Are those all houses, or are there shops mixed in? Imagine living at the bottom but having a shop at the top.

I think you’re misunderstanding what feminists mean when they say, “all men can be rapists”. It’s alright, I used to be in your shoes too, sometimes people are just bad at explaining themselves, so lemme try and explain my understanding of the statement.

They’re not saying that men are rapists, what they’re trying to say is that men have been trained to pursue relationships in a way that can be coercive and can lead to rape without the man realizing he’s doing anything wrong (I’ll go into how a man could “”“accidentally”“” rape someone near the end).

A good example of this is “Baby, it’s cold outside”. The song is about a man trying to convince a women to stay the night with him. The song takes the form of the woman finding reasons to leave, while the man finds reasons for her to stay. This was because, at the time, it was considered improper for a single lady to stay the night with a gentleman who’s also single; they might get up to something, the horror!

Now, the song portrays this coersion as being possibly consensual; that, in the context of the song, the woman might want to stay, but feels compelled to go through the list of reasons she should leave so it isn’t “improper”. However, if you’re engaging in roleplay like that, you need to set clear boundaries before you do so otherwise you risk someone getting hurt. Furthermore, standards have changed. It’s no longer improper (in most places) for a woman to spend the night at a man’s house, nor is it acceptable to try and convince a woman (or anyone for that matter) to sleep with you if they’ve said “no”. Again, it is coercive, and you cannot derive consent from coersion unless it was clearly defined beforehand as part of role-play (consent can also be revoked, if someone tells you “stop”, you stop).

Despite that, cultural momentum means that many young men are still taught that if a woman says “no”, that just means you need to give her a better excuse to say “yes” (“she’s just playing ‘hard-to-get’”).

You might be able to see how this is a bad thing, yes?

That is what I believe they’re referring to. It’s not that they think every man is a rapist just waiting to strike, it’s that most men have been trained to “just try harder” if their lady friend says “no”.

Edit: if I’m wrong, feel free to correct me.

You’re probably gonna have to be more specific.

Radical feminist can refer to:

A hardcore feminist who goes to every rally and protest, donates money to things like planned parenthood and so on. - probably a cool person, but might have their head up their ass. However, their heart is probably in the right place regardless of their personality.

A misandrist. Fake feminist who hates men and believes men are the source of the world’s problems. - almost certainly an asshole and should be avoided.

A terf, aka “trans-exclusionary radical feminist”. Also a fake feminist. They don’t believe trans women are women and seek to exclude them. - asshole, avoid at all costs; tend to call themselves “gender critical” because the real feminists got tired of their bullshit and started kicking them out.

Okay, but that’s not on the ancient aliens people. According to your Wikipedia page, it wasn’t ancient alien theorists trying to prove bullshit that destroyed them, that was done by Christian nutjobs hundreds of years before anyone came up with the idea of ancient aliens.

Nah. It’s “ancient” vs “modern”. “Modern” is anything well-documented or easily translated into English, “ancient” is anything that lacks documentation or has ambiguous translations. Some things I’ve seen ancient alien people freak out about: Stonehinge, pyramids, roman dodecahedrons, antikythera mechanism, ancient astronauts, UFOs in medieval/Renaissance art (yes, that is supposedly a thing), Nazca lines, and more.

My point is that anything even remotely weird or inexplicable with any historical ambiguity is up for grabs when it comes to ancient alien theories. At least, that’s been my observation.

*shrug*

Tbf, I’d also be kinda pissed if I bought a meme banana and it wasn’t the size of a real banana. You had one job…

Please help them! They may not be able to get separated without human intervention.

I was gonna try and write a comment 1upping you because I didn’t think Rachele Fruit was a real person, but then I decided to look her up just to double-check. Nope! She’s actually a real person.

Eh… I’m just… Not sure a one-state solution would end well, even if you could get past the US. It’s not that I like Israel, I hate everything that Israel is doing right now. I’m absolutely disgusted by the way they’ve been treating the Palestinians. However, I also don’t want to see more violence and bloodshed. I’ve been sickened by the never ending march of dead bodies that our horrid, god-forsaken species seems to crave.

I want a solution that will result in the least amount of violence and death, and I think something like a two-state solution is more likely to achieve that than telling Israelis that they’re now under Palestinian control.

I guess you also believe there’s a “White Genocide” going on in South Africa, right?

Plkease stop looking at the world like a white supremacist. For your own sake.

Jesus fuck if that’s really what you got from my comment then you need to get off the Internet and get some serious help, dude.

Are you okay? I’m actually kinda concerned.

