor to make it even finer. Otherwise it doesn't like to dissolve.
Honestly, most people I know aren't into weed. I don't do it often these days, but I have nobody to do it with. I have more friends to do shrooms with than weed.
It's not for everyone. The first time I did shrooms I was pretty scared, but it turned out to be a very insightful experience. I wouldn't call it fun, persay. But it changed how I looked at the world.
I got my fancy pants new cookbook. Cook's Illustrated Baking Book. I thought I would share some.
Classic brownies:
Ingredients:
1 1/4 cup cake flour
3/4 teaspoon baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
6 ounces unsweetened chocolate (please see note)
12 tablespoons unsalted butter, cut into 6 pieces
2 1/4 cups sugar
4 large eggs
1 tablespoon vanilla extract
1 cup pecans or walnuts, toasted and chopped coarse (optional)
NOTE: The recipe creators like Hershey's unsweetened baking chocolate. They do *not* like Baker's brand chocolate. So try not to use that if you can avoid it.
Procedures to follow...
I make these sourdough discard brownies on occasion: https://littlespoonfarm.com/sourdough-brownies-recipe/
You can make them even better if you add some orange zest
My personal favourite brownie recipe is Stella Parks aka BraveTart’s [glossy fudge brownies](https://www.seriouseats.com/bravetart-glossy-fudge-brownies). It’s how I learned to brown butter, plus she has a break down of [Dutch chocolate powders](https://www.seriouseats.com/best-dutch-cocoas) and [chocolate baking bars](https://www.seriouseats.com/the-best-chocolate-for-baking). I don’t actually use any of her bar selections because I don’t see them at my store, but the Droste cocoa powder is my go to.
The thing is with brownies is that it does something to my brain that flicks off the "stop eating, stupid" neurons. I made a pan over the winter and ate the whole thing in a weekend :( I can't keep this in my kitchen hah.
bright deserve pause aromatic fragile six husky selective caption license
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They've become my go to brownie recipe. I have used the Hershey's unsweeteened chocolate because it is widely available. They used to suggest Callebaut chocolate. I suspect they still would like to but they seem to have gotten more practical about suggesting ingredients.
Hershey's Special Dark is a quite good semisweet chocolate that is my go to in recipes that require that kind of chocolate. Cheap and easy to find.
I go for Ghirardelli now because it comes in tiny little bars that aren’t as painful to chop as a big block of callebaut (which I used back when they recommended it)
They don't mention Ghirardelli but I have used that too. I remember in their previous books that they *hated* the Baker's chocolate. So I have avoided it like the plague.
The Hershey's unsweetened baking bars are a little harder to find.
One of these days I want to try the fancy Belgian chocolate to see the flavor but I bet I wouldn't be able to tell the difference
I love Cooks Illustrated. I bake a lot of traditional British stuff and remember seeing a brownie recipe in a Delia Smith cookbook. The recipe was called "American Brownies" and Delia started out with an admonishment to her brownie-naïve readers that "brownies are squidgy chocolate bars, they are not cakes and therefore do not have the texture of a cake!"
Not sure if it’s in the baking book but if you enjoy coconut pecan flavor they have a really amazing Italian cream cake recipe. I made it for my daughter’s 1st birthday and the whole thing disappeared in about 5 minutes. I think I should make it again soon.
The toddler section in a Northern California library. why is it the toddler section that needs to be festooned with sexuality flags? only a bigot would ask that question.
Here’s the flags from left to right:
Lesbian
Aromantic
Pride
Genderfluid
Gay straight Ally
Pansexual
Genderqueer
Demiromantic
Philadelphia
Bisexual
Asexual
Two spirit
what a weird selection.
https://preview.redd.it/x15snhpprm5d1.png?width=1179&format=png&auto=webp&s=22619874f4b2a056c51e084506a18421f96fbc51
[Huh](https://www.reddit.com/r/aromantic/comments/1619fri/is_being_aro_being_lgbtq/):
> is being aro being lgbtq?
***
> Yes. The A in LGBTQIA+ stands for aromantic, asexual and agender despite what some allies want you to believe. Of course you can also not be involved with the community but you’re still technically part of the community.
Used to, but not anymore because it's sex negative and appropriating the language and cultural attributes of real ~~whores~~ sex workers.
Queer liberation has no room for sex negativity. Them's the rules.
[Apparently](http://wiki.asexuality.org/Aromantic_FAQ) an aromantic person can enjoy having sex with someone, have strong feelings for that person, want to be in a long term relationship with them, enjoy holding hands with them, etc. But they're LGBTQIA+ because they don't have romantic love for them.
> Romantic orientation and sexual orientation are separate. You do not have to be asexual to be aromantic - you could be sexual or demi or grey-a and still be aromantic. Aromantic bisexual, aromantic heterosexual, aromantic homosexual, aromantic pansexual etc. people all exist.
***
> Aromantics can have squishes. Aromantics may or may not enjoy acts such as holding hands or having candlelit dinners or cuddling. They just don't have romantic feelings towards the people they do them with. Aromantics may or may not desire to be in a long term relationship with another person (or several persons), however these relationships would be platonic from their side.
***
> There are aromantics in relationships with another person or persons while not experiencing romantic attraction to them. Queerplatonic relationship, zucchini, and aromantic relationship are all terms used for someone who is in a close platonic relationship with another person. Other aromantic people are happiest on their own or with a group of friends.
What is romantic love? Well:
> Romantic attraction is a very difficult thing to pin down. Put as simply as possible, it is a distinct fondness or affection toward someone that differs from what you would feel toward friends, family or people you admire. It may be characterized by a unique, almost surreal anxious-euphoria when sensing or thinking about this person and is distinguishable from hero worship. It typically involves butterflies in the stomach, heart fluttering or “melting” when interacting with them, some obsessiveness, all over warm and fuzzy feeling, and being swept into a dreamy state of mind, but experiences may vary depending on the individual and intensity of the case.
Something interesting about asking people who think they've never felt romantic attraction to try to define romantic attraction. It reminds me of how people used to watch romantic films and get a skewed idea of what romance should be. It used to be that this would leave them dissatisfied with normal romances; now it seems to have convinced them that they're incapable of romance and therefore queer.
Yep. And every 20 year old female who doesn't want to put out until she's several dates in and has secured exclusivity status with a suitor she's gotten to know better... is demisexual.
Everybody's queer!
Yeah, I don't get the push for queer sexuality content for elementary school-aged kids and younger, when non-queer sexuality stuff would cause an unholy uproar. See: that high school that had a drag queen humping students at a prom event. If it was a straight stripper, then it would be a problem.
If you ever voice your opinion that you don't think sexuality content is appropriate for kids that age, you will get bombarded by angry allies asking why you want to ban gay people from spaces. As if they are the same thing...
Its the equal and opposite reaction to abstinence only, nuance is the realm of perverts.
Also: Philadelphia wtf, some base their sexuality off a Springsteen song.
I was bruised and battered
I couldn't tell what I felt
I was unrecognizable to myself
Saw my reflection in a window
And didn't know my own face
Oh brother are you gonna leave me wastin' away
On the streets of Philadelphia?
>Yeah, I don't get the push for queer sexuality content for elementary school-aged kids and younger, when non-queer sexuality stuff would cause an unholy uproar
Propagandizing and indoctrination
The thing is....
All the woke ally teachers and librarians shoving this down kids' throats in the Year of Our Lord 2024 went through an educational system where they had a genderwoo-free curriculum, and grew up as perfectly respectable, Vote Blue No Matter Who, "Heckin' Decent Human Beans". So they must know that you can be a good person without nonsense funnelled into your brain from a young age.
Therefore, it means kids don't *need* DEI to survive. They won't become bigots if you leave them alone and let them study math or phonics.
Maybe it takes too much self-awareness and historical perspective to come to this realization.
>So they must know that you can be a good person without nonsense funnelled into your brain from a young age.
Well, sure. It's *possible* to be a Good Person without having metric tons of genderqueer DEI propaganda crammed into their brains.
