I am baffled by how humanity has managed to survive this long when so many men suck so fucking much. Then, when I think of it further, large portions of it was probably due to the women having no fucking choice, exemplifying one of many important ways in which men suck.
Most of us, who are not disempowered, are afraid of losing privilege and not doing enough because of that, or just from plain laziness. The self-esteem comment was probably on point, though. Can almost not help but feel bad for someone who hates themselves so much that they project it on women.
I appreciate that I am not alone in having a better take
Yeah, don't know about that, buddy. "Leftists are male-exclusive subtle fascists" reeks of "I have no clue about left wing ideology and my analysis of the world around me is based on a total lack of knowledge and a total lack of actual analysis", but sure. Could be that leftists just do not respond well to you in particular.
Well, no one is saying cars are worse for all purposes. If you want to take your family and dogs to a cabin in the mountains while also shopping for food along the way, it is probably going to be your best bet. Still, that is not what is pictured in the post. These are commuters that are probably moving from work to home (or vice versa), where cars really are the worst of most options. If the bus takes longer, it is probably an issue of allocation of funds for a shorter route and exclusive lanes for it.
Sure! Both speed and distance matters a lot for throughput. The advantage of pedestrian traffic is that designing for it reduces the distance people have to travel and that it combines very well in conjunction with public transport, unlike cars. Also, the speed of mixed traffic is inverse correlated to the number of vehicles, hence is a special case in this regard where throughput may decrease as the volume per lane increases. The overall point however is that a single train can substitute a staggering amount of private vehicles (and who doesn't love leaning back, listening to music and reading the news while commuting?).
The question was specific with regards to a "private city", thus you can infer from context that the totality of "total" is limited to cities. This is also the reason I abstracted and specified it to mean population centres, because bringing guns to festivals is just as stupid and illegal most places.
I get the urge to be pedantic, but why be so after someone else has already pointed it out and I have answered them?
Sure, not total in the sense that gun ownership is illegal, but you if you take a fucking gun to a city you will have your license revoked and probably go to prison. That is unless the gun was kept locked down, dismantled and securely separate from the ammunition in your trunk.
The point is to remove guns from people and places where they can do the most harm, like in a population centre. They have no reason to be there, and most of the world recognizes this.
I got asked if I wanted to teach for teachers after studying half a year at university. It is an advantage, often a formal requirement, but in praxis not necessary to have a degree in order to teach classes. Personal qualifications on the other hand is a must.
As one of the many types of socialism, communism became the dominant political tendency, along with social democracy, within the international socialist movement by the early 1920s.[34]
Excerpt from ProleWiki:
Its modern usage is almost always traced back to Karl Marx's usage of the term where he introduced the concept of scientific socialism alongside Friedrich Engels. The theory of scientific socialism described communism not as an idealistic, perfect society but rather as a stage of development taking place after a long, political process of class struggle. Marx, however, used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably and he drew no distinction between the two.
Lenin was the first person to give distinct meanings to the terms socialism and communism. The socialism/communism of Marx was now known simply as communism, and Marx's "transitional phase" was to be known as socialism.
I knew about this. I just do not really think anyone claiming superiority based on "define socialism and communism" as someone to be taken seriously, given that terminology is dependant on context and definitions on a base level are arbitrary if taking an axiomatic approach to theory.
I've always seen communism as a subclass of socialism, where socialism is the goal of classless, stateless society in which the public owns the means of production and distribute based on needs. Whereas communism is a way of attaining this goal, characterized by its materialistic focus and being revolutionary.
I know this differs from a lot of other uses for the terminology, but is there really a single definition of socialism that rules over the others (or communism for that matter, and does it even matter since they describe different important things)?
They think western hegemony will fall anytime now if only Russia can "win" the war. Also, they think somehow a multi polar world order with Russia on the stage is going to be a step towards freeing the people of the earth.
Urist @ Urist @lemmy.ml Posts 1Comments 592Joined 2 yr. ago
Oh my, I guess you just love the approval of someone consenting :) you dirty :)) consent-horny :-) slut :)