The reality is because of the lived experiences of people based on the color of their skin, people are different based on skin color. You’re right that it’s a stupid reason to think differently of people, but if people had been mistreated for many generations based on the color of their hair, and there was still a good chunk of people that something so arbitrary was somehow important, then you would want to approach a person with that hair color with understanding of that history and current struggle.

So why does it matter? Because 100 years ago, their great-great-grandparents had any wealth they managed to build up taken from them, 70 years ago their great-grandparents were kept boxed into separate, substandard areas, and 50 years ago their grandparents were kept from being able to buy homes outside low-income, substandard housing areas, and 30 years ago their parents were told it was their fault for growing up in crime-filled, poor areas with under-funded schools. And the whole time police have continuously treated them as that same substandard, poor, likely-criminal, so they have disproportionately been put in jail or grown up with one parent in jail. This obviously doesn’t apply to everyone, but it’s enough to lead people to treat them differently, either because they presume (until otherwise established) that they are poor, poorly educated, and likely criminal (by basically racist assholes) or with a certain amount of respect for their presumed struggles.

Taking it to an extreme, if a person comes across a very old person with a number tattooed in block letters on their forearm, they will respond one of two ways: with respect and concern for their presumed struggles and trauma, or with irrational hatred (by neo-nazis). Judging or “separating” a person for a barely noticeable tattoo that they didn’t even put on themselves may seem arbitrary, but only if you ignore the entire history that makes them different.

Gotta launch the arrows at the climax, too, for maximum effect.

My question was less about how doable it is, and more… if you can’t afford to buy a house, how can you afford to pay rent (and thus someone else’s mortgage plus a little extra)?

The last place I lived, I could afford my mortgage but I wouldn’t have been able to afford to rent an equivalent house. Hence my confusion.

I know this wasn’t your point, but I’ve been confused on a particular point for awhile:

buying a house is simply out of reach unless you have dual income and it better be nearly six figure dual income…

Just the general idea of it being impossible to afford to buy a house. And don’t get me wrong, the prices on houses have gotten ridiculous! At the same time, we talk about landlords buying houses and charging exorbitant rent (suggesting at the very least more than what they pay).

So if rent is more than the mortgage, insurance, etc, then how is it impossible to buy a house if it is possible to rent (an equivalent home)? Is it the down payment (if any)? Costs involved in purchasing? Because it seems like month to month it would be cheaper.

I say this as someone who has rented and owned, and owning felt significantly cheaper.

(Full disclosure, I’m in the military, so I had access to a VA loan… though not really sure what that did for me except maybe allow 0% down… if other people are absolutely required to put up a percentage then I can definitely understand it).

A president who wants what is best for his people, seeks out the smartest man on the planet, and puts him in charge of the most challenging problem facing the country?

Yes. I want president Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho as president.

Do you need to be an -ian? Like, if you like the teachings of Ghandi, or Socrates, or Marcus Aurelius, you don’t have to call yourself a Ghandian, or a Socratian, or an Aurelian. You just agree with their teachings.

I feel like you’re just making a dig on Christians, and it’s not like a lot of them don’t deserve it, but what you’re talking about isn’t a religion. You don’t need an -ian to like a philosophy.

Where did they go?

I don’t blame you for not knowing, since you aren’t from the US, but the Republicans have spent the past decade denying federal judge positions (including the Supreme court) from being filled, and they are being filled with partial judges that are corrupt and exceptionally loyal to the Republican Party. Already because of that, courts are allowing blatantly unconstitutional laws and actions by Republicans (such as the presidential immunity ruling earlier this year to protect Trump), as well as dismantling established precedent that protected people and allowed the function of our government. Another four years would dramatically increase that, but more importantly, the checks to authority that previously existed (in the form of judicial oversight) is basically gone.

Additionally, the threat of some kind of consequences have kept Trump in check to some degree, and the past four years have shown that no longer is a concern.

So yes, the guard rails are off, and they have a whole goddamn plan known to anybody who isn’t deliberately ignoring it to allow them to continue to accumulate unchecked power.

But yeah, it’s just four years, I’m sure no real damage can be done in that time and we can just vote him out, as long as our democracy lasts that long and votes even matter (considering electors can apparently just claim an election is fake news and just choose whoever they want, or governors can just appoint other electors to replace the real ones with no consequences).

And yeah, school yard insults are something we should avoid. They aren’t idiots, they’re fascists, authoritarians.

There’s another part to this, and the renowned surgeon makes it a bad metaphor.

It’s more like: “You have a choice for your surgery. On one hand, we have a trained surgeon, on the other hand is a circus clown.”

“What are the surgeon’s credentials and record?”

“Well… they have a reasonably good record in other kinds of surgery, but and they’ve shadowed a surgeon who has done your surgery before. I won’t lie to you and say their record is perfect, though, and some of the practices and techniques they use draw serious criticism from various world health organizations.”

“And the clown?”

“They have more experience with these surgeries, but the vast majority of the people who underwent these surgeries have died. In fact, he shows flagrant disregard for even the most basic and accepted sanitary standards in the medical community.”

