I’m pretty sure that a lot of the horrible shit that comes out of conservatives is their response to their anxieties.
It’s kind of like fight or flight. Although most people turn it inwards and recluse, some people become aggressive and turn it outwards in reaction to it.
Cause there’s fuck all sun in Britain
Yeah sorry, meant family guy. Added a quote to hopefully clarify in future
Probes can do almost anything crew can do, and many things that crew cannot.
This take is a little ignorant. But I understand where you’re coming from.
Humans on mars could do almost all of the research that decades of landers and rovers have done in days. They’re also able to make more on the fly decision and pivot in research strategy, technique, and tools used.
The only thing human space flight seems to do is help us get better at human space flight.
In regards to this, a lot of technological advances that were founded or improved for the space programme have been highly beneficial it at least useful, on earth.
To add to all this, I don’t know the figures for modern day nasa research and programmes, but the apollo programme is estimated to have returned $13 to the US for every $1 spent on it.
family guy joked about her writing-anti-trans years before she went full terf.
When you add in the fact that they were referencing rapey winestein years before the me too revelations, that’s twice they’ve been subtly speaking truth to power before it became common knowledge.
Edit - Added quote for clarity
I feel like the sample size is too low though. I wouldn’t argue that it’s more safe… But a lot of the deaths in space travel were in the early days when we were still figuring shit out and had less sophisticated technology for things like automatic abort systems etc.
Don’t forget the last one in Qatar
It’s neck is tied into a fucking knot 😂
That said though, this birb slaps. Really high power and good typing for the early game
The sub of a domreddit obviously
Lmao. That italic/asterisk text would be amazing to see IRL. Although I feel like it would be rarer for a corporation to not have that.
I can’t tell if that’s the legit size of the hat, or, while still comically large… It’s been “enhanced” for extra humour (like kirks small face edits).
Like the internal rim that should sit on her head looks too wide to r free sitting on her head the way it is
More special than ones we’ve detected, but our detection methods have a very biased available dataset.
I mean, not a single other current movie/show on their front page has 99% audience score.
Even if Melanoma was secretly good and “the critics were trying to bury it” they would be suspicious.
It’ll be a shit load of bots, and then the same reactionary people that make everything politically partisan and mass review bomb anything “woke”
People that didn’t see it and don’t care about “how well it does” won’t review it at all, so there’s no counter votes because… Literally no one seeing it.
It blows my mind that you can just stumble across that stuff on a popular public forum
This also explains why any “woke” movie or TV series gets immediately review bombed
Yeah, I came to the same understanding when I used to counter conspiracy nuts denying climate change and evolution etc.
You’ll never convince them they’re wrong or hypocrites… But people who stumble upon the thread that are not super critical thinkers will see the discussion and you can help them realise the person is actually full of shit.
Sometimes they can lie believably enough that people fall for it, and some of those people will snap out of it when they see the contradiction and logical fallacies.
The nra, constantly talking about the need for everyone to have guns to prevent tyranny.
Now government agents are doing illegal shit (kidnapping, assaulting, deporting legals, and outright murder) and all the of a sudden “citizens need to stop antagonising” is their reply? Because it’s their thugs.
The bright side of all this horrific bullshit is that, assuming it’s even possible to have fair elections in the future, you can immediately dismiss anyone on the right when they try to play the “moral superior” card as a justification for their bullshit
“but freedom of speech”, “2nd amendment”, “protect kids from pedofiles”. Nah fuck of mate. You completely disregarded all of that when it was “once of you”. You don’t get to play that card anymore.
Being epsteins best friend, saying how much they have in common because “he likes them young like me”, being the president that promised to release the files, now having that power to do that and refusing to do so…
The same people that wanted to shoot up a pizza place and kids reading sessions in public libraries because of completely. imaginary links to pedophilia are totally fine with trump though.
I’m not saying they’re correct in not calling it that, or that the system necessarily works that way, but they’ll have lawyers to look over everything in these sorts of scenarios and they’ll, usually, ask to play it safe.
Also, re point 2, it’s different to say “autopsy says it’s homicide” vs the paper/journalist saying that they were murdered. Unless it’s legally ruled as such (judge/court case), the news agency could be liable if they said it themselves. The headline is essentially just quoting someone else.
I generally agree that prohibition doesn’t work, and is bad, but having an absolutist position like this is usually problematic. For example we have to restrict some people’s freedoms. Like some people want to harm or kill others, that should not be a freedom people have.
Most things in life have a lot of nuance, which means we can’t usually make blanket rule for things.
In saying all that… Prohibition usually doesn’t solve the issue, sometimes makes it worse, and often ends up hurting people who are already suffering (usually why they resort to harmful substances)