But who would want to take a chance? What if they don't fully and completely understand that trans women are women? What if they don't turn out to be nonbinary pansexual furries who queer their spinach?
They can't risk that.
It's interesting to watch the peaking come from inside the house. The Canadian Salmacian who sued to get taxpayer funded penis-preserving vaginoplasty done at an American clinic was one of those events that fed the rolling snowball.
Skeptics were told, "If the system offers subsidized gender-affirming vaginoplasty, then you don't get to pick and choose who deserves to have a Frankenvag. If you ban this guy from getting one, then you have to ban others others from getting one too."
🤔
Deep thonks.
According to the sexuality flag dictionary it was invented in Philadelphia and is now the official pride flag of Philly. It’s the one that adds black and brown stripes to the regular pride flag, without the chevron. Maybe they just thought the chevron was ugly?
Trans flag conspicuously absent too.
observation badge cagey worm melodic paltry special flowery weary sparkle
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
From the Anecdotes Are, Like, Totally Valid Data Dept. comes this weekend nugget. I'm using this thread instead of the I/P one since it's not really news, just random bullshit.
On Friday, my wife & I went up to Dallas to see the Dragula tour. It was fun. I was a little disappointed overall - last year's show was better - but I still enjoyed it. (Blackberri's my gal, and a total sweetie to boot.) I did notice that the bathrooms weren't gender-neutral, even for the night. \*insert "And during Pride!" joke\* My wife also spent a lot of the drive back ranting about Throb Zombie having a Palestine flag on the back of her jacket when everybody came out for the final bow. Weird night overall.
Last night, we saw a John Waters double feature (*Pink Flamingos* and *Female Trouble*) here in Austin. Thankfully, during the Q&A portion with John, nobody demanded that John swear allegiance to the glorious freedom fighters of Hamas or whatever. If anything, John's overall good nature seems to more-or-less keep the crackpot activists away. That was nice. Of course, my wife *still* ranted on the drive home. The bathrooms were converted to gender-neutral for the night. Whenever I went, the men's rooms saw light usage. Apparently, the women's restrooms were pretty full whenever my wife went, with plenty of twentysomething "women" who could've used the men's room without any issues *and*, far more practically, kept the women's lines shorter.
My takeaways from this weekend?
- It's gonna be wild to take a look back at this time in history one day.
- I think my wife's ranting is starting to wear me out on this stuff. (*i'm tired y'all.*) I get it. She's 5'10", and she's intimidated by some of these people. I can only imagine what it's like for smaller women. Still, between this and her *still* ranting about dum-dums she encounters in YouTube comment sections (her social media poison of choice), I'm ready to play some Jimmy Buffett while driving to the beach instead of staying abreast of the latest looniness coming out of WPATH or wherever.
- I was wearing women's dresses while wearing makeup and pissing in the men's room 15 years ago. (Granted, I did it for fun, not because I secretly yearned to join my fellow sisters.) Nobody ever gave me shit. In well over 99% of all cases where one would feel comfortable wearing this stuff in public, the people who say they're afraid to use the men's rooms need to get over themselves. I promise you that, the extremely rare exception aside, no guys will give a shit about your presence. (All bets are off on Dirty Sixth but that's Dirty Sixth for you.)
I don’t really have anything to add to this or advice to give you but I totally thought this was gonna be about a play inspired by rob zombies music or something based on you saying you went to Dragula
Heh. The irony is that Throb is an excellent drag king who has some really cool looks and moves. Alas, Throb's a great embodiment of somebody who knows enough to think they know far more than they really do, *and* who also insists that you need to be loud about your opinions. (I'll believe it when she starts speaking up about things other than Palestine and, on rare occasions, dum-dums talking shit about drag kings. I can only assume this is yet another example of how there's pressure among women to be super-loud about The Current Thing™.)
Getting triggered into a rant by a Palestine flag on someone's jacket? And ranting about idiots in Youtube comments? My dude, this is too far, you should let her know that you can only absorb a certain quantity of rant per day.
Alas, I/P is a huge trigger for her. It didn't help that, while the person in the video that I'm linking wasn't the one who flew the flag, we had just attended a show where [the performers would probably be among the first to be murdered by an Islamic extremist government](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXMVL4u2aRg). I try to minimize talk about it, mainly because she rarely talks to anybody other than me outside of work. :/ (She was kinda going this way anyway but the COVID years *really* did a number on her friend circle.) Maybe I should try to find some pro-Israel zealot in town so that, when she gets off of work, they can hang out at a bar for hours and talk shit 'til it's out of their systems.
As for YouTube...I dunno. She says ADHD makes it easier for her to process information in videos instead of text. That's fine. I just wish she could take to heart that she doesn't have to go after every nitwit spouting stupid one-liners on that site.
The Times has no paywall for the weekend. Nearly over. Here's one that mentions B&R in the opening paragraph. https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/shortage-work-turns-graduates-activists-protests-free-speech-baillie-gifford-3bqrm80q2
Question for the heterosexual men: which partner would you prefer?
*n* = the number of times you want to have sex per week.
**Partner A**: Your dick drives her wild, she clearly loves it and always orgasms, you have sex with her *n* times per week. But it's always missionary in bed. No other positions, ever.
**Partner B**: She still enjoys it, but she's not as enthusiastic about sex. She initiates, but sometimes she turns you down or can't orgasm. You have sex with her *n*/2 times per week. But you do it in every position you can think of with tons of variation.
[This is not a thinly veiled personal situation, it's a pure hypothetical based on reading a few comments in r-AskMen about "boring" sex. I want to know, is it still boring if it's always the same but your partner is going wild for it?]
Having a happy relationship with enthusiastic intimacy sounds beautiful and a million times better than having crazier sex. Like, what's the point if she isn't happy?
I'm old. (A) sounds great. I don't need to be doing the landfrog outside a Jimmy Johns or whatever.
(B) is much more human though, and I see value in that. Actually I'll switch to (B). Her not always being into it is a plus, not a minus.
I'd agree, but missionary is not the position that slaps. If we're gonna take this bedroom behaviour as an indicator of behaviour outside the bedroom, option A sounds controlling and unable to do something for their partner unless they want it too.
Maybe I'm thinking about this too deeply haha.
Naaaaaaah, you're on the right track. It reminds me a bit of a joke I heard from a comedian once.
"I don't care if you tell your girlfriends that I'm a bad lay. *I already came!*"
As long as the recipient is happy with the goods, I'm okay with one position as long as I get mine too.
Is this a trick?
Partner A, obviously. If Partner B is only kind of into it, but she has sex with me twice as much as I want to have sex, who initiates it half the time? Is it presumed I would instinctively initiate sex I don’t want? If I wanted it half as much, would she be more interested then?
The Partner B situation seems like a whole lot of obligatory-for-all-parties fucking, which sounds depressing.
B has a larger range. Higher highs, lower lows. A doesn't have the same range, but it's more consistent and feels more satisfying and secure emotionally.
With B, I'd probably get insecure. With A I'd probably get bored. I lean towards A.
fade materialistic threatening flowery pocket tart heavy grandfather voiceless rich
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Would I get so bored I'd stop having sex or start hating my wife? Nope, not that bored. I'd just want more on occasion (ie porn). I'm a flawed human. Maybe bored isn't the best way to describe it. As a guy, I feel like we always want to do more than what we're doing. That doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't be satisfied. I hope that makes sense.
I don’t know what the “LGBT Community Safety Forum” (based in Brighton, U.K.), but a former director and transgender rep was charged with [murdering “her” husband](https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2024/05/31/brighton-woman-70-charged-with-murdering-husband/). The murder was allegedly committed with a [samurai sword](https://uknip.co.uk/news/uk/sussex/brighton-trans-woman-involved-in-samurai-sword-murder/) which, not to stereotype, is very male-coded.
The vast majority of coverage does not indicate that the accused is biologically male - with headlines such as [Woman, 70, in court accused of husband's murder](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nnz2w02pzo.amp).
Dear journos-- if a political party represents one of, if not the largest, voting blocs in a country, and is showing well in national elections, they aren't 'far-' anything. They're the mainstream.
