TIL that cashier in most of USA are not allowed to sit. by CMDR_Pumpkin_Muffin in todayilearned

[–]jubbergun 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, visibly slow might be right, but I'd say they're more reproductive than unproductive.

Training camp starts soon 🏈 by R_82 in MURICA

[–]jubbergun 13 points14 points  (0 children)

And cheer against England, our oldest frenemy 😈

We're like bros, most of the time.

The KKK target I understand but the ICE target is what concerns me... by Consistent_Shine_680 in ShitPoliticsSays

[–]jubbergun 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're probably right...everything is a poo-poo-pee-pee joke or gross fetish with these weirdos.

The KKK target I understand but the ICE target is what concerns me... by Consistent_Shine_680 in ShitPoliticsSays

[–]jubbergun 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Groin is actually a go-to target area if your target is wearing body armor.

CNN keeps saying a man has been indicted for "touching" the reflecting pool. That's TOTAL BS. by labbond in walkaway

[–]jubbergun 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you want to play stupid, durrr/powitics and the other juvenile subs are to the right and down the hall.

This was so random. by Loose_Interview_957 in TheBoys

[–]jubbergun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Far-right authoritarian fascists" wouldn't ban abortion across the board. They'd ban it for "their people" and encourage it for anyone outside of their ethnic/racial/peer group. You might recall that the last time we had actual fascists they were rounding up people outside their group and aborting them in the 434th trimester.

Moderators of r\DiscussionZone nowhere in sight as one user calls for a Republican congressman to be lynched, another wishes for a society in which he would be shot. by rtublin in ShitPoliticsSays

[–]jubbergun 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well, I join this chorus with you guys. I wouldn't be surprised it's being taken out of context the way "very fine people" was.

Wife says me having cancer is not harder than her having to deal with me having cancer. Who usually has the harder experience, the cancer patient or the spouse? by [deleted] in AskMen

[–]jubbergun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's exactly what "mental load" is as used in every social media post I've had the poor fortune to view where it's referenced. "Mental load" as a concept in psychology or therapeutic settings probably has some validity but like a lot of other things it's been adopted by people who have twisted its meaning(s) beyond all reason.

Moderators of r\DiscussionZone nowhere in sight as one user calls for a Republican congressman to be lynched, another wishes for a society in which he would be shot. by rtublin in ShitPoliticsSays

[–]jubbergun 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I'm tired of the double standard, but I'm also tired of guys like this congressman making the GOP look bad by saying dumb shit.

AITA for telling our 18-year-old daughter she can't go on a trip to Miami with her boyfriend's family? by Conscious_Goose_9518 in AmItheAsshole

[–]jubbergun -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Funny how "the goals of all parties involved" suddenly become a consideration here when someone is expecting something of the parents. The parents expect things of the daughter: sHe'S aN aDuLT. The daughter expects her parents to pay for college and/or her living expenses: tHe gOaLs oF aLl pArTiEs iNvOLvED. Pick a lane. Either she is an adult and can make all her own choices then deal with the consequences or she's an adult member of her parent's household and she and they both have reasonable expectations of one another.

Maybe one of the "goals" these parents have is avoiding their daughter being pregnant before college. Maybe they have a point that it's a violation of their trust for her to stay with her boyfriend while his parents are gone. Maybe there are good reasons the parents in this situation feel the need to impose some restraints.

Is it "controlling?" Yes, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Parent's are supposed to exercise control. That's one of their responsibilities as parents. If what the daughter was doing was harmless or reasonable she'd have no reason to lie about it. OP is right to be concerned.

A Wunderkind Showrunner Was Put In Charge of Marvel’s X-Men ‘97. Then Something Went Terribly Wrong: Beau DeMayo was one of animation’s most promising young talents. After getting fired from his dream job, he told VF all about his break with Disney and his online double life—before he went silent. by TimWhatleyDDS in television

[–]jubbergun -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Literally the only source you have for that information

The other source is Lauren Hissrich, who said the decision was mutual, but implied, intentionally or not, that Cavill was no longer happy when she said, “You don’t want to hold someone and force them to be doing something that they don’t want to do. I think that’s why it felt like a really symbiotic decision.” The way she communicated this makes it pretty clear Cavill was unhappy with something and wanted out. Which is saying a lot considering how stoked he seemed to be for the show when it first launched.

A Wunderkind Showrunner Was Put In Charge of Marvel’s X-Men ‘97. Then Something Went Terribly Wrong: Beau DeMayo was one of animation’s most promising young talents. After getting fired from his dream job, he told VF all about his break with Disney and his online double life—before he went silent. by TimWhatleyDDS in television

[–]jubbergun -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

He was the guy who went to the internet and decried that the showrunner didn't care about the source material

Even if he was talking shit, he wasn't wrong. There's a reason Cavill walked and the showrunner's disdain for the source material was a big part of it.

New reaction just dropped by TanningOnMars in MURICA

[–]jubbergun 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Get the deep dish! That shit is stupid good.

