It's not really about that, sometimes conservatives also agree that a change is needed but they disagree on how to get there.
They see the current state as something that was built up naturally over a long period of time and everything has its place for a reason. Sometimes those reasons are not apparent immediately and making a sudden change will bite us in the long run in an unexpected way, maybe 100 years down the road.
They might agree that the status quo is bad but they think change should come gradually in small steps, allowing things to settle down a bit, and reflect on the consequences before moving forward. They might say that at least we understand the situation and the rules of what we have now, we shouldn't stray too far ahead into the unknown.
For example, imagine that you live in a country under foreign rule. Should you start a war of independence and risk getting crushed or should you try to force concessions gradually over time and risk not getting anywhere? This is roughly the debate that took place in my home country in the 1800s.
While it's true that the extremes are that conservatives want time to stay still while progressives want to burn the world down and reform everything in a single day, but most of the time people are somewhere in between, or even change their positions depending on the issue.
Conservatives (with a lowercase 'c', I'm not talking about Republicans) prefer a series of small incremental changes over a longer period of time while progressives believe in big leaps. Both are valid viewpoints depending on the issue, sometimes we should take things slowly but other times we needed that change yesterday.
Asking titles has been around for a long time so conservatives are ok with it. It also conforms to their existing ideas about gender and roles in society.
Asking for pronouns is a relatively new thing and the whole debate around them is a big and sudden change (at least as far as they see), and it turns everything they believed in on its head.
Of course, there are people who are just plain hateful but I think there's more nuance to it than that most of the time.
It's worth noting that a huge part of their manufacturing takes place outside of Germany where salaries are way lower and regulations aren't as strict.
I played Milon's Secret Castle on the NES as a kid. The game is pretty much unplayable if you don't have an infinite amount of time and patience, or a guide. There are hidden doors and items in unexpected places that are required to make progress, some rooms are dead ends that soft lock you, there are hidden exits that you have to find by pushing on a random pillar etc.
Once I accidentally didn't push the cartridge in all the way and the game started out in a random room and full of glitches. This lead me down a rabbithole of searching for hidden stuff, maybe even beat the game, but most of the time it just failed to start.
Another one was San Andreas. I played it when it came out and I read online about myths like bigfoot, the meeting place of the Epsilon Program, ghosts in the desert, aliens etc. I must have spent hundreds of hours searching for these.
I'm not some kind of activist set out to undermine your movement, I asked a question. This is an online forum where anyone can comment, if you feel like it's wasting your time then don't answer.
when was the last time you sent an email to an elected official?
Last time? A few months ago when a chinese company wanted to build a chemical distribution center in my district.
I don't know what you mean by "allegiance", you were talking about ethics and that authors don't get what they deserve. Your problem was not compensation itself but that some people that you don't think deserve it get a bigger cut than you're comfortable with.
It logically follows that in this frame of mind the ethical thing to do is to cut out the middle man and compensate the original author for their work directly.
I don't know what kind of box you put me into based on one sentence but not everyone is out to get you who doesn't 100% agree with you. This is why civil discussion is not possible online anymore.
I usually don't pirate, if something is overpriced then I'll wait until it's on sale. I have a set budget every month that I pay for entertainment, if something like a new video game is more expensive I'll just wait a month.
I'm especially against pirating products of asshole companies like Adobe. That's because even if you don't pay for them you're still popularizing their products, helping it stay an industry standard. I'm not in a profession where they're a necessity so I use their competitors like Affinity, which is good enough for my purposes, and I'm ok with supporting them.
I sometimes watch movies or series on non-legal streaming sites if they're not available elsewhere, but that's about it.
bring someone with more experience than you to have a look at it, maybe even a professional
scout out the area (on foot) during the day, evening and night
visit local businesses like cafés, restaurants, bakeries etc.
look at statistics like crime and air quality
have a talk with the neighbors, get a sense of the community if you can, otherwise just observe while taking walks
if applicable, call the home owner's representative (or whatever the equivalent is where you live), ask them about the home, neighborhood, community, expenses, plans for the future etc.
have a set budget of how much you want to spend on it before you move in, don't overstep that amount
The problem with absolute free speech online, if you only moderate illegal content, is that extremists of all kinds who have been chased away or banned from mainstream social media will find a home there. Just look at /pol/ or lemmygrad, one is full of neonazies, the other with tankies.
This will turn away "nornal" poeole so what you're left with might not be the poeole whom you want to interact with.
Even tho I agree with free speech as a principle, especially when it entails protection from states/governments, I don't think it's something that the internet culture currently can handle. This is why I prefer forums that have as little moderation as possible while still maintaining a level of civility.
Glad you found it interesting, when my grandma used to butcher (I think that's the right english word for it) chicken she always made it from fresh blood and liver, it tasted amazing. When it was a rooster she also added the testicles.
The recipe seems legit, google translate only makes one mistake. You should pour the blood into boiling water with a pinch of salt, not a pinch of blood into hot water. Otherwise that's how I'd prepare.
My favorite is fried liver, and it's easy to prepare. Just coat them with flour, then whisked eggs, then breadcrumbs and finally fry in hot oil. Don't salt them before frying as they'll turn bitter.
In my region we also prepare them with onions and chicken blood. I know how it sounds but it tastes amazing.
Doing dumb runs in EU4 while cheating. I give myself a few techs at the beginning of the game to be stronger than everyone else and focus on my objective.
For example, Hindu Hungary, Jewish Arabia, Totemist England, Tengri Russia, Protestant Ottoman Empire, destroying France as a small East Asian country and forming it again by culture converting, being Emperor
of the Holy Roman Empire by starting with an African country etc.
They absolutely had people with the same name in the same village. But they had nicknames, and this is also where a lot of family names come from.
Limpy Chris, Chris the smith, Lying Chris, small Chris, Brad's son Chris etc.
Also, countries (at least in Europe) didn't really keep track of people but churches did. You couldn't give someone a name that the village priest refused to baptise them as (I hope that's the proper English name for it).
It's not really about that, sometimes conservatives also agree that a change is needed but they disagree on how to get there.
They see the current state as something that was built up naturally over a long period of time and everything has its place for a reason. Sometimes those reasons are not apparent immediately and making a sudden change will bite us in the long run in an unexpected way, maybe 100 years down the road.
They might agree that the status quo is bad but they think change should come gradually in small steps, allowing things to settle down a bit, and reflect on the consequences before moving forward. They might say that at least we understand the situation and the rules of what we have now, we shouldn't stray too far ahead into the unknown.
For example, imagine that you live in a country under foreign rule. Should you start a war of independence and risk getting crushed or should you try to force concessions gradually over time and risk not getting anywhere? This is roughly the debate that took place in my home country in the 1800s.
While it's true that the extremes are that conservatives want time to stay still while progressives want to burn the world down and reform everything in a single day, but most of the time people are somewhere in between, or even change their positions depending on the issue.