tshile

Eh - I think it does. The number of normal people who think conspiracy theories about it to this day… there’s a whole generation that has a significant percentage of which think if they meet god and get 1 question to ask - it’s who killed JFK. I can only imagine growing up in that household. I think it makes him unfit for leadership in government but I’m not going to pretend that could have a profound, character shaping impact on someone. obviously the rest of the family has escaped that sort of thing but I’m totally not surprised we have one that didn’t.

Not sure why I never thought of this before. But kenedy has two family members that were prominent young politicians that were bucking the system in a certain way and they were both gunned down. Totally makes sense he believes in all kinds of conspiracy theories. I probably would too

(I may be wrong) I don’t think so. If you read the first post I think it was always about white terrorism/terrorists and i believe the vibe at the time was every time a person of color shot a bunch of people or did something, they were somehow labeled terrorist, but white people weren’t as a white person that usually would usually have a problem with such a thing, I recall not having a problem with it at the time and instead feeling like I understood the point but it was started in 2017 and that I may be misremembering

Just a guess, but maybe it’s specifically about terrorist stuff done by white people

Right but I was thinking more strategy wise like maybe it makes it easier to go after him with a bunch of organizing a conspiracy charges if you have already convicted the people he organized to do the crimes im totally guessing though and have no idea what really guides the decision making.

Charges can come later. I assume there’s a reason for doing it this way

So we’re conducting official business on twitter now?

One big pot. Minus whatever she puts in a bank account I don’t know about 🤔 She’s a person that feels bad if she gets 5 new shirts and only spends 15$. So, I never have to worry about how she spends money. She makes significantly more than me anyways, so even if I did take issue it’d be a loser of an argument to have for me. I only spend money on **** we need. big purchases (things that require loans…) we discuss and make sure we’re on the same page. Which usually means me spending a year talking about before she’s finally willing to consider it. Generally I get what I want - she’s guarding against my impulsiveness, and I’m OK with that. but again - this seems to not be the way with the young generations. Seems like everyone I know my age or younger keeps their finances separated. Most people my age that I know got married 5-10 years later in life than I did. If we hadn’t married so early, maybe we would have kept them separate 🤷‍♂️

Yeah been married a long time now. When we were dating, I paid, because that was the social expectation at the time. But my understanding is things have been different for a while now. edit: the rest of this is more advice on how to deal with your situation, which you maybe aren’t even interested in… if you’ve been dating for 6 months, my suggestion is to just talk to her about it. In fact, if you’re unsure how serious your relationship is then how she handles the conversation will probably be a gut check on it for you. a reasonable person that valued the relationship would understand and offer some sort of solution (even if it’s not 50-50, maybe that would be harder financially for her, but at least she’d offer something) you might even find out she doesn’t need to do all those expensive things, but because you kept paying and suggesting it she went along with it to spend time with you 🤷‍♂️ this should be a relatively easy conversation to have if you’re not a jerk about it and she’s a reasonable person that values the relationship

“Listen intensely” 🤦🏼‍♂️

I think on some level you have to consider what Hamas’ power would be if the Palestinians were able to accept some sort of deal. Their support is in some part derived from the situation. I’m sure there is some significant % of supporters that would stop supporting then if there was something like a deal to the ‘67 borders. It complicates things that they’re also the “government”

While that’s true, I also think we’ve just normalized several things since social media took off. I feel like over time the trollish/jerk behavior of the internet has grown more and more in social situations. There once was a time where believing “you wouldn’t say that to my face” or “you wouldn’t act like that in person” would more or less be a true thought about a person on the internet, because most wouldn’t. These days it feels like people absolutely would say most stuff in person now, because it’s all become normalized. I feel like today with politics people are just super quick to verbally attack when someone says something they disagree with. It’s like the concept of it being OK if we have different opinions on things is almost totally lost if it isn’t already.

