Sorry to tell you insults don't really work on me, but feel free to continue if it feels meaningful to you.
What does bother me, however, is the way you misapply random internet jargon. You did it before with "touch grass," which I was nice enough to ignore, but you've stumbled anew with "moving the goal posts." Next you'll accuse me of gaslighting, probably. I know I should be pleased since it kind of proves my point about tattoos correlating with conformity and lack of original thinking, but this is one of those "disappointed to be right" kinda deals.
Just to calibrate your definitions, "touch grass" is for people who are chronically online and have no real-world experience (like a virgin who picks up derogatory opinions about the opposite sex, for example). It doesn't apply in this case because I know lots of people with tattoos; some of them are even good friends. I never said you were bad people. I simply pegged you as conformists.
Think about it honestly for a minute, if willing. You didn't get your tattoos because you're interesting. You got them to be popular. You got them because you saw other people with them and you thought those people were cool and you also wanted to be cool. But now you're coming to the uncomfortable realization that tattoos don't make you cool. Once upon a time, interesting people were the only ones who could get away with having tattoos. Nowadays only boring people get tattoos because they want to appear interesting.
Tattoos are mainstream. And, like it or not, you are mainstream. The most mainstream, frankly. If I were you I'd just own that instead of feeling butthurt over it. For one such as you, there is no other path to redemption. 🙏
I agree with you that people shouldn't be discriminated against for body modifications. I was speaking strictly about a particular kind of people with a particular kind of mindset who think their tattoos make them interesting. The fact I've touched a nerve and offended you (you'll probably say I didn't, but eh) tells me I'm on to something. Someone who values originality and individuality truly wouldn't give a shit. Only a conformist would be afraid of losing status because their tattoos aren't as popular as they think. But we'll just have to agree to disagree. ✌️
Cars have become an engineered necessity in North America. Tattoos, at least for the time being, are not.
The clearest example I can think of for what I'm trying to explain is that folks these days get tattoos in lieu of developing an actual personality. Everyone I have met (featuring more than, say, one or two tattoos of regular size), is utterly obsessed with their tattoos. They talk about them constantly, peacock at every opportunity, and plan for more. Their opinions are all exactly the same, depending on political polarity.
If we dug into the psychology of it, I would hypothesize people get tattoos for the same reason people develop eating disorders, or compulsively clean: to gain a sense of control over their lives which feel out of control. You know who does that? People who can't handle uncomfortable ideas. You know what we call those people? Conformists.
You have only to ask yourself, if that severe social stigma was still in place, would people still be getting tattoos? And we both know the answer is no, they would not. The only reason tattoos are popular today is because they have become socially safe, even preferable, to have. People who get them simply don't have whatever it takes to go against the grain.
I firmly believe everybody has a right to do with their own body whatever they want. That said...
Tattoos used to be a symbol of anti-conformity. Over the past 30 years that has completely flipped. I have yet to meet a single person with tattoos who is an original thinker. I'm sure they exist, but they're a needle (pun?) in a haystack.
The original post said southern Europe, so Italy, Spain, Greece, etc. In these places many businesses close around lunchtime and reopen later in the afternoon. So typical opening hours may look like 8am-12:30pm, 3:30pm-7pm. That's not all places (restaurants or large grocery stores don't follow that format, obviously), but many shops do it.
Probably the best thing I've learned in life is to disassociate actions from results. Stop wanting so much, especially things the world can't possibly promise. Do things because they feel right to you, not because you expect something out of it. In this way you will never be disappointed.
In this particular scenario, are you confessing your feelings because you want them to know, or because you want them to like you back? If it's the former, go for it and then move on with your life. If it's the latter, prepare to be miserable over and over forever.
Oh he absolutely succeeded. 9/11 wasn't just an attack, it was a plan. Bin Laden detailed it in his videos, he knew exactly how the US government would react. Everything has unfolded according to his plan. Better, even. The ascension of Trump was even part of that plan. Bin Laden may be in hell, but he's smiling.
Considering it's a popular meme to trace the horrors of our current timeline to the demise of Harambe, it makes sense that this White House would honour his death. Without it they never would be where they are, doing what they're doing.
What an odd question. As if they care what the viewer base wants. As with all things Disney, this was a marketing decision spat out by a computer using obsolete data.
Just one small correction: although the 2008 bank bailout did happen during Obama's presidency, it was the Bush administration who created it and signed it into law. This is usually framed as Bush being a class act and doing it to spare Obama the blowback of having to do the same (back in the days when presidential class was still a thing), but it seems not to have worked, as everybody still blames Obama entirely.
