Chairchucker

America has a third party. They won't matter until they change their election system. Get ranked preference voting and suddenly it won't be a complete waste of time to vote for someone other than the two designated candidates.

I saw a Twitter thread that basically outlined that Russia's war crimes are not a result of 'a few loose cannons' or whatever, but are a deliberate act by a country that was very much hoping to genocide Ukrainians and put all the people in mass graves. Anyway, Russia kinda sucks in general ey.

I just recently finished watching Galavant which is old as heck but still great. Gotta finish watching Agents of SHIELD so I can move on to watching all the Netflix Marvel shows that just came to my streaming platform of choice.

solid platform tbh

Hitler was apparently apparently 5 foot 9, which was well above average back then.

I don't think there's any universe in which I vote for a Republican candidate in the next... ever. The entire party is complicit in Trump's nonsense.

Interestingly, Napoleon was apparently average height for a French dude, but below average for an aristocrat or officer. Apparently they wanted their officers tall so they'd look imposing or whatever back then.

Hmmm. I am torn. On the one hand I would like his approval ratings to be higher so that if he is the eventual Democratic nominee, he would beat the eventual Republican nominee. Especially if that ends up being Trump, as it seems it might. On the other hand, I want his approval ratings to be lower so that he is not the eventual Democratic nominee.

Other sources define it as being any discrimination based on age. And we already do that at younger ages. I'm not convinced this would be all that different. I definitely think there is more of a case for banning politicians over the age of 70 where they are more likely to suffer from dementia or any number of other debilitating mental illnesses, than there is for banning people under the age of 35 from being the President of the USA.

A 12 year old can't be a politician, is that ageist?

Besides, there's plenty of precedent in most societies for age based restrictions on what people can do, it's just they're minimum age requirements, and we tend not to try to replace those with 'cognitive based requirements' or whatever.

I'm just answering your question as to what an 'upper limit' is.

Upper limit as in the highest possible. If you decree, for example, that people have to report to a processing centre at age 65 to be turned into Soylent Green, 65 is the 'upper limit' on being alive in that society. Or for a less morbid example, if you make a law that says the oldest you're allowed to be and still be president is 70, then that's the 'upper limit'.

If you reread what I said, you'll find that what I ACTUALLY said wasn't 'I support age limits' (I'm not entirely sure about my position on this) but 'an upper limit makes more sense than a lower limit of 35'.

Maximum age limit makes more sense to me than, for example, the current minimum age of, what, 35 in the US?

Posting in the marginally less depressing thread. For some content, here's the latest on man who sued a bunch of newpapers for suggesting he was a war criminal and unleashed an unending torrent of witnesses testifying he was a war criminal, Ben Roberts-Smith. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/24/ben-roberts-smith-told-another-soldier-in-afghanistan-i-just-want-to-kill-court-hears The part of this that interests me the most, oddly, is the claim he didn't even own an iPod, because if that wasn't true, it would be a weird lie to tell.

Hmmm, guess I should've expected to see invasion apologists. Still disappointing.

I've gotten the impression elsewhere that Putin is basically mad at Ukraine for existing instead of being part of the USSR, run by him

Interesting. Education and wealth would probably be good caveats if you wanted, hypothetically, to explicitly discriminate against people of colour and women. The military caveat is a great way to discriminate against progressive politics. Over all, this would be a horrific example of voter suppression, so good job thinking of worse policies than the ones they're already implementing I guess.

'Enjoy' is not necessarily the word I'd use. Maybe more 'willing to engage'. Difficult to fully articulate my position on this, It's Complicated I guess. As a straight CIS white man* it would be pretty easy for me to see these issues as abstract ones I guess, that can be dispassionately discussed as if it was a conversation about which sporting team is the best**. But I guess I'm also aware that for people who fit into any one of dozens of minority groups, (racial, sexual identity, disability, whatever) these issues are less abstract; generally speaking in disagreements on the subject of social justice, my perception is that there is a divide between people whose priority is being kind and respectful towards members of groups who have been historically marginalised, abused and discriminated against, and people who think that first group should be mocked for that priority. It will probably not surprise you to hear that the overwhelming majority of times I see such discussions, I am completely on the side of the first group, and utterly despise the attitudes of the second group. My perception from the way you've phrased this is that you would like for any discussions on this subject to be completely dispassionate and for all of us to be completely detached and intellectual about the process. Can't really promise that, sorry. *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLMgbV3uaz8 **lol

'Triggered' is a word that has been sarcastically co-opted by, I dunno, I guess mostly the younger, extremely online elements of conservatism/libertarianism? Mostly to make fun of people who've used it in the 'real' sense, but whose... I dunno, authenticity I guess? Is thought to be suspect. I think it's a symptom of a larger trend where many people are increasingly becoming aware that the things they do and say have an impact on the people around them, and some people see that as an opportunity to exercise kindness by maybe avoiding topics or words that might negatively impact people around them, whereas some people are bothered by the idea of changing their behaviour to be kind to others, and take it as an attack on their freedom when others suggest that their words and actions could have negative consequences on the well being of others, and that they ought to consider this in their day to day lives. I think the main issue with casual use of the word 'triggered' is that it may trivialise it for those who have actual trauma that can be, as it were, 'triggered' by sights or sounds or words or whatever. Same with other words that have authentic mental health meanings or whatever still - or recently - in use. Like, no one's gonna complain too hard about use of the word 'idiot', despite the fact that it used to denote an intellectual disability, because it's been out of use for an extremely long time to the point it's pretty much lost that meaning, whereas if you were to use 'retard' or variations of 'autistic' as a slur, there's the very clear contemporary or recent meaning.

So apparently the reviews for Uncharted are coming in and the verdict is... it's a video game movie

Checked it out in a different article. Seems like it's less about being 'too woke' or whatever and more about not getting their kids back into school, and not focussing on things like kids' mental health or allocating resources to kids. They're not mad at the renaming of schools because of what it is, but because it's not the focus on students that they want.

I just think it's irresponsible and reflects poorly on you to use the language of mental illness to describe someone who disagrees on a point.

Do you have an article from a source that doesn't use laughable terms like 'Marxist school board members'? EDIT: Side note while we're discussing terms. 'Triggered' is a word that refers to actual responses to recurring trauma, and does not mean 'provoked any kind of response.'