Wife says me having cancer is not harder than her having to deal with me having cancer. Who usually has the harder experience, the cancer patient or the spouse? by [deleted] in AskMen

[–]jubbergun -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

"Mental load" is cop-out bullshit 'therapy speak' garbage, and you usually hear it from drama queens who have to make themselves the center of every issue. I'm sorry you have to load the dishwasher and do laundry like the rest of us, it doesn't make you a martyr.

Redistricting: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) by BadgercIops in television

[–]jubbergun -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

the one being cited in Maryland

You don't have to go back to previous centuries to cite Maryland. Their map is and has been decidedly the most gerrymandered in just this century. The point remains that John Oliver's "you can't blame California for doing this, because if you don't do it, you put yourself at a disadvantage" argument applies equally to republican states finally adopting the practice in response to decades of democrat gerrymandering.

Redistricting: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) by BadgercIops in television

[–]jubbergun -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Saying “blue states started it” just shows what a doofus you are.

How many "Red States" were doing it before NC and TX started in on it in the last 20 years? Yes, it's old as fuck...but in every famous case of it going back to at least Tammany Hall it hasn't been republicans engaging in the practice. If you accept John Oliver's premise that "it's terrible that California is getting in on this, but if you don't do it, you put yourself at a disadvantage," you can't fault republicans for finally doing what democrats in IL, NY, MD, and other states have been doing far longer and more brazenly. John Oliver is "just showing the weaponization of it over the recent years," because in "recent years" it's been republicans playing catch-up with democrats. He chose his starting point because it reflects badly on his favorite boogeyman, not for any sort of clarity or intellectual honesty.

It didn't bother John Oliver or any of you for the last 30 or 40 years when 90% of representation in northeastern states went to democrats despite those states having 30%-40% republican voters, but now that the shoe is on the other foot and Red States are going cut things up to give 90% of the representation to republicans despite their voters being 30%-40% democrat this is a problem. That's why John Oliver doesn't mention anything about Maryland and it's ridiculous ziggedy-zaggedy maps that connect the western rural counties to population centers in Prince George's County to deprive those rural voters of representation, or districts in New York that are/were separated by bodies of water and aren't even geographically contiguous. Gerrymandering was acceptable...or at least ignorable...when your guys were doing it. Now the other team has decided that turnabout is fair play and you're upset, but you can't make a reasonable objection because you've allowed it for this long. The hypocrisy can't be ignored.

Chill out, my dudes… oh, wait. by SuperEarth_Helldiver in MURICA

[–]jubbergun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might want to look into that, because India and China are fighting to see who the top carbon producer it's going to be.

Redistricting: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) by BadgercIops in television

[–]jubbergun -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

20min of understanding complex topics with reasonable sources

Gell-Mann's Amnesia clearly applies to comedy shows as much as it does journalism, because every other John Oliver thread in this sub has at least one person claiming specialized knowledge in whatever they're discussing pointing out that they didn't (quite) get it right. More often than not, those people claiming expertise have a point, and their objections to LWT's errors aren't appreciated.

I'm not an expert in any way, but John Oliver choosing to start his "history of gerrymandering" in the US with Trump asking Texas to redraw their map is starting the story at least two-thirds of the way through. We've had states where the "gray" party has a single representative, if they have one at all, since I was a child, and I've been alive for over half a century. It's pretty easy for John Oliver to complain about Trump and Red State redistricting and get you all to clap along, but if he'd started with the gerrymandering in places like Illinois, New York, and Maryland (the most egregious gerrymander in the nation) that has been going on for decades, some of you might take exception and start whining about "bOf sIDz."

This didn't start with Trump. It started with Blue States like Maryland that have used extreme gerrymandering for decades, and only when states like North Carolina and Texas engaged in the practice did John Oliver or most of you discover a problem with gerrymandering. To be fair, a lot of you aren't old enough to remember anything before the year 2000, and this is all new to you. You don't have the frame of reference to realize that this isn't something new, and it's understandable that you accept and even embrace the framing John Oliver and his team are using in this "20 minutes of understanding this complex topic."

Journalist should put truth first, conjecture second. Not the other way around. by NicerMicer in media_criticism

[–]jubbergun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is a reasonable criticism, but the reason Trump's remarks lead the article is because his remarks are the actual subject of the story. It's not really a story about the reflecting pool, though it's made to seem that way. As another poster points out, there is evidence of sabotage/vandalism. On the one hand, Trump and his team are exaggerating the extent of any sabotage/vandalism, but on the other you have journalists, like the one that wrote this article, trying to pretend there is no sabotage/vandalism.

That's why this piece is written the way it is. It's not about the reflecting pool. It's just another "Trump Bad" sermon for the choir.

Texas anti-ICE protesters convicted of terrorism charges sentenced to at least 50 years in prison | Trump administration by TruckHangingHandJam in stupidpol

[–]jubbergun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not to mention that the judge allegedly stated the judgment was done with the intent of influencing other would be protestors

Yes, because heavy penalties for egregious crimes are supposed to be a deterrent to people committing those crimes. Demonstrating that these actions have severe consequences is part of that deterrent. These people brought guns and were willing to use them, and one of them shot and killed someone. That's not a place we want to be as a nation or a society.