It makes more sense for the former unfortunately.
The original theory was that it could have been a pregnant women looking down and that’s what lead to the proportions. The idea was they wouldn’t have been able to see themselves in a river or something. But rivers and puddles, not to mention OTHER pregnant women, were extremely common so it’s less likely.
A single-player fantasy game with no skill points/upgrades beyond equipment. I want the entirety of the progression to be the skills of the player. You end up losing fights to more than one goblin at a time, but then you learn to start dealing with groups. A long enough time pasts and you’re slaughtering hordes of enemy like clockwork. But if someone took control of your character they’d still lose to a goblin or two.
I want something where split second reaction times and skill determine how a fight goes. Both me and the enemy should be able to kill each other in 2-3 seconds given the right circumstances. I want extremely punishing mechanics for both enemies and the player. Something like a first-person Hotline Miami but with really good swordplay.
If you can pay someone $1.50, then you can pay them $1. You can’t even pull a “I don’t have a smaller bill” or other shit.
If you try to pay $1.50 then you’re just being a trouble maker.
DuckDuckGo is also so much better for search results since Google made theirs shit.
I can find websites pretty easy on DuckDuckGo which just don’t exist on Google.
This will do nothing to stop Google Chrome’s market share tbh.
Installing an ad blocker is like the easiest thing in the world to do. Literally takes less time than watching the ad yet even most young people don’t use it. It’s the reason why Edge has such a high market share despite not being all that great. It’s the default for many people so inertia will carry it forward. Google Chrome could literally record your screen at all times and sell it to the highest bidder and it would still dominate the market.
why is inclusion in an often patriarchal/misogynistic and conservative institution as marriage the end-all-be-all of queer rights?
Legal protections mostly. If you get married, you have a right to see your spouse in the hospital. Otherwise, they’re just another person even if you’ve been living together for 50 years. You also have a right to inheritance, the right to receive pensions and 401k, etc etc. An unmarried partner is essentially left with nothing unless explicitly stated in a will and even then they don’t have all the legal protections.
Imagine living with someone for 20 years and they get into a car wreck, you can’t see them before they die because you’re married. You get kicked out of your home because legally you’re just a roommate and have no right to stay in that house. Then, all the money your partner invested goes to their shithead parents who kicked them out as a child. None of that would happen if you were married.
Marriage is an outdated contract but the functions it provides are still important to society.
Edit: Obviously I support China but marriage isn’t just a “proof of love” or some other sentimental thing.
It just seems like you picked a font from photoshop, put a black border around it, and shipped the meme.
Use Impact font and add a drop shadow next time. It gives a slight depth and Impact is the traditional meme font.
every single fucking time with these libs
I wonder what happened to MLK and all the people who started the BLM protests in America which guarantees freedom of protest and speech. It really sucks that they all were either murdered or committed suicide and the police were never able to do anything about it.
Oh well, gotta let go and let god. Btw, did you hear that the evil Chinese Government sent someone who threw a firebomb to jail? Nasty stuff, glad I live somewhere civilized.
The word ‘social’ is referring to ‘socialism’ and so is the relation between ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic’.
I guess social security = socialism security in your world? Social welfare programs are not socialism and if your political education included anything beyond Elizabeth Warren’s policy page you’d know that.
What a terrible mistake to make! Perhaps you should have assumed it was the correct orientation of the two words that are spelled exactly the same.
Your beef is with the English Language not me. How is it my fault that you misidentified yourself? Funnily enough, you still don’t identify your actual political position. It’s clear that the only political position you’d take is what gives you an advantage in the argument. Fucking debatebros lol.
I have, but thanks for the suggestion.
Reading so much theory that you confuse two different political ideologies. Sometimes I read so much theory that that I claim to be a monarchist when I really mean to say I’m an anti-monarchist. Obviously the other person should have understood what I meant. Your literally on a communication medium that allows you to plan and edit your comments. You have no excuse for making this grade school mistake.
You said you supported Social Democracy not Democratic Socialism. Dem Socs are well-meaning but idealistic, not optimistic but the political philosophy of idealism. Soc Dems are supporters of a kinder capitalism for the Imperial core but keeping the child slaves mining cobalt in the Congo.
The fact that you think these are the same proves the original posters point that you should read theory. They were harsh but you were implying that keeping exploitation of the third world is preferable to socialism.
Dude you still don’t stop worker exploitation, don’t solve the contradiction of working and capitalist classes, don’t end imperialism or colonialism (social democracy outsources exploitation to the third world)
Ok let me know how your method works out
That’s it, I’m defederating Lemmy.ml for this slight.
I have no idea where you’re getting this from. Saying someone is a Lumpenprole isn’t a moral judgement, just an economic one. Someone who grows rice and the bandits that steal it have different relations to the means of production. They are not just proles who break the law.
Engels was largely revolutionary but he was also bourgeoisie, that does not mean that the bourgeoisie as a class are revolutionary. Also, many ML theorists argue that Lumpenproles do have revolutionary potential while not denying they exist as a class.