ristoril_zip
The question was “what term annoys you” not “what term annoys you that you’re sure Lemmy will approve of” (or that a malignant narcissist billionaire isn’t also annoyed by).
I’m open to an explanation of a commonplace situation where it’s necessary to have a separate word for “is of the gender that matches that assigned at birth.”
To me it’s like if I say I enjoyed the sunrise" and someone says, “you mean the Earth sunrise?”
I mean yeah, sunrises happen all over the solar system, there are different kinds of sunrises, probably all beautiful in their own ways, but in general the default “sunrise” a human is likely to be talking about is the one we experience on Earth.
“cis” I feel like it’s an extra term for “straight”. The “default” for lack of a better term (and one that isn’t othering) is near the not trans & not gay part of the gender / sexuality spectra. To me everyone in that zone is “straight” (boring/default/whatever).
“begs the question” because people exclusively use it wrong. Just say “leads to the question” or “poses the question.”
And I’m still really salty about everyone giving up on the term “literally” to allow it to mean its exact opposite.
Do you have evidence to support your first sentence? Jon Stewart influenced the shit out of Congress to pass the PACT Act nowhere near Election Day.
Individual voters are never going to have influence on candidates for office with hundred of thousands of constituents (Wyoming’s “at large” Congressman represents around 450,000).
Influence groups, on the other hand, can work for long periods of time to build relationships with elected officials and other groups and media to put show, continuous pressure on. Jon Stewart’s work is a case in point.
Cohesive, identifiable, visible groups of voters, as well, can exert pressure. Such as the “uncommitted” campaign in Michigan. But only because they were cohesive and identifiable and made themselves visible.
Me skipping a vote for Harris (or Trump) tells that candidate nothing about why I didn’t vote for them. Maybe polling data could.
Yeah, people who love meditation and try to get others to do it kind of forget that whatever transcendence they’ve experienced is fundamentally rooted in becoming more attumed to themselves.
Which is actually pretty much the definition of irony, I think?
Heck I think “you’ll love & understand yourself more” is probably a better selling point than “you’ll experience a higher level of being.” I think I can understand the former, but the latter is just incomprehensive.
Be tolerant of yourself. Acknowledge your fidgeting and wandering thoughts. If you try to fight who you are, you’re not meditating. Notice the fidget, do your best to quiet it, then get back to meditating. Same with random thoughts.
And sometimes it’s just not the right time to meditate. Try again later under different circumstances.
What on earth are you talking about occupying Syria?
Edit: they’re misconstruing the 32-country military coalition that’s been trying to degrade Da’esh since 2014 as the US military by itself occupying sovereign territory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_the_Islamic_State
Some may remember the breathless daily & weekly map updates on the news showing areas controlled by Da’esh changing. Might remember the coalition partnering with various groups of differing militancy & reliability. I think including us (the coalition) fucking over Iraqi Kurds…? I believe because Syria hated them? Or loved them?
So, y’know, absolutely nothing like Russia’s completely unprovoked, unilateral decision to invade Ukraine because Putin was afraid of Ukraine getting too chummy with NATO countries, possibility even considering joining NATO.
If the point of supporting Ukraine is to support the international order of respecting borders, then an absolutist interpretation would mean you stop at your border when repelling invaders.
On the other hand, that would certainly result in invaders loading up on personnel and materiel on their side of the border until they reached some critical mass for a re invasion.
A lot of people might not remember the first Gulf War where the international community defending Kuwait stopped at the Iraq border. I think it could be argued that was a mistake on multiple levels, even ignoring everything we know that came after.