Still it is utterly obnoxious when someone seems to act all high and mighty that they didn't vote for the lesser of two evils.
I'm still looking for the point that anybody did this? Are Kamala voters not allowed to criticize her platform and point out that there was no good option for the working class? What's obnoxious to me is putting Kamala up on a pedestal next to Al Gore despite the absolutely pitiful losing campaign she ran. Her loss was obvious to anyone honestly paying attention. There was so much more she could have offered to the people if she really wanted to win, but instead her campaign chose to use Trump as a bludgeon against anyone left of center in the American working class.
Are we really more upset at the third party voters that voted their conscience, and resisted the coercive campaign practices, than the million-dollar campaign itself that utterly failed to appeal both to them and to non-voters on its own merits? Are we really eating up this slop right now? Harris was not owed any votes, it was up to her campaign to earn them. This is a time that we need to come together as a people and struggle outside of the electoralist system, but so many of us are too busy pointing fingers at people who are just as powerless as them, for all the reasons this country sucks right now. Really??? Can this energy not be used more productively???
The election is over, let's move on now and stop idolizing these traitors. This is not a person that deserves to be defended like this. She has made it clear that she doesn't give a fuck about us, she cannot be moved an inch even to win an election and her donors come before anyone else in the country. We need a system that works for us, and we need to get it through our domes that the ruling class is not going to put that on a fucking ballot.
The rearview mirror (the one that hangs off the windshield) is for seeing directly behind you. Your side mirrors are for seeing things to the right and left of you. If the driver directly behind you can see your face in your side mirrors, or you can see their front windshield, and your rearview mirror both exists and is unobstructed, then you are driving around unreasonably blind to vehicles overtaking you. This blind spot can be almost completely eliminated.
The side mirrors should be positioned thus that you have a clear view of the lanes next to you, with the door handle or body of the vehicle just slightly out of view. You can lean and tilt your head if for some reason you prefer a view of what's going on behind you that is half obstructed by the vehicle you are currently driving.
The goal is to maximize the area covered by the mirrors so you can see more things, not to have redundant views of the same thing.
You sure bailed from your entire argument pretty darn quickly to now argue "there's no way to rigidly define it." There is. It's "wet." It behaves in the way wet things do. There's no reason to say otherwise than to be contrarian. The only way to argue otherwise is to create a strict definition of wetness, as you just have, which ultimately fails when put up against reality and a more human use of language.
Actually fire is the byproduct of a chemical reaction. The material being combusted is the one doing the burning. Fire (rather, extreme heat) can cause combustion in other materials, given an oxygen rich environment, but the fire is not itself doing the combustion or burning.
Wetness is not a chemical reaction, so it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison.
It's not "less than meaningful" if you understand wet as a relative term. There can be a normal level of wetness where if it is exceeded we then call that thing wet, and if it's under that threshold we call it dry relative to the norm.
If you somehow came from a perfectly dry environment, yeah, you would probably consider our world pretty wet. You would have a pretty hard time describing your experience to others if you couldn't use the word wet to do so. The word doesn't lose meaning just because you go all reductio ad adsurdum with it.
It's not useless if you understand wet as a relative term. There can be a normal level of wetness where if it is exceeded we then call that thing wet, and if it's under that threshold we call it dry relative to the norm.
I never got it either. I think they're just contrarians. They just want to feel like they discovered something novel that all the people before them got wrong so they can indulge in pedantic arguments about it.
That is, when it's not engagement baiting like the tweet above.
I mean. The molecule itself isn't a solid or liquid, that has to do with the behavior of the molecules in dimensional space. Your argument is based on water as a substance, not as a molecule, completely avoiding the basis of their argument.
Besides that, most liquids you could easily mix with water are themselves water-based and therefore would be totally dried up into a powder or perhaps a jelly without their water content. To add water is to make them wet, and then they exist as a wet incorporated substance. As liquid substances. In fact, they could not dry up if they were not wet in the first place; to become dry is to transition away from the state of being wet.
This is like when I found out about the Budweiser horses