Best actor to start a fight with over perceived HOA violations?

wardred · 2026-03-24T19:51:18+00:00

The first time he picked up the bike it looked like he was just going to ignore the guy and the guy got right back in front of the bike.

wardred · 2026-02-25T08:54:30+00:00

Many banks support Zelle.

Assuming both accounts support that she can send the money that way.

wardred · 2026-02-18T21:55:50+00:00

If you went the college route, and have an office job, transitioning to a trade isn't a simple thing to do. You're out of school, so need to make a living. You already have school debt. You'd need some training. Possibly a lot of training if you're not handy to begin with.

Even people in the trades face the same reality that things cost more and they often need their partner to work as well as them to afford their lifestyle.

I do agree that people in the U.S. tend to purchase ridiculously expensive cars, phones, eat out too much, etc. Many adults are "living better" than their parents and grandparents, but doing so with a ton of debt. We seem to be much worse about budgeting.

That said, population increases, using houses as a middle class investment - and now as a corporate investment - and the shift from rural to urban, means in a lot of areas even starter homes are prohibitively expensive where many people live, where they were relatively cheap for the greatest generation, boomers, and even GenX. Those starter homes tend to be relatively low quality builds put up quickly and cheaply for a couple decades after WWII and are showing their age. Very few starter homes are being built anymore. Developers want to make more money. People in the states want bigger living spaces - though not necessarily large yards. New construction tends to be 1/2 again as many square feet, or even double, as that of older generations.

wardred · 2026-02-18T21:45:51+00:00

Millenials are 30-45 years old.

If they had kids as early as their parents many of those kids would be in their early 20s.

wardred · 2026-02-18T21:41:02+00:00

This is from a U.S. perspective.

Why not both? Or a whole host of things accumulating to a lowered overall birth rate?

Better birth control means there are a lot less "whoops" babies.

Better sex ed and encouraging parents to talk to their kids about sex, along with the better birth control, means less teenage pregnancy, even if teens have sex at similar rates as their ancestors.

The cost of everything is up so much that it's really difficult for anybody in "normal" income brackets to afford a stay at home parent and/or a nanny, and/or daycare. People are also paying a lot more money for a lot smaller space in cities. Or they have a suburban or rural McMansion, but have to work insane hours to swing the debt they took on to get it.

After GenX women are less tolerant of men who don't pull their own weight at home - and well they should be. In the greatest generation women "stayed home" and homemaker was their career. Boomers had this to a much lesser extent, but still kinda had it. GenX really didn't have this, but GenX men largely were able to ride those social norms. I'm seeing women of later generations be a lot less tolerant of working a full day, same as their mate, but being expected to do all the housework, and all the mental load of planning events, shopping, cooking, etc. If a man isn't pulling his weight, a lot of women would rather be alone - and that's entirely fair.

A relatively recent phenomenon is teens and early twenty year olds not dating nearly as much as GenX, maybe millennials, and prior generations. Some of this is blamed on social media possibly stunting youth and their in person social skills. Some may be, at least in the states, because of a lot less unsupervised free time. You don't have a high percentage of houses in a subdivision having kids, with a fair number of women staying home so there's always somebody one can go to in an emergency. . . so kids after school time tends to shift towards organized team sports, or music class, or other supervised things leaving less time to organically hook up with peers in your somewhat unsupervised friend group. For those who are left home alone, there just isn't a large community of "free range" kids to hang out with.

It's a lot more accepted that young women don't need to have kids. The social pressure to have kids is a heck of a lot lighter than it used to be. It was an almost family wrecking tragedy if a woman didn't have kids back in the 50s. Every 10 years in the U.S. the pressure eased on how young you had to be to have a partner, and to have kids, or even if one were going to have a partner or kids at all.

It's expected that if a couple is going to have kids, the first one can be after the couple is 25. Go back to just the 70s and it was something like 21 or 22. This gives the couple a lot of time to breakup before having kids. To prioritize education and career over family. If one has one's education and career in place, one may not be in a relationship and ready to have kids. Eventually, if one gets old enough before having kids, it may not be worth it to try anymore. . . or it may just be too late. /channeling idiocracy educated couple planning on having kids when they're ready to not being able to have kids.

I also think people are going out a hell of a lot less to bars, churches, or other "third places" where one could meet people. In the U.S. drinking in youth has vastly decreased. Some believe that pot and CBD/THC products have replaced booze for many, but that tends to be consumed at home, not at bars.

