FriendOfDeSoto

Soldiers have the right and the duty to resist illegal orders. I reserve respect for those who abide by that. Blind respect leads to blind eyes to when they eff up. And this American blind respect for active service members is so paradoxical in the face of how most veterans get treated.

The US military has survived the hot phase of the Korean War, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And it probably should have taken more damage as an institution after each of these. It will survive 47 as well. Long drawn out procedures will meter out homeopathic doses of wrist slaps for most involved minus a handful of high profile scapegoats.

You can take your gaslight and shove it up your Baader-Meinhof-Effect!

Somebody took shots from the air of her home. She tried to get them removed from the public sphere. That caused headlines and as a result more people saw them attached to these news stories than ever would have if she hadn't made an issue out of it.

Didn't google, didn't read the other comments.

While I think of all non-animated Trek shows, DS9 had the best first season, it still contains a lot of dogs. Move along home, anyone? My point is first seasons are rough. Discovery gets better in S2. I would watch it that far before you start SNW because it's basically the backdoor pilot for that show.

I don't think a mutinous commander is that outrageous a plot line in a universe where Riker once had Q powers, Janeway had warp 10 lizard babies with her pilot, Sisko poisoning a planet's atmosphere on purpose, or where a man like Jonathan Archer was made captain of anything.

Is Disco the best Trek show? I don't think so. I think overall it's better than PIC though. So if you have suffered through that, you stand a good chance of being more delighted by Disco.

I don't think it would be weird. It's up to them if they accept or not. I would just suggest you make parallel plans as well to meet new people. A hobby group, a book club, etc.

I think there are two general (human) media preferences at work: "if it bleeds, it ledes" superceded by which deaths are more extraordinary. So soldiers murdered in peacetime is noteworthy. They could've become accountants but chose a career where there is a real and high risk of death. Btw I fear it's that death math that made medical professionals drop out of noteworthiness post-pandy, i.e. the threat is real but the risk has gone down again. I think children dying generally of tragic circumstances will be noteworthy. Nurses contracting AIDS or non-famous people dying of natural causes become less noteworthy. And I use noteworthy here as what they chose to cover in their newsrooms. They have financial interests to consider as well, which brings us back to "if it bleeds."

The American filter generally erases many "mundane" gun deaths from visibility. Either people are so numb it doesn't register as the tragedy that it is or it doesn't get covered. There are plenty of places on earth where a single gunshot fired in anger that would make headlines.

There is a worldwide blindness to traffic deaths. We have just accepted that this is how many people die. So if something more interesting happens elsewhere, the t-boned accountant on the way to Walmart just gets dropped.

So there are a number of factors that influence what makes the news or not. The list goes on.

I would also say that media coverage is not prescriptive for who you should feel empathy for. We cannot all feel all the tragedies on this planet at once. We'd go mad. You pick and choose as a defense mechanism. So if you don't feel that much empathy for these national guardsmen, I kind of get it. If you don't like how much media coverage it's getting, I can definitely understand that. The problem is just that when you say this out loud you open yourself up to criticism, like: you don't feel for the people who died while sworn to defend your freedom! What about children and nurses? That's just whataboutism! Etc. So I would suggest you follow your own heart and change your media consumption when it bothers you. Or you'll end up in a culture war debate about whose lives matter more.

You don't show him the stupidity of his ways by sleeping with that lady. You either find a way to confront him about that. Or you unattach yourself from this toxic person by finding other, better friends. Frankly, I would give him a piece of my mind and then find other friends anyway.

I don't think I'm leaning too far out this window when I say: no, there isn't an optimal size. It depends on so many factors. How many people? Is this urban or rural? What's there neighborhood like? Facilities, public transport, doctors, grocery stores, etc.? What's the crime rate like? How long is the commute to work? People have different priorities and make different choices as a result.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Trusting judges is not uniquely American. You'll find similar processes on the continent across the channel. The hurdles of who can sue and under which circumstances may differ. The appointment of judges is often less politicized. I think the UK is the unique case here and I believe that's because by and large there isn't a written constitution, at the very least not in the same way as in the US or France or Poland. Supreme courts are there as a check on whether or not laws conform to constitutional values and have the power to overrule a legislature when it passes laws that don't. It's not an "upper hand" deal, it's checks and balances.

The American legal system is not great. I don't know the details of the case you mentioned. One bad decision doesn't mean the whole system needs to be abolished. If that were so I'd like to have a word with the UK's highest court on what constitutes a woman.

Which part is infuriating here? The law that will be difficult to enforce and probably has all sorts of unintended side effects? Or that lawyers, and indeed layers funded by big internet companies, are suing?

Fundamentally, let them sue. Not everything coming out of the legislatures the world over is pristine law and this is how the system can correct for mistakes. Also, I'm sadly more on the side of the Googles and the Metas. Their freedom of speech argument is entirely self serving but that doesn't make it wrong. Any age verification has itself a chilling effect on speech online. Forcing it creates more data sets to be leaked and hacked and in this case of minors' information, not grownups' who can make an educated decision if they want to go through with it to go watch porn. This is not a clear case of mild infuriation.

Is it porn the deceased spouse created or is it porn the widow created with the deceased husband's likeness? And which would indeed be sadder?