Yep. That’s why I personally think it’s dumb to try and argue for the dissolution of Israel at this point. It’s too late. All you can do at this point is damage control and to try and find an equitable solution to the Israel-Palestine problem that gives both groups the ability to self-govern.

It’d be like kicking all the Russians out of former USSR countries, or Chinese out of Tibet, or white people out of the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Israel should be held accountable for what they’ve done to the Palestinians, but I also don’t think you can reasonably expect for everyone in Israel to pack up and leave at this point.

Because the Christian apocalypse requires the foundation of Israel. The Christian side is basically participating in an apocalypse cult, whether they realize it or not.

I speculate that the reason the GOP is so supportive of Trump is because they believe he’s the literal Antichrist and they think that getting him reelected will bring about the end of days. I don’t have the link on me (though someone else might), but I remember reading an article by a Christian scholar or something about how Trump nailed every possible prophecy about the Antichrist that he could, either in a literal or metaphorical sense, during his presidency. Now, I personally thought some of them were stretching it, but it was still a bit freaky and made me consider the possibility that the GOP actually believes something like that.

The funny/sad part is that if they truly are correct (I highly doubt it, but ehhh…), then that means they’ll be fucked alongside Trump due to their support of him. As far as I can remember, the Bible doesn’t give amnesty to the Antichrist’s supporters just because they believed they were “helping god”; if anything I think I remember the Bible saying the opposite (don’t try and force God’s hand or you’ll eventually face his wrath).

(No, I’m not a Christian, but I still find it fascinating and mildly concerning)

Yeah, well. Listen, we might need it simplified, but we make up for it by constantly adding to our vocabulary. Quantity over quality, as they say. Just like everything else in this country.

Especially with America’s history of large and successful inventions spawning from garages much like in the UK coming from small garden sheds all starting from barely-working prototypes.

It’s funny you’ve mentioned this, because I’ve also heard that American tourists have a reputation for not only enjoying queues like y’all in the UK, but will also form queues where one doesn’t exist. I fully believe this too, because I don’t think I’ve ever seen Americans form a mob except when we’re protesting, rioting, or it’s Black Friday. Otherwise, people will just automatically form lines. They’ll even join lines when they have no idea what the line is for. I honestly question whether queues are even necessary in this country because we seem to just do it automatically lol.

Anyway, as for the slang terms,

I like “Mithering”.

“Naff” - may be a bit difficult to adapt; something about it feels off in my mouth. It’d probably end up mangled if adopted.

“Bodge”/“Bodged” - I think this is where the term “botch-job” came from, which refers to something thrown together sloppily or carelessly in the US. As such, it’d have to buck its reputation first. Otherwise it’d probably be pretty popular as a “classy” way of saying “jerry-rigged” (basically anything from the UK tends to be viewed as being “classy” in the US, except for when it isn’t; don’t ask me why, I don’t know lol).

Yeah, well, y’all’rn’t doin’ anything interesting with it, so we made it better.

No, no it wouldn’t. You’re still using math, you’re just using a different language. If apple bananas becomes apple pears after being hit by a bullet, you’ve changed the value. That is what math describes. You cannot avoid this. This is how computers work, and math is just another language to describe things. Even if every health value is a string, you still need to keep track of which string is currently in use so that you know when to kill the player. That requires math. That is what they’re talking about. It is not the in-game health indicator that is public domain, it is the actual health value in RAM that is generated and modified during gameplay.

It is better this way. Copyright is already abused to hell and back, if they expanded copyright to cover this kinda stuff then it would potentially destroy things like right-to-repair as companies could claim copyright infringement on anything that modifies their code.

I couldn’t find the original UN article which is why I was referencing the FEE one. Also, while I quoted the bit about “empowered intellectuals” I assumed that was pro-capitalist cynicism towards education and community due to the heavily pro-capitalist slant in the rest of the FEE article. I kinda figured everyone else picked up on that too.

Thanks for the link! I’ll have to read the original in a bit.

You guys invented English, we perfected it.

It sounds like he just doesn’t find it funny, which is why he doesn’t want to call it satire.

Y’all should actually read the article because it seems like it’s saying something completely different from what OP is trying to make it sound like. Basically, if I understood correctly, Kent was being critical of the idea that market-led solutions (i.e. capitalism fixes hunger) are better than community-driven solutions. He was also saying that hunger is part of capitalism, and you’ll never get rid of hunger while capitalism exists, because capitalism needs to withhold resources to force people to work.

This paragraph seems to sum up the article pretty well:

In Kent’s view, one gathers, global hunger is not a complex problem that is being addressed by free market capitalism; it’s a moral one that requires empowering intellectuals like Kent to solve it.