oddlyqueer

A practical addendum to that last point: I am eternally grateful that I am too old to have had to deal with the current landscape of app-based dating, so I am definitely commenting on something out of my experience, but I would advise trying to meet people in real life and make non-romantic friends, rather than "trying to date". Book clubs, Ultimate frisbee leagues, activism groups, etc. I met my partner doing community theater. I think if you want to find someone you can be friends with as well as partners, you have to try being just friends first. And it doesn't always progress beyond that, and sometimes that sucks like a bastard. But I still think it's better than the alternative methods I've seen.

Who's going to be doing this railroading? It's going to be up to you and whoever you decide to have a relationship with to decide what your roles in the relationship will be. When I started getting serious with my partner (now cohabitating over a decade and going strong), we both thought we were cishet little ex-christians. But we were buddies from the start, and that hasn't changed even when we started to question our gender identities. For all I know, it may have been the fact that we were in a stable, loving relationship for the first time in both our lives that made it safe enough to start exploring that aspect of ourselves. I know for us it took (is taking...) a while. I loved them when they thought they were a woman, I love them now as their NB self, and if they discover more about their gender identity I'll love them then. We're still, and will hopefully always be, partners and best buds.

So if you want to try being in a relationship with a girl, find a girl you like, and love her.

Haters will say it's fake:

I wouldn't say it was a number one favorite, but I feel like the internet isn't the same without timecube.com

TW: conspiracy nonsense, racism, crimes against grammar https://web.archive.org/web/20050829015921/http://www.timecube.com/

I wonder if MTG is the Republican Party experiencing the 4chan effect: if you build your community around pretending to be batshit insane, you'll eventually attract genuinely batshit insane people who aren't in on the joke. It could be that she doesn't realize most of the elected GOP is just pretending to go along with the right-wing outrage du jour to support their cult, and she's genuinely confused about why they're no longer interested in the epstein affair.

That, or she just sees the writing on the wall and is trying to distance herself from it. Either way, fuck her and the shitbags she made a bed with.

Can hardly believe that video is almost old enough to vote 🧓

Haven't thought about it in years but seeing the tracert command snapped me right back to it lol.

For anyone interested in a field trip to the internet museum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXmv8quf_xM

It's a classic ❤️

I agree. I think with a robust enough proposal, there are a lot of people with power who would be willing to get on board. Some people though... they've shown that they're willing to kill huge numbers of people to maintain and expand their power, and I don't know that that kind of powermonger can be dealt with gracefully. And I think an internet-native global democratic movement would have to be started by people with internet access, and one of its goals would have to be providing, to the best of its ability, internet access to everyone.

Genuinely, I think the "other" in this case is the extinction of the human species. It's very scary to me that there are people like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are in charge of nuclear arsenals. Do I think they are going to start a nuclear war? At this point the best I can do is "hopefully not 🤞". But the longer we roll the nuclear armageddon dice, the better our chances that we'll eventually wipe ourselves out. And the predicament that Ukraine finds itself in currently is proof that no nation with nukes should ever give them up as long as there's a real threat of invasion by another nation. And as technology advances and we find more efficient ways of harnessing huge amounts of energy, that arms race will only escalate. I think the only long-term solution is to find a way for all of us to disarm and find a stable way to prevent rearming, or in other words, world peace.

I think there would have to be a constitution with an enumeration of basic rights, and unfettered access to the global internet would have to be one of them. I'm leery of biometrics, for one, not everyone has eyes or fingers, and two, biometric signatures can be spoofed and if someone can spoof your biometric signatures, it's hard to prove your identity. I think there would have to be some kind of managed citizen ID, something that can be replaced by your local government if it gets compromised.

I think direct funding would probably have to be a big component at the start, especially before the government is able to levy taxes. But capital power tends to favor itself and lead to increased inequality. The fundamental assumption of one person = one vote would have to be able to ultimately overrule the wealthy for it to be a real democracy.

I have a similar thought about 100-1000 person groups at the base level. I think the basic unit of organization would need to be geographical, for a couple of reasons: one, I think it's important for us as humans to be able to meet and talk to your fellows (and your elected officials) in person, and two, I think a purely online bloc would be vulnerable to technological capture. Like, an attacker could MITM an entire bloc and manipulate how they vote. I think interest groups / parties / factions etc. will still happen but I wouldn't want to organize voting around them.

Yeah, but I don't want to let The First Noel entirely off the hook. Lots of english christian songs are translations and/or centuries old adaptations and/or lyrics grafted onto previously written music, and quality varies of course but for some reason, for me, this one stands out for banality.