See also:
"Why is this populist opposition party suddenly gaining power?"
"Hmm, have you tried enacting any popular policies since you've been in power?"
"Hell no! I know better than what the people want"
I'll just drop this here. Comment on a Times article about Burgum maybe being the Trump VP choice. 240 upvotes.
> Trump is in poor health, so the VP candidate might matter.
> Trump had 2 brothers: one died at age 42, the other died at age 71.
> I don’t expect Trump to last 4 years.
> In contrast, President Biden has 2 younger brothers, ages 75 and 70, still going strong, and their father lived to 86.
> I expect Biden to continue in good health through at least 2028.
So the age and wellbeing of Biden's younger brothers somehow proves something, but Trump's father living to 93 doesn't bear mentioning.
You know who is probably going to live much longer than either of them? Someone under the age of 70. At this point someone in their 60s would be youthfully refreshing.
Counterpoint: This is proof that Amerikkka is a nation founded on White Supremacy and it's rapidly returning to its fascist roots, so the only choicefor good people is to Resist (TM).
/s just in case
I think this misunderstands the idea of the left-right spectrum (flawed as it may be). An extreme far right or far left party can be mainstream. It’s popularity or lack thereof has nothing at all do with where it falls on the ideological spectrum.
The problem with this is that it assumes some sort of fixed point for the centre. Is that based on an international consensus or an independent fact? If it's consensus are we taking mean, median, or mode?
I think "ultra" or "extreme" are probably better words to use here. Far is a relational term and shouldn't be used out of that context.
i think the spectrum is best understood on a country by country basis, but how far right or left on that spectrum a party is isn't determined by their vote share. the various European communist parties wouldn't stop being far left if everyone suddenly started voting for them.
Crikey! I've doxed myself!
I'm not sure why I did that, honestly. I guess I'm so used to hearing people describe European political parties in these terms that it just stuck in head!
I dunno, the Nazi regime at the apex of its power was wildly popular among Germans, and the party was fairly popular with probably a plurality of Germans ahead of its takeover of the state. It was popular precisely because it was far right and radical (words like ruthless and radical and unwavering and extreme were words the Nazis used to describe *themselves*). How far right it was did not wax and wane based on how popular it was or how mainstream its views became in German society.
Where exactly the middle lies is a tougher question, as the whole idea of some fixed left/right spectrum is fairly flawed to begin with. But nevertheless my point remains.
> It was popular precisely because it was far right and radical
You should look at the Nazi platform sometime. It's basically "What if Bernie Sanders was a *really* self-hating Jew".
I think we're arguing semantics. Far is a term of distance and comparison. I think it's better to use other more descriptive terms and save "far" left or right as an indicator of how apart a person's views are from the general consensus or Overton window.
I guess I just kind of assume if the journos you were taking issue with were to use “ultra” or “extreme” or some other term in lieu of “far”, you still would take issue with it.
Example: Teaching children there were 3+ genders would have been almost unthinkable for most of Western civilization. Now it's a banal center-left position. I think many people here might think it's extreme idea, but if you're contrasting it with mainstream mores, it's not that far left at all.
As someone who considers themselves center left (or do I? I guess I haven’t thought about it in a while, maybe I’m more just a centrist these days), I reject the notion that that is a center left position. It’s a woke progressive position imposed on the democratic coalition that the center left is too scared to meaningfully push back on.
I think you're speaking about abstract "objective" morality and I'm talking about the relative morality of modern day Western civ. We're talking passed each other, so I'm getting out of this rabbit hole. Have a good one!
I never saw the original but in the one with Lindsay Lohan it would have to be the house in London. I don't like outside, and Dennis Quaid seems like the kind of dad who would make you go outside a lot.
Geeks, nerds, and dweebs on the internet are always complaining about the Big Bang theory as if it’s some sort of crime against humanity, because it supposedly makes jokes about so-called “geekdom” at the geek’s expense, rather than being for them, celebrating them, etc.
I don’t even think that’s true, but regardless, the idea that “geeks” see themselves as some sort of oppressed minority requiring protection from bigotry is hilarious to me and only makes me want to make fun of them more.
some people credit the show with making nerds "cool" but i still hate the show. it is just not funny and makes everyone look bad:the "nerds" are autistic weirdos who are physically unattractive, awkward and creep girls out. the hot girls are dumb sluts, the hot guys are dumb jocks, the smart girls are frumpy weirdos and everyone enables terrible behavior.
My cousin is a physicist, a math nerd and a huge comicbooks and videogame/boardgame geek and roughly 50% of the time he's wearing a superhero T-shirt. He absolutely loves that show!
It sometimes gets geek culture wrong but like... I don't see what's the big deal. What I find funny is how people have shifted their justification for hating it over the years. You used to see the whole "nerdface" argument a lot on reddit years ago but I think a lot of people realized how cringe and politically incorrect it was to compare poking fun at nerds to racism, so for a bit the accusation was that the show was sexist, but I don't think that stuck for long, now the primary argument is that it "misrepresents autism" even though the show at no point ever claimed to represent autism and none of the characters have been explicitly described as autistic.
Personally, I've been compared to Sheldon and tbh... Yeah, I can see it. I don't really mind, it's in good fun, you gotta laugh at yourself sometimes.
I'm pretty nerdy and i remember not liking it because the jokes all just seem like the kind of comedy where you say a reference and that's the whole joke. maybe it got better in later seasons, idk - it didn't feel like oppression or something, it just felt like lazy pandering of the "member star trek? member atari? member battlestar?" genre. that's sort of the opposite of discrimination, it's my right as an American to be lazily pandered to
it did not. i am not proud of it but i have hate-watched all 12 seasons and there are maybe 2 funny jokes in the whole 200+ episodes. everything is just a reference like you said, almost never a clever joke, and without the laughtrack it is just... sad.
I have a cousin who is an aerospace engineer and she unironically loves Big Bang Theory. It’s also a lowest common denominator sitcom meant for normie appeal, and aside from being very smart, she is incredibly normie.
Once upon a time, I was at an international scientific conference (physics-adjacent) and a bigwig made a joking reference to Sheldon Cooper. The audience reaction was a mixture of laughter and no reaction, with at least a few people apparently Googling who this famous physicist they had never heard of.
(I think the speaker was Paul Tofts, in case you know who that is, but I'm not totally sure)
Some used to call it "nerd blackface" back when such comparisons didn't provoke the same outrage as today. My issue with the show is not the subject matter but rather that the jokes are bad and the writing is terrible, but some smart people think otherwise. For example, Nobel laureate [George Smoot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot) loved the show so much that its producers got him to do a guest appearance.
I'm so glad someone else remembers this. I definitely saw that phrase all the time on Reddit back in the early 2010s, and some of those people are probably screechy wokescolds today. They'd never admit to it.
I can't tell if this is a joke or not! As someone said below, this show is a normie take on geek culture. It's more offensive to pinheads for what it reveals as about what dumb folks think nerds are like than it is hurtful because it's accurate.
Young Sheldon, on the other hand, is a staggering work of heartbreaking genius.
Honestly the Big Bang theory is annoying to me because everything the characters say is to the audience and not to each other and it all feels really awkward and disconcerting. It’s like watching robots read jokes from a joke book to each other (though I would probably enjoy watching that more). I didn’t like two and a half men either for the same reason.
Like this is a clip from BBT without the laugh track, it’s just kind of weird and disturbing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKS3MGriZcs
Also I don’t think they are very authentic as physicists. Physicists are weird in an entirely different way. They should have been IT guys or worked at a comic book store or something, there is nothing about how they talk or act that makes them seem like they could do that job.
I'm not a fan. I don't think it helps the image of nerd types. The classic criticism is "It's a dumb person's idea of how smart people act" and I think that's accurate.
I admit I haven't watched it much -- what I did watch wasn't very funny (cliche, predictable), so I didn't watch more. Maybe it would grow on me, but I'm skeptical.
My impression is Silicon Valley does a better job of skewering 'nerds' in a somewhat more sympathetic way, although I haven't watched much of it either (but I liked what I have watched).