Feels like if she’d just not talk about it, it’d probably fade away… The people that are angered by putting down a dog with a gun, or putting down a dog in that context (regardless of method), are not going to be less angry with context or clarification. Doesn’t seem like there’s a move to make to “fix” it, just stop giving it attention yourself

@Metalhead thanks for that. I was born mid 80’s so that’s a new story to me. as an IT person and a comp sci major born mid 80’s - there was a time where hacking was fun and cool because ultimately it was harmless they were fun days. People ruin everything. Including the internet.

I’ve enjoyed just about anything in Chicago. So many good places you randomly walk into and get great food. Little Italy and Greek town have tons of great spots. stay away from like the magnificent mile and other tourist trap areas. Plenty of those are good but they’re all so expensive compared to what you can find elsewhere (and it’s just as good if not better)

Also helps when you con other people into paying your bills

That’s an interesting issue to me. On the surface I support it - if they can’t vote then I can accept they shouldn’t count towards appointment numbers. But then children can’t vote so they shouldn’t count either? and the bigger issue as raskin points out - been doing it this way the whole time and no one’s ever challenged it so it sorta doesn’t work to suddenly all these years later say we weren’t going it right the whole time …

Yes, spend some time wondering why your lawyers cost so much and you still lose Let us know what you come up with

Columbia looking to expel students they can confirm were involved. I think the radio segment I listened to said they’ve already started suspending some. they’ve requested NYPD remain on campus They also face potential criminal charges for a variety of things including burglary Hope they are happy with their decisions. important to understand the possible consequences of your decisions.

Clearly it is overly disruptive There are laws about this and universities have their own policies and it’s not anyone’s right to break those simply over a political disagreement and yes we have a first amendment but (can’t believe this has to be explained at this point) your rights stop at affecting others and their rights, and they don’t give you the ability to break the law. First amendment specifically has already been hashed out to the government can’t stop you from saying what you want, but you absolutely can be punished for it once you’ve been allowed to say it. There’s a process for having laws overturned if they violate your rights. Clearly enforcing the law on protestors is not a violation of your rights. in fact they just ruled that protest leaders can be held liable for what goes on at the protests they organize. this isn’t even close to a rights or first amendment issue. Stop pretending it is.

Totally disagree. You cannot allow them to break the law and be obnoxiously disruptive to everyone else simply because they have a political disagreement. There are ways to protest without breaking the law. They don’t like the lack of movement they’re getting on the issue, so they escalate. The answer is not to ignore that they are breaking the law. I’d like to see some enforcement of our new scotus ruling about protest leaders being held accountable for what goes on at their protests.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/30/netanyahu-vows-to-raid-rafah-with-or-without-hostage-deal?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1 so that’s not good for renewed peace talks gonna get real nuts if they actually invade Rafah

It wasn’t me who said it that way, but I do agree. the notion of morals and war crimes and international laws with war is silly. We seem to be the only nation actively involved in conflicts that even tries. The reality is when push comes to shove there are no ****ing rules. People will do whatever it takes to survive. Not to mention how piss poorly these so-called rules are enforced. That’s fine - my point is that specific type of responses missed the mark (in my opinion)

Little push back on this one. As someone who thinks Israel is justified in what they’re currently doing (I define “justified” as believing we would react the same way, therefore I don’t want to be a hypocrite, while recognizing what is happening is awful) As much as I think you have to park history if the goal is peace - you can’t look at things in a vacuum. You can’t look at one action and ignore the preceding actions. Hamas didn’t only do it because they believe in the destruction of Israel and the Jews - they did it because they’re actively oppressed by Israel. which is to say nothing of the rightness, wrongness, or even the good decision making behind the attacks. but putting it the way you did just there, is like pretending Al qaeda conducted 9/11 simply because they hate the United States. They did it because we constantly screw around in the region and support Israel. Doesn’t change how awful 9/11 was - but it doesn’t do anyone any good to ignore motive and reasoning.

To be clear I’m not a person who thinks any of this is one sided. anything good or bad you can say about one, can be said about the other. The details, or dates, may differ but the core behind it all is the same.