Signtist

We're well past identifying the source of the problem. If aliens invaded and everyone was debating how best to fight back, you'd be sitting there saying "Why is nobody blaming the aliens!?" Everyone who would understand that the country is falling into fascism already does. Anyone who doesn't simply hasn't yet admitted that they like fascism.

Yes, fascists exist, and are to blame for a large chunk of the failures of society. Now is the time to figure out who's going to help fight against them in a way that keeps them away for as long as possible, and who's going to claim that they had some good points, setting the stage for their expedited return.

You can't teach if you don't identify where the students are getting things wrong and correct them. It's one of the major reasons why teachers deserve so much more pay. My wife used to be a teacher, and she worked 2-3 hours past the end of school correcting students' work pretty much every weekday, and spent several hours every weekend planning out her lessons for the following week. She got paid significantly less than me working in a basic entry-level 9-5 office position.

Makes sense. Recent events have clearly shown that we live in a world where the truth means nothing and lying about actions taken can often be as beneficial to your public image as actually taking the action. A board of investors that want to maximize how much money they can exploit out of the economy would be sure to come to the conclusion that they might as well play both sides.

C'mon now... They don't actually look at the conflict. Someone pays them to support one side over the other, and so they do.

My wife and I will sit in the same room for hours and never speak a word to each other. We only talk when we have something to say, and we're both happy with that relationship. My sister thinks we're crazy, but we like it quiet.

There's a reason for those "slower traffic move right" signs. People drive at different speeds - if the people behind want to go faster than the people in front, it's their responsibility to let them pass, so long as there's a safe space in another lane to do so.

You can't ruin the wealthy while the most bribable president in history is sitting in the oval office. The most you can do is transfer a chunk of his wealth to Trump. At least, that's the most you can do while working within the system...

I guarantee you a conservative would skim this and say "That's it! We should build a thunderdome!"

Experiencing the constipation, stress, and fatigue commonly associated with a nicotine withdrawal? Try nicotine!

I never understood the fight against nihilism, as if it's inherently bleak. I came to the conclusion that nothing truly matters a long time ago, but that doesn't keep me from feeling like stuff matters, and doing what matters to me. Subjective meaning can still drive you to pursue and live a good life even while you're aware that objective meaning doesn't exit. Happiness feels good, which is enough for me.

It's a bit tougher, which is why I usually didn't bother. I'd start by accusing them of robbing a bank, and when they would inevitably say they didn't, I'd point out that my made-up testimony alone is just as verifiable as their legitimate one alone. Then I'd explain how being able to convince a jury of people - who weren't present at the time of the crime - that a specific person is guilty is a good way to make sure there's actually enough verifiable evidence to ensure it happened, and isn't just a setup by someone lying to get them in trouble.

If the crime was so blatant that people obviously saw it happen, there would ideally be enough physical evidence that the crime happened, and if there isn't, then it would still be preferable to let a criminal walk free rather than make an innocent person go to jail because they couldn't prove they didn't do what someone else said they did.

The tough thing is that some people have too large of an ego, and will just ignore that entire point, thinking that the people they "know" to be criminals should just be locked up because "it's obvious," and then we get to the situation happening now.

Yeah, I used to explain it to people by having them imagine watching someone rob a bank, and ask them if that person is guilty. They'd always say yes, and I'd explain that they're actually not: doing the crime isn't how someone becomes guilty, being found guilty in the court of law is how someone becomes guilty. That often got people to at least understand what the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" really meant, which I thought was enough. Turns out I should've also explained why that's actually a good thing, because now they're supporting just bypassing the court of law altogether.