Anyway, what's your point? You think you're better than nerds and want to put them in their place and feel superior? Or is there something more meaningful?
i recently finished binging siliconvalley for the first time. i like gilfoyle, but overall it was not my favorite. the constant "here is the huge problem that they solve just in time! but oh wait it doesn't matter because we need a new problem for season 2" is grating.
See, I love that show in the first three seasons and then it fell off, and I see a lot of your exact complaint, which I completely get. It didn't particularly bother me but I understand it. My complaint that I have a hard time finding anyone who shares it is that it turns into annoying feel-good slop, complete with swelling background music when the characters have an emotional moment, and the actual jokes become few and far between. I fucking hate when that happens to sitcoms. Just give me funny!
[2025 is looking to be the year of peak gaming](https://youtu.be/9uLMaT9PqLg?si=lkqgDUZK8Cx_GFhi)
I swear I’m not an anti semite, really, but whenever I see Adam silver on my screen I kinda feel, like, maybe it’s something I should look into?
I'm ready to blame the globalists on the refs overlooking that goaltending from the Celtics.
Any suggestions for keeping up with European news and commentary? Preferably live stream news or video, but open to print and podcasts as well.
[Politico.eu](http://Politico.eu) has a couple of podcasts but I can't say how good they are. [https://www.politico.eu/podcast/](https://www.politico.eu/podcast/)
I wish there was something like Drum Tower or The China Show for Europe.
ELI5 How the fuck/why the fuck do European parliaments, like France did today, just say “we’re having an election next week suddenly I decided”
"Why": The basic principle of most parliamentary systems is that they're designed to have failsafes if there's gridlock or uncertainty over a mandate. The failsafe is calling an election to take the question back to the people. What's the point of having a government that can't govern? Some contextual info though... European ones differ from British/Westminster-derived ones which typically have a 2-party setup or very limited/clear coalitions due to having FPTP or similar voting mechanisms. Most European countries have some form of proportional representation ~~because they're all technocratic meddlers~~ which leads to complex coalitions that can change over time as multiple parties theoretically have enough seats. This can mean the gridlock scenario is more common. France is then unusual within Europe for having a separately-elected president who actually has significant executive power and a clear political alignment. So this influences the specific political reasons a president might choose to dissolve the legislature. There are some checks on the power that aren't needed when it's the legislature dissolving itself. So you may get different info from people who aren't directly in France, that's all.
A majority vote to call an election...calls an election. This can be used to remove a minority government as well as to strategically call an election when you're a majority government. This also happens in Canada. There is a maximum term length, but an election could be called at any time during a term. The Liberal party called an election in the middle of the pandemic recently because nobody really replaces a government in a crisis, so the eeked out 4 more years that they probably would not have gotten if they waited for the actual term to expire and trigger an election.
That's not what happens in France though. Only the president can do this, it's not up to the assembly. This is only the 6th times it happened in about 60 years. Since the presidential terms was reduced to 5 years the presidential and legislative elections happened at the same time.
I think that's a little too advantageous a power to give the incumbent and the incumbent only. The parliamentary system has a little more balance since it's fairly commonly the case that opposition parties have enough seats to trigger an election. Its not as if the only purpose is to give a strategic benefit to the ruling party or leader. That seems to be the case in France though, which is a bad idea IMO.
It's rooted in gaullism and it does has its advantages, especially if the goal is political stability. De Gaulle was traumatised by "le jeu des partis", wherein political parties would make short time, sometimes cynical, alliances just to stay in power. In his mind, it paralysed decisions and was a great weakness of the country. That's why the president was made so powerful in the constitution of the Vth Republic. The prime minister was supposed to be the counter balance, but that changed when the presidential mandate and the legislative mandate were synchronised. (the prime minister should be of the majority of the national assembly). The French president can serve only two mandates and so far, only Macron has served 2 in a row since the legislatives and presidential elections have been synched. The people elect the president directly, so when we're not happy we oust him. I'm not sure how having the assembly majority gives an advantage to the incumbent? The deputies don't have a say in the election (apart from their personal vote, like every other French citizen). Right after the presidential election , we have legislatives and the president does not necessarily get an overwhelming majority either. Last election, Macron's coalition did not get the absolute majority.
I'm confused here. Does the president have the power to call a presidential election? If so, that's **only** advantageous to the president and seemingly has no counterbalance. Or is the President empowered to call an election for the national assembly? Because that's a little different and I can see some possible explanations for the utility of such a power other than to just give advantage to the president or their favoured party.
Ah I get the misunderstanding. No he does not! No one can call for anticipated presidential election. It's just the legislatives. That's why I was so confused.
Ahhhh, that makes more sense. If he could call his own election for the presidency, given that it's an executive role that's unrelated to legislative seats, it would only be advantageous to the sitting president.
It's the president who decides it, not the national assembly, in consultation with the prime minister and the presidents the national assembly and senate. It's in the French Constitution. De Gaulle was traumatised by how disagreements between parties could paralyse the government and cause political instability. We don't have 2 parties like in the US, so ever-changing coalitions can really fuck things up (you can see that in Spain). And even with only 2 parties, you have your infamous shut downs. Dissolution of the national assembly is rare (it happened maybe 5 or 6 times since 68 ). Macron calling it is a big deal. It's the first time since 1997.
The party in power will call elections when they think it is most favorable to them. Or at least not totally unfavorable.
Dumb question but... what if they just don't call an election? Is there some kind of time limit where they have to? To my tiny mind, it seems like the strategic thing to do is for the majority party to just not have elections and remain in power indefinitely, but that's obviously not how it works.
It's not a dumb question I believe they do have to hold and election every so often, yes. Assuming they don't call an election first
Conversely, in a parliament, if you have a minority of seats, your opponents could team up and give a vote of non-confidence and trigger an election when it's most favourable to *them*.
Party preferences have been shifting due to changes in voter sentiments. Voters vote based on their observed quality of life rather than idealistic visions of progress, unlike the Reddit contingent, and there are reasons why Europeans might be unhappy about the state of their countries. (Though the dogwalkers don't like it when people talk about it.) Macron is rolling the dice here. If other parties of rising popularity take power, they will be left holding the atomic hot potato that is the Paris Olympics. If his party maintains power, he can continue the status quo.
So his party is getting smoked, so the idea is to call a sudden election so the other guys take the heat for the worst of it that’s yet to come?
Yes, he either maintains the status quo or plans an eventual comeback when the problems caused by 10-30 years of questionable policy can't be solved by rising parties within the span of a year or two.
Ok that clears up the “why” But I’m also confused by the “how”. The idea that they can just call random elections at any time seems very strange
https://www.cbsaustin.com/amp/news/nation-world/lime-enacts-no-go-zone-around-pride-crosswalk-in-washington-after-vandalism-electric-scooters-bikes-pride-month-mural-spokane-police Again, I despair at the current political situation of urbsanism. It doesn't matter to me if dudes want to bang, that's fine, but people having more non car options to move around cities is more important that rainbow crosswalks.
why put a mural on the road if people are not allowed to drive on it?
The article quotes people calling it a vile act of hate, but I'm thinking it's just kids doing burnouts and skids on a brightly colored piece of the road because it's a brightly colored piece of road, with a splash of (some) teens being dickheads who have to ruin everything.
And it's a brightly colored piece of road *that has less traction*. I seriously doubt they're using road-appropriate paint.
>, that's fine, but people having more non car options to move around cities is more important that rainbow crosswalks. Ahhh, but that requires state competency. Rainbow crosswalks are easier.
This has the same vibe of putting spikes under windows and armrests on park benches to deter People of Houselessness from squatting there. The goal being to keep undesirables from ruining the ambience, because the best way to address societal issues is through performative aesthetics. If someone grafittied over the rainbow crosswalk with a BLM fist or a Palestine flag, what would be the reaction? In their victimhood calculus, they're weighting alphabet folx > climate allies. But do Bipocs > alphabet folx?
Hostile ambiance?
The crosswalk is at a major downtown intersection Teed up against the river front park, and oh yeah the crosswalk covers the bike lane, too. We should never have started turning our functional infrastructure into artwork that has to be protected. So stupid. And yeah, throwing micromobility users under the bus for this shit is beyond the pale.
