I was going to point out how you misrepresented my arguments in every one of your retorts, but quite frankly, this argument over a funny text meme has already gone too far and I have better things to do. However, I would like to point out more clearly than last time that to assume that the sender is a man and the receiver is a straight woman is the view heteronormative worldview. This could easily be read as a lesbian trying to get with a woman they didn't know was straight, a man trying to get with another man who is gay, or any other perceivable combination of queer individuals where one member has a boyfriend.

I will admit that I also used the flawed premise in one of my arguments, and I was being a bit of a pedant originally, but honestly your arguments have been less than insightful and that one detail kinda ticked me off.

Also, you used occams razor wrong.

A quick search gives 7% for the proportion of religious wars of all wars, which makes the claim that religious wars killed the most people unlikely.

I hate religion as much as the next guy, but you don't have to make shit up.

First, there is nothing in the image that indicates that either speaker is of a certain gender.

Second, I was pointing out how it can be read as passive aggressive, not trying to say it wasn't the best course of action. If I comment on someone's funny video/meme/niche internet microblog, "This was unexpectedly funny!" There are both favorable and unfavorable readings of it. I was trying to be nice, it could still be interpreted validly as the opposite.

Third, I don't identify with the sender. I have never tried to engage in romantic relationships, and I'm not interested in doing so now. It is hard to identify with someone who is interested in romantic relationships when you aren't, but I can understand their perspective. If you have ever had a friend who is a straight guy, you can understand how they perceive social ques differently and have different expectations of communication differently than straight women.

However, I agree that this was the best course of action in the situation. Unfortunately, there isn't a nice way of straight forwardly saying, "Hey, I recognize this romantic advance, but that's not what I am looking for in this relationship/I am already in a committed romantic relationship." I think your justification of your argument isn't valid and seems more like a knee-jerk reaction to me saying something slightly against the grain.

It's a shame that they aren't more popular; I didn't really see prefectural flags flown that much outside of government buildings when I lived in Japan.

they are being nice...

Nah they're trying to be nice. Honestly, to me, it reads much more like they aren't even registering that they are a potential romantic partner who is interested in them. It also makes it seem like they were using the guy who made the playlist, which is unlikely to be the actual intent. A more straightforward rejection would be preferable. Being ignored hurts more than being rejected imo. That being said I don't see how you could reject advances in a polite way in this situation.

Btw, have I mentioned how much I love taking funny Internet memes seriously?

Edit: I made an admittedly weird argument that wasn't an argumented well on my part (should have been more about how it can be interpreted differently rather than it being "not nice," whatever that means.) However I'm not a coward, so I'll keep this up. But the argument below is kinda mental, with nothing much to be gleaned, so be warned .

I kinda hate these types of comics. There really isn't any reason why this should be a comic other than the writer's medium of choice. The message gains nothing from the visual aspect. The comic could really have been improved if the author showed what the characters are talking about, but we just get a wall of text with a crudely drawn woman to represent the opposition. Also, the art has no appeal and is generally ugly.

It depends

Not all weapons have a burst mode. Often though, militaries prefer controlled bursts of full auto, but it depends on the role and weapons system. Machine gunners are more likely to go full hog than a rifleman for example, but that's assuming that all soldiers do the most optimal choice in any given situation, which just isn't true.

Source?

Yes

Ok, but why do they even need side indicators? I thought socks could go on either foot.

BREAKING NEWS

In my 25 year career, this is possibly the worst thing I will report...

Oprah still exists.

We'll be back when more information comes out about this horrible situation.

Military brat here, half the soldiers I meet are massive nerds and the other half are goobers (meatheads, guys with no prospects, guys who always wanted to be in the army). Take that as you will.

Virgin California rent control vs Chad New York rent control

um actually rent control (alone) historically has made housing worse, reduced housing quality, and raised prices 🤓🤓🤓

That's if you mean price capping by "rent control," if there is anything else, I don't have anything to say about any other type of rent control, as I don't know much about those.

Is own a grenade launcher for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four heathans break into me house. "Have at 'em lads" As I grab me scrumpeh and grenade launcher. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Quikie laucher on the second man, miss im entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the enemy spy. I have to resort to the loose canon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with cannonball, "Not one of yas going to survive this!" the double donk gibs two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Grab me bottle o' scrumpeh and charge the last terrified dadie prancin' with a head full of eyeballs. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular glass wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.

This is really nitpicky. When there is war, there is anti-war protest.

To a certain extent yeah. Everyone "masks" in a sense that they may show different parts of themselves to different people, or act differently around different people. You save the weirdness to your friends and family and present a more "normal" image to strangers and acquaintances.

However, for neurodivergent people, masking is much more extensive and hides different things. Often these people will hide their autism, ADHD, etc. from everyone or most people. There is considerable effort to hide their symptoms.

Neurotypical people hide the fact they like mayo on pizza while Neurodivergent people hide the fact they struggle to understand facial expressions or social cues.

I know this is quite a bit later, but this comment confused me. I do not see how loosening zoning laws that limit density and banning corporations from owning houses are mutually exclusive.These policies can and should work together as part of a bigger urbanist policy. I also don't see how supporting local developers is that bad of a thing. I'd rather have the money stay in the community and go to a community member than some multinational corporation who owns thousands of homes across the country. Still it isn't the best. Cooperative housing or need based housing who is better, but realistically those can't fill up the excess of stock that we need. We will need input from private developers, as well as a big government housing initiative.

Ramps, escalators, tiles, and seating. There is nothing inherently not accessible about subways, we just choose not to make them accessible. When I was in Japan, there didn't seem to be any issue preventing wheelchair users, old people, or blind people from using the train system. Escalators can be used by people in wheel chairs and old people (and presumably blind people too, but I'm not sure.) There were tactile tiles in the floor to guide the blind, and there was plenty of seating specifically dedicated to old people, disabled people, and pregnant people. There were also wheelchair accessible cars on every train. As far as I could tell, it seemed just as accessible and easy to use for them as anyone else. (Also elevators were only usually kept open for the people who needed them)

"deregulation" detected. ready the down votes. /s

Seriously though, zoning laws are a big reason why we have the current housing crisis. If given the opportunity, someone or some business will build high density housing. But you can't with he current implementation of zoning laws. Without that barrier, you would see a lot more high density building projects

Still we do need zoning laws. I don't think anyone wants a factory or a garbage dump in their back yard. Used correctly zoning also helps limit sprawl.