It’s also possible to be a person who genuinely cares about classic art and the environment already. And it’s also possible to be a poor person with little to no power to influence the fossil fuel industry. Chiding people for not having the privilege of free time and minimal obligations to protest isn’t very productive. Again, change needs to happen at the top and it’s not going to be achieved through appeals to emotion or coercion via symbolic or actual threats to famous art or sites.

I will not be fair, the publication isn’t. Why should I?

Because arguing dishonestly makes you look irrational and does their propaganda work for them.

but you are more likely to try to distance yourself from fossil fuel reform movements, and that’s all they need you to do to be successful.

Not really. This isn’t an effective form of protest or reform. Stunts like this allow articles like this to be written in the first place, but the stunts, even if written of with the highest of praise, are useless. Effective action would involve changing the minds of those who profit from fossil fuels the most and making it unprofitable for them to continue. You don’t need to convince people who care about world heritage sites or famous artwork. You need to convince the profiteers of industry and that won’t come from an appeal to emotion but from a threat to their financial well-being.

To be fair, that’s a false dilemma. Caring about Stonehenge doesn’t have to be compared to caring about fossil fuel reform. You can care about both or neither to any degree and they can be completely unrelated.

Find a student at a university whose student accounts get access to jstor.

I completely forgot about that game until you mentioned it. Fun times.

There’s not enough information that I’d be comfortable drawing conclusions about this. One person’s past flame can be another person’s one who got away. It’s entirely possible she’s keeping tabs on you online in a method you’re not aware of, but if you don’t know that she’s intentionally moved to be close to you and she hasn’t done anything concerning like made threats or faked a pregnancy or created circumstances that compel you to interact with her against your normal inclinations, I wouldn’t guess stalking. Some people do coincidentally reconnect.

That said, the important question is whether you want to engage with her or not going forward. If you don’t, I wouldn’t lead her on by giving her any more attention. Make a clean break and just tell her you’re not interested. If she reacts with melodrama or stalking behavior, then you’ll definitely know you made the right decision.

If you are interested in possibly pursuing something with her or at least giving her a chance, be honest that you’re a little freaked out about how she’s previously behaved. You shouldn’t proceed with her thinking that the behavior was not concerning. She should respect your comfort levels if she wants a relationship. If she’s dismissive of your concerns and comfort, it’s a big red flag that you shouldn’t engage further.

It might be similar to a song you’ve heard but you’re misremembering the notes of the existing song.

Maybe try playing it for an app that recognizes the song that’s playing and then listen to any songs it guesses might be the song.

I’m going to be disappointed if you didn’t type this out on a command line.

This is a decent one, but a ton of the HFY stories are just so problematic. Many just feel like they’re congratulating humanity on being vicious and creatively violent, like they think the Terran Empire in the Star Trek Mirror Universe were good guys.

Otherwise, a bunch just feel lazily formulaic and repetitive with others. Take a random human trait or convention from a human culture like say…fried foods. Use an alien narrator to describe how weird they think it is to fry foods. Find an angle to portray humans as plucky and great for their fierce devotion to frying foods and involve it in a narrative about humanity winning against greater odds. “And the human just dumped the entire chargizoid corpse into a vat of boiling oil! And then he took it out with something called tongs and ate it, skin and all! And that’s when I knew I needed humans on my side in the coming galactic war…”

I guess I feel like the subgenre plays on the optimism of Star Trek utopianism, but ditches any real criticism of humanity’s past (or our present). I think the message from Orville’s Season 3 Episode 10 about what made humanity better in their past is a better heir to Star Trek utopianism than most of the HFY stories I’ve read.

Works for me.

Yeah, there are so many movies based on media with a deeper and richer source material than can be presented well in a 2-hour movie format. For example, the Ender’s Game novel spent a significant amount of time on the progression of Ender’s career at the Battle School and the movie only spent as much time as was necessary to show that he was good. A TV series could tell the parallel story of Ender’s Shadow as well in the same season.

A counterexample is that sometimes the TV series may over milk the source material and drag out which should be a shorter story. The first season of American Gods was awesome, but they kept dragging out the series way too much by stretching out the stories of minor characters and fumbled in the end.

Top down design of protocols by a security- and privacy-conscious organization rather than leaving security to corporations as a side item or PR campaign topic when their primary focuses are marketing, advertising, data collection, and intellectual property.

About 90% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks, well before the fetus could even look like a post-birth baby like the one depicted in the meme. This is a common tactic of anti-choicers to depict abortion as being performed on fully formed and almost born fetuses. They try to use edge cases to argue against unrelated and more common experiences. Fetuses aren’t conscious or sentient or viable when most abortions are performed. Don’t let them get away with disingenuously conflating those concepts and milestones.

Apparently abortions are performed with all six infinity stones.

This is less of an issue if you judge everything that isn’t first hand from a known friend or family member as suspect or at least just a waste of time. Facebook used to be a place to talk to people you knew in the real world. You could ignore anything they reposted and still engage with the actual examples of their own experiences that they posted. But now it’s so flooded with ads and listicles and clickbait and video clips that it’s not even worth trying to keep up with the people you actually know.

It’s still not stealing. It’s plagiarism or fraud or any number of other terms, but stealing necessarily requires the deprivation of a limited, rivalrous thing, like money or property. You can’t steal fame or exposure or credit, except poetically. And by that point, the word becomes so watered down that it’s meaningless. You might as well say I’m stealing your life seconds at a time by writing this extra sentence.

The purpose of using the term stealing here is only to borrow the negative moral connotations of the term, but it doesn’t communicate clearly what exactly is happening.

It’s perfectly valid to say you consider it morally equivalent with theft, but it’s not stealing.

I hated it when older people said this to me, so you probably won’t appreciate my perspective now, but you have a vast amount of life ahead of you with a lot more information you can encounter that will contradict what you think you know for certain right now. And you’ll encounter newer information after that that will contradict the previous new truths you felt so enlightened to recognize. You don’t have to listen to me at all of course, but if you think you already know what you believe, you don’t need to make a post here to discuss it. If you’re not open to the thoughts of others, I wouldn’t recommend wasting your time soliciting them. If you’re just looking for affirmations of your pre-existing perspectives, a chatbot might be a better outlet.

I’d recommend taking some sociology, anthropology, and political science courses in college if you’d like to delve deeper into these topics. There’s a lot of scholarship out there on these issues to explore.

Also you can’t just make your own micronation wherever you want. It has to already exist.

This kind of makes the concept of a micronation useless. The point is that anyone can make their own nation with their own rules wherever they are or go. If you have to pick someone else’s, then it’s no different than picking someone else’s recognized nation.

The original meanings of words change over time with usage. Though they have some overlap and some differences (Brazilians are considered Latino but not Hispanic and Spaniards are considered Hispanic but not Latino), the term Latino is generally replacing previous usage of Hispanic, though Latino is likely used more in urban and coastal regions of the US and Hispanic is likely used more in rural and landlocked regions. The usage of either term won’t always be accurate and it will be an exonym used for people who don’t call themselves by that term.

You’re free to say, “I don’t identify as Latino. I’m Mexican.” Or “I’m Mexican American.” if you’re in the US. There will be surveys and polls and forms that won’t have Mexican as a choice though since they use pan-ethnic or continental terms for wide groups of people for categorization purposes. Similar to the fact that white isn’t an ethnicity or a scientific taxonomy. It’s an arbitrary designation with historical, social and political baggage.