What, to you, constitutes “shitty”? I’m seeing people giving feedback on their question. The person you specifically responded to and called shitty and self centered just told OP their motivations were childish and their father was pretty reasonable in his request, given the circumstances.

So no, not as shitty as you want just because they asked, but “not being an echo chamber” isn’t shitty.

So yes, I have the gall.

I mean, they literally asked how people felt about skipping their father’s funeral for the given reasons.
If their reasons are childish and disrespectful you can’t really get mad at people for sharing that.

Sure. But also: planning a funeral and communicating your funeral wishes is also for the living, which the father is. and respecting the deceased by honoring their wishes is also for the living, since it’s how we help solidify the norm that we respect people’s final wishes.

Demanding they do it your way is shitty and self centered.

Yeah, how dare that fucking asshole ask his son to attend his funeral just because he cares about “family” or something. It’s like he doesn’t understand that his sisters might ask some slightly uncomfortable questions or gossip!

You’re right that funerals are for the living. They’re a place for the living to grieve, mourn and honor the deceased. Acting like it’s shitty or self centered for someone to express an opinion about their funeral or what’s important to them is honestly disgusting.
The man isn’t asking his son to deal with someone who traumatized him, or violated him in some way: he just doesn’t like the aunts. That’s like refusing to attend the funeral because you just really hate waking up early if you don’t have to.

Feel free. There’s nothing stopping you.

The reason it’s not feasible is because most human activity happens during the daylight hours. As such, having the unit of a “day” cover what’s typically a day makes things easier.
For example, banks , businesses and schools need to have a unified schedule across a jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction specifies a utc offset that defines the official business day you just have a less coordinated timezone system.
You also make knowing roughly what part of the waking cycle other parts of the world are in much harder. Right now it’s 0100 in utc-5. So it’s 0800 in utc+2, and people are eating breakfast, at work, getting kids to school and so on. If I want to know that without timezones I need to know where they are on the planet and what the relevant legal jurisdiction has mandated as coordinated business time. That’s effectively just a worse version of timezones.

The human conception of time is intrinsically linked to spatial location. Fighting that is just making it hard for no reason. What we need to do is stop fiddling with the time. No more (major) clock adjustments. Daylight savings only sucks because of the switch , so we should just pick one and stay.

To make the trade? Not actually that long. Planning and evaluating take longer, but he’s inevitably not the one pushing the buttons or making the plan, which is also not something that needs to be done for each one.

It takes me longer to move money between my checking and savings accounts.

The concerning thing isn’t the time investment, it’s the active nature of financial involvement in a situation where there’s a major conflict of interest.
Stock trading isn’t automatically problematic for an elected official, but it’s very easy to produce the appearance or actuality of improper conduct.
The safest route is to turn control over to a third party who doesn’t know who they’re managing.

It’s because I live and work with Muslims. Turns out there are as many of them who hold values I agree with as there are Christians or Jews.

The biggest difference I see is which groups get hate. I don’t see the need to defend Christianity because there’s no pervasive disparagement or hostility.
I occasionally defend Judaism because I occasionally encounter disparaging language or people who conflate the nation of Israel with either the ethnic group or the religion.

A lot of people make comments about how they’re not islamaphobic, but it just so happens to be that reality perfectly reflects their prejudiced beliefs.
Kinda like the people who aren’t mysoginists or anything, but have found that, coincidentally, the ideal and natural gender roles and power dynamics between the sexes perfectly mirrors the media representation of the 1950s.

As much as I think we should look to Europe for running a society, race and religious tolerance are not one of those subjects in which I defer to them.

Do you actually think it’s unexpected that people who are never fully allowed to integrate into society for some reason don’t fully integrate into society? That laws that make it specifically difficult for them to coexist might result in them … Not coexisting as well?

If it’s the content of their texts that’s causing you a concern, have I got news for you about every fucking religion.

Conservatives seem to oscillate between isolationism and aggressive intervention. They’re both from the stance of American primacy, either using our military for our benefit and to enforce our wishes or saying the world has nothing to offer us we need and that we’re better off not extending effort or energy on the rest of the world.

Currently our conservatives are swinging towards isolationism, which is why the anti immigration rhetoric and pulling out of international organizations was very popular. That’s not compatible with a plan to forcibly annex another country.

I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m saying that the people who are saying that they’ve lost all faith in Americans because we haven’t full actualized a revolution in less than a year are being shitty for no good reason. Armchair revolutionaries who think that it should be done now because it’s supposed to be as simple as “organize, kick them out, make a new government and they all just say shucks while we arrest them”.