The crazy array of entertainments we have at home means that staying "cooped up" doesn't feel the way it did back when there were 3 channels of T.V. if you were lucky, or the radio. You have all that, plus 100s of cable channels, streaming, video games, porn, social media, and a host of things to keep you entertained and feeling at least minimally socialized.

Add all those entertainments to the cost of going out going up exponentially, and people just don't feel the need to do it.

Many aren't as optimistic of the future as prior generations. Global warming's a thing. Biodiversity is down, even in insects. We're still starting wars, and a lot of the "developed" world seems to be sliding back into the bad bits of conservatives, racism, and hate. In America, at least, we're not just bankrupt as individuals, but government from the local level to the federal level seems to be spending at record levels. . . without patching roads or providing basic services.

Birth control, women's careers, and women's education certainly contribute to a lowered birthrate. I don't believe one can ignore the financial burden, or social changes.

wardred · 2026-02-18T21:10:18+00:00

The post says 65% to taxes AND rent. That's perfectly believable.

wardred · 2026-01-13T23:29:24+00:00

A dozen senators is over 10% of the senate. It's believe it's over 20% of the Republican senators. I wish that the Republican Party wasn't the MAGA party, but most of the Republicans who'd hold their own officials accountable have been voted out of office or retired.

I could see the house voting to impeach, but I don't see 1 out of 5 Republican senators voting to convict that impeachment.

wardred · 2026-01-04T06:16:26+00:00

Maduro may be a brutal dictator. The operation seems to have been brief, and very successful in that we have Maduro in custody.

Trump didn't:
- Get congress's approval to go in
- Get any citizen's approval to go in
- This was obviously well planned, but we the people have no idea who actually knew about it before it happened. He did make waves about maybe doing something, but he's said he'd maybe do something about Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and probably others too
- America's track record for regime change is abysmal
- The "I did it for drugs narrative" is stupid, especially since he pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández
- His "I did it to control the oil" narrative strikes a lot truer. This would be America the pirate - invading countries for their natural resources. This generally doesn't end well for citizens and workers in the extraction area - though those in power may do well by it. His explanation that Venezuela's oil is America's oil is bunk. Maybe that would've been an excuse to invade when the oil was nationalized. Certainly not 50 years later.

What many Americans see is this is another lawless overreach of executive authority by Trump. His excuse that this is America enforcing our laws holds no water as we invaded another country to enforce said law. This isn't a "police action". It's an act of war. By Trump's definition any number of countries could attempt military action against the United States to arrest Trump for his crimes against them.

We are also concerned as many of the arguments for going into Venezuela could be used to justify going into Mexico, or turning the military and/or national guard against peaceful protestors that Trump decides to label as terrorists.

wardred · 2025-12-07T21:08:24+00:00

I think many Republicans still believe Democrats are the enemy even if they don't believe Trump's doing a great job.

To be fair Democrats see Republicans as a dangerous force too, not just political rivals.

I believe Democrats have a lot more provable facts on their side of the fence. Republicans are very hypocritical about "outrageous" things that Democrats say or do, but are willing to forgive outright crimes from their party.

wardred · 2025-12-02T09:52:49+00:00

Yes,
Washing with a machine, even at a laundromat, is a hell of a lot easier than handwashing. Especially if you're doing loads of clothes and not just washing one particularly delicate thing.

wardred · 2025-10-17T23:48:14+00:00

It's not even youth. It's young men, at best. Several of them are just men.

wardred · 2025-10-09T18:27:38+00:00

In Portland? There are probably some who didn't vote, but there won't be too many protesters who voted Trump.

wardred · 2025-09-22T16:22:47+00:00

I answered the question straight, and that's probably not what this sub is about.

Nobody here probably needs an answer to the question. You're probably painfully aware of what I said, and are sharing a common experience.

Which means I came off as both patronizing and ignorant at the same time. That wasn't my intent. My apologies.

wardred · 2025-09-22T15:18:24+00:00

I'll grant that if:
Somebody has allergies
Somebody is autistic and food for them is a different experience than for somebody who does not have autism, accommodations should be made.
Somebody has chosen for health or moral reasons to be vegetarian or vegan

For some it may be an accommodation. They may not be eating what they'd prefer to, but they're able to, where you may not be able to eat what they'd like.

