1960s was when the hypothesis of continental drift was empirically confirmed (leading to modern plate tectonics) but it was part of a prominent family of hypotheses (contending with isostatic models) more than a century prior.
The most complete of these models was offered by Wegener (paper in 1912, book in 1920). European geologists were generally receptive to it in the 1920s, and by the 1940s it was the working assumption for most field work. The only geologists to outright reject the idea initially were part of a North American contingent.
As to why Americans in particular, there were a few reasons, but a big one is that they didn’t read German and the first English edition of Wegener’s book was a draft-quality translation with issues relating to clarity and “tone.” The author was perceived to be dismissive of current work in the field (he was merely unaware of similar models offered previously) culminating in a summit seminar where a talk was given challenging the hypothesis and criticizing the methodology.
Interestingly, Wegener attended this talk, yet chose to remain silent. He never confirmed why. I would guess language barrier and shyness but I don’t know. Regardless, the matter was considered closed by those in attendance and his model’s acceptance by North American geologists lagged behind.
As a result, geology in American primary education saw the most dramatic curricular shift in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect that’s why older Americans have this impression of a sudden change in scientific consensus. The true story is more interesting IMO.
While DNC chairs have consolidated a great deal of power, have many ways to self-deal and dig-in using the bylaws (such as determining caucus partitions/schedules and being superdelegates for life) their position is subject to internal approval of DNC membership itself. That is, you can just fire them. You don’t have to wait for them to resign to call for their replacement.
Regardless the committee is more like an HOA than a government body. They make suggestions and endorsements, host the convention, support candidacies strategically and financially, and threaten to take that away if you break rank. But they have no authority to say who runs, or even who runs as a Democrat.
But most importantly, AOC has always been a grass roots candidate. It would be great to have DNC support, their backing and resources, but she’s never needed it before. I can’t imagine she wants it now.
In fact, I think it’s far more likely that the DNC will one day ask her to endorse them.
The knees are remarkably hard-wearing joints, capable of a lifetime of sustained use. It’s a common myth that they have some finite mileage that can be used up.
I’ve heard knees-crap-out-after-30-amirite jokes since my early 20s. It’s a form of denial coalition-building favored by folks obviously avoiding important lifestyle changes, and it’s rarely harmless to affirm that kind of denial.
In addition, unexplained joint pain is a symptom of a number of chronic illnesses that have better outcomes with early diagnosis and treatment, such as rheumatoid arthritis. If someone thinks it’s normal, they might not even ask about it until the pain and damage is life-altering.
That’s why I say it shouldn’t be treated as normal.
The relationship advice special is “leave him.” Without additional information I don’t think it’s responsible for anyone here to say that, but what you’ve described is clearly an untenable situation and relationship dynamic.
I think you owe it to yourself and your partner to sit them down, describe this situation as you see it, and how their behavior makes you feel, perhaps the way you have here. Their response to your feelings should, I think, tell you the next steps.
Whether that response is workable should, I think, be determined by its impact on trust in the relationship, because trust is ultimately the only fungible currency that differentiates a good relationship from a bad one.
Concretely:
If they disregard your emotions, disbelieve your experience, or disrespect your right to peace in your own home, this describes a dynamic in which there is no chance for compromise, and you have your answer.
If they still care about your comfort, realize something must change, and are willing to modify their behavior for your benefit, there remains hope to rebuild the trust that’s been lost.
In either case, what happens next is not something anyone here is equipped to prescribe, but I do hope you’re able to find a better relationship, with or without your current partner.
Life pro tip: If you ever find state university gear, particularly from OSU, it unlocks many opportunities to publicly not participate in the little friendly team spirit rituals like the various sound-offs (“O-H” followed by awkward silence is one of my favorites, especially on public transit) which if you’re an asshole or having a really bad day is uniquely soothing.
Definitely agree courage is key. These boys seem to idolize fearlessness, even when it’s clearly fake (tate), pathological (joker), self-destructive (bateman), or simply the result of having power (homelander).
Of course, real courage isn’t “fearless” at all, just the strength to defy it for a worthy cause, but that’s exactly the kind of thing they could learn from a better example like Sean Penn (afaik).
It would be extra timely too, since news these days is filled with headlines detailing the cowardice of US leadership, feeding the fascist takeover, when courage has always been the purest form of antifascism we know.
1960s was when the hypothesis of continental drift was empirically confirmed (leading to modern plate tectonics) but it was part of a prominent family of hypotheses (contending with isostatic models) more than a century prior.
The most complete of these models was offered by Wegener (paper in 1912, book in 1920). European geologists were generally receptive to it in the 1920s, and by the 1940s it was the working assumption for most field work. The only geologists to outright reject the idea initially were part of a North American contingent.
As to why Americans in particular, there were a few reasons, but a big one is that they didn’t read German and the first English edition of Wegener’s book was a draft-quality translation with issues relating to clarity and “tone.” The author was perceived to be dismissive of current work in the field (he was merely unaware of similar models offered previously) culminating in a summit seminar where a talk was given challenging the hypothesis and criticizing the methodology.
Interestingly, Wegener attended this talk, yet chose to remain silent. He never confirmed why. I would guess language barrier and shyness but I don’t know. Regardless, the matter was considered closed by those in attendance and his model’s acceptance by North American geologists lagged behind.
As a result, geology in American primary education saw the most dramatic curricular shift in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect that’s why older Americans have this impression of a sudden change in scientific consensus. The true story is more interesting IMO.