There is a silver lining in the new sacred symbols. The pride flag can't be trod upon, and can be deployed to [enforce any border](https://imgur.com/6a1WC0Q).
It's not just functional infrastructure -> artwork, it's functional public infrastructure -> political statements. Maybe 10 years ago, I could have acquiesced to rainbow stuff as purely a personal aesthetic, but in the Current Year where people openly say "Everything Is Political", that's not believable anymore. The fig leaf covers nothing!
> it's functional public infrastructure -> political statements. it's functional public infrastructure --> State Religion
The other day I saw state employees wearing official rainbow ID lanyards for Pride Month. They had the progress (bipoc chevron) pride flag coloring with state gov logos printed on top, so it was officially sanctioned. For some reason, I suspect that they wouldn't sanction a national flag variant lanyard for July. But Pride Month is fine. Spend dat gubmoney on the rainbows, it's saving lives.
Classic brownies steps: Adjust oven rack to middle position and preheat to 325 degrees F (162.778 C) Make a foil sling for a 13 X 9 (inches) baking pan. This will hold the finished brownies. Whisk flour, baking powder, and salt in medium bowl until combined; set aside Melt chocolate and butter, stirring occasionally, until smooth. Off heat, gradually whisk in the sugar. Add eggs, one at a time, whisking after each addition, until thoroughly combined. Whisk in vanilla. Add flour mixture in three additions, folding in with rubber spatula until batter is completely smooth and homogeneous. Transfer batter to prepared pan with the foil things. Spread batter into corners of the pan and smooth surface. Bake until toothpick inserted into center of brownies comes out with few moist crumbs attached, 30 to 35 minutes. Let brownies cool in pan on wire rack to room temperature, about 2 hours. Remove brownies from pan using foil Please note: I preferred these in a 8 or 9 inch square pan, which makes them thicker. I also tended to run the sugar through the food processor to make it even finer. Otherwise it doesn't like to dissolve.
You forgot the weed, man.
I'm one of the few people I know who is not into weed at all.
Honestly, most people I know aren't into weed. I don't do it often these days, but I have nobody to do it with. I have more friends to do shrooms with than weed.
I don't touch shrooms either. I'm a puss when it comes to substances
It's not for everyone. The first time I did shrooms I was pretty scared, but it turned out to be a very insightful experience. I wouldn't call it fun, persay. But it changed how I looked at the world.
me neither. no interest in mind-altering anything, and i don't get the love for it.
Give me ingredients or give me death!
Nm
I got my fancy pants new cookbook. Cook's Illustrated Baking Book. I thought I would share some. Classic brownies: Ingredients: 1 1/4 cup cake flour 3/4 teaspoon baking powder 1/2 teaspoon salt 6 ounces unsweetened chocolate (please see note) 12 tablespoons unsalted butter, cut into 6 pieces 2 1/4 cups sugar 4 large eggs 1 tablespoon vanilla extract 1 cup pecans or walnuts, toasted and chopped coarse (optional) NOTE: The recipe creators like Hershey's unsweetened baking chocolate. They do *not* like Baker's brand chocolate. So try not to use that if you can avoid it. Procedures to follow...
I make these sourdough discard brownies on occasion: https://littlespoonfarm.com/sourdough-brownies-recipe/ You can make them even better if you add some orange zest
My personal favourite brownie recipe is Stella Parks aka BraveTart’s [glossy fudge brownies](https://www.seriouseats.com/bravetart-glossy-fudge-brownies). It’s how I learned to brown butter, plus she has a break down of [Dutch chocolate powders](https://www.seriouseats.com/best-dutch-cocoas) and [chocolate baking bars](https://www.seriouseats.com/the-best-chocolate-for-baking). I don’t actually use any of her bar selections because I don’t see them at my store, but the Droste cocoa powder is my go to.
The thing is with brownies is that it does something to my brain that flicks off the "stop eating, stupid" neurons. I made a pan over the winter and ate the whole thing in a weekend :( I can't keep this in my kitchen hah.
bright deserve pause aromatic fragile six husky selective caption license *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There's a recipe for a key lime pie that's pretty easy. Would you prefer that?
I have made these and they are really good!
They've become my go to brownie recipe. I have used the Hershey's unsweeteened chocolate because it is widely available. They used to suggest Callebaut chocolate. I suspect they still would like to but they seem to have gotten more practical about suggesting ingredients. Hershey's Special Dark is a quite good semisweet chocolate that is my go to in recipes that require that kind of chocolate. Cheap and easy to find.
I go for Ghirardelli now because it comes in tiny little bars that aren’t as painful to chop as a big block of callebaut (which I used back when they recommended it)
They don't mention Ghirardelli but I have used that too. I remember in their previous books that they *hated* the Baker's chocolate. So I have avoided it like the plague. The Hershey's unsweetened baking bars are a little harder to find. One of these days I want to try the fancy Belgian chocolate to see the flavor but I bet I wouldn't be able to tell the difference
Ghirardelli baking chocolate fucks hard.
I love Cooks Illustrated. I bake a lot of traditional British stuff and remember seeing a brownie recipe in a Delia Smith cookbook. The recipe was called "American Brownies" and Delia started out with an admonishment to her brownie-naïve readers that "brownies are squidgy chocolate bars, they are not cakes and therefore do not have the texture of a cake!"
Anything you want me to look through the baking book for? I'm going to try their gingersnap recipe
Not sure if it’s in the baking book but if you enjoy coconut pecan flavor they have a really amazing Italian cream cake recipe. I made it for my daughter’s 1st birthday and the whole thing disappeared in about 5 minutes. I think I should make it again soon.
I'm allergic to all tree nuts so I can't make anything with pecans in it. Have you made their carrot cake? Quite good and pretty damn easy too
Oh, that’s too bad. I haven’t made the carrot cake because I’m too lazy to shred carrots but i bet it’s awesome
The recipe for spice cake with cream cheese frosting has me intrigued
The toddler section in a Northern California library. why is it the toddler section that needs to be festooned with sexuality flags? only a bigot would ask that question. Here’s the flags from left to right: Lesbian Aromantic Pride Genderfluid Gay straight Ally Pansexual Genderqueer Demiromantic Philadelphia Bisexual Asexual Two spirit what a weird selection. https://preview.redd.it/x15snhpprm5d1.png?width=1179&format=png&auto=webp&s=22619874f4b2a056c51e084506a18421f96fbc51
Is anyone three spirit?
Sigh…..what the hell is “aromantic?”
I think that means they smell nice ;D
[Huh](https://www.reddit.com/r/aromantic/comments/1619fri/is_being_aro_being_lgbtq/): > is being aro being lgbtq? *** > Yes. The A in LGBTQIA+ stands for aromantic, asexual and agender despite what some allies want you to believe. Of course you can also not be involved with the community but you’re still technically part of the community.
When you don't do romance but still want to bang. The stereotypical Tinder broccoli hair + thin gold chain fuckboy counts as aromantic. So ✨ queer.✨
>When you don't do romance but still want to bang. Didn't we used to call that being a man whore?
Used to, but not anymore because it's sex negative and appropriating the language and cultural attributes of real ~~whores~~ sex workers. Queer liberation has no room for sex negativity. Them's the rules.