To be fair, when job listings require any university degree to apply, regardless of its relevance to the job in question, it becomes obvious the actual knowledge and education are secondary to simply checking a box. No wonder so many people are allowing AI to do their thinking for them. Any system defined by its technicalities is going to have loopholes.
The reason is because he was rightwing, same as the kid who took out Charlie Kirk. It destroys the narrative that liberals are violent when everyone who takes shots at your leadership are from the home team. If it was true, we'd know everything about these people. But it's not, so the info gets suppressed instead.
For your consideration: It's somewhat well known the reason Trump eats so much fast food hamburger is because he has a fear of being assassinated by poison (due to a lifetime of screwing people over and socializing with the wrong sort). Do you really think that kind of paranoia would agree to allow a mentally unstable kid with a rifle anywhere near him? That doesn't make sense to me.
I thought it was obvious from the video that he nicked his ear on the secret service person's belt buckle on the way down when they were piling onto him? It explains the paltry amount of blood that appears only after he's down, not to mention the optimal healing time. No bullet did that.
I don't believe it was staged. Everything that came after, yes, lies upon lies, exploiting the situation to its maximum potential, absolutely. But a real rifle was fired, a real bystander was killed, and Trump's secret service really was incompetent enough to let it happen. No need to invent anything when the obvious truth is damning enough.
That's exactly my point. Cable didn't start off costing $100-$200. In the beginning it was a few bucks as an ad-free alternative to antenna TV. Then they raised prices, just a little at a time, over many years, as well as introduced ads. Sound familiar?
I promise you, some day streaming will cost $100-$200, too. And people will pay it, just like your grandparents do today.
I say again: streaming is here to REPLACE cable. You're living in the golden age of low-cost entertainment and you don't even know it.
Sorry to tell you insults don't really work on me, but feel free to continue if it feels meaningful to you.
What does bother me, however, is the way you misapply random internet jargon. You did it before with "touch grass," which I was nice enough to ignore, but you've stumbled anew with "moving the goal posts." Next you'll accuse me of gaslighting, probably. I know I should be pleased since it kind of proves my point about tattoos correlating with conformity and lack of original thinking, but this is one of those "disappointed to be right" kinda deals.
Just to calibrate your definitions, "touch grass" is for people who are chronically online and have no real-world experience (like a virgin who picks up derogatory opinions about the opposite sex, for example). It doesn't apply in this case because I know lots of people with tattoos; some of them are even good friends. I never said you were bad people. I simply pegged you as conformists.
Think about it honestly for a minute, if willing. You didn't get your tattoos because you're interesting. You got them to be popular. You got them because you saw other people with them and you thought those people were cool and you also wanted to be cool. But now you're coming to the uncomfortable realization that tattoos don't make you cool. Once upon a time, interesting people were the only ones who could get away with having tattoos. Nowadays only boring people get tattoos because they want to appear interesting.
Tattoos are mainstream. And, like it or not, you are mainstream. The most mainstream, frankly. If I were you I'd just own that instead of feeling butthurt over it. For one such as you, there is no other path to redemption. 🙏
I agree with you that people shouldn't be discriminated against for body modifications. I was speaking strictly about a particular kind of people with a particular kind of mindset who think their tattoos make them interesting. The fact I've touched a nerve and offended you (you'll probably say I didn't, but eh) tells me I'm on to something. Someone who values originality and individuality truly wouldn't give a shit. Only a conformist would be afraid of losing status because their tattoos aren't as popular as they think. But we'll just have to agree to disagree. ✌️
Cars have become an engineered necessity in North America. Tattoos, at least for the time being, are not.
The clearest example I can think of for what I'm trying to explain is that folks these days get tattoos in lieu of developing an actual personality. Everyone I have met (featuring more than, say, one or two tattoos of regular size), is utterly obsessed with their tattoos. They talk about them constantly, peacock at every opportunity, and plan for more. Their opinions are all exactly the same, depending on political polarity.
If we dug into the psychology of it, I would hypothesize people get tattoos for the same reason people develop eating disorders, or compulsively clean: to gain a sense of control over their lives which feel out of control. You know who does that? People who can't handle uncomfortable ideas. You know what we call those people? Conformists.
