the bourgeois are not the enemy - it's the hyper capitalists
Yes, the bourgeois. Bourgeois means business owners or people who own capital.
Not sure exactly what you're meaning by "middle class", but I'm guessing it's white collar workers (people who's job is telling other people what to do) and/or "petite bourgeois" (aka small business owners like small tradie businesses or mum and pop shops).
Anyone who hasn't seen it before, go read Tolkien's letter to the nazis when he wanted to publish the hobbit in Germany.
I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people
Big scary noise. Imagine being a footman walking into battle, then hearing a sound like a mountain falling over, then a dozen men in your formation fall over dead while a cloud of smoke erupts from behind the enemy pike wall. I'd be pretty concerned.
But in terms of killing effectiveness, bows at the time were better.
Guns replaced bows because they became better weapons. The reason people developed guns is because they saw potential, and because the loud bang bang noise is scary, not because they were better at killing than bows.
the fediverse is too complex to free people from centralized stuff
Not really, people understood email just fine, and fediverse isn't that different. The problem is there's a major subtle push to make anything open source look way more complex than it is. It's basically an open secret that microsoft did this with linux, and I'd be shocked if social media companies aren't doing the same.
it's extremely biased towards leftism
That's inevitable. Anything foss will appeal far more to the anti corporate/ anti capitalist leftist people.
I don't agree that the concept of "winning an argument" should exist, at least in most cases. Arguments should be a cooperative thing, where you're working together to come to a point that you both agree on. Treating it as something that one person wins and the other loses removes all the learning that could happen.
That said, there are times when one person refuses to cooperate. At that point, I try to learn about their position as much as I can, and if there's a potential audience like in a comment section, I'll say my piece then leave.
This is from someone who got married in January this year.
The main part of marriage is the commitment to always choose to love your partner. To clarify, I'm using the word 'love' here as meaning "want what they want, and always do what's best for them regardless of the cost to yourself". You're promising to always be the first person they can count on, no matter what happens. It's not a promise to always like them, although that definitely helps and it's difficult not to when there's mutual love.
And for those that believe in this, marriage is an example of the love between God and his people.
Sure, the legal part exists, and I'd say it can sometimes be a good thing, but I don't see that as core to a marriage. Really, if you both agree to be committed to loving each other forever, I'd say you're married in the way that really matters.
Yes, the bourgeois. Bourgeois means business owners or people who own capital.
Not sure exactly what you're meaning by "middle class", but I'm guessing it's white collar workers (people who's job is telling other people what to do) and/or "petite bourgeois" (aka small business owners like small tradie businesses or mum and pop shops).
Fixed it for you
Then they used the genius strategy of "get the fuck out of there"
They won by changing naval combat from rams to boarding, which they were very good at with their heavy infantry
That's a lot of radiation that humans collectively ate
Can be good advice for working with one of these
Did you click on any sketchy links recently?
Sure, it's odd, but I'd rather that than the lung cancer from cigarettes
My favorites are the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Went to see them re-released in theaters earlier this year for the 25th anniversary.
Anyone who hasn't seen it before, go read Tolkien's letter to the nazis when he wanted to publish the hobbit in Germany.
It's all to make a buck but it still counts
At least in some countries, weddings legally have to be an open invitation. The idea is anyone who has an objection needs to be able to bring it.
Big scary noise. Imagine being a footman walking into battle, then hearing a sound like a mountain falling over, then a dozen men in your formation fall over dead while a cloud of smoke erupts from behind the enemy pike wall. I'd be pretty concerned.
But in terms of killing effectiveness, bows at the time were better.
Guns replaced bows because they became better weapons. The reason people developed guns is because they saw potential, and because the loud bang bang noise is scary, not because they were better at killing than bows.
Yahoo: welcome to the club
Not really, people understood email just fine, and fediverse isn't that different. The problem is there's a major subtle push to make anything open source look way more complex than it is. It's basically an open secret that microsoft did this with linux, and I'd be shocked if social media companies aren't doing the same.
That's inevitable. Anything foss will appeal far more to the anti corporate/ anti capitalist leftist people.
The difference is that plastic does genuinely have good uses
I don't agree that the concept of "winning an argument" should exist, at least in most cases. Arguments should be a cooperative thing, where you're working together to come to a point that you both agree on. Treating it as something that one person wins and the other loses removes all the learning that could happen.
That said, there are times when one person refuses to cooperate. At that point, I try to learn about their position as much as I can, and if there's a potential audience like in a comment section, I'll say my piece then leave.
He ends up playing this
This is from someone who got married in January this year.
The main part of marriage is the commitment to always choose to love your partner. To clarify, I'm using the word 'love' here as meaning "want what they want, and always do what's best for them regardless of the cost to yourself". You're promising to always be the first person they can count on, no matter what happens. It's not a promise to always like them, although that definitely helps and it's difficult not to when there's mutual love.
And for those that believe in this, marriage is an example of the love between God and his people.
Sure, the legal part exists, and I'd say it can sometimes be a good thing, but I don't see that as core to a marriage. Really, if you both agree to be committed to loving each other forever, I'd say you're married in the way that really matters.