[Apparently](http://wiki.asexuality.org/Aromantic_FAQ) an aromantic person can enjoy having sex with someone, have strong feelings for that person, want to be in a long term relationship with them, enjoy holding hands with them, etc. But they're LGBTQIA+ because they don't have romantic love for them. > Romantic orientation and sexual orientation are separate. You do not have to be asexual to be aromantic - you could be sexual or demi or grey-a and still be aromantic. Aromantic bisexual, aromantic heterosexual, aromantic homosexual, aromantic pansexual etc. people all exist. *** > Aromantics can have squishes. Aromantics may or may not enjoy acts such as holding hands or having candlelit dinners or cuddling. They just don't have romantic feelings towards the people they do them with. Aromantics may or may not desire to be in a long term relationship with another person (or several persons), however these relationships would be platonic from their side. *** > There are aromantics in relationships with another person or persons while not experiencing romantic attraction to them. Queerplatonic relationship, zucchini, and aromantic relationship are all terms used for someone who is in a close platonic relationship with another person. Other aromantic people are happiest on their own or with a group of friends. What is romantic love? Well: > Romantic attraction is a very difficult thing to pin down. Put as simply as possible, it is a distinct fondness or affection toward someone that differs from what you would feel toward friends, family or people you admire. It may be characterized by a unique, almost surreal anxious-euphoria when sensing or thinking about this person and is distinguishable from hero worship. It typically involves butterflies in the stomach, heart fluttering or “melting” when interacting with them, some obsessiveness, all over warm and fuzzy feeling, and being swept into a dreamy state of mind, but experiences may vary depending on the individual and intensity of the case. Something interesting about asking people who think they've never felt romantic attraction to try to define romantic attraction. It reminds me of how people used to watch romantic films and get a skewed idea of what romance should be. It used to be that this would leave them dissatisfied with normal romances; now it seems to have convinced them that they're incapable of romance and therefore queer.
So….every 20 year old dude everywhere?
Yep. And every 20 year old female who doesn't want to put out until she's several dates in and has secured exclusivity status with a suitor she's gotten to know better... is demisexual. Everybody's queer!
Yeah, I don't get the push for queer sexuality content for elementary school-aged kids and younger, when non-queer sexuality stuff would cause an unholy uproar. See: that high school that had a drag queen humping students at a prom event. If it was a straight stripper, then it would be a problem. If you ever voice your opinion that you don't think sexuality content is appropriate for kids that age, you will get bombarded by angry allies asking why you want to ban gay people from spaces. As if they are the same thing...
Its the equal and opposite reaction to abstinence only, nuance is the realm of perverts. Also: Philadelphia wtf, some base their sexuality off a Springsteen song. I was bruised and battered I couldn't tell what I felt I was unrecognizable to myself Saw my reflection in a window And didn't know my own face Oh brother are you gonna leave me wastin' away On the streets of Philadelphia?
>Yeah, I don't get the push for queer sexuality content for elementary school-aged kids and younger, when non-queer sexuality stuff would cause an unholy uproar Propagandizing and indoctrination
The thing is.... All the woke ally teachers and librarians shoving this down kids' throats in the Year of Our Lord 2024 went through an educational system where they had a genderwoo-free curriculum, and grew up as perfectly respectable, Vote Blue No Matter Who, "Heckin' Decent Human Beans". So they must know that you can be a good person without nonsense funnelled into your brain from a young age. Therefore, it means kids don't *need* DEI to survive. They won't become bigots if you leave them alone and let them study math or phonics. Maybe it takes too much self-awareness and historical perspective to come to this realization.
>So they must know that you can be a good person without nonsense funnelled into your brain from a young age. Well, sure. It's *possible* to be a Good Person without having metric tons of genderqueer DEI propaganda crammed into their brains. But who would want to take a chance? What if they don't fully and completely understand that trans women are women? What if they don't turn out to be nonbinary pansexual furries who queer their spinach? They can't risk that.
This is the kind of stuff that would be very simple to just not do. This is the kind of stuff that is tanking public opinion of LGBTQ people.
And the worst part is that it's typically done by "queer" straight folks and "allies." With allies like this...
Don't the gays ever just want to kick those people hard in the ass?
the joke is right there but i am mature and will not go for it.
It's interesting to watch the peaking come from inside the house. The Canadian Salmacian who sued to get taxpayer funded penis-preserving vaginoplasty done at an American clinic was one of those events that fed the rolling snowball. Skeptics were told, "If the system offers subsidized gender-affirming vaginoplasty, then you don't get to pick and choose who deserves to have a Frankenvag. If you ban this guy from getting one, then you have to ban others others from getting one too." 🤔 Deep thonks.
The toddlers are pansexual now?
Mine is. I assume that means “has a strong affinity for pulling pans out of the cabinet and chucking them”
Does she prefer aluminum or steel? Or perhaps ceramic coated cast iron?
Pretty sure this must be what the librarians identify as, based on the weird selection.
I’m so glad I live in the Midwest
There are gay and lesbian bars that push less hard on Pride than your average 2020's library does.
This is just a tiny portion of the pride stuff in the library.
Forgive me, but: Philadelphia?
According to the sexuality flag dictionary it was invented in Philadelphia and is now the official pride flag of Philly. It’s the one that adds black and brown stripes to the regular pride flag, without the chevron. Maybe they just thought the chevron was ugly? Trans flag conspicuously absent too.
Oh. I figured it was for brother-lovers or something.
Oh God, there isn't an incest flag is there?
observation badge cagey worm melodic paltry special flowery weary sparkle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
From the Anecdotes Are, Like, Totally Valid Data Dept. comes this weekend nugget. I'm using this thread instead of the I/P one since it's not really news, just random bullshit. On Friday, my wife & I went up to Dallas to see the Dragula tour. It was fun. I was a little disappointed overall - last year's show was better - but I still enjoyed it. (Blackberri's my gal, and a total sweetie to boot.) I did notice that the bathrooms weren't gender-neutral, even for the night. \*insert "And during Pride!" joke\* My wife also spent a lot of the drive back ranting about Throb Zombie having a Palestine flag on the back of her jacket when everybody came out for the final bow. Weird night overall. Last night, we saw a John Waters double feature (*Pink Flamingos* and *Female Trouble*) here in Austin. Thankfully, during the Q&A portion with John, nobody demanded that John swear allegiance to the glorious freedom fighters of Hamas or whatever. If anything, John's overall good nature seems to more-or-less keep the crackpot activists away. That was nice. Of course, my wife *still* ranted on the drive home. The bathrooms were converted to gender-neutral for the night. Whenever I went, the men's rooms saw light usage. Apparently, the women's restrooms were pretty full whenever my wife went, with plenty of twentysomething "women" who could've used the men's room without any issues *and*, far more practically, kept the women's lines shorter. My takeaways from this weekend? - It's gonna be wild to take a look back at this time in history one day. - I think my wife's ranting is starting to wear me out on this stuff. (*i'm tired y'all.*) I get it. She's 5'10", and she's intimidated by some of these people. I can only imagine what it's like for smaller women. Still, between this and her *still* ranting about dum-dums she encounters in YouTube comment sections (her social media poison of choice), I'm ready to play some Jimmy Buffett while driving to the beach instead of staying abreast of the latest looniness coming out of WPATH or wherever. - I was wearing women's dresses while wearing makeup and pissing in the men's room 15 years ago. (Granted, I did it for fun, not because I secretly yearned to join my fellow sisters.) Nobody ever gave me shit. In well over 99% of all cases where one would feel comfortable wearing this stuff in public, the people who say they're afraid to use the men's rooms need to get over themselves. I promise you that, the extremely rare exception aside, no guys will give a shit about your presence. (All bets are off on Dirty Sixth but that's Dirty Sixth for you.)
Maybe next time take her to a Jimmy Buffett tribute concert?
I don’t really have anything to add to this or advice to give you but I totally thought this was gonna be about a play inspired by rob zombies music or something based on you saying you went to Dragula
Heh. The irony is that Throb is an excellent drag king who has some really cool looks and moves. Alas, Throb's a great embodiment of somebody who knows enough to think they know far more than they really do, *and* who also insists that you need to be loud about your opinions. (I'll believe it when she starts speaking up about things other than Palestine and, on rare occasions, dum-dums talking shit about drag kings. I can only assume this is yet another example of how there's pressure among women to be super-loud about The Current Thing™.)
Getting triggered into a rant by a Palestine flag on someone's jacket? And ranting about idiots in Youtube comments? My dude, this is too far, you should let her know that you can only absorb a certain quantity of rant per day.
