Either way it can easily be turned into 1,001.00 or 1.001,00. That's why there's a written out form of the number.
crosswind
joined 2 years ago
spoiler
I hope you find a better answer, but I'll say I did that and it did eventually work. After spending so long thinking about it, I got so sick of the idea that I hated it more than I hated myself. I became determined to live to experience anything else. Then that was what kept me going for quite a few years.
Hopefully you find a more pleasant reason, but it's possible to claw out a will to live from very dark places.
How do we get Trump to believe that the Falkland Islands are a critically important asset that rightfully belongs to the US?
This is a political maneuver, not an accident. If there was a fund to cover important expenses during a shutdown, then the leverage wouldn't kick in until the fund was about to run out, and that's when the negotiations would start happening. We'd be in the same position.
This post keeps getting struck by lightning.
This shit sucks. It's railroading the intended use of content warnings into something impossible, and then dismissing that people can or do use them in any other way. It assumes the purpose of avoiding triggers is to be therapeutic treatment for those triggers, and then calls content warnings pointless when they can't deliver that on their own. It's ignoring the use of content warnings to lessen the harmful impact of triggers, or their use together with other therapeutic treatment.
She cites studies comparing the reaction to triggering content with or without a warning and says it isn't helpful, but what about when they actually serve their purpose? When people choose not to view content based on the warnings? She says she doesn't do that, and then dismisses that anyone ever would. I do that all the time. I'm pretty sure other people on this site do as well. That's not her experience, and it doesn't support her point, so she doesn't care. The study she cites on avoidance seems to be treating the total number of eyes on a graphic image as a measure of the effectiveness of warnings, and assuming the images would be equally distressing to all people. From what she presented, it doesn't consider that the people can have vastly different reactions to the content, and the ones who opted out of seeing the images could be extremely affected by them, while the ones who opted in may be unaffected.
She assumes that the goal of content warnings is to avoid 100% of exposure to triggering content, which is obviously impossible and she uses that makes them sound ridiculous and naive. Then she assumes that warnings will be successful in blocking out 100% of content, and is concerned that people won't be able to get better at responding to their triggers without exposure, ignoring that people can be selective about when it would be helpful to engage with triggering content.
Her viewpoint sounds nice when she frames it as "the importance of radical acceptance". When that becomes "in real life, staying away from triggering things is only going to make you very fragile" and then she spends much of the video talking about virtue signaling and cancel culture, it's clear this is just the classic conservative "toughen up, snowflake" driving a misrepresentation of content warnings.
Edit: This video is basically equivalent to claiming that labeling foods that contain peanuts doesn't work because
- Warnings don't make allergic reactions less severe
- Warnings have never cured anyone's allergies
- Chocolate bar sales have not been hurt by peanut warnings
If he had been killed by the cops like we expected, I'd be in favor of putting up statues of our flawed, confused, and confusing hero. But since he's alive, I won't be surprised if his reaction to fame is to get really deranged, and start trying to leverage his public support into something shitty. He did something great, and his reasons or other actions won't change that, but I'm hesitant to sing his praises at the moment. Hopefully he's happy with letting his actions speak for themselves.
I think that's my mistake. I had assumed they understood that tool was only for white people to lecture other white people into voting for genocide. I shouldn't be surprised when some of them actually use it to feel morally superior to people who are directly affected.
That part makes enough sense to me on its own, but what do they mean by not caring about “fellow Muslims”, and what connection are they trying to make between those ideas? It’s clear enough that it’s some racist bullshit, but I’m trying to figure out what it’s supposed to mean to other liberals, and it still just sounds like stringing words together. Maybe I’m expecting too much from liberals but I figured there would be something specific that prompted this.
I seriously can't understand what the quoted tweet is supposed to mean. It seems like they're just randomly mashing ideas together? I tried to read the article, but the tweet was deleted, and the account you can see in the screenshot is a content firehose, so I couldn't find what this is about. Are they actually trying to apply the "Trump would kill n+1 Gazans" argument as a way to shame muslims, and then pinning that on homophobia based on nothing? Even for racist scratched liberals, this seems like incoherent nonsense. Am I missing something, or are they already panicking that badly
Doesn’t count unless you get samples from multiple locations apparently.