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

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

The origin and story of Dogman is certainly dark.

…okay.

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

Take what you can get.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Impossible meats vegan? Because Impossible stuff (ground “beef,” “chicken,” whatever) are delicious. They definitely got me into eating far, far less meat.

Yeah, that’s dumber than magic underwear. That might be the dumbest religious thing (with the exception of, you know, wars) that I’ve seen. Calling all of Manhattan your (and specifically your) domicile doesn’t stretch the meaning of domicile, it completely ignores it.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I feel like it can kind of be confusing to understand how the process works for it.

But it is not even remotely confusing as to what you do. Choose, from most to least, who you want. It’s that simple. You want to get into how those votes are tallied, do a little dive, there’s plenty of videos very simply explaining it. If you don’t, and just want to be able to go vote? Just go vote. If even ranking them is too complicated because you have a worm in your brain, just choose one and ignore everything else.

It might be complicated to tally, but it is not complicated to do. It’s just people being duped by the Big 2 parties to not want choices.

There was a STRONG effort to ban (or at least end) RCV here in Alaska, and it failed, but barely. They even did the super misleading wording, too, in order to make it unclear if the measure banned RCV or supported it.

I was always so confused by the adamant support that was being shown by general people, though. Like, I get why both Dems and Republicans would be against it: they want to be the only two players in the game. But why any general people would want less choice is beyond me. And it’s funny, because the staunchest proponents (at least where I am) were conservatives, when (again, where I live) RCV basically drove out the Democrats. There were Progressives, there were “centrists,” there were Libertarians, and then there was Republican/MAGA. Dems didn’t even get enough support to be on the ballot. So their hated Libs were wiped off the board entirely for being so ill-liked, but they want to get rid of that system? I just don’t get it.

I’ve had this discussion quite a bit, and it’s tough to break the 77 cents on the dollar and whatnot rhetoric, because those people are convinced that a man and a woman doing the same job with equal experience, the woman just automatically makes on average 23% less than a man. And it’s easy to prove that wrong, and entirely misses the point.

Two of the biggest factors in fixing the “gender pay gap” is longer maternity leave, similar lengths of paternity leave, and low-cost or free daycare. And then obviously, a cultural change for stay-at-home dads (though not exactly something you can legislate). I also read a study (I believe from Farleigh Dickinson University, in 2002, though I have had trouble finding it since) that the vast majority of men, after having a child, wanted to go back to full time work, and the majority (though not as large) if women wanted to either work part-time or stay at home. Now, I imagine a lot has changed in 23 years, so maybe that mentality has changed, but if all else is fixed and there is a “pay gap” based on choice like that… that’s not a problem that needs to be solved.

So to recap, we need to stop talking about cents on the dollar and start talking about making rejoining the workforce more available and appealing after having babies, and giving dads more time with their kids to let their wives work.

ETA: To be clear, there is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed regarding women in the workforce, it’s just not the “gender pay gap” as people try to describe it.

I’m no expert, but I also accuse them of that.