TheDoozer

Can you define the "woke movement" and "woke" in general, in the context of what you're saying?

I'm asking because I've seen "woke" used for a video game that happens to have one gay character in it, which doesn't seem relevant for what you're talking about (for example). Or any number of things that are simply people existing. And other times it's used for referencing social justice issues. It seems fairly amorphous, and entirely dependent on the person mentioning it, so without some context I can't nail down what you mean unless you define it for you.

There are more appropriate ways to say this:

"Nobody with kids. I might want kids some day, but I'm not ready yet, and it feels like there would be too much pressure to either be involved with her kids or be cut out of a major portion of her life until we're really serious. And again, not ready.

And somebody athletic, since I'm into biking and hiking and other activities that require a certain level of fitness.

And... well, somebody who isn't into the whole casual sex thing, honestly. I think sex is special and, for me, requires a strong emotional connection. I want someone who has similar views on sex."

See, I feel like it changes it when you're not focusing on the other person, but yourself. I'm not ready for kids, I'm into fitness, I'm a demisexual. It sets up the same thing without disparaging people who aren't what you're looking for.

There's another part to this, and the renowned surgeon makes it a bad metaphor.

It's more like: "You have a choice for your surgery. On one hand, we have a trained surgeon, on the other hand is a circus clown."

"What are the surgeon's credentials and record?"

"Well... they have a reasonably good record in other kinds of surgery, but and they've shadowed a surgeon who has done your surgery before. I won't lie to