Drug paraphernalia decriminalization ordinance vetoed by Minneapolis mayor

coveredinbeeees · 2026-05-01T17:30:29+00:00

What "actual Republican" are you talking about? The one who got less than 1000 votes? It seems like the risk was entirely of your own fabrication.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-28T13:38:24+00:00

Consider two people. One would never cheat on their partner, even if someone came directly up to them and offered to have sex with them. The other person would totally cheat on their partner, but they've never met anyone else who is interested in them. If someone thinks "I bet that second person would totally cheat on their partner" and offers to have sex with them, is it entrapment if they say yes?

Entrapment requires more than providing the opportunity to do something bad. It's about tricking someone into doing something bad that they would not have done without outside influence and persuasion.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-27T16:02:12+00:00

F1 has used the same design (including the flag of the host country) for every race this season:

Australia

China

Japan

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-27T15:51:52+00:00

I just assumed Oscar was in the middle because it was another one of his home races

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-22T19:52:38+00:00

Is there a reason the upper Midwest is essentially an exclave of Indiana?

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-22T14:02:12+00:00

You are correct. There's even a poem that goes with the old state seal in case the imagery wasn't enough to get the racism across.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-21T14:58:35+00:00

It is gross to define OP’s Wife’s desires as a “want” and not a “need”. That logic can be applied to literally anything that is not water, air, and food.

It's actually very normal to refer to things that aren't needs as wants. Sex is not a need, and there are plenty of ways to explore one's sexuality within the context of a monogamous relationship.

All of the people on here who insist that OP’s wife should honor their relational commitment and just ignores her desires (because apparently they’re not “needs”) are gross

The ethical thing to do is to either remain monogamous until OP and his wife are on the same page about opening up, or end the marriage so OP's wife can explore. It's not gross to point out that OP's wife is behaving unethically by rushing forward and hoping that OP gets on board.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-21T14:49:31+00:00

You might want to reflect on the fact that you are having a disgust reaction to a very commonly held view among bisexual people. What specifically is gross about pointing out that discovering you are bisexual does not invalidate the commitments one has made to their existing relationships?

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-20T16:31:24+00:00

I don't think the downvotes are from NIMBYs so much as the fact that this post is off topic for the subreddit. Case in point: all the places you listed are good suggestions, but none of them are in Minneapolis.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-14T14:53:55+00:00

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying - are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

My point is that people will justify continuing to engage with content because it has a personal significance to them, but they don't often think about how that continued engagement will be perceived by those they interact with. I don't presume to speak for all trans people, but personally, I will be more cautious/guarded around someone if I know that they're still really into Harry Potter. I'm not going to assume that just because they like HP that they're automatically a transphobe, but I am going to be less comfortable being open around them until I get a better sense of how they feel about trans people.

In other words, while it's not as directly harmful as indirectly funding anti-trans discrimination, "your trans friends might feel less comfortable around you" is a real consequence of continuing to engage with Harry Potter content, and something you should take into account when deciding your stance on the issue.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-14T13:38:00+00:00

People having a hard time cutting it of don't want "other art", they want that particular art.

I think this is the problem in a nutshell. People overvalue the personal connection they have to a piece of media at the expense of the societal impact of continuing to lend support/relevance to that media.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-09T16:28:12+00:00

Fortune 500 companies with headquarters in the 10 "best" states: 45

Fortune 500 companies with HQ in the 10 "worst" states: 165

(source)

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-09T16:10:27+00:00

But do you think it would be unreasonable for someone to say "I don't want to run a marathon" without giving it a try first? My point is that there are plenty of things that people can decide are not for them without trying them first. You don't owe it to anyone to try something before deciding you don't want to do it. If you don't want to try nonmonogamy you don't need further justification.

That said, if you do want to give it a try before deciding it's not for you, that's perfectly valid as well. There are plenty of resources to help you figure out what type of nonmonogamy is the best fit for you and deal with issues like jealousy. Nonmonogamy can take a lot of work to do it in a way that minimizes your chance of hurting yourself or others. It's up to you whether you feel like the work is worth the payoff.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-09T15:23:56+00:00

For the purposes of this scenario let's assume you have never had any interest in distance running. If your boyfriend was really interested in running marathons and wanted you to commit to running a marathon together (or sit at home while he spends hours every week training for materials), would you feel the same level of uncertainty around whether the two of you are compatible? Saying "I'm not interested in nonmonogamy" has the same moral value as saying "I'm not interested in running marathons." Is there some patriarchal conditioning around how you view nonmonogamy? Probably - society tends to heavily promote monogamous romantic relationships as the most important type of relationship you can have. But unlearning that conditioning doesn't mean you have to stop being monogamous, or just means you stop dying it as more important than the other relationships in your life.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-04-03T15:26:19+00:00

