Doubtful. Clinton wouldn’t have focused on division. Sure, it would have simmered like during Obama’s years. But you can name 99 polarizing things Trump did and I can think of few Clinton would have done. Besides, you know, being a woman and continuing Obama’s legacy.
Everyone else is focusing on whether the rest of the world uses metric and not that fact that water pressure at a given faucet or shower head will be governed by bernoullis equation which will take 99 things into account such as:
The max height of the water reservoir
The height of your faucet
The design of the pipes leading from the reservoir to your faucet
Air pressure
The pumps in the system
Etc
Tourism is part of capitalism. You are correct.
States are the original gerrymandering.
Imagine if we redrew the state maps every few years. Oh no, my speed limit went down, I have to pay five cents per bag at the store, and the gax tax is not ten cents more per gallon. 😱😱😱
But then November roles around and my vote is way more powerful than it was because now 2 million people are election a senator and in my old state 50 million are also electing a senator.
States obviously used to have cultural sway but pretending they are real in 2024 is absolutely hilarious.
Gerrymandering is just the cherry on top. Well, the cherry in the House.
Probably harder on a tiger.
I think the direct implication is that the bullets are padded with foam. Softened.
Whatever the fuck podcast popularized the idea that blue just didn’t exist? Yeah stupid.
I do believe there is some relationship between one’s main language and how it affects thought patterns, but I mean cmon, even if I don’t know every word for shades of green (avocado VS chartreuse) doesn’t mean I’m not capable of distinguishing them. I may not have an exacting language tool set for distinguishing them. But I could.
You would need to weigh the cost of
The IRS realizing their is un-reported or misrepresented income
Vs
The IRS reporting legally reported but otherwise suspicious income to the FBI or DEA OR whatever
Upsigh down? Or upside ouwn?
Usually when people say “gender is a social construct” they mean that when your 7th grade biology teacher told you there are males and females, there was more to the story.
If someone tried to tell you that you can fit everything into either the “food” bucket or the “not food” bucket, you would definitely have questions. How do we define food? Food for whom?
If you define food as something edible, with nutritional value… How much nutritional value? A stone covered in lichen probably has nutritional value and I might try to eat it if I were starving to death. Raw grains of wheat might have nutritional value but also might make me sick of I ate them whole, but we all recognize they are generally edible and are usually processed into bread.
“Food” is a useful concept in that it can usually help guide humans toward sustenance. It was never meant as some airtight philosophical concept.
Every word is created through human interaction.
Are you saying that because most people wouldn’t consider acorns and dandelions edible, or worth processing into food, that the definition of food is meaningless?
Or are you saying that yes you can technically est mud and rocks (what is salt, anyways?) that food is a meaningless concept?
You can drink your coffee from a bowl but that doesn’t make it a mug.
I’ll just put my phone in the trunk in the future.
It’s called a “system” normally.
He buys one because the wife likes the look of it.
A few years later it needs some major repairs and he’s mad. He sees they now sell pretty cheaply used and buys a bunch to do the future repairs himself. Before you know it…
Or it’s a composite photo. Wouldn’t be hard to put a camera on a tripod and move the car around.
You are preaching to the choir here. Yes I can believe porn addiction only exists in the kinds of the those in the religious community. I’m still trying to provide a larger picture to answer the question of why the government doesn’t tell you to masturbate every day.
Porn, for some people in contexts, has had drawbacks. Those people, in some contexts, have curtailed the valorization of porn writ large. Maybe this campaign has biased me to a degree as well.
I have never been to a Sex Addicts Anonymous meeting but I’m not about to write the whole idea off entirely.
I mean addiction colloquially. The existence and over use of porn does cause some people and their relationship some level of affects. I don’t think we can just hand wave it all away.
I have a captain crunch whistle so I hear it anytime I want to!
I think the simpler answer is, you are so right, it barely has to be valorized. It sells itself.
I think the long answer is that porn addiction is a real thing that can affect people. Also lots of people in charge of things like sex education have historically been prudes who see masturbation as some sort of gateway to promiscuity.
Orgasms are normal, healthy and necessary.
Bad words just become extreme. The modify the emotion. They often don’t mean anything literally. You have to look for other clues or just memorize the terms.