I think what people believe is more a matter of environment, exposure, and upbringing. The Rittenhouses are victims of an ideology that they internalized because they were, in some very real way, made to internalize it. It doesn't benefit them and it exists purely to support systems of power that actively disenfranchise them and people like them. And "our" ideologies, however similar or different your beliefs and mine might be, are just as much a product of environment and conditioning. I'm not entirely sure I can draw the exact line where a society's failure of its own people stops and personal accountability begins when it's tied so intimately to how an individual believes the world is and should be.
rwhitisissle
I'm going to go ahead and post my hot take: I hate that these people are facing eviction and that they're faced with crippling medical debt caused by chronic illness and frequent hospitalization. I don't like these people. I don't agree with their beliefs. I think Kyle Rittenhouse did something unforgivably terrible and that his family likely enabled him and his actions. But I also don't want them to be homeless or to have to deal with medical debt, because those are things that I believe our society should guarantee, as inalienable rights, that no one, regardless of how odious they or their family might be, should have to endure. And I don't care that they (probably) believe differently.
Not to try too hard to explain the joke but I think the core concept being highlighted here is one of a perceived discrepancy between "diversity inclusive descriptors" and terms that imply "otherness." For example, a white person might feel uncomfortable using the term "black" but would be comfortable with terms like "person of color" and "African-American." Linguistically, this might be because "person of color" implies that the individual is first and foremost a person and that their color, in an ethnic sense, is an additive quality to their "personness." I'm a person. You're a person. We're all...persons. That sort of thing. Similarly, a person who is African-American is, much like the (I'm going to assume American) white speaker, also American. It's the idea of an immediately identifiable, if unspoken, shared quality.
Right. That's why I didn't say "it's impossible for things to be this way," but instead said "this is what I've seen." It's possible that I've just happened to see the worst of long term relationships by virtue of bad luck or environment. I don't discount that possibility and I'm not saying that my limited experience of the world represents the sum total of all human potential.
Every single long term relationship I've ever been witness to has been defined by either eventual resentment between partners, or a pervasive sense of apathy between them. The people I've seen who really "make it last" aren't affectionate towards one another after being together for decades: they're codependent. One person supports another person's narcissism and the other person facilitates their partner's alcoholism. That sort of thing.
On a more fundamental level, I'm not sure I even believe that the concept of lifelong partners or lifelong marriage is natural for human beings. Being a part of a community, sure, but being emotionally attached to the same person in the same way forever? Not really. I think it's in our nature to constantly grow, and that typically means growing apart. In fact, that might be a lot healthier for people than the alternative.
Cute. I don’t believe any part of this, but it’s cute.
Cute. I don't believe any part of this, but it's cute.
As a huge Star Wars fan I can confirm that I absolutely loathe Star Wars. Not for being "woke," mind you, but for just being generally creatively bankrupt, poorly executed, and with new media for it effectively held hostage by the existing media for it. Which is why I don't watch any of the t.v. shows or movies anymore. In my opinion this is a superior alternative to getting online and filling my diaper in the "user reviews" section of Rotten Tomatoes.
Not sure why you were enabling HTTPS for a project that was not hosting an internet-accessible service, really. By which I assume you mean the service doesn't have a publicly accessible web based UI or API component. What were you trying to access and how? The only scenario I could think of for this would be that your custom software relies on HTTPS for secure communication within its own internal network (such as on a VPN) to send sensitive data back and forth between services. In which case that feels like overkill for a college course, since you shouldn't have any genuinely sensitive data that you need to secure if it's just for testing and demonstration.
I had a problem and then I tried to solve it by installing a snap package. Now I have two problems.
Let's not pretend like google does not have a monopoly on search engines, maps, and shortform video content. Also, their cloud ecosystem might be second behind AWS, but it's still fucking enormous and makes them truckloads of money.