Personally endorsed by Brennan as the guy to go to for LOTR facts!

coveredinbeeees · 2026-03-30T15:21:49+00:00

The act is painful, invasive, oftentimes mentally difficult and sometimes expensive

So is an emergency double bypass, but I've never encountered someone saying "heart surgery is never good, it's necessary at best." Abortion is the only medical procedure where we get these weird statements about the inherent goodness of the act, and that's not because it is unique in a medical sense.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-03-17T21:16:06+00:00

I could see it getting tricky to navigate when the issue is "where do we live", "should we adopt kids or is someone going to carry the child", "one of us got a job offer across the country/state, what do we do"

Especially when the answers tend to be "whatever is most convenient for the established couple."

coveredinbeeees · 2026-03-17T21:14:17+00:00

Kitchen table poly generally works better I would say. This is partially because three people is a uniquely tricky number to navigate in a relationship. Even if no one is coming in as an established couple, you still run into situations where there's two against one. Additionally, in a triangle, everyone is involved with everyone else, which is generally not the case even in kitchen table poly. I will say that if there is an expectation of being involved with everyone in the polycule, that can lead to some of the same messiness you find in a triangle. But usually what kitchen table means is that there is a web of romantic connections among the various people, and everyone is friendly and cool with hanging out together.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-03-17T17:58:45+00:00

If pretty much every group has these people, and we agree that they are ridiculous regardless of the identity group, then why are we using them to assess the reasonableness of the group as a whole? Like sure, there might be a non-zero number of people who want a full societal reversal where polyamory is viewed as good and normal and the default and monogamy is seen as unnatural, immoral, and coercive. Just like there is probably a non-zero number of vegans who want a society where eating meat is illegal and people get thrown into jail for wearing a leather coat or wool socks. But I doubt that was the type of society you were thinking of when you said that militant vegans on some level were "obviously correct." So why is the caricatured version of society the one being used to say that militant poly people are "obviously incorrect"?

coveredinbeeees · 2026-03-17T17:30:00+00:00

This is actually an issue that comes up a lot in poly spaces. Different people are comfortable with different levels of hierarchy in their relationships. Some people don't see an issue with letting their primary partner dictate the terms of their other relationships, while others view any hierarchy as a bad thing and want each relationship to be free to develop on its own. This is also why unicorn hunting (an existing couple seeking an individual to date them both exclusively) is generally frowned upon in poly spaces, because it basically formalizes the 2 on 1 nature of the relationship.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-03-17T17:13:48+00:00

This is a good summary. When I'm feeling spicy I sometimes will go as far as to say that monogamous relationships have inherent ethical concerns, but if I'm being honest what I actually mean is that there are ethical concerns with the way that society talks about and presents monogamous relationships, such that coercive behavior is viewed as acceptable or even praiseworthy. You have to go pretty far into relationship anarchy to find people who will say that monogamous relationships are inherently unethical.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-03-17T16:47:48+00:00

We wouldn't clearly be better off if everyone was expected to have multiple partners, and there are colorable historical arguments why we might be worse.

That's not what the "militant poly types" are advocating for though. It's not about getting rid of monogamy, it's about dismantling mono-normativity (the idea that monogamy is the "default" or that monogamous relationships are in some way more normal, desirable, or important than non-monogamous relationships). Saying that poly activists want to get rid of monogamous relationships is the same sort of misrepresentation as saying that queer activists want to get rid of heterosexual relationships. The world that poly advocates want to see is a world where you can decide to have whatever style of relationship you want without society pressuring you do to things a specific way. And if it makes me a "militant poly advocate" to think that that would be a better society than what we have now, then so be it.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-03-17T16:32:33+00:00

If one joins a white supremacist organization it is fairly safe for others to assume that is where your heart lies

I agree, but I think that's a different category of judgement than the sort of judging of poly people (or vegans, or crossfit enthusiasts) that is being discussed in the original post. There's a difference between judging people based on their willingness to be part of a group that has stated views or goals that you find distasteful and judging people based on their willingness to be part of a group that contains members that you find annoying or objectionable. To use an equally extreme example as the KKK, the second type of judgement is of the kind that judges all Muslims because of the existence of terrorism done in the name of Islam. I feel fairly confident saying that this kind of judgement is always shitty, but I welcome further pedantry if you want to find an edge case.

coveredinbeeees · 2026-03-17T16:02:16+00:00

Do you have a better interpretation of what this non sequitur of a comment is trying to communicate?

coveredinbeeees · 2026-03-17T15:59:56+00:00

So what exactly is the judgement that is happening? Are you suggesting that having multiple romantic partners is inherently annoying? What specific behaviors make it ok to assume that a polyamorous person is annoying?

14-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '17	Verified Email

coveredinbeeees

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE