Methylman @ Methylman @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

78

Joined

2 yr. ago

If you zoom in enough you'll see it was actually written into the speech as "uRbAn"

Nah that would have made too much sense - you need to click on just the right in-text hyperlink to find it

Fwiw https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4104701-biden-shares-video-of-marjorie-taylor-greene-speech-to-promote-his-agenda/

TIL about Italy's shunning of their past in contrast to the "collective guilt" felt by Germans after WWII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italiani_brava_gente

Italians embrace their cultural and gastronomic exports while shunning certain parts of their history - I wouldn't say that's racist... In fact I would call that humanizing

I wonder what their response would be to a bunch of lemmings outside the reach of Germany's laws doing the same?

Oh-i wasn't expecting anyone to ask a follow-up... I think so, tbh it feels like every website says differently and when you read through it's because they are all advertising a some brand of cleaner.

Ideally you want the polyester wicking moisture away from you and imo detergent always leaves a waxxy-feeling residual layer that is seemingly less noticeable on clothes made of cotton or other natural fibers.

Ouff, seems like that word is tainted now (I assume you were using it to describe the courts corruption and not some perceived corruption on the part of Dems)

Reminds me of this quote I came across the other day about Marbury v Madison

Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Smith Adams, September 11, 1804, "but the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

It doesn't necessarily need to have teeth since the court has no enforcement mechanism when declaring something unconstitutional. Instead of putting teeth into the law itself, one could argue that if justices were found to be "unethical" it reduces the likelihood that that judges decision is unbiased and opens the door to govt just ignorimg the cases in which an unethical judge tips the scale on which side makes up the majority of the court....

Still doubt any of that happens though because Dems are the govt now

Not BNN Bloomberg for any confused Canadians

I sort/separate so technical gear (hiking gear and other polyester stuff) doesn't get washed with detergent but don't see the need to use the more expensive stuff (non chlorine bleach) on regular clothes

Reserves too I think? Idk if they do much killing

Always open to advice - Thanks

Cries in rocky linux

Methyl is CH3 groups - I did a graduate degree in biochem and feel proud of my achievement tyvm.

Edit- ironically I chose not to be ethylman (without the first m) because I thought it made me sound like a proud alcoholic 🤣

Yet plenty of people with brains and hearts are subhuman pieces of filth

Only if you have a valid excuse - like being drunk apparently

And then there's Maud

Oh is it not banned anymore? Then my bad for using that as an example, but publishers do censor the works of their authors to try and avoid liability

One of life's truisms: everyone can lose except the lawyers involved