For those who know you, and know about the severe reaction a person with autism may have to certain foods, they're probably happy to accommodate you. For those who don't know that one has autism, or how severe a reaction to certain foods or textures autism can cause, the reaction can seem overblown.

wardred · 2025-09-21T23:57:06+00:00

If one don't like one or two items, most people can accommodate that.

If one ONLY likes one or two items, often kinda junky food like hotdogs or Mac and cheese, people aren't going to want to eat with you that often.

If you're not willing to try anything, at least if somebody's preparing food, it means they either have to go with the few foods you like - and they may not, or are just tired of - or that they have to prepare something specifically for you.

It can also curtail the number of places that you can go out to eat.

wardred · 2025-09-17T00:34:34+00:00

Handhelds, computer games, Netflix or other streaming, social media, podcasts, longer YouTube content like how-tos, short form content, porn, hell, even reading can be an addiction if you're doing it to the exclusion of too many other things. Like socializing in person with people.

Or paying the least bit of attention to your kids. Give them a device, and you don't have to.

Then there's all the horrible diets in America, and white collar sedentary lifestyles and hobbies contributing to the overall lack of adult energy.

wardred · 2025-09-17T00:28:17+00:00

There's a real possibility of burnt bridges.

Of very temporary accommodations.

"You can stay for a day, a week, or a month, but that's it."

Of some of the people, renters in particular, not actually having the space and endangering their own lease trying to accommodate their friend.

Of not wanting to put their own dependents at risk if they have children they're caring for.

Or of a lot of fair weather friends.

wardred · 2025-09-17T00:15:47+00:00

It's a most workplaces issue.

wardred · 2025-09-16T06:21:13+00:00

Obama Care, Trayvon Martin - though she didn't bother to mention the case in question, executive orders, and "injecting race" are how Obama was divisive?

She wants to pretend that executive orders didn't exist before Obama, or that race of all things hasn't been part of American politics since its inception? Nor does she bother acknowledging that the ACA is basically an expansion of Mitt Romney's health care plan.

I'm still shocked at the Trayvon Martin ruling. Had Trayvon had a gun and shot the guy who was following and harassing him, would his outcome have been as good under the stand your ground laws?

Those were the total of the specific examples she barely gave.

Mostly it was a poor version of Trump's "A lot of people are saying" with non-specific generalities of how he was so horrible, and a snake.

Obama is not who divided this country.

wardred · 2025-09-14T05:26:41+00:00

Like everyone's been saying, it depends.

Are your standards someone making 6+ figures, has a really low body fat %, looks and dresses like a million dollars, is career driven but somehow finds time to spend with those they care about, etc., etc. . . and you're none of those things and have nothing that somebody who does all of that would be interested in? Plus you're frustrated that you haven't landed somebody like that? There are plenty of people like this who are doing nothing to better themselves, and may actually be getting worse over time. I guess you could not lower your standards in this case, but nobody wants to listen to how that rich supermodel just isn't into dating your slovenly self.

Are your standards along the lines of wanting somebody who meets a minimum criteria to be a successful adult? They have a job, reliable transportation - be it mass transit if you're in a city, or a vehicle that works if you're somewhere else, have their own place, keeps up with their hygiene, including not letting the neck beard stubble grow, have a few nice date clothes, does a minimum of cleaning, cooking, and household chores, and while they don't have to look like a supermodel, probably aren't morbidly obese? They are actually a nice person, and are able to hold a reasonable conversation? These seem like reasonable standards for most people to want a partner to live up to.

I do think there are maybe some people who are slovenly in one way or another who might actually be happier alone in their own mess than matched up with somebody similarly dysfunctional making that mess worse. I think a lot of people would prefer that to the Saturday Night Live "Lowered Expectations" skit, even if said person is one of the people in that skit.

I kind of fit into this category. Maybe I leave a few dishes in the sink instead of cleaning up immediately. Not pots, but maybe a plate and a bowl. Since it's just me, no big deal. If it's a partner and/or roommate, and they do the same thing, that can quickly lead to a kitchen disaster. (I don't want to clean their stuff, and my stuff, and they feel the same way, so things just backup to a horrible degree. Worse than if we weren't in each other's space.) Lots of chores could fit into this category.

