And you’ll be paying student loans for the rest of your life, so…

Hoooooly hell, good luck getting that study going. No ethical concerns there!

I’ve never understood “quiet quitting” as a term. When did just doing your job become something that needs a term? “Working adequately” seems more apt, but I can’t imagine the context that would be worthy of discussion outside an employee review.

Religion doesn’t stop a bad person from being evil. It can convince a bad person they’re still good (better!) when they do evil.

And good people don’t need religion to do good. But it can make them overlook the evil of other religious people and protect them, making them bad.

The best-case scenario is that religion can have no effect on how good or bad someone is. Good people stay good despite religion, not because of it.

Oh, great, so he bought evidence of a crime from the hotel (how are both of sides of that transaction not being prosecuted for obstruction of justice?!), and held onto it long enough to go past the surprisingly short statute of limitations. I guess if you have the money, that’s all you need to do.

That SoL is ridiculous.

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.”

So at the risk of severe down votes, I’m going to approach this by what he means, and not how everyone is taking it. And to get it out of the way, what he’s saying is still wrong, just not, I think, in the pedo or ephebo or whatever way.

I believe the point he is making are they are at a prime biological point for reproducing, they have all the hormones going and all the adult-like systems in place to make them want to have sex (presumably with each other). And he’s absolutely right. We in the more sex positive left have been saying it for a long time, which is why we push for better sex and reproductive health education.

His standpoint is, we can’t stop them from having sex, so removing the option to marry makes abortion a better option. I agree completely, but where we differ is that I think that’s good to have that option and continue their lives to start careers and have children on their own terms, and he thinks it’s bad because teenage moms are better than abortions (and, really, better all around).

Our standpoint: they’re going to have sex anyway, so give them the education and resources to prevent pregnancy, and abortion available as a last resort.

His standpoint: they’re going to anyway, so make sex a scary thing that leads to pregnancy, and then make the only avenue marriage. Because MORE BABIES.

I think his actual standpoint is really shitty. We don’t need to read shit into what he’s saying to amp up the rage bait.

Oh, I totally got that, we’re on the same page.

Yeah, I very deliberately left out any modifier for “majority,” as it is exceptionally difficult to quantify the others (for lack of reporting and other social reasons).

It’s like the people who claim that sexual harassment/assault went up after programs were put in place, when obviously it’s that reporting went up. If we can get better services and reduce the social stigma around domestic abuse against males, it will be interesting to see how those numbers change.

Especially considering that the group that experiences the most physical violence, stalking, and rape by intimate partners is lesbians (with the exclusion of bisexual women, where the statistics get super muddy because they don’t do much to specify where the abuse is coming from) at 43.8% (having experienced it). Gay men have the least with 26%, and hetero men following with 29%, and hetero women sitting solidly in the middle at 35%.

I don’t know what it is about bisexual people, but instead of getting an average of their same-sex and hetero counterparts, they jump up to 35% for bisexual men and 61% (!!!) For bisexual women. People, treat your bisexual partners better!

So basically, the numbers don’t suggest women are the nearly exclusive victims of partner violence that seem to be projected, and men are not even remotely the exclusive perpetrators for partner violence.

Edit: Forgot to include my sources. Also, I was a Sexual Assault Victim’s Advocate in the military, if that has any bearing.

Your premise is incorrect. The burden of proof for quantum mechanics is on the people claiming they exist. They provided those proofs, which is why people believe in them. I haven’t studied quantum mechanics, but if you asked somebody who does, they could offer proof or evidence. And if they couldn’t, then your claim it doesn’t exist (until proof was proffered) would be correct.

Dude, I’m so sorry you went through all that, and that people you told weren’t supportive. It’s frustrating that domestic abuse support and discussion is so specifically gendered. I understand that the majority of domestic abuse issues have female victims, but that’s no reason to dismiss the needs and experiences of male victims (or enby, or whatever).

