Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Happy Birthday, me!
*party blowers*
Happy birthday, Stormtroper!
Happy Birthday!
Happy Birthday, Stormtroper!
Happy birthday!
Thanks, everyone.
>retweet proud fascist Konkvistador, to make fun of something he said
>Have reactionaries swarm my twitter
>block all but Konkvistador and then troll him for three hours until it gets boring
> Konkvistador launches into a discussion in which trolls are compared to Hannibal Lector and Bugs Bunny
www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9S7yhD5M9A
So how'd you guys spend your day.
In fact, I have some video of the clouds swirling because of the impending tornado, if anyone's interested.
Let's just say that it included a lot of old people who fought in WW2.
Internetting, like usual.
Thinking about academia, paper-writing, and publishing. Thinking about my career paths.
Watching "Lord of the Ants", a documentary about entomologist and ecologist Edward O. Wilson.
One of the ads Blip keeps showing is a PSA about seat belt violations.
Just kinda got me thinking...I just don't get it. Is there really a reason to legally mandate that someone wear their seatbelt, other than "city needs ticket revenue"?
I mean, I wear my seatbelt, but it seems to me that if a person, knowing the risks, chooses to endanger themselves by not wearing it, they should have the right to make that decision. But the fact that even the US has laws requiring the belt makes me think I've missed something obvious...
The reason we have those laws is to remind people when they forget. Folks become comfortable, become complacent, they're going to think it won't happen to them. And it'll happen, because it's happened in any remotely dangerous environment.
And even if you might want to endanger yourself, you are also endangering others by being a hazard on the road, and thus the government must get involved.
Not that I support getting rid of the laws, but could you please explain to me how you endanger other people's lives by not buckling yourself in? (Except maybe if you go flying through the front window in a crash then you could knock someone else down on your way out, I guess.)
Well, if your car crashes on the road, it'll be an obstacle for however long it takes for somebody to move it, so if not a hazard, at least a nuisance. Traffic jams can happen due to a wrecked vehicle blocking the way, at least based on my experience.
...and a car crash can be directly caused by the driver not wearing their seatbelt how?
e: And while turning, too.
It's not that you crash your car by not wearing a seatbelt.
It's if you crash your car and you're not in it, you're leaving your car on the road without you in it, and thus paramedics are going to have trouble finding your injured form and taking more time, which is going to block traffic more.
Also, yes. Sudden deacceleration without a seatbelt will send you outward, and there's a risk that your vehicle will continue to move and hit other folks.
Interfrat debate competition, was organizer last year so peeps in charge gave us free booze. Debates were terrible when peeps were trying to debate seriously, like lolicon threads on here level.
Also met a Romanian import student who is a brony of the hugbox variant. Whether one gives e-hugs or not is a litmus test of whether I will like a person or not.
Yesterday I went to a lecture/discussion with Silvia Federici.The main point of it was that housework, which is mostly done by women, is actually unpaid labor, and that it's in the interests of the capitalist class for it to stay that way and for women to remain oppressed, since the home and the family are the most important part of the production line of industrial capitalism because they are the "factory" of future labor power. So the state should give wages for housework. It's certainly an extremely interesting idea.
She also noted that Venezuela had recently introduced a pension for housewives which, while not the real thing, is certainly a step in the right direction. For all its faults, it gives me some hope for the current regime.
The more you put it off, the harder it will become. It will always suck no matter what your timing is.
yeah, that sounds like something that needs to be sorted out. Not sure how that could be done, exactly, but how it is right now doesn't sound good.
It sounds like it's as good as over already.
Back from vacation, hopefully no riots around here.
Also, it sounds like that relationship is pretty non-existent, hopefully we're wrong.