Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)I
Posts
7
Comments
583
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I dunno, the big males will also staunch you and try to throw down with some pretty nasty claws if you get too close to what they see as being their territory. They can kick like motherfuckers too by leaning back on their tails.

    There was a big boy we called Ol’ Roger who used to live near my friend’s holiday house and when Ol’ Roger decided he wanted to hang out in the yard we made sure to give him a wide berth. He was about 6’6” standing upright; had ripped muscles like he had just got out of a 10-year stint in gaol; and always had a really mean look on his face. Thankfully he never got into any biff with us but there were a couple of close calls where people had to duck inside quick smart when he started heading towards them.

  • Even adjusted per capita (Aus population is 8%, or roughly 1/12, of the US), the difference in mass shootings is orders of magnitude.

    Australia actually has a much less spread out population - more than 2/3 of our population lives in just five cities across the country (Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth).

  • Is that you, John Oliver?

  • You make a great point - not all of us have the same capacities and there need to be protections in place to prevent people falling for scams - but I just don’t know where the line is between personal responsibility and collective responsibility. Like, for society to function, we all need to assume some amount of collective responsibility to protect others but that can’t be at 100%. People need to take some amount of personal responsibility for their actions, otherwise we slide towards a society with no learning and no repercussions which is a recipe for disaster and collapse.

    It’s a tenuous relationship, and extremely context-dependent, so I don’t think that there is an objective and quantitative answer to the question. Would make an interesting philosophical/ethical debate though.

  • That’s the heart of the meaning of MAGA - to take the USA back to days where there was no inclusivity or accessibility at all. The entire phrase Make America Great Again implies that things used to be great (before inclusivity and accessibility) and so they want to wind back the clock on everything. Civil rights; human rights; inclusivity; accessibility - all of these things and many more have been blamed for the state that the USA is in by politicians and talking heads to distract from the fact that it’s neoliberalism, kleptocracy and crony capitalism that have hollowed the country into an economic husk.

  • It’s bros before hoes?But I’m homosexualThe bros are the hoes

  • rule

    Jump
  • It’s somehow simultaneously terrible economic management and terrible ethical management. There’s just no upside to anyone but the Military Industrial Complex which funds the politicians. I really wish more people could understand that.

  • Hmmmm, Germany and Austria siding with Nazis? Now, where have I heard that before…

  • Classy.

    Jump
  • Both. Both are the crime.

  • The Narcissist’s Prayer:

    That didn't happen.And if it did, it wasn't that bad.And if it was, that's not a big deal.And if it is, that's not my fault. <— we are hereAnd if it was, I didn't mean it.And if I did, you deserved it.

  • If the second-to-last box at the bottom had an honest message from the company:

    “Did you know you could do all this in a way that’s cheaper for us while we continue to charge you the same price that we keep raising inexplicably so that we make more money? Just go to w-w-w dot…”

  • Yeah, it seems clear that the goals are different and so the methods of selection have to be different in order to try to achieve those goals. I wonder if there are any statistics available to determine what approach results in more accurate results in terms of convictions! Personally I see the merit in both approaches, and potentially in other approaches to the jury selection process.

  • It’s interesting to me to note the differences in jury selection between the US and Australia: here in Aus (at least in my state of NSW) both sides get to strike jurors, but there isn’t a round of questioning - it’s purely based on physical appearance - and each side only gets three challenges (per accused person). That means for most trials, those with only one defendant, at least six of the original randomly selected jurors will end up serving.

    I’ve done jury service twice - once I was part of the original 12 and wasn’t challenged, and the other time I replaced the last challenged juror but each side only ended up challenging two.

    I feel like not being able to question jurors and having limited strikes makes the system far more random and, therefore, more just in terms of the jury being a random selection of citizens.

  • Jesus, they only need $3.6m to operate for five years? That’s a rounding error in a national budget. Give ‘em $10m and let them run with it, I say.

  • I grew up as a single child (boy) with a single mum for most of my life and that taught me all the life skills I needed to manage a home myself. In hindsight, I’m really thankful for that.

  • Communism doesn’t mandate a single-party government though. Single-party government is just authoritarianism. That’s why there are, and have been, communist parties in democratic countries.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

    “Communism (from Latin communis 'common, universal') is a political and economic ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need. A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state. Communism is a part of the broader socialist movement.”

    By this definition, PRC is decidedly not communist as the common people do not own the means of production; products in society are not solely allocated based on need; private property exists; social classes exist; and money exists.

    Whose definition of communism are you relying upon?

  • Salty Persimmons?Spare Parts?Significant Pasteurisation?Salacious Pragmatism?Seven Pills?Settled Pieces?Startled Poltergeist?Scalded Privates?Serendipitous Pimples?Spelled Poorly?Sour Plums?Sexual Prowess?Semitic Principles?Santa’s Profile?Sextet Polka?Salmon Pendant?Saucy Politics?Schadenfreude Pig?Smithsonian Pedestal?Soggy Pants?Small Penis?Shouted Preamble?Sorting Place?Shifty Panda?Spandex Poll?Sentient Pentagram?Silent Parable?Stationary Pigeon?Smelly Pugilist?Shoddily Preened?Starter’s Pistol?Symbiotic Parasite?Self-Preservation?Synergy Pyramid?Soot Pole?Semblance Provider?Scunthorpe Party?Smashing Pumpkins?Seaside Porgy?Steely Pumpernickel?Storage Purpose?Seemingly Perfect?

    We may never know

  • I was so happy to hear about this! The Libs are digging their electoral grave deeper and deeper. I had an inkling that, because most of their seats lost at the last election were moderates, the remaining voices would all swing conservative and pull the party even further to the right. With this kind of rhetoric the Coalition isn’t going to be a viable option for government for at least another couple of election cycles.

    I just really, really hope that votes for them move towards independents and other parties as opposed to bolstering Labor’s current lead.

  • One thing alone would help shift the Overton Window MASSIVELY in a country like the USA - mandatory voting. If everyone who had the right to vote actually voted, Republicans would never hold federal government ever again and would only be able to hold onto a couple of states and a few dozen local governments across the nation.

    Without mandatory voting, Republicans can become more and more egregious in seeking to rally voters while simultaneously painting the whole establishment as broken which essentially disenfranchises the non-voting centre. With it, they’d have to seriously moderate their platforms to have any hope of forming government ever again. It would likely cause a party split that would then coalesce again into a two-party coalition on the right, starting the efforts to break down the two-party system.

    If you introduce ranked choice voting as well, that’ll speed up the dismantling of the two-party system, but just mandatory voting alone would prevent Trump and his ilk from ever being in power again.