DreamerofDays

That went from zero to apocalypse very quickly.

I think you’ve been chasing the news dragon too long and too hard. Past a point, it doesn’t make you more informed, just… sadder. More given to misanthropy and despair.

We’re here, and we’re not all bad. Most of us want the same things: health, happiness, love, and camaraderie. We want those things for the people we care about— sometimes more than for ourselves.

The vast, vast majority of us are just people. We get caught up in things, and we forget it sometimes, but that’s a people thing too. And so is helping— when tragedy strikes, or those times we create tragedy, people are also the ones running toward the danger and uncertainty to help save those who cannot save themselves.

This is a fundamentally dseems like an argument than in your post, and more or less is just an argument against any sort of progress or innovation. “We got by without ____ for many years, so what benefit could they offer us?”

If communication is intended, then the speaker or writer has a responsibility to make an effort toward being accurately understood. That effort involves using forms, formats, and punctuation that is old and well established, as well as more novel elements of them.

They also say to do what you love, and you’ll never work a day in your life. They say lots of things, many of them contradictory.

I think your advice of intentionally setting aside time is wise, though. I believe that too often we take for granted that things will just happen, and also overestimate the chilling effect of “not being spontaneous”.

Would they have a right to indiscriminately spray water into the air in public spaces?

It is not unreasonable to ask a person who smokes to have some reasonable restrictions on where they smoke.

For longevity, perhaps. Considering the Russian government’s penchant for poisoning people outside their territory, perhaps not.

People who make their politics their personality appear at both ends of the spectrum.

Not a fan of them, but I am inclined to agree with you on this one. Appearance of corruption for sitting out and letting the decision default, or much stronger appearance of corruption by sitting for it.

Unless sitting for arguments and abstaining from submitting or signing on to an opinion is an option… but even then, sitting for the arguments of a case you’re a defendant of is a bad, bad look, comes with no guarantee that you actually will abstain from opinion, and might not even be a valid way around quorum rules.

They are the most orthodox of orthodox Jews and they are fucking nuts

The Haredi would like a word.

Is the ad revenue on mass transit actually high enough to support its operation?(ignoring even maintenance or expansion, or the replacement of unrepairable vehicles)

A dusting of sarcasm on that.

I didn’t take it that way— mine was a poorly worded agreement with you.

Murder is always fun until you’re the one getting murdered. Doesn’t apparently sour you on the idea of murder, though.

Eat the rich and become what you despise. No thanks. I’m happy to look for that third way

I was reading the “who cares” as “who cares what he has to say?” (being a furtherance of wondering why this person has a platform or is getting a headline) I read it that way rather than “who cares that someone is threatening to kill the President.” (Which I think how you took it)

That seems pretty bonkers, with the barest minimum knowledge of geography.

Like, look at a map level of bonkers.

I hold similar views(obviously), but I find something comforting in it. Like, rather than living in a ruined paradise lost by us or our parents, we live in a complicated world where we share the work of trying to make something better with our ancestors.

(Of course, we also have to figure out how to do that, and, in a complicated world, that can be challenging and lead to conflict)

More likely it was when they were kids and without adult responsibilities, or narrow/whitewashed views of the past(as from stories and shows from before their birth)

You are so wound up in a rote shutting down of OP that you aren’t listening.

• Nazi = antisemite
• antisemite ≠ nazi

One can be antisemitic and not be a nazi. The pogroms that harried my ancestors were not practiced by nazis. The expulsions of Jews from various countries over the centuries were not practiced by nazis. The “no blacks, no dogs, no Jews” signs my grandfather saw were not put up by nazis.

Antisemitism is a thing we’ve been living with for a long, long time. I would appreciate it if you didn’t condescend to tell us how you know better about who does or can hate us.

The current situation is certainly making that clear.

It’s an uncomfortable time, certainly. The left seems to think we’re monsters, and the right has a weird fetishisation thing going on. Neither one feels good, and it ends up feeling very isolating.

A nazi is an antisemite, but an antisemite is not necessarily a Nazi. Downpunxx never used the word “Nazi”, and the two are not the same. Plenty of non-nazis over the years have persecuted or tried to kill us. Hitler didn’t invent the idea.