Dude hasn’t gotten brain damage from an accident or born with it. He’s gotten repeated brain damage to entertain millions of people in a game.

I think “bringing light to terribly true things” is an appropriate description for referencing the detrimental medical effects of professional football on the players.

I think the general mentality is that when a person makes broad, generalized statements about a group while members of that group, who have committed no offense themselves, are part of the audience for that statement, it’s tough to not feel that as a personal attack for something they were born as and have no control over.

Don’t get me wrong, the “#notallmen” gets overused (e.g. if a woman is talking about violence carried out against women by men, that is not a generalization of all men, that’s just pointing at specifically the men that are violent toward women, and saying #notallmen is just derailing the conversation).

But having very reasonable feelings and bad experiences doesn’t grant carte blanche to be shitty toward people who have committed no offense. If you’re doing it in a close group of other women, then fine, whatever. But doing it in an audience with men (who have committed no offense) tells those men they have no place here, that they belong to the out group. We’re not talking about violent men, or misogynistic men, we’re talking about men, of which you are a part.

What I think other people have touched on is that in no other circumstance is it okay to generalize a group for things they were born as and can’t change (in humans, anyway), except apparently men. And you may call it just letting people have their feelings, but letting that idea go leads to things like the Duluth Model, assuming any violence between a man and women must be the man’s fault, and prevents men from coming forward about their own instances of domestic violence against them.

And don’t think I don’t understand the argument! Pit bulls can be some of the most loving, caring dogs, but they can also be monsters that could end you in seconds. Is it reasonable to by wary of a pit bull you don’t know well? Absolutely! Is it a well-trained pit bull’s fault that it is physically capable if mass murder? No, of course not, it can’t help what it was born as. It just wants loves. So is it reasonable to say pit bulls are scary? Yes. Is it reasonable to say pit bulls are awful, vicious monsters? No. But the difference is, even if you do, the good pit bull doesn’t understand that you are calling it a monster. Men do.

It doesn’t take courage to come forward after any and all threat has passed and no justice can be done.

I’m glad they did, mind, but “courage” is certainly not the correct word.

I’m getting “suicide by cop” vibes from these guys. What do they hope to achieve other than getting wrecked when they’ve pissed the US off enough?

Here’s a better question, Judge Pan.

Could a president order Seal Team Six to assassinate unsympathetic judges, either of an appeals court or the Supreme Court itself, since that’s an “official act?” Because that might be something worth considering.

The people I know that are hard-core meat eaters are hunters who vastly prefer meat they’ve killed themselves (in a heavily regulated system that prioritizes sustaining the environment). I live in Alaska, though.

My mom: "So you know Maryland, right? Maryland? It’s Finley’s mom. So her mom, Mary Lou, you know her, right? She had the Cat House. Madeline remembers the Cat House, the across from the stairs down to the beach. Well, she sold that, so she’s actually living at another place, on the same property as Maryland. And Alex, you know Alex, right? She’s Mary Lou’s partner. So anyway, she wasn’t answering calls, and so they went out to check on her and she was unconscious, so they rushed her to the hospital. It was really fortunate that she was on the same property, otherwise it could have been really bad.

So I have to go get Finley and watch him for the next few hours."

Me, after she’s gone: “I have no idea who any of these people are, and I have no idea who is in the hospital.”

Note: Alex was in the hospital, Alex is a woman, and Finley is a dog. Everything except Alex being the one in the hospital was included in the monologue, so as you can imagine it was even longer than what I wrote.

I’ve had to have several conversations with my wife about her not using a bad mental autofill.

So much of the time (especially with important conversations), she’s already decided what I’m saying within the first few words (of an entire conversation) and then the conversation gets way too long because it is very clear she’s not getting what I’m saying because she’s locked into her autofill. She’s gotten better over time, but man is it frustrating.

From everything I’ve heard about the election in Argentina, it was the meeting of “Anything is better than this” and “it can always get worse.” The former won, and proved the latter correct.