thrawn

Glad to hear! It really is a struggle but it’ll be worth it.

This is generally what I recommend. I’d also suggest going into it as blind as possible simply knowing that it’s a half comedy, half historical drama. It gets pretty heavy at times, more than most comedies. One of my favorite movies ever.

I saw it not even knowing that much and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Great film.

Hi op, how has the journey been going? Are you still trying to lose weight?

??? reread it

Edit: I feel like this has a hostile tone when it was not meant to. If it helps, read it as “??? reread it :)”

Republicans are masters of messaging. They latch onto one thing for one person and pound it over and over again. The left accepts that these are bad things (they are) but won’t whatabout enough about the Republicans that do it worse, so this becomes Pelosi’s image while those that do it worse are unknown.

It’s because broad adoption of the existing term -> fewer misunderstandings if you just use a variation. Anyone with even passing knowledge of stocks has heard of splitting. The inverse is so comparatively rare that the term wouldn’t be widespread enough to be as immediately understandable as the (admittedly dumb sounding) reverse split.

In part because stock merge could feasibly be multiple things. Stock share merge is more specific, but that’s three words that don’t flow very well rhythmically. A reverse split can only be one thing and is the most layman friendly.

I get that and largely agree, but I still feel it’s unfair to associate the mass robbery alone with poor person things. All of this is my personal opinion and I’ll repeat that a lot to emphasize that I’m not saying anything as fact.

The message of “this looting isn’t surprising given the increased divide between the rich and the poor,” to me, is already bridging the gap for opportunistic bad actors. While we shouldn’t be silent, it’s worth noting that some words may do more harm than good. In my eyes, the potential gain is minuscule (most people know that desperation begets desperate acts) and the inverse is high (very few people in the country this happened in will agree with a violent robbery, especially one of this scale). Outside of the unique ecosystem of Lemmy, that comment would be good ammo for bad actors and a bad supporting statement for good arguments.

And yeah, some of it is simply that I personally don’t like associating poor with a crime like this.

Anyway, beyond that I don’t disagree with the primary point, merely how it was presented. I also doubt there’s anything that would make me feel more comfortable with that association, but fortunately the opinion of one random person doesn’t matter and that saves you time responding. Be well!

They’re not going to get anywhere near retail value for those, and robbery like this vs petty larceny is punished more harshly.

So is bear spraying a security guard. He’s probably not rich, and if you get caught, you’re not feeding your family anything for a long time.

Anyway I know you said you don’t necessarily believe that was the reason, but I just didn’t like the implication that poor people would gather 20-50 like minded friends to ransack a store and potentially hurt people to steal designer bags. I know some people, when pushed far enough, will resort to robbery but the number and willingness to harm for a commodity that’s difficult to sell feels like typical organized crime. Not your intention and maybe I’m reading too much into it, but I feel like associating poor people for large scale crime like this only makes things worse for them societally.

Who steals designer bags with 20-50 of their friends when backed into a corner? Isn’t food generally wiser to steal if you are extremely poor?

One other thing I think is worth mentioning: meat is good, but it’s not even that good. As a child I was a very picky eater and largely carnivorous, having to purposefully supplement the occasional vegetable. Now I’m essentially pescatarian because honestly, most meat isn’t really good. It can be low quality, bland, and boring. Innovative chefs seem to be realizing that, and I personally agree that Eleven Madison’s food is better now that it’s fully plant based.

Meat can be such a crutch, and when it’s not, it requires quality cuts and good preparation. And yet many people would rather eat a tough, poorly seasoned mediocre steak than a vegan dish, even if it’s genuinely a bad experience, but I’m pretty sure it’s a misplaced pride thing.

Finally, working with meat can be a lot harder than vegetables, especially chicken. Dominique Crenn has a wonderful cookbook featuring incredible plant based dishes, and of course Atelier Crenn is one of the most convincing arguments of plant superiority.

I find that, for those who simply don’t care about the world around them, an appeal to taste and ease is far more effective than trying to introduce humanity. It also prevents the knee jerk reaction to plant based diets— “sure, I like my meats too, but it’s just too boring/doesn’t taste good enough” shifts the discussion from tribalistic hatred of vegans to something that directly impacts them, largely the only way to actually get some people to listen.

Inversely, the only Singaporean I know (born and raised until adulthood, lived in the states briefly and went back) has always been proud of the good but very critical of the archaic things, and does not agree with the pedestal the US occasionally places Singapore on. He’s just one person but has been fair enough that I’m weirdly surprised to hear there are people like that.

“Go for X” was somewhat common, including in media. I think OP was mishearing that. There’s virtually no way to differentiate between “gopher” and a rushed, casual “go for” in speech.