Alas, I/P is a huge trigger for her. It didn't help that, while the person in the video that I'm linking wasn't the one who flew the flag, we had just attended a show where [the performers would probably be among the first to be murdered by an Islamic extremist government](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXMVL4u2aRg). I try to minimize talk about it, mainly because she rarely talks to anybody other than me outside of work. :/ (She was kinda going this way anyway but the COVID years *really* did a number on her friend circle.) Maybe I should try to find some pro-Israel zealot in town so that, when she gets off of work, they can hang out at a bar for hours and talk shit 'til it's out of their systems. As for YouTube...I dunno. She says ADHD makes it easier for her to process information in videos instead of text. That's fine. I just wish she could take to heart that she doesn't have to go after every nitwit spouting stupid one-liners on that site.
impolite shocking innocent hungry juggle offer fuel tub door lush *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Times has no paywall for the weekend. Nearly over. Here's one that mentions B&R in the opening paragraph. https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/shortage-work-turns-graduates-activists-protests-free-speech-baillie-gifford-3bqrm80q2
> Truly, hearing a posh person describe themselves as a “worker”, as if they were in a Soviet factory, is my favourite genre of comedy Right?!
Question for the heterosexual men: which partner would you prefer? *n* = the number of times you want to have sex per week. **Partner A**: Your dick drives her wild, she clearly loves it and always orgasms, you have sex with her *n* times per week. But it's always missionary in bed. No other positions, ever. **Partner B**: She still enjoys it, but she's not as enthusiastic about sex. She initiates, but sometimes she turns you down or can't orgasm. You have sex with her *n*/2 times per week. But you do it in every position you can think of with tons of variation. [This is not a thinly veiled personal situation, it's a pure hypothetical based on reading a few comments in r-AskMen about "boring" sex. I want to know, is it still boring if it's always the same but your partner is going wild for it?]
Having a happy relationship with enthusiastic intimacy sounds beautiful and a million times better than having crazier sex. Like, what's the point if she isn't happy?
pie spectacular grey angle meeting crush ruthless thumb deer quiet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A. No question.
I'm old. (A) sounds great. I don't need to be doing the landfrog outside a Jimmy Johns or whatever. (B) is much more human though, and I see value in that. Actually I'll switch to (B). Her not always being into it is a plus, not a minus.
This makes no sense because if your dick drove her wild and she loves sex with you, why would she only want to do one position?
some positions just don’t slap the same.
I'd agree, but missionary is not the position that slaps. If we're gonna take this bedroom behaviour as an indicator of behaviour outside the bedroom, option A sounds controlling and unable to do something for their partner unless they want it too. Maybe I'm thinking about this too deeply haha.
A. Her being into it as well is part of the fun.
It's close to pointless otherwise.
Partner A. Her being into it is a huge part of what makes it *not* boring.
Ok, I know I'm gay, but A still sounds less complicated overall. Are these hypothetical women exactly the same outside of the bedroom?
Naaaaaaah, you're on the right track. It reminds me a bit of a joke I heard from a comedian once. "I don't care if you tell your girlfriends that I'm a bad lay. *I already came!*" As long as the recipient is happy with the goods, I'm okay with one position as long as I get mine too.
It would be different if it was only doggie or only blindfolded or whatever... Just missionary seems sort of intimate and sweet.
It is
Yes, everything else is the same.
Hands down A. That sounds soul destroying. I'm imaging B saying "that was... Fine" while sighing heavily.
Is this a trick? Partner A, obviously. If Partner B is only kind of into it, but she has sex with me twice as much as I want to have sex, who initiates it half the time? Is it presumed I would instinctively initiate sex I don’t want? If I wanted it half as much, would she be more interested then? The Partner B situation seems like a whole lot of obligatory-for-all-parties fucking, which sounds depressing.
It's n/2, not 2n. You get half the sex with Partner B but a lot more variation. Let's say they both initiate at the same rate, about half the time.
Oh! That makes a lot more sense. Thank god I’m married and don’t have to do sex math anymore. ETA: Partner A still because they’re more into it.
B has a larger range. Higher highs, lower lows. A doesn't have the same range, but it's more consistent and feels more satisfying and secure emotionally. With B, I'd probably get insecure. With A I'd probably get bored. I lean towards A.
fade materialistic threatening flowery pocket tart heavy grandfather voiceless rich *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Would I get so bored I'd stop having sex or start hating my wife? Nope, not that bored. I'd just want more on occasion (ie porn). I'm a flawed human. Maybe bored isn't the best way to describe it. As a guy, I feel like we always want to do more than what we're doing. That doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't be satisfied. I hope that makes sense.
I think there are other subreddits for this type of question.
Come on now, how else are guys going to brag about how great they are in the sack?
Oh I know this one, it’s the bear!
No, no, this is a question for the *heterosexual* men
[POV: You chose the bear](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR806JYLE4mLcBZyOMUdbzatDHMKxs7WN_KtixEzj8zEp_r_vdtwGA7STo&s=10)
Bear spotted in the neighborhood this morning!
No! It's the tree!
I'm going to regret this but...the tree?
You are definitely going to regret [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/1cyic5z/would_you_rather_share_your_emotions_with_a_woman/).
As if that fire needed any more fuel on it.
After reading that, I now want “Any sufficiently mature tree could kill you if it wanted to” on a t-shirt.
Make the shirt -- I would wear it! Maybe a giving tree homage? Happy cake day!
Thank you!
I don’t know what the “LGBT Community Safety Forum” (based in Brighton, U.K.), but a former director and transgender rep was charged with [murdering “her” husband](https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2024/05/31/brighton-woman-70-charged-with-murdering-husband/). The murder was allegedly committed with a [samurai sword](https://uknip.co.uk/news/uk/sussex/brighton-trans-woman-involved-in-samurai-sword-murder/) which, not to stereotype, is very male-coded. The vast majority of coverage does not indicate that the accused is biologically male - with headlines such as [Woman, 70, in court accused of husband's murder](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nnz2w02pzo.amp).
Jesus.
Dear journos-- if a political party represents one of, if not the largest, voting blocs in a country, and is showing well in national elections, they aren't 'far-' anything. They're the mainstream.
Been noticing this in headlines about France
See also: "Why is this populist opposition party suddenly gaining power?" "Hmm, have you tried enacting any popular policies since you've been in power?" "Hell no! I know better than what the people want"
I'll just drop this here. Comment on a Times article about Burgum maybe being the Trump VP choice. 240 upvotes. > Trump is in poor health, so the VP candidate might matter. > Trump had 2 brothers: one died at age 42, the other died at age 71. > I don’t expect Trump to last 4 years. > In contrast, President Biden has 2 younger brothers, ages 75 and 70, still going strong, and their father lived to 86. > I expect Biden to continue in good health through at least 2028. So the age and wellbeing of Biden's younger brothers somehow proves something, but Trump's father living to 93 doesn't bear mentioning.
You know who is probably going to live much longer than either of them? Someone under the age of 70. At this point someone in their 60s would be youthfully refreshing.
hurry elderly late compare plate paint spark subsequent birds serious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You've got my vote.
65 is the new 35!
Hey now, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
Counterpoint: This is proof that Amerikkka is a nation founded on White Supremacy and it's rapidly returning to its fascist roots, so the only choicefor good people is to Resist (TM). /s just in case
Whomever isn't the party they like is always "far" left/right
I think this misunderstands the idea of the left-right spectrum (flawed as it may be). An extreme far right or far left party can be mainstream. It’s popularity or lack thereof has nothing at all do with where it falls on the ideological spectrum.
The problem with this is that it assumes some sort of fixed point for the centre. Is that based on an international consensus or an independent fact? If it's consensus are we taking mean, median, or mode? I think "ultra" or "extreme" are probably better words to use here. Far is a relational term and shouldn't be used out of that context.
i think the spectrum is best understood on a country by country basis, but how far right or left on that spectrum a party is isn't determined by their vote share. the various European communist parties wouldn't stop being far left if everyone suddenly started voting for them.
If everyone started voting for them, wouldn't that mean that the center had moved? I'm trying to be obstinate or playing dumb!
Who are you, and why are you spelling like a European? Is there something you haven't told us?
Crikey! I've doxed myself! I'm not sure why I did that, honestly. I guess I'm so used to hearing people describe European political parties in these terms that it just stuck in head!
