ThenElection
No bio...
User ID: 622
ThenElection
1hr ago
Women have always been the social sinews that held together relatively atomized men; they've always been heavily politically engaged, even during the brief period where men had the vote and they did not. From prohibition to the Satanic ritual abuse panic to 1970s bussing opposition to the defeat of the ERA, they provided the nexus around which politics was organized. Note that these weren't uniformly or even mostly left-coded movements: if you want a movement of any kind, you need women.
ThenElection
23hr ago
Yes, please.
ThenElection
2d ago
Just gotta know the right people and right sketchy warehouses to go to.
The point, though, was about the complete lack of anything to do in most parts of the US, not about how Bay Area nightlife compares to NYC and LA.
ThenElection
2d ago
Bay Area housing is expensive because its workers tend to be far more economically productive than most areas in the US.
Reason not to be reactionary: it allows me to live in the Bay Area, with the alternative being stuck in the same shithole podunk town where I grew up and the only nightlife after 9PM is hanging out at the local Walmart.
ThenElection
3d ago
To the extent we pay attention to man vs bear (which, it seems, will be with us for the foreseeable future), the relevant thing isn't the statistics of attacks or even that women fear men. It's that pretty much everyone seems to be taking the approach that at least one of the man or bear is a major threat.
The reality is that neither is particularly dangerous. So many takes seem to be something like "one will eat me alive, and the other will abduct and torture me for months before killing me," with slightly varying structure depending on the point the speaker is making. But getting in a car wreck on the way to the park or dying of exposure are both more likely causes of death than encountering either a random bear or a random man. And neither cars nor exposure are likely to kill you either. Use appropriate caution wherever you are, and you'll almost certainly be fine.
The hysterical neuroticism involved in the entire exercise on both sides is just a symptom of expressing feelings becoming the dominant political mode thanks to social media. Which can barely be called politics; it's more fashion and gossip than anything else.
ThenElection
6d ago
I'm taking a more limited definition of assassination: an individual who attempts to change how he is governed by killing an individual or small group who govern him. I'd say this excludes a government killing domestic opponents (governments can kill on a much grander scale, since they are not the governed but the governors) and soldiers killing other soldiers (two governments sending their governed to kill each other to resolve a dispute).
ThenElection
6d ago
I'll have to read up on Gemayel.
As for Alexander II (I think you mean, though I just found out III was the object of an assassination attempt by Aleksandr Ulyanov, elder brother of the most famous Ulyanov), I'm on the fence. The assassin's ideological program seems consistent with Communist revolution: the long temporal gap, conservative reaction, and WW1 being the more immediate cause all point in the opposite direction. Maybe I'd land on a half point?
Court intrigues seem less like history and more like bookkeeping to me, though perhaps that's just distance and time obscuring the historical changes they caused.
My misspent youth, alas. Note to readers: reading Judith Butler and bell hooks does not, in fact, make women any more likely to date you. (Someone here will doubtlessly point out this is obvious, but when the women around you all suggest that the solution to dating woes is to Be More Feminist and Read Woman Authors, it's easy for a naive kid to get confused.)
More options
Context Copy link