![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0943eca5-c4c2-4d65-acc2-7e220598f99e.png)
What I can find all say seem to say more or less the same things about every candidate.
What I can find all say seem to say more or less the same things about every candidate.
The US, but why? How does the answer differ in different countries?
I’m going to say outdoor.
The “door” part doesn’t really have any significance. No one would say camping under the open sky is an indoor activity, even if there’s a fence with a door around the campsite.
I think it makes more sense for the deciding factor be whether you’re in a controlled or uncontrolled environment. And while part of the cave might be controlled if there’s an artificial entryway or home, that’s not what you’re there to see.
There is, or at least was, at least one place catering to your friend’s tastes: https://urnotalone.com/male-maids-serve-it-up-at-japans-first-cross-dressing-maid-cafe/
Edit: More recent article: https://www.tokyoweekender.com/food-and-drink/restaurants-and-bars/boys-magically-become-girls-at-the-maho-ni-kakerarete-crossdressing-bar/
Warlock Lizard. I didn’t notice the folk at first.
Fair. I didn’t understand what OP was getting at, so I took them literally. It seemed strange to ignore that white people in the early 20th loved depictions of smiling black people in servant roles.
As for ads targeted at black consumers… now I’m curious. I know there were newspapers targeted at black readers. I wonder if they had ads.
Henry George wrote about this extensively. The solution is a tax on all land at just under 100% of it’s rental value. That allows landlords to profit from the structures they build and maintain, but not from the land itself. It disincentivizes real estate speculation, lowering the cost of land and housing and improving accessibility to people who use it productively.
They’re written differently, but pronounced the same.
As an uninvolved party, after reading the thread, I understand that you feel frustrated and misunderstood. But I’m sorry to say that I feel like the failure of reading comprehension was on your part more than theirs.
It seems like the majority of people who responded to you argued that there are not two evils, but two parts to the same whole evil.
No one, that I saw, claimed you were saying that the Democrats were not evil. But the disagreement was that you see the Republicans and Democrats as two evils, while your opponents see them as one.
Whether or not you agree, that seems like a logically coherent belief to hold.
Having skimmed the original paper about the trolley problem, I think what the author was trying to illustrate was the difference between direct and indirect harm.
If you redirect the trolley, you’re not trying to kill the man on the other track. You’re trying to save the five on the first track by directing the trolley away from them. While the other man may die because of this, there’s always the possibility he’ll escape on his own.
Whereas if the judge sentences an innocent man to death, that is choosing to kill him. The innocent man MUST die for the outcome the judge intends. So there’s culpability that doesn’t exist in the trolley scenario.
In one case you’re accepting a bad outcome for one person as a side effect, in the other you’re pursuing it as a necessary step.
I vaguely remember seeing a news article about something like that. I think it was a game where killing enemies caused files to be deleted from your computer. It was portrayed as some kind of artistic statement about digital possessions or something.
Someone in the forum where it was being discussed sarcastically said they developed a live action version called “playing baseball inside.”
Agreed, and along the same lines, pointing out bad logic or factual errors used to support a point you actually agree with.
Well, we have a source of input that AIs don’t for the moment, and that’s our actual experiences in the world. Once we turn that into art or text or whatever, the AIs can train on it, but we’re like the photosynthesizing plants at the bottom of the content food chain.
I feel that privilege is a concept that should be applied to classes, not individuals. You can’t just judge someone as privileged based on one aspect of their life.
The whole “punching up” concept just leads to it being accepted to make misogynistic jokes at white women, ablist and body-shaming jokes at “creepy” men, racist jokes at wealthy Asians, and so on.
Rather, I think the intent behind the joke, and the consequences of the stereotypes it reinforces, is what should be examined rather than the demographic on the receiving end.
I always wondered if they changed it so that the plural isn’t pms.
Outrage bait. Too much of reddit was stories and videos of people acting badly.
That would be better. But I don’t think there needs to be a rule at all. Some questions are more suited to Watsonian answers, some to Doylist answers, and users are perfectly capable of judging which is which for themselves. The only rule that was needed was, perhaps, a rule against low-effort responses of either sort.
By the way, there is a Daystrom Institute: https://startrek.website/c/daystrominstitute
deleted by creator