You have only to ask yourself, if that severe social stigma was still in place, would people still be getting tattoos? And we both know the answer is no, they would not. The only reason tattoos are popular today is because they have become socially safe, even preferable, to have. People who get them simply don't have whatever it takes to go against the grain.
I firmly believe everybody has a right to do with their own body whatever they want. That said...
Tattoos used to be a symbol of anti-conformity. Over the past 30 years that has completely flipped. I have yet to meet a single person with tattoos who is an original thinker. I'm sure they exist, but they're a needle (pun?) in a haystack.
The original post said southern Europe, so Italy, Spain, Greece, etc. In these places many businesses close around lunchtime and reopen later in the afternoon. So typical opening hours may look like 8am-12:30pm, 3:30pm-7pm. That's not all places (restaurants or large grocery stores don't follow that format, obviously), but many shops do it.
Probably the best thing I've learned in life is to disassociate actions from results. Stop wanting so much, especially things the world can't possibly promise. Do things because they feel right to you, not because you expect something out of it. In this way you will never be disappointed.
In this particular scenario, are you confessing your feelings because you want them to know, or because you want them to like you back? If it's the former, go for it and then move on with your life. If it's the latter, prepare to be miserable over and over forever.
Dogs couldn't see the old style CRT TVs. But they can see modern LED TVs.
Oh he absolutely succeeded. 9/11 wasn't just an attack, it was a plan. Bin Laden detailed it in his videos, he knew exactly how the US government would react. Everything has unfolded according to his plan. Better, even. The ascension of Trump was even part of that plan. Bin Laden may be in hell, but he's smiling.
Considering it's a popular meme to trace the horrors of our current timeline to the demise of Harambe, it makes sense that this White House would honour his death. Without it they never would be where they are, doing what they're doing.
What an odd question. As if they care what the viewer base wants. As with all things Disney, this was a marketing decision spat out by a computer using obsolete data.
Reading through these comments thinking, "Did nobody ever learn how to multiply by nine on their fingers?"
Hold up your hands, fingers out.
9x4? Put down your 4th finger. Note there are three fingers to the left of it and six fingers to the right. 36.
9x8? Put down your 8th finger. Note there are seven fingers on the left, two on the right. 72.
9x17? Put down your 17th finger. Zoo called. Time to go home, buddy.
Just one small correction: although the 2008 bank bailout did happen during Obama's presidency, it was the Bush administration who created it and signed it into law. This is usually framed as Bush being a class act and doing it to spare Obama the blowback of having to do the same (back in the days when presidential class was still a thing), but it seems not to have worked, as everybody still blames Obama entirely.
To be fair, when job listings require any university degree to apply, regardless of its relevance to the job in question, it becomes obvious the actual knowledge and education are secondary to simply checking a box. No wonder so many people are allowing AI to do their thinking for them. Any system defined by its technicalities is going to have loopholes.
Black Mirror version of the Twilight Zone classic, "Time Enough At Last."
The reason is because he was rightwing, same as the kid who took out Charlie Kirk. It destroys the narrative that liberals are violent when everyone who takes shots at your leadership are from the home team. If it was true, we'd know everything about these people. But it's not, so the info gets suppressed instead.
For your consideration: It's somewhat well known the reason Trump eats so much fast food hamburger is because he has a fear of being assassinated by poison (due to a lifetime of screwing people over and socializing with the wrong sort). Do you really think that kind of paranoia would agree to allow a mentally unstable kid with a rifle anywhere near him? That doesn't make sense to me.
I thought it was obvious from the video that he nicked his ear on the secret service person's belt buckle on the way down when they were piling onto him? It explains the paltry amount of blood that appears only after he's down, not to mention the optimal healing time. No bullet did that.
I don't believe it was staged. Everything that came after, yes, lies upon lies, exploiting the situation to its maximum potential, absolutely. But a real rifle was fired, a real bystander was killed, and Trump's secret service really was incompetent enough to let it happen. No need to invent anything when the obvious truth is damning enough.
That's exactly my point. Cable didn't start off costing $100-$200. In the beginning it was a few bucks as an ad-free alternative to antenna TV. Then they raised prices, just a little at a time, over many years, as well as introduced ads. Sound familiar?
I promise you, some day streaming will cost $100-$200, too. And people will pay it, just like your grandparents do today.
I say again: streaming is here to REPLACE cable. You're living in the golden age of low-cost entertainment and you don't even know it.
How is this a surprise to anyone? They came to replace cable.
No, you still don't get it.
THEY CAME TO REPLACE CABLE.