Sorry, but there’s a whole trial to get through and he’s very pretty. He’s probably gonna be around for a while…

True I was sitting inside by myself without friends before it was cool.

Yeah, but they’re on the same side, and it isn’t ours…

The “lanes” are the sets of tire tracks from the car in front of you that you try to stay in so your car doesn’t suddenly fishtail.

It’s crazy how much more you can get done in one calm uninterrupted hour than in a whole very active afternoon.

Congratulations, you are now an “early riser.” Enjoy the hours from 4-6 am where nothing happens and nobody bothers you (unless you have kids…)

This is similar to something I assumed right before I had a long argument with a high school physics teacher. We ended up agreeing that he just didn’t really care.

Why would I unload my emotional baggage on the people who caused it in the first place? That just sounds like more baggage.

Edit: This was supposed to be a joke. You can stop pointing out my complex trauma, thank you.

This is the sort of smartass thing I would try right before getting bludgeoned to death.

“very often” is hyperbole, but if you’ve never had/heard of that discussion I would be surprised. But I don’t think “men are misunderstanding the question” is a crazy take.

“who would win in a fight” and “who would you feel more threatened by” are by no means two “random” subjects, they are very closely related in theme and in most situations the answers would be interchangeable. And the conflation of the two closely related topics of conversation was my entire point.

…

Sure.

The original meme is about women feeling they are less threatened by a bear than a strange man, the bear might leave them alone or not be aggressive where a man would be more likely to. That men can be a threat in different ways.

Separately men very often discuss what animals they could beat in a fight. This results in a misunderstanding/disconnect between “who would you feel less threatened by” and “who would win in a fight”, which I agree is not what the original meme of women “choosing the bear” is about, but it is a very similar dynamic that results in men explaining that you won’t win a fight against a bear. Which, again, is not the point of the original meme indicating a feeling that a bear might be less likely to harm or threaten you, which is why it results in people talking past each other. (Kind of like right now…)

And I believe you missed the words “appearing to imply” and my point completely.

is it rhetorically or optically the perfect feminist meme that is beyond criticism? no.

Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the argument is men have been having very serious discussions for probably millenia about what animals they could and could not beat in a fight. And it is implicitly known that the guy who comes in saying he could beat a bear is way up his own ass. Now here comes a meme appearing to imply that men could beat a bear in a fight, and the urge to correct is strong.

I understand and agree with the sentiment, but I also want you to know you can’t beat a bear in a fight, but will gladly discuss what animals you might win against.

What about a Cheetah?

Everything I know about Barbados involves limbo competitions in the year 3,000…

The people not voting against Trump.

And supporting Trump is like lighting the rest of the ship on fire so people will start paying attention to the problem.

What’s your suggestion to make them listen to their base instead of chasing voters who have never voted D and just straight ticket vote R?

Split ticket voting. Local elections, local primaries, down ballot votes. We need a generational shift in party leadership. Party leaders generally start as smaller/more local candidates. If you have a strong roster of “up and coming” progressives winning primaries and elections those progressives get more power and sway in the party as they win bigger offices.

I think it would send largely the same message you want without the global harm to have Biden stuck with a Republican legislature. They are still bad, but Trump is the cult leader and the actual danger.

Very much disagree. It seems you’re suggesting that the fallout from another Trump presidency will lead to better long term results than a second Biden presidency?

What happens to Ukraine after you stick it to the man and support Trump? Nobody is learning the lesson you want them to. You’re supporting a dictatorship through cynicism. You can be mad at more than one group. DNC could be doing more. Biden could be doing more. Normal voters acting like helping a literal traitor back into office is the better alternative could be doing better.

Like it or not (I don’t), we are stuck with the two choices. Helping the guy who literally says he wants to be a dictator is illogical in every context. If you actually care, volunteer in local elections and donate to candidates that support your views, help create a strong next generation of progressive democrat candidates.

You already did that with Hillary, really worked out great for everyone, huh? I do not understand how anyone can consider a second Trump presidency preferable to Biden just not doing as much as they would like.

What exactly do you think Trump would be doing in any way better in this situation?

Being bitter about your choices so letting others make the choice for you is way more spineless.

The House will have… who?

Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch…