That annoyed me so much!! What the heck. Just say “Soylent Green is MADE OF people.” It’s two extra words.
I know the point is he shouts in a people-filled void and it means nothing, but he ought to earn it! Not fail to make his point by being ungrammatical!! Gah

I’m pretty sure rachee is joking, scumjada.

No, Columbus didn’t think the earth was round. Like most educated people, he knew it was. The stories they tell in school are very limited and follow a particular narrative that was dominant at one point.

@dcottingham Ok, US-centric opinion: US and EU have the will and ability to be at a much lower percent. To use a tired phrase, US and EU are “developed” in the sense that we’ve been at this for a long time, whereas India and China are still getting to where US and EU have been. And why? Because US and EU spent a lot of effort and time holding many countries back. India and China both have amazing individuals and advances in every area. Just they were (and are) messed with.
(Side note!: This preaching about reducing emissions sounds like the same nonsense as US scolding China over IP while ignoring our own history of rampant IP theft. Could China do better? Sure. Do we have the moral high ground over IP or resource use? 100% Nope!)
US and EU can and should cut emissions. Period. China and India should cut emissions in balance with other priorities.

This title is like, the mostly weirdly and badly directed schagenkfreud. Who is “they”? Everyone who’s not the reddit op? So weird.

I....don’t burn expensive underwear. That’s - just...yikes to that comment.
Anyway, he and you indicate you see her “attitude” as “shitty” as opposed to a legitimate response. To me, the whole thing reads like a bit (short formulaic comedy skit). There’s no proof it’s even real as opposed to a joke post. It’s funnier than the original joke if you read it that way.
Regardless, the response grim reaper and you had was that she should just react in a positive or neutral way; there’s no acknowledgement that she gets to steer the conversation and say whatever she wants. But the whole thing is contingent on him doing exactly that. If it is real, maybe she’s just tired of f*ckbois and he got crossfire from the frustration. Either way, he seems unruffled or accepting of her getting to steer the conversation. To me, it seems like grim reaper is not giving this female the same leeway.
Look, fair. I see my perspective and yours - and stand down.

I like it; says he belongs instead of is allowed on sufferance

What was she supposed to say? Sometimes you try a collaborative joke and the other person doesn’t want to. Why is his making the joke more important than her refusal? She didn’t ask for a ticket to lame-o-ville.
If you try a tired joke, and it doesn’t work, you don’t get to complain. He also DIDN’T complain, he completed the joke. So you’re what? complaining on his behalf? Why would you do that? Unnecessary.
If you read it where they both have equal footing, you might have found it funny. But since you don’t think she’s equal, you got offended and called names. ....Good call. Super interesting and helpful to everyone. Definitely makes you look awesome.

@willfree So much respect for your awesome thoughts! Not to be annoying in adding, but just I absolutely have to acknowledge words I have so much appreciation for. So fantastic.

A fully engaged response to this statement is at minimum four long paragraphs covering at least two different areas. Which is exactly my point! Look, much love and good vibes to you. I don’t disagree that this looks tempting, but it’s not productive. Just consider how you feel about my response to know that’s true! (Real talk? I think this is because this quote does such an amazingly poor framing job that it skews/ruins any discussion before it starts.) There are gender-related debates that generate genuine understanding. This isn’t one of them.

Look - here’s an example of why you’re wrong. Do you think free public education just *happened*? It did not. Once the decision was made to have a democracy, free public education for all became a requirement. It was a deliberate decision by the people who wrote the Constitution to provide it. It was NOT welfare or charity; it was strictly a matter of ensuring the survival of a functioning democracy. It’s more in keeping with the Constitution’s intent to consider projects that keep democracy functioning, than it will ever be to shut that type of consideration down.
Limiting the government to strictly administrative matters as you suggest is not the way it was initially envisioned. Such thinking also oversimplifies how government interacts with daily life at this time.