As you said, people are getting organized. But to some people outside the US, that’s not enough and we should be done deposing the government by now. That’s what I’m saying is unreasonable.

Based on the finish dude in your icon and finish instance name, I’m assuming you’re in Finland.
Organization takes longer here than it would there based purely on population. I’m in an average sized state. Our population is twice that of Finland. The state is about the same size as the country.
Even if we were all on board even for a strike, it’s still gonna take longer than so many people seem to expect us to be able to do it in.

Alright. How do I make that happen? I’m assuming since you’re answering so confidently that you actually have an answer and have done something like this before.
You certainly couldn’t just be another armchair revolutionary who handwaved the entire “plan a nationwide general strike and risk execution for insurrection” based purely on what you think sounds straightforward, right?

Most revolutions have outside partisans who come and lend a hand. Why don’t you come over and do that?

Maybe it’s a bit trickier to organize hundreds of millions of people to have at least passive support for something and interrupt the social momentum of hundreds of years of uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power than can be accomplished in less than a year and being shitty towards the people who are upset and don’t know what to do is just … Being shitty.

Yes, that’s what I’m asking for the details of how you do it. I don’t know how to do a revolution. My assumption is that the people who confidently and definitely know that we’re doing it wrong must have some idea how to do it right.

So again, how do I overthrow the US government?

You people dicked around so long

“So long”? What’s your threshold for a reasonable timeline for a revolution to start? he hasn’t even been in office a full year.

Walk me through your plan to depose the American government in less than a year. Don’t forget that if you fail or are caught planning they don’t just kill you, they kill you by injecting you with poison that feels like being set on fire from the inside while you suffocate, take everything you or your family possess leaving your survivors homeless and destitute, shoot your dog and probably a couple of family members too.

Like, if you’ve lost all faith we’ll “do what needs to be done”… What needs to be done?

It’s slightly more complicated than that. Still doesn’t make him look good but it’s more nuanced.

He was a Nazi and flagrant racist before Nazi was the unequivocally negative descriptor we think of it as today.
He thought Nazism was right for America the same way he thought square dancing would keep away the blacks and that the Jews would be undercut if he did car financing without banks.

He was awful and a patriot, so when Germany went to war with America he was unequivocally in favor of destroying the Germans.
He still agreed with them on everything else.

To be completely fair, rising rates of measles prior to 2024 or even 2016 and the general increase in antivaxer sentiment for decades has nothing to do with rfks death by measles being a win for society.

It’s entirely unsurprising, considering people voted for a person who said they were going to put an antivaxer in charge of stopping communicable disease.

It would be a net positive for society if rfk died of measles.

Yeah, but then he’s just … Down there. Poor lake doesn’t deserve that.

You’re currently connected to your neighbors that intimately. Chances are a good chunk of your neighbors are on the same ISP as you.
What disconnect do you think a non-local ISP is providing that a local one wouldn’t?

Well, they didn’t specifically feel concern for them electing a despot. They were concerned simply that they might pick wrong from the viewpoint of those with political power at the time. They weren’t specifically afraid of a despot or demagogue, but someone who would either threaten the political elites wellbeing, or loosing support from the “less populous” slave states. A system that gives disproportionate weight to smaller states to buy their support while also giving themselves more influence over a check on the legislature and one of the branches of power is what they went with.

They weren’t afraid of Trump, they were concerned about Lincoln.

It actually largely has. It both reduced the numbers of people who needed to ride horses around to figure out the winner, and it helped keep power consolidated with the powerful.

A good chunk of our early democratic institutions were designed with a lot of influence by people who didn’t entirely trust their constituency and wanted to keep things from being too democratic. So you have several options for elected officials to disregard voters in most matters, and the president has the power to say “nah” to legislation.

This is for the primary. This means that people can vote for a more progressive candidate as their first choice and have their second choice be for the “safe” candidate.

The winner of the Democratic presidential primary is almost certainly always going to be a Democrat. There’s almost nothing you can do to change that.

Beyond that, they can do multiple things so doing w good thing doesn’t mean they didn’t do something else.
How do you propose they fix gerrymandering, a state level issue affecting the election of representatives, or citizens United, a supreme Court ruling, via the procedural rules of the party presidential primary? It’s like saying there’s no point brushing your teeth if you have credit card debt.

It’s super annoying, because that term should belong to “if you’ve got an hour we can grab coffee and I’ll explain my politics to you. You don’t? Uhh … ‘rather to the left’?”, and not “I’m fine with the gays and poors, but I don’t know if I’m comfortable with the government helping or protecting them”.