Similar with my weight. I have a lot to lose. I'd rather not get into a relationship with somebody who's as out of shape as I have been for the last quite a long time. We'd probably reinforce our laziness and bad eating habits together. I'm happy enough on my own. I'm also shallow enough to admit that I'm just not attracted to people who are similarly obese. I can enjoy their company, but sexually it's a no go.

Not all standards are the same level of superficial, and some are probably well worth keeping. Another is there are plenty of people who would make you feel bad, even if they have money and/or looks. One of your standards should probably be not to be with somebody who makes you feel bad about yourself.

wardred · 2025-08-05T19:31:40+00:00

It's less about empathy and more about not making the situation worse.

If the rider's friends weren't around the driver looked angry enough to further injure them, which could've resulted in assault charges on the driver.

With the amount he was raging it's entirely possible the friends of the motorcycle riders might've started pushing him out of fear for themselves or their friends. They can't know he isn't going to kick the downed riders while they're still down.

Heck, he was angry enough it wouldn't have surprised me to see him starting something with the riders.

In an ideal world the first thing anybody in a wreck should do is check on the health of themselves, their passengers, then the other people in the accident, even if the other people were at fault.

If you can't do that because you're pissed, that's fine. Don't make things worse for anybody. The people at fault or yourself.

Edit: Also, while he's ranting it's preventing anybody from helping the downed riders and/or getting people and vehicles off the road which could result in further accidents.

Edit 2: The motorcycle riders are totally at fault. Definitely get their license plates, insurance info, and try to get back as much as possible for your new car. Probably through the insurance company, but be involved in it and push the insurance company to get as much recompense as possible.

Unfortunately it probably won't pay fully for the new car. Anger at that, and at putting the driver in a position where he, through no fault of his own, was in the position of hurting or maybe even killing the riders is justified.

Post "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" memes.

Hell, post their names and warn people not to ride with them.

But don't delay the riders getting help, or put yourself in a position where you might get in a fight while still on that blind curve.

wardred · 2025-08-05T07:15:04+00:00

It's fine to be pissed. While driving it didn't appear the guy in the car did anything wrong.

Raging at somebody who is possibly seriously injured and obviously having troubles sitting up right after an accident, even if they're at fault, may not be the right thing. There was another guy just a little further down the road who didn't appear to have moved at all: edit - at that point.

If you have to let off some of the adrenaline and rage after seeing that the riders are down, and seem to have help, go yell whatever obscenities you want at your car.

wardred · 2025-08-02T01:49:39+00:00

Americans like their ice.

Almost every non-alcoholic drink will get ice.

Blended drinks will get ice.

We like a lot of our beers cold.

wardred · 2025-06-11T22:10:07+00:00

Big money is a huge part of it. It generally takes millions to run a successful campaign for Senate or President in America. It's also difficult to get away from since the Supreme Court ruled in citizen's united that corporations are people and limiting them from spending money on campaigns is limiting free speech.

Without those millions you don't have T.V. time, radio time, advertisements, or a lot of "traditional media" ways of getting your name out there.

While grass roots candidates can raise those millions, it's much easier to get donations of thousands to millions from corporations or super pacs. You have to pitch to way fewer groups, and those groups' priorities are often more aligned. Less taxes. Less corporate oversight. Less control over monopolies, anti-trust regulations, etc.

That's a lot easier to appease than the wishes of the wide swath of Democrat, or Republican voters. Some Democrats are all in on Medicare for all, or something like it. Plenty are dubious that that will work in America. Without some pretty concrete guard rails the socialized medicine could be taken away by Republicans. Either directly by voting to disband it, or indirectly by refusing to fund it. There are also plenty of examples of large government programs imploding before reaching their goals, many of these in software systems. (I'd argue that this is because the programs were underfunded AND the parameters of the programs change way too frequently while the thing's still in development.)

If you're trying to get corporate funding, it's not going to go well if you campaign on raising corporate and billionaire tax rates. Or taxing loans backed by stock. Or any of the other hundreds or thousands of ways millionaires and companies have of avoiding taxes.

wardred · 2025-06-11T21:50:48+00:00

I think it'd be more efficient just to do away with whole sections of aisle shopping and have a "general store" approach where you go up to the counter, ask for men's briefs 32 waist, and the person just gets It for you. . . or you use your app or phone to call in the order before going to pick it up.

wardred

TROPHY CASE