I bit my nails my whole life. One day I tasted lime. I hadn’t eaten anything with lime for 3 days. I had wiped my ass maybe 10 minutes prior. That experience yucked me out of biting for good. Been over 2 years now since I’ve so much as nibbled.

This just makes me sad because until today my only association with Baraboo was whimsical childhood memories of the circus there.

I mean, whether they are natural or not shouldn’t matter. The “shallow decision making and poor choices” are just as accessible to a leftist woman. It feels kind of yucky to be setting standards for how you think it is acceptable for women to present themselves, regardless of whether they are on the same side of the political aisle.
“We can shame women for how they choose to present themselves as long as they disagree with us about Palestine” is a weird take when you examine it for what it is.

I don’t know, there’s nothing morally wrong with her makeup and face. If she happened to be a leftist but otherwise looked the same, I doubt we’d be rushing to the comments to mock her style. This is alienating to women who are like minded to us but have a similar sense of fashion to Boebert.

Hitler’s mustache is now so closely associated with nazis and fascism that we would rightly mock anyone who unironically kept their facial hair that way. Lauren Boebert’s eyebrows don’t feel like they deserve the same treatment, since it is very normal for many women with leftist values to keep up their appearance in a similar way. The eyebrows are not the problem; her beliefs are.

We both think that she’s an idiot. Why does she have to look stupid? If some right wingers were talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez this way we would find that repugnant.

Respectfully, I think there are plenty of legitimate criticisms we can make without resorting to making fun of her appearance.

Edit for clarity: Imagine if you were a woman who disagreed wholeheartedly with Lauren Boebert, and found her a wretched human being, but happened to look a lot like her. Then you see others who think like you do attacking her appearance.
Why would we create an environment that alienates people on anything other than ideological or moral grounds? The only people our criticisms should repel are people with dangerous ideologies that we don’t want to be associated with.

Can you imagine if this was normalized for the president, and then over time became acceptable for other people?

“You can’t have congress people worried about whether some lawyer will go after them.”

“You can’t have CEO’s worried about whether the DA will go after them.”

“You can’t expect your boss to worry about whether you will go after them.”

“You can’t expect your pastor to worry about whether the faithless will go after them.”

Fine, I’ll say it. Doritos and peanut butter go well together.

Terraria was released in 2011, and still gets free updates with similar frequency to Stardew. Minecraft alpha was released in 2010.

Sure, Eric won the cozy farming genre. He is also clearly passionate about the game. Maybe looking out for his own health is exactly why he continues to dabble with the game.

The title seems to imply that it’s a bad thing? Why should he let go of it? Should Minecraft devs let go? Terraria?

The real question is whether sustainable jet fuel can melt steel beams.

Yeah that’s very fair. I wouldn’t go so far as to call someone an incel just because they said one thing that an incel may also say. Were he alive today I imagine he’d find incels good material for jokes.

You didn’t say, “can’t be”, thats why I said it’s like you said that.

We didnt call it, “incel” 100 years ago when someone acted like an incel. If someone was making jokes and promoting a mindset at the time that would now be labeled “incel”, then we can retroactively say the ideology they promoted fits our current label.

I am in the same conversation, and I hear what you’re saying. I don’t think you sincerely understood what I was saying the first time.

That’s like saying someone can’t be a homosexual in ancient Rome because the word didn’t exist yet.

Like, in an extremely pedantic way you could say that, but it doesn’t reflect what was actually happening.

American libertarians are conservatives who don’t like that label, and have a big stick up their butts about taxes.

I have had conversations with evangelicals who believe retiring is morally wrong, based entirely on this one passage:

For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat. 2 Thessalonians 3:10

I can’t begin to wrap my head around this.

I wake up, all the chores were done the day before. I have nowhere to be. My wife and I make our coffee and sit outside. The weather is cool enough to be comfortable with a blanket. We sit in silence mostly, observing the changing autumn leaves.

We meander, doing nothing of importance all day and go nowhere until we pick up a deep dish pizza from our favorite local restaurant. We take it home and eat it on out couch while our cats watch enviously.

We go to bed, and fall asleep immediately.

I used those figures for ease of understanding and easy math.
Easy, but not accurate and therefore misleading.

At no point did I believe there was a factory somewhere selling widgets, or that a person named Joe was salaried as he built them.
No one thought you did… until now.

My overall point is that for all economics to remain the same, average productivity per worker per hour must remain the same, otherwise there will be price increases or other economic effects.
Correct, things will change. The point is that the system can handle those changes. Price increases will happen, sure. But if we take a look at the year prior to [current year], prices tend to go up. Rather than use this as an argument against working fewer hours, or not paying employees more, we should be using the systems we have in place to provide as much benefit to people as is reasonable. Since the 4 day work week does work, (many examples of companies increasing productivity this way) this is a reasonable benefit to push for.

So in this example, the revenue is $1100 a week per worker. If the worker does make $1000 for that time, that does spell doom.

Let’s work it the other way. A typical business allocates 15-30% of its revenue to payroll. If an employee is making $1,000 a week, that means that if this widget factory was making enough to be a reasonably successful business in the US today, their revenue per worker would range from $3,333 to $6,667. This means the company would be “losing” somewhere between $667 to $1,333 a week by paying the same wages but losing 1 widget.

Overhead is not exclusively the $1,000 you pay Joe. It is also whatever else you pay to keep the factory in business and Joe working. Some of this, like electricity, will decrease when Joe is at work less.

Now if you consider that for decades the widget factories have been making more widgets, but paying the workers lower wages, we have a healthy widget empire more than capable of supporting a 4 day work week.

Examples like these are only helpful if we use realistic numbers. $1,000 a week for a worker’s wages is plausible. $1,100 in revenue from that work is not.