I've tried to enjoy IPAs, really. I'm not discounting the role of interesting terpenes and flavonoids here, but the raw in-your-face excessive bitterness of IPA-level hops pushes all that great stuff so far from the stage of my experience, that it's all left waiting in the lobby to get seated. For me, it's like someone mixed LaCroix, light beer, and a drop of dish soap in a glass. Every time.
Yup. This goes back to the Southern strategy which was brought to the fore by the Nixon campaign (although it was in play since before then). From that era we also get this chilling warning from Barry Goldwater:
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
I disagree. Your hasty charcuterie was just that. And I bet it was delicious.
Lunchables, on the other hand, are the cheap charcuterie knockoff devised by people who lost their tastebuds decades ago to excessive chainsmoking and the kind of world-weary ennui specific to only the most misanthropic millionaires. Their lack of any sense of smell is only eclipsed by their tenuous grasp on what's left of their zeal for life; a kind of self-hating spiral that not even the most debauchery-packed weekend in Vegas could ever hope to recover. No, these cretins are not people, they are the mere shadows, the faintest of pencil outlines of human beings. Lunchables are the best effort of these people attempting to emulate what they vaguely recall a meal actually is.
I, a non-violent person, really wish a nose-punch on anyone who uses the phrase common sense to bolster their position.
Very likely, that's because every time "common sense" is used this way, it's a logical fallacy.
Description: Asserting that your conclusion or facts are just “common sense” when, in fact, they are not. We must argue as to why we believe something is common sense if there is any doubt that the belief is not common, rather than just asserting that it is. This is a more specific version of alleged certainty.
I personally think that it also functions as a thought terminating cliche, as appeals to "common sense" seem to wind up near the end of the thread.
There is an advantage to this approach though: fewer errors. You're plucking a known working command from a list instead of manually typing a (possibly) broken version of it. Worse yet is when it's a command where typematic mistakes cause unintended side effects like data loss. So, mashing up 100 times can be pretty smart, especially if you're not a great typist.
I actually tried to use marketplace a few weeks ago. It was an unmitigated disaster. People either didn't respond, had stale posts for items, or couldn't get their act together to have a conversation (even with 12 hours between messages) about how to get shit out of their house. I have never yearned for old-fashioned yard sales so much.
I never put it together like that. Thank you. It all makes so much more sense now.
@undergroundoverground, next to you in this thread, also goes into how they cannot actually define anything as simple as "anti-woke". The rhetoric falls back to meaningless marketing-like-words (e.g. "common sense") that are, perhaps deliberately, open to personal interpretation. The only coherent platform is the one that exists in an individual's head, yet it is distinct from the next guy.
Same here. If you have no attachment to the figures portrayed, it fails at the kind of gravitas that you'd think an entire mountainside would/should command. It's a strange thing.
Printed on the bomb:
| In case of accidental detonation: have a nice day. Thanks for reading.