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.”

I appreciate the write-up, thank you! I feel like a lot of this is semantic differences. I’ve always thought of socialism as any public funds used specifically to help citizens (e.g. social security, medicare, unemployment, UBI, etc) and Communism to be the public owning and running the means of production, and distributing goods thereof, and the stateless, classless, moneyless society to be the ideal utopia it aspired to (similar to Star Trek). From your comment, I see that what I call Communism, you call Socialism (which explains a lot of confusion from discussions in the past with self-described Communists I’ve known), and the nameless Star Trek post-scarcity system you would call Communism.

Do you think it is possible to slow-roll the transition peacefully, though? If, for example, instead of the government bailing out industries, they bought out industries on the cheap, slowly growing and monopolizing like Google or Amazon have? Or do you think the rich would simply block that from happening?

So I will admit that I am ignorant of a method of attaining Communism that isn’t at the end of a rifle, and thus authoritarian by nature (and fully accept that, to a degree, Capitalism is also at the end of a gun, but typically less overt, or often directed without instead of within). The only nations I’ve seen flying the red flag have appeared highly authoritarian (and I’m not going to get drawn into a “USSR and PRC aren’t/weren’t authoritarian, and DPRK is actually a utopia!” discussion, so if that’s the direction this is going, let me know and I’ll politely see my way out).

I’ve seen in the lower comments that Socialism would be used as a gateway to Communism, but I am unclear about the transition from “everybody’s basic needs are met via taxation and distribution” to “personal property is abolished” (as I understand Communism to mean, please correct me if I’m wrong). Plenty of European countries have had (for the west), strong seemingly socialist systems, but they don’t seem to be deliberately angling toward Communism, for example.

So I’m curious what this peaceful Capitalist to Communist timeline would look like.

The origin and story of Dogman is certainly dark.

I thought they accidentally got rid of Black Friday with their anti-DEI measures?

…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.

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).

deleted by creator

We get it! The metric system is better! Geez.

In a practical sense, identifying as lesbian makes it clear who they are interested in. Who they are should already be understood.

Honestly, non-binary hetero would be considerably more confusing. I at least know with a non-binary lesbian that they like women.

It’s used for bad things, but there’s nothing wrong with the term and is generally good practice.

Get some sun, but in moderation.

Help people, but in moderation (don’t set yourself on fire to warm others. In other words, practice self-care)

Eat in moderation.

Exercise in moderation.

Play video games in moderation.

Hell, brush your teeth in moderation. Don’t strip the enamel brushing 8 times a day.

Work in moderation.

Doom scroll in moderation. (stay aware, don’t get to the point of crushing sense of despair)

Basically, most things are best practiced in moderation. And if one feels compelled to do harmful things, doing them in moderation can help mitigate the damage.

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

As your comment when on, it slowly shifted in accent in my mind until you were full-blown Scottish at the end. Really a delight.

I’m pretty burnt out on bubbles. The message is… not exactly something I agree with, but is an interesting take I find worth consideration (good to challenge your biases, right?).

But the memes are such low-quality it’s like I’m viewing “The Right Can’t Meme” but from the Tankie side. They aren’t funny. They aren’t thought-provoking. They’re just cringe-inducing. And I’m not really into that vicarious embarassment type of comedy.

Guys, this is nonsense ragebait. Move on.

BC seems like it has more in common with the rest of the west coast than Alberta.

I wonder if crying will pull a boat for me.

a lot of older people downsize when their kids move out,

And we plan to, when both kids move out. But just one kid, with one five years behind the other? But anyway, isn’t moving the guest space to the main house section and renting out the apartment essentially “downsizing” to a three-bedroom anyway? Either way, the house remains a two-unit house. If somebody wants a temporary living situation by themselves or with one partner, what is wrong with them renting an apartment from me?

Look, I get it, the system is set up to screw people over to get big corpos big money. If somebody is living in apartment for a decade, that is a fucked up situation. But where I live there are military single young’uns wanting to get out of barracks for a year or two before their tour is done and they transfer, or regularly traveling nurses or others who come seasonally for work who aren’t in a position to buy a house and wouldn’t want to.

This whole “no good landlords” reeks of the same mentality as “no good lawyers.” Yes, there are a lot of greedy, unscrupulous (or overly adversarial) lawyers, but there are situations where having a lawyer is really important and there are plenty of good ones for those situations. The problem is a system that allows and encourages the profession to be abused.

First, that doesn’t solve the problem because then somebody else has two units in one building.

Second, downsize… from a four bed to a three bed? Not sure what sense that makes. Our needs won’t have changed dramatically.

Another piece that I didn’t mention is that I’m in the military, in a place with 3-year tours (so fairly temporary), and the young single people who arrive usually don’t wany anything too permanent, and are not in a position to buy. But I do know what their allowance for housing it, so I would be able to charge less than their allowance for housing, meaning they would get money out of the deal (and stuff is expensive here, so I’m not sure how they live anyway), and I get a respectful, reliable tenant (and we could offer home-cooked meals to whoever stays).

I know it’s a unique circumstance, and an exception hardly disproves the rule, but I don’t think “there’s no such thing as a good landlord” is a true blanket statement.

there is no such thing as a good landlord.

Okay, I’ll bite. I just bought a 4-bed/3-bath (actually 4 bathrooms, but bathroom math made it “3-bath”) because we are a family of four in an expensive tourist spot and wanted a guest bedroom for family and visitors. It just so happened one bed and a 3/4 bathroom is in an attached 1-bedroom apartment with its own kitchen and living room.

So when I retire, and my oldest is out of the house to college, we are thinking we could rent that particular part (at a very reasonable rate to people we know). It is part of the house, so I can’t sell it separately. So the choice is be a landlord, or don’t offer housing (I suppose I could make it an AirBnB and make even more money, but this area is already fucked for housing for that reason).

So if there is no such thing as a good landlord, what would you recommend in a situation like this? Let someone live there for free? Then they’d be costing me money. Don’t rent it out? AirBnB?