The Nazis expressed a desire to wipe out the Slavs, executing most of them directly and working the remainder to death as slaves. They also acted on that desire and were notorious cruel. Openly wearing Nazi paraphernalia is a threat, even if their loss of WWII makes it a fairly empty one.
It wasn't as bad as it sounds, I got pricked two or three times. Probably should have worn gloves but I was more than halfway done before the first one got me. I think the spines were just so tiny that mostly they didn't do anything.
Jesus. I will always remember some freak on Reddit telling me, "um ackshually Ukrainians only wear that stuff to scare Russians" and like... Yeah Nazis wear Nazi shit to intimidate my dude. Got downvoted for pointing it out...
Nothing too exciting, the only specimen I mounted was a horrible weed covered in fine spines that stuck in my hand and were too small to see, so I had to use sticky tape to get them out (Cechrus macrourus). The ones I remounted were all Hibbertia spp., guinea flowers, which are lovely cheerful yellow flowers when fresh but, pressed, lose most of their colour. At least I was familiar with the natives though so I know what they look like live:)
This is maybe my favourite one so far, and I've read up to the last english translated one on boosty. I was doing some volunteer work today, mounting and re-mounting samples at the herbarium. It is work, though not particularly demanding, and as a volunteer I am of course not being paid. But I'll be damned if my little pile of correctly prepped specimens isn't more satisfying than any paycheck I've ever gotten.
Reasonably fair point, but I think it's worse that they did their controlled opposition, let the Rs win dance. It really was their election to lose, even more than 2016. They only had to exercise the tiniest smidgeon of strategic nous, and to potentially pretend to make minor concessions to regular voters, and they would have won in a landslide, it's so easily within what everyone claims to expect from liberal politicians. Meanwhile I can understand the reticence towards refusing to transfer power. It really is antithetical to liberal democracy, which is of course a great reason to hate liberalism! But people who believe in/are empowered by liberalism aren't going to go there. If they try to refuse to hand over power, it won't be a democracy any more! And then the Republicans will do the same anyway!
But doing the bare minimum to win an election should have been well within their power, they just didn't care. The reality is that a worse than usual republican candidate is seen as an opportunity for them to offer even less to their supporters. "We don't have to pretend we're going to give them health care or stop funding genocide, what are they gonna do, vote for Trump?!" There have in the past and/or other places been liberal politicians who seem more or less to agree with the dream of liberal democracy, people who get elected and go on to try and help their constituents. No one in the modern democratic party can be numbered amongst them, and of course I doubt anyone here would disagree that those people are misguided anyway and shouldn't be part of a bourgeois political party if they want to make the world a better place. That said, I probably wouldn't have survived childhood without socialised medicine, so, misguided or not, critical support to Gough Whitlam and his ilk.
Drop "the" and it scans too