I think 47 and his cronies will manage to blame it all on Bill Clinton and sweep the rest under their carpet, along with his conviction in court and the impeachments. It's a media war. It's hard to play the game against the reality-tv-schooled incumbent to keep anything in the headlines. He'll just throw a dead cat on the table and take all the oxygen out of the room, i.e. annex Canada or Greenland, 100% tariffs on everything, ICE jackboots raids, national guard in all cities run by Democrats, any late night tweet while he is constipated. It's hard to keep anything in the news that is not conning from him. And this story is one of the few with staying power and the potential to be damaging to him before the judiciary has entirely lost its independence and maybe some of his followers rediscover their human decency in the attic. As such it is the only recruitment tool with oomph for Democrats to mobilize opposition to the fascist in chief. And, boy, do they need it!
FriendOfDeSoto
It is there to give men an idea of what childbirth is like. (Tongue very much in cheek)
No, I don't know which one. And I don't want to watch people get hurt so I won't seek it out either. There are incidents in this world that fit the theory of the bystander effect. That is not what I question. I'm questioning your calculation of odds regarding intervention. There are enough examples of "heroes without capes" that did intervene as well, also within groups of people.
A shower thought doesn't have to be well thought through. On the flip side, you don't have to double down on it when folks point out the flaws.
The bystander effect is a theory, not fact. It can explain after the fact why people in groups feel less responsibility to do something. But it isn't universally applicable to all assaults in public. There are many variables at play. So "highly unlikely" is an exaggeration in my view.
So what did the dog find? What? WHAT DID THE DOG FIND? TELL. ME. I HAVE TO KNOW!
That's just YouTube speak. The implied drama gets them more clicks. It's how to frame the ancient medium of public debate for millenials and genz. It's like YouTubers pulling the dumbest, silliest possible face on the thumbnail. It'll have more views too.
It's also a sign of the times since Y2K that you couldn't just have an enlightening discussion. Somebody has to get owned. Hitchens was forthright in his rhetoric but I never heard him be disrespectful. I've only ever seen him tracking the ball, not the players. But that's boring so people add their own spice to it. And they tend to cut out any counter arguments if the footage was from a public debate.
You should add your age for context. You're either a normal adolescent/young adult figuring shit out like all of us have to. Or you can consider yourself part of the spectrum, maybe in aceflux. You can do that at any age to be fair. I would just wait until maybe ~25 before you make your own identity ruling here. And keep in mind stuff changes over time still even after you've reached that age, maybe just at a slower pace.
In the end, you do you. I would recommend honesty with your partners. They could be pretty pissed when they find out by accident that you've been more like holding your proverbial nose to enable intercourse.
Having info on the heliocentric solar system could land you in a dungeon or worse back in the day.
This is too simplistic. I know conservative voters who didn't vote for 47, many not even for 45. Conservative is a value set and the Venn diagram of that with MAGA is far from a perfect overlap. If you replace "conservatives" with "47's cult-like followers" I would come closer to agreeing with your take. I do take issue with "everyone else" though. I think that doesn't hit the mark either. I think there is more purple between this red team/blue team thinking than there are both extremes of this scale added together. Stop digging deeper trenches. And don't shoot your political opponents.
"They" don't like the term "woke" because like all good music it has Afro-American origins. It started off as describing somebody who was aware of racial discrimination and over the decades broadened in meaning to include a host of other social issues. And then it was thrown into the culture war meat grinder.
I like the parallel to the "wake up, sheeple, do your own research" crowd. I hadn't noticed it before. It's funny how two uses of this inoccuous verb that can probably be traced all the way back to the Proto-Indoeuropean language have ended up on opposite sides of the aforementioned meat grinder.