“But some people did live, right? So he can’t be all bad.”

“Occasionally he was part of a surgical team, and in those cases the rest of the team managed to keep the patient alive. And again, your other option is a trained surgeon.”

“But a shitty surgeon with no experience.”

“A questionable surgeon with limited experience. Or a clown who kills those he commits surgery on more often than not.”

“I can’t believe these are my only two options. When you said I had a choice, I thought it was a real choice, but it sounds like you’re just trying to force your surgeon on me. I think I’ll wait until another round of surgeons is available.”

“You will probably die before the next round of surgeons is available.”

“Honestly, I don’t trust your judgement over what’s best for me. I’m sitting this one out.”

Undecided doesn’t always mean who you vote for, sometimes it means whether you vote.

Still dumb not to vote, though.

I’m a man, and that’s how I feel about boxers and being nude. I don’t like that dangle feel of uncontrolled swaying on a sensitive part.

So to clarify:

1: N/A

2: Gambling on the street

3: N/A

4: Masking up and hanging out, especially in a group, for potentially nefarious purposes

5: Hanging out in or around a school you have no business being at or in.

6: Selling shit on public transportation or transportation hubs.

With the exception of the mask thing (which should be repealed for health purposes. We should encourage people to mask up when they are sick, COVID or not), that all seems fairly reasonable, and not at all what is happening in the picture. Unless OP is wearing a mask, I suppose.

I’ve seen stuff like that on helmets, but not flight suit. My service is pretty strict on what you can put on flight suits, though. Helmets (while still against the rules) are generally acceptable as long as they are not inappropriate.

I got pepper sprayed in the military. In order to be allowed to wear pepper spray on our belts (for law enforcement), we had to be pepper sprayed and fight someone off.

I found it strange, because it’s not like we had to know what it was like to be shot and fight back. It was also one of the worst experiences of my life. Getting accidentally splashed across the eyes with hot sauce ended up not so bad simply by comparison, so I had that going for me.

This is the type of thing that could be answered if people followed banal statistical data the way sports people follow sports data.

“This is the first time since 2017 they’ve scored over 30 points in the third quarter in a home game during the pre-season.”

You only get one set of teeth

This is demonstrably false.

Edit: I think some people missed my joke. We all (almost all) have a set of teeth that fall out and another set comes in, so it’s just funny that they used the phrase “you only get one…” like we use for eyes, or brain, when we, in fact, end up having the whole set replaced once in our lives.

Say it out loud.

“Do you like fish sticks?”

'Yeah

“Then you’re a gay fish.”

Kanye in the show didn’t get it and thought people were calling him a gay fish. So if real Kanye didn’t get the joke, and got mad because he thought South Park was calling him a gay fish… that’s just incredible.

I live in Alaska, so… Basically just a pair of Xtratufs by the door. Sandals and running shoes get added during the summer. Big snow boots come out for the heavy snows.

Inside I just wear socks. If I need to pop out, I pop the xtratufs on.

I can’t imagine not taking shoes off and just wandering around the house with shoes on, tracking the outside in everywhere. I don’t even know anyone who does that.

I think you are confused about the source of the deficiency.

When we make an exception for a particular gender, race, religion, etc, we imply that an exception is necessary for this class. Which is to imply that there is a deficiency, but not that it is inherent to that class.

The deficiency being corrected is in society. How society has treated that class is a failing in society itself, and an exception needs to be made to correct (and fix) that deficiency. To take an example you made of handing a crutch, the crutch is going to society to help get their leg (that class) healthy again after what they had done to it, so it can be whole. Ideally, the crutch would be a temporary thing until the body can heal its leg, but the crutch isn’t the solution in itself.

Broadening that out, society has a deficiency as it mistreats, say, trans people. Trans people exist and should be an accepted part of society treated the same as everyone else, but bathrooms, sports, etc, have excluded them or mistreated them. That may not be able to be fixed immediately, but while we work toward a society where bathrooms, sports, etc, are inherently inclusive of trans people (I can’t sat for certain how that would look), exceptions must be made to keep society functioning reasonably while it heals its deficiency (like a crutch for a person who broke their leg).

I hope that clarifies things for you. Your assumption that the deficiency is inherent to the marginalized group is what is faulty.

One of my coworkers was talking about how his wife (a truly hateful woman) was complaining about having been to a bathroom at a particular airport, and how they had changed them for trans people (she presumed). In particular, they had made all the stalls have floor-to-ceiling doors for privacy. I responded “wait… she’s mad because they made the bathrooms better for everyone, because they did it for trans people? That is an objectively better bathroom situation. I can’t imagine being upset by that.”

People can still manage to be upset, but if they did do that for trans people (and I’m honestly not convinced), that’s fantastic, and is a perfect example of what you’re talking about, I think.

“Charged with a hate crime for what?”

“For saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas! Starbucks changed to just a red cup so that’s a hate crime too! Schools are trying to stop coaches from making kids on their teams pray! And trans people exist! Hate crimes!!”

That is absolutely ridiculous.