Kalbear

On his weight - chances are good he is taking Ozempic.

I can bring receipts, but honestly I don't see why - you'll just spin it in some other way. If you like we can talk about how shitty the UK's version of industrialization was as well, but the original outrage that you had was about how colonialism was NOT the reason that Britain became so amazing - that's what set off your outrage merchandising and caused you to get all atwitter - and other people disagreed. As you say, multiple things can be true at once. In this case, you being wrong about where the conversation was, you being wrong about the massive benefits of colonialism to the British empire, AND you being wrong about how beneficial Britain's version of industrialization were are all in play!

No, you just decided that's where it was going. I've been keeping up. You switched the goalposts when people talked about the problems with colonialism to meaning that it was just about industrialization and capitalism, and then DEMANDED that people justify why they disliked industrialization. I mean, sure - why defend something that sucks when you can defend something that sucks less? But you're the one who attempted to change the conversation.

Who is actually arguing against them happening? It's kinda telling that you equate imperialism and colonialism with industrialization and capitalism.

Seems like a pretty good response. Iran appears confused about it, it sends a message that unlike Iran Israel can do significant damage if they choose and Iran can do little to stop it, and there's no sign of otherwise large scale outrage. If Israel was going to strike back this seems like a good choice for deescalating.

I personally take the 'they must make as much money as I do' to be a shorthand for 'they must be able to understand the professional and personal obligations that one has when one takes their career this seriously and not expect significant changes'. Also, on the marriage stuff - have more sex! Marriage doesn't mean no sex, it doesn't even necessarily mean less sex (I'd personally say children and getting older do that, but not marriage itself). It means more freaky sex. Have more freaky sex, folks.

In theory just a few days.

The Mayorkas impeachment was killed without trial: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-trial-senate-04-17-24/index.html I have to say I'm a bit surprised that dems would do this given that it pisses off some of the conservative dems, and that it sets something of a shitty precedent for the inevitable impeachment of various Trump officials down the line. Not that precedent should really matter here and would matter that much, but I'm still a bit surprised.

BREAKING THE LAW EVEN MORE THEN, I SEE

It can be true that the kids are roaming the streets looking for ultraviolence and also never leave their homes? Are they driving around in RVs then?

I love the idea of Aaron Paul and Ron Perlman being in this. Especially Perlman.

Okay, no, it isn't the daughter.

On Moldaver, here's my fanwank:

You would almost certainly see them, and more importantly you'd hear them the same way you hear planes; they'd be pretty loud even before the bomb.

Well, not if vault tec was planting them.

Right - but why would she let him have custody on that day?

Also finished the show last night. What a fantastic ending. The blackout hallway fight was cool as hell. A bit confused on this part though - knowing what we do about Howard's wife and what she went through to get a vault slot, and knowing what we do about who dropped the bombs first - how would she ever let her daughter not be at her side the day of the drops? Why was she with Howard at that point?

Thanks, @Werthead. And yeah, I've known that for a while - but it is still a remarkable change in things from when I grew up. For all the talk that people and nations don't change I think it is an interesting sign of how things can evolve. Like, say, the US telling Europe to fuck off and go away from NATO.

Okay, so here's the thing - you cannot and should not be considerate to the point of selflessness. Talking about wants and needs is nice, but it's also really exhausting on the talker's side and doesn't end up making you feel particularly wanted; it makes you feel like you're a quest giver, and then are obligated to reward that person after they've completed it. The part about how she didn't feel desired enough I bet rings really weird to you - how could someone who is trying to do whatever they want not feeling desired? But that's not desire; that's devotion. Desire is grabbing that person and kissing them, desire is being selfish and wanting them for your own sake because they make you feel good, desire is being out of control and not being able to just think about what they want and instead give in to what you want. But the other part is that no one wants to be with someone who doesn't value themselves. They ALSO want to show how much they care about you, and how much they love you. You have to be able to let them do that too.

Maybe? Still, it's a pretty interesting thing. Egypt has had relatively normal relations with Israel for a while, but Jordan was longer in coming and has had significantly worsening relations in the last few years. It would have been very easy for them to just not worry about it and let Israel and the US deal with it. I don't agree with @Spockydog's video garbage above - it isn't just about power, or at least not in the way he thinks; Jordan can do this because the populace of Jordan does not hate Israel so greatly that they must oppose them at every single turn. And that's even with the Palestinians being abused. This kind of normalizing or even helping Israel has in the past literally resulted in the populace overthrowing the government. That isn't the case today.

Right - I'm not surprised about their abilities to do something - I'm surprised by their willingness. Jordan not only didn't allow their airspace to be used by Iran for this, they explicitly worked to help Israel's defenses. An Arab country - especially one that has so many Palestinians - helping Israel in any way is a pretty big surprise for the world of the 80s and the 90s. Even Egypt doesn't seem that cooperative by comparison.

One thing I'm still a bit surprised about is Jordan responding and shooting down a number of the drones. Imagine thinking Jordan would aid Israel back in 1980.

Why do you think that the US (or whatever replaces it) would not be more involved in being against Israel? The cheeky answer is 'the same thing that is already happening, but at least it wouldn't be US bombs'. The US has shown very little ability to restrain Israel as it is, but even assuming that they are doing a fine job of it they are also selling bombs and planes - the same bombs and planes being used right now to do drone strikes and airstrikes on world kitchen workers and food distributions. And yes, it could be worse and I'm usually quite happy to say that you shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of the good. That said I'm not really going to condemn people who are quite unhappy because their government is facilitating the deaths of their families, and I'm really not going to chastise them about a fucking slogan.

I don't think they equate the two. I think that at least some of them refuse to participate or align in a system that forces the choices of killing their loved ones or killing their loved ones but also feeling kinda bad about it. They would rather fight that system than choose a slightly more palatable choice. And no, that doesn't mean picking a third party; that means not participating in the system as it is at all, and trying to bring down that system.

I don't think there is any difference. Unless you're really believing that a specific slogan is going to make a major difference compared to nuanced criticism - and I guess that's your prerogative - the slogan only has power because of the inference of it actually being linked to real issues that matter and have some facts. Do you think that "Joe supports war crimes" is going to be somehow massively ineffective? This seems to say that you shouldn't criticize, or you shouldn't criticize in any way that might harm the candidate of your choice, or you shouldn't criticize if I think that it might be a problem. Maybe they shouldn't criticize on message boards dedicated to a fantasy novel! Ultimately there is no place or form of criticism that cannot be weaponized, which means you are against criticism. And you may be right that it is self-defeating if you think that their goals are aligned with yours. As pointed out in another linked video upthread if the choice is between orange hitler and genocide Joe the solution may be not to support a system that gives those as the only two options.