Azzu

Reddit is basically entirely image or video posts, all hosted by reddit directly.

Just out of curiosity, is there some legal case about holding this "giveaway" that isn't actually a giveaway at all?

That's not all, probably not even the main one. It's a major cost of living crisis and impoverishment of average people while companies and the richest get richer. Neither the Ds nor the Rs want to do anything against it, they get their money from there.

The people kinda understand this. But they're not intelligent enough to distinguish "actually changing the system" with "just saying they're gonna change the system", like Trump does. Trump is always talking about uprooting the deep state and bringing an "average person"(white middle/lower class) perspective to politics, and people just gobble it up and believe it because he's kinda good at talking with conviction.

Of course the misogyny and racism is part of it and an extra, but it's not the main reason at all. For some people it is, of course.

Most of Israel's weapons come from the US. It's very well possible for the US congress/government to say "no more weapons if you use them for agression".

It's naive to think the US is a democracy. It's mostly an oligarchy with a few democratic features. The only choice is to vote Harris, but she is only barely less right-wing than Trump, from a European perspective. She will continue the oligarchy.

The only hope there is, is that all the people in the US start to understand they don't have a democracy. The vote for D needs to become overwhelming. Then, R will die out and an alternative choice on the further left side may emerge as a serious contender. Then, this further left choice needs to become overwhelming.

Eventually, this will lead to real change.

Why this must work like this is because the US' democratic system only supports 2 parties with its first-past-the-post system. Until a reform of this voting system takes place, towards a ranked choice style system, there can't be good representation. While any organization into a limited number of parties inherently means that almost no one will be represented perfectly, the less parties there are, the more the average divergence of reprentation there will be. 2 is just an unbelievably small number of opinion groupings to choose from, much too little to get anywhere near good representation.

It's not a democracy if the choices available don't work for the common person, which they both don't. Democracy means that what the majority says, goes. Which is clearly not what's happening, because the majority wants to get rid of billionaires and do something about climate change and so on and so on.

When/how does Worf say/imply Risa is impure?

Of course, but I'm talking about what was literally said. The further reasons, like you describe, are easy to deduce as well, but I was just responding to the comment that didn't seem to understand anything, neither the overt nor the covert reasons.

I'm confused how you don't see the logic. It says right there.

He claims that the lost "potential population" from teen parents will cost the state revenue and political representation.

A person pays taxes. Less people = less tax income. More people = more tax income.

It's entirely idiotic, but it's not hard to understand?

It feels to me like you don't hate progress, but you hate late stage capitalism.

If progress happened without it being forced on you, without you "having" to adapt to not "fall behind", when all your needs were provided for without having to compete to satisfy them...

Would you really mind progress that much?

Maybe because the whole "blue light in displays" has no real effect on our sleep

I'm sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but I'll give my perspective anyway.

Why do you care about getting "back in your industry/career"? Yeah you did it previously, but is it really what makes you happy?

When you have goals, you always think "once I reach this, everything will be better". In my experience and with everyone I ever talked with, this was never the lasting case. Reaching some nice goal gave satisfaction for days or sometimes even weeks or months, but never longer. Then it was back to dissatisfaction and another goal.

The common path frequently described out of depression is getting back into the groove of setting goals, following them, not being satisfied, setting another goal, repeat. This is not how I got out of my depression and also not a good life.

I don't think it's important that you reach your goal of getting back in your industry or whatever. I think it's important that you're fine with not reaching it. I think it's important to recognize that you can be happy and satisfied right where you are, exactly with what you have.