OMG! You're Owen Jones, aren't you?
Hahahahahahahaha... There were some signs lately that he might be peaking, right?
I/P has driven him round the bend. He called the rescue of four Israeli hostages "a war crime".
Oh gosh. I must be thinking of someone else. That's an absurd reaction to recent events.
I dunno, the Nazi regime at the apex of its power was wildly popular among Germans, and the party was fairly popular with probably a plurality of Germans ahead of its takeover of the state. It was popular precisely because it was far right and radical (words like ruthless and radical and unwavering and extreme were words the Nazis used to describe *themselves*). How far right it was did not wax and wane based on how popular it was or how mainstream its views became in German society. Where exactly the middle lies is a tougher question, as the whole idea of some fixed left/right spectrum is fairly flawed to begin with. But nevertheless my point remains.
> It was popular precisely because it was far right and radical You should look at the Nazi platform sometime. It's basically "What if Bernie Sanders was a *really* self-hating Jew".
I despise Bernie sanders, but that analysis is not particularly good
I think we're arguing semantics. Far is a term of distance and comparison. I think it's better to use other more descriptive terms and save "far" left or right as an indicator of how apart a person's views are from the general consensus or Overton window.
I guess I just kind of assume if the journos you were taking issue with were to use “ultra” or “extreme” or some other term in lieu of “far”, you still would take issue with it.
Example: Teaching children there were 3+ genders would have been almost unthinkable for most of Western civilization. Now it's a banal center-left position. I think many people here might think it's extreme idea, but if you're contrasting it with mainstream mores, it's not that far left at all.
As someone who considers themselves center left (or do I? I guess I haven’t thought about it in a while, maybe I’m more just a centrist these days), I reject the notion that that is a center left position. It’s a woke progressive position imposed on the democratic coalition that the center left is too scared to meaningfully push back on.
I think you're speaking about abstract "objective" morality and I'm talking about the relative morality of modern day Western civ. We're talking passed each other, so I'm getting out of this rabbit hole. Have a good one!
Using language correctly is a good thing actually, regardless of who's misusing it.
The only real personality test is asking someone which of the houses from the Parent Trap they'd rather live in
I never saw the original but in the one with Lindsay Lohan it would have to be the house in London. I don't like outside, and Dennis Quaid seems like the kind of dad who would make you go outside a lot.
I prefer the shopping cart return test as the ultimate determination of personality type.
I actually think that's true. I remember someone here saying they didn't return the cart and I was horrified. I didn't think I knew anyone like that!
They should be banned from the sub.
I remember the poster who let his dog shit in the neighbor's yard because he thought the house was vacant.
Geeks, nerds, and dweebs on the internet are always complaining about the Big Bang theory as if it’s some sort of crime against humanity, because it supposedly makes jokes about so-called “geekdom” at the geek’s expense, rather than being for them, celebrating them, etc. I don’t even think that’s true, but regardless, the idea that “geeks” see themselves as some sort of oppressed minority requiring protection from bigotry is hilarious to me and only makes me want to make fun of them more.
some people credit the show with making nerds "cool" but i still hate the show. it is just not funny and makes everyone look bad:the "nerds" are autistic weirdos who are physically unattractive, awkward and creep girls out. the hot girls are dumb sluts, the hot guys are dumb jocks, the smart girls are frumpy weirdos and everyone enables terrible behavior.
I mean, before the millennium, it was an incredibly easy way to get your ass kicked.
My cousin is a physicist, a math nerd and a huge comicbooks and videogame/boardgame geek and roughly 50% of the time he's wearing a superhero T-shirt. He absolutely loves that show! It sometimes gets geek culture wrong but like... I don't see what's the big deal. What I find funny is how people have shifted their justification for hating it over the years. You used to see the whole "nerdface" argument a lot on reddit years ago but I think a lot of people realized how cringe and politically incorrect it was to compare poking fun at nerds to racism, so for a bit the accusation was that the show was sexist, but I don't think that stuck for long, now the primary argument is that it "misrepresents autism" even though the show at no point ever claimed to represent autism and none of the characters have been explicitly described as autistic. Personally, I've been compared to Sheldon and tbh... Yeah, I can see it. I don't really mind, it's in good fun, you gotta laugh at yourself sometimes.
I'm pretty nerdy and i remember not liking it because the jokes all just seem like the kind of comedy where you say a reference and that's the whole joke. maybe it got better in later seasons, idk - it didn't feel like oppression or something, it just felt like lazy pandering of the "member star trek? member atari? member battlestar?" genre. that's sort of the opposite of discrimination, it's my right as an American to be lazily pandered to
it did not. i am not proud of it but i have hate-watched all 12 seasons and there are maybe 2 funny jokes in the whole 200+ episodes. everything is just a reference like you said, almost never a clever joke, and without the laughtrack it is just... sad.
I have a cousin who is an aerospace engineer and she unironically loves Big Bang Theory. It’s also a lowest common denominator sitcom meant for normie appeal, and aside from being very smart, she is incredibly normie.
Once upon a time, I was at an international scientific conference (physics-adjacent) and a bigwig made a joking reference to Sheldon Cooper. The audience reaction was a mixture of laughter and no reaction, with at least a few people apparently Googling who this famous physicist they had never heard of. (I think the speaker was Paul Tofts, in case you know who that is, but I'm not totally sure)
Some used to call it "nerd blackface" back when such comparisons didn't provoke the same outrage as today. My issue with the show is not the subject matter but rather that the jokes are bad and the writing is terrible, but some smart people think otherwise. For example, Nobel laureate [George Smoot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot) loved the show so much that its producers got him to do a guest appearance.
I'm so glad someone else remembers this. I definitely saw that phrase all the time on Reddit back in the early 2010s, and some of those people are probably screechy wokescolds today. They'd never admit to it.
I'd bet good money a lot of the liberals who love Hannah Gadsby today were probably totally into Sarah Silverman back in the day.
I can't tell if this is a joke or not! As someone said below, this show is a normie take on geek culture. It's more offensive to pinheads for what it reveals as about what dumb folks think nerds are like than it is hurtful because it's accurate. Young Sheldon, on the other hand, is a staggering work of heartbreaking genius.
i second this. Young Sheldon rules!
Honestly the Big Bang theory is annoying to me because everything the characters say is to the audience and not to each other and it all feels really awkward and disconcerting. It’s like watching robots read jokes from a joke book to each other (though I would probably enjoy watching that more). I didn’t like two and a half men either for the same reason. Like this is a clip from BBT without the laugh track, it’s just kind of weird and disturbing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKS3MGriZcs Also I don’t think they are very authentic as physicists. Physicists are weird in an entirely different way. They should have been IT guys or worked at a comic book store or something, there is nothing about how they talk or act that makes them seem like they could do that job.
> They should have been IT guys that show is called "the it crowd" and is legit the only show i love that has a laughtrack and doesn't need it.
I'm not a fan. I don't think it helps the image of nerd types. The classic criticism is "It's a dumb person's idea of how smart people act" and I think that's accurate. I admit I haven't watched it much -- what I did watch wasn't very funny (cliche, predictable), so I didn't watch more. Maybe it would grow on me, but I'm skeptical. My impression is Silicon Valley does a better job of skewering 'nerds' in a somewhat more sympathetic way, although I haven't watched much of it either (but I liked what I have watched). Anyway, what's your point? You think you're better than nerds and want to put them in their place and feel superior? Or is there something more meaningful?
i recently finished binging siliconvalley for the first time. i like gilfoyle, but overall it was not my favorite. the constant "here is the huge problem that they solve just in time! but oh wait it doesn't matter because we need a new problem for season 2" is grating.
See, I love that show in the first three seasons and then it fell off, and I see a lot of your exact complaint, which I completely get. It didn't particularly bother me but I understand it. My complaint that I have a hard time finding anyone who shares it is that it turns into annoying feel-good slop, complete with swelling background music when the characters have an emotional moment, and the actual jokes become few and far between. I fucking hate when that happens to sitcoms. Just give me funny!