Lurker > lolife67

I don't get the oddity here.

All it takes to never go on a date:

- not being asked out on a date.

- not knowing how to identify anyone interested in dating you or how to actually ask them out in a date.

It's very simple. The combo of not physically standing out and lacking social logistics just works like that.

I do believe its possible to get people to change their positions and points of views on pretty much anything through a steady dialogue.

I think ideally thats how you rid the world of the issues that plague it, through education and a willingness to engage in discussion.

Yep. Like with just gay rights alone, back when I would first debate whether it's right or wrong (Mid/Late 2000s-Early 2010s), I did calmly explain that various arguments don't hold up due to double standards in terms of what we do permit within society.

And the anti-gay people don't even consider the points, just react with "Still wrong".

Also going to lay this out. Trump winning the White House in 2016 is cause of trying to be nice to the bigots.

Back then even with some of the support for him, some of us felt that in the end that he would never win the election given how bad he is.

But then he still got cheered on even when saying that there are good people on both sides (other side being white supremists).

And for all claims of concern that gay people are predators, Trump jokes in public he'd do.... I mean date his daughter if they weren't related and the crowd yucks it up rather than heckling him and treating him as a spectacle.

I definitely think that alot of people who are transphobic wouldnt be if someone would just have a polite and steady dialogue with them.

He's friends and associates with some of the MMA world's more outspoken transphobes. He won't be able to speak candidly on this.

Bro, you gotta choose a different topic. Its not safe for either of us to go in that direction regardless of our intent fandom just released that statement and all.

What?

I certainly use to believe that. Then Trump took office.

It might be on our side. Thats true, but like, Im not really willing to let them take office again in the meantime. It makes sense just to try and appeal to those swing voters and attempt to dent their political power by influencing their current userbase to ease closer and closer to the the middle

I think we should actively campaign to try and get them to swing over. That involves being able to put the shoe on the other foot sotospeak, and try to understand their side of the issue. Thats the dialogue we need, and thats where the nuance lies. Figure out the nuance, and swing them over.

The topic title, of course.

Jefferson Davis and his cabinet were not hanged or imprisoned for being part of a rebellion. Republicans should face ballot removal for supporting an insurrection but Trump and allies faced no recorse.

But how do you convince the folks currently sided against it to suddenly make that change and jump over the line?

We ignore them? Just hope the younger generation advancing into voting age gives democracts the numbers necessary to not have to worry about swing voters?

But then how do you keep them out of power? We have elections and we have to win the vote. But if draw the line and refuse to let them cross over, but the other side doesnt comply and they start working to encourage people hop over the line

So whats the solution?

I dunno why this is so frowned upon, and the only answer anyone seems to have for this question is just to repeat "both sides."

Regarding the US civil war in particular, the main problem is that after the war, there was way too much meaningless talk, and way too little actual reconstruction. In fact, the Union won the war and lost the peace.

That loss was because too few in the rest of the country had the stomach to do what would have been necessary to prevent resentful ex-Confederates from instituting Jim Crow after the end of military occupation.

You still need to talk even after the war is over, or else stuff isnt going to take.

You dont just have a war, win, and then everything changes at the drop of a dime.

The war was started via a dialogue, and the end of the war was resolved via a dialogue and how the country moved forward from that point on required a lot of dialogue.

Besides in this day and age do we really prefer war over diplomacy?

We were able to conquer those issues by having that dialogue. In all if those cases, being able to communicate with the entirety of the human race allowed us to gain enough support to fix those issues, or at least get in the right path to fixing those atrocities.

If one side just completely insulted and harassed the other without making any real attempt to legitimately show them the error of their ways, then change wouldnt have happened, or at least not at rate that it did.

You dont want to motivate the opposition to just dig in their heels.

Weird poll option, considering I order my steak medium rare and my burgers medium.

"They can't censor me for my conservative views if I refuse to elaborate on my conservative views."
*gets banned*
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/de344e59.jpg

It may not be true in this case, but overall, gatekeepers are a great preservative for quality.

I've read new mutents 98 and I don't remember him being anything more than a generic bad guy merc in that. It was later that he started actually being unquie.

Well, at least one out of three got the joke. Which is better-than-average for CE.

Yeah, I can see him. He's standing right next to Sue Storm.

Yeah but at least it would narrow it down. I was trying to say that the people with "baggage" (using that in quotes because I don't think that every divorced parent is bad) should find each other instead of having a true single settle for them. Although if you're saying that people will just lie about being NMNK, yeah that's probably true

Who doesn't want their potential S/O to be mature, smart, careered, financially stable, has their own crib, to be good looking

https://twitter.com/LevAkabas/status/1780332508795539600

She's arguably one of the biggest stars in American sports right now.

Well when you tell people that you don't play western rpgs and D&D like games, its easy to imagine why people would tell you to not buy a western rpg based on D&D lol

It's actively downplaying looks.

If they hired someone average to be the model for an average-looking character, that's passive. They hired someone for a role and that's the end of it. But if they hire an attractive person, and they make her average-looking, they're actively striping away that beauty to show that they only care about the person underneath.

It's like ordering at Starbucks. You could order the Caramel Macchiato with soy milk or you could order "a vegan Caramel Macchiato" so that everyone within earshot knows you're vegan.

The model isn't usually the actress

If they want an average-looking character, they should hire an average-looking model, not virtue signal over how they made an attractive woman less attractive.

I was out of the country back in 2015 when someone told me that Trump was running for president and had a serious chance of winning. My words to the person who told me that were, "when Trump's tax returns come out, he'll be out of the race immediately." I definitely did not take it seriously. Surely the country wouldn't elect the posterboy for the stereotypical slimy 80s grifter.

He's so obviously a self-interested con-man. It speaks volumes about the state of the american public that we're unable to identify bad actors as transparent as Trump. We have an alarming lack of media literacy and critical thinking, and Trump's political success is a reflection of that.

She gets redesigned every time TMNT is rebooted. She is sometimes a child. And that's what some people get mad about. Because some of us remember her as an adult woman who works as a reporter. Not a little girl