The argument that everyone having access to doctors would mean people would constantly go in for trivial things or waste time so waits are so much longer has always seemed so silly to me.

I cut on and salt-water-soaked my severely infected toe (badly ingrown nail) for two months before I saw a doctor for it. And I had insurance so it cost nothing. Just because I didn’t want to bother with going to a doctor.

People don’t go to the doctor for fun, and amongst all the people I’ve known with great insurance, there have been considerably more instances of not going to the doctor_when they should_ than going unnecessarily (approximately zero times, actually).

So that tells me they want some people to not have access to needed medical care so they have access whenever they want, with lower wait times. It’s like the people who hold the empty laundry carts while their clothes are in the wash.

It was so bad that Team America World Police had a song about how bad it was as their ballad.

I just bought a house with an attached 1-bedroom apartment (with its own address). My 11-year-old daughter has already laid claims to taking it when she graduates high school. So I don’t think she’s feeling stifled at all, lol.

Better be prepared to pay rent if she’s not in school come the fall after high school, though (I’ll give her the summer to get her plans worked out).

First time I bought a firearm in my life (after 40 years on this earth) was specifically protection from bears when I moved to Alaska.

I get that I’m part of that very small percentage, but it’s funny to be pointed out for it when where I am it is super common (also common to see people strapped on hiking trails with their kids and dogs).

I liked it a lot growing up in the US. I still have the mental image of them “fixing” a flat tire (by duct taping a new tire to the flat) and the good tire popping off and rolling away when they drove away.

If women can’t find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

Hopefully COPS.

To be clear, that list (aro and “black-pilled”) was not all-inclusive. There are plenty of people who just don’t want to date, for whatever positive reason (e.g. too busy, focusing on other things, not feeling like making the effort) or even some with negative reasons (e.g. not feeling like they are in good working order mentally, just got out of a relationship and want to spend some time on their own, trauma) that aren’t aro or “black-pilled.” THIS LIST IS ALSO NOT ALL-INCLUSIVE.

Also:

You’re a bigot.

Just… don’t. Stop throwing the word around so spuriously, or it could lose its meaning. It’s an important word, and using it like that leads to the kind of linguistic drift that takes the meaning out of the language.

That is very obviously not what anyone is saying. Not dating because you are not interested in dating is different than not dating because you’re down on yourself and blame the world (and those of the gender you find attractive) for creating your situation.

I think you know the answer to that.

Butter croissant actually seems like a decent name for a guinea pig.

If we’re including drinking, coffee is a pretty good name, but not for such a light colored guinea pig.

I knew a couple guys who had been struck by lightning. They were terrified of storms after, so when there was any lightning in the distance, they would rush inside with their coats over their heads.

I do not want to be struck by lightning.

Still better than not voting to not go off the cliff.

Yeah, that’s dumber than magic underwear. That might be the dumbest religious thing (with the exception of, you know, wars) that I’ve seen. Calling all of Manhattan your (and specifically your) domicile doesn’t stretch the meaning of domicile, it completely ignores it.

I don’t think it adds any more confusion than the pre-existing pronoun confusion you already described as part of the language (your she and her example) and there is already an established answer for it (you don’t use a pronoun for one of them, you use their actual name or what you are referring to).

Pretending that it adds some grand new confusion that makes it difficult to keep up with because in very rare circumstances someone who is already really bad at communicating with pronouns (because one would have to have problems with your “she slapped her” reference to have problems with singular they/them) might have difficulty communicating what they mean by “them.”

Try reading a novel where one charter is “they/them”. It’s needlessly confusing, and bring the hate, it’s a stupid fad.

It’s literally been used in the singular for hundreds of years for any individual where the gender is not known, and has never in my life been confusing. For example:

“The suspect entered the store, then they exited through the back.”

English is my first and nearly only language and has been for 42 years, and there has never been a time that a singular “they” was not used. It is not a fad, the fad is taking issue with it. And hopefully in 20 years we won’t have to deal with this fake “all of a sudden” bullshit, whether it’s “they/them,” vaccines, or any other nonsense that people suddenly take issue with because some talking head told them to and acted like it was new.

I’ve heard “what if there’s an emergency or fire,” and I feel like the answer is “take three seconds to put on pants.”

So funny enough, as an American, I have the majority of that while being in the military. We even currently have three months of maternity and paternity leave, which can be used as the member sees fit through the first year after birth.

All except the privacy laws and employee protection laws, though it can often be exceptionally difficult to fire people for reasons that don’t involve the politics of the people in charge. And even then, lawsuits usually get those people backpay.

I’d be advocating for the US Coast Guard with this right now, but the current administration is shifting our focus from being a life-saving/preserving service to another border control agency, so… not a great time to be joining if it’s for moral reasons. sigh

I like how it says “defensive and will bite if provoked,” and apparently, according to this thread, opening their cage is sufficient provocation.

Yeah, you’re missing the point.

They (the mod who deleted it) mentioned “both sides.” I said that two groups, for that one particular thing, both arrived at the “J.K. Rowling is bad” conclusion, and those two groups are fairly diametrically opposed. Not two sides, two separate groups.

My commentary on their “both sides” was that it was a weird take, since it’s clear (if there were two sides) which “side” I was on.

The why, though, wasn’t the issue, and I was attaching no commentary on their motivations (with the exception of calling the Fundeamentalists crazy, because, like… “magic is real and evil and a made-up story about a magical school promotes magic” is preeettttty crazy). It was purely the irony of seeing that post and realizing crazy Fundamentalists also hate Rowling. It’s like that “two strong arms clasping together” meme, with two groups that have nothing (or worse) to do with each other having one particular thing in common.

And look, I get it. It is a touchy subject, and trans people have been getting shit on for too long (especially now) and assuming the worst intentions of comments made is probably correct way more often than it should be. But even the slightest read into anything I’ve said shows no ill-will against trans people and their allies (and lots against crazy Fundamentalists who believe in magic).

I got threatened with a ban on Blahaj because I pointed out basically this when somebody posted a picture of a burning Harry Potter book. It wasn’t even a criticism, it was just pointing out how funny life is that, for completely opposing reasons, trans people (and allies) and crazy Fundamentalists would both support what was happening in the picture.

The author (who was apparently a mod) made some comment about “hurr durr, mah both sides” and deleted my comment. It was very confusing, as my comment showed I clearly supported one of those sides (since I even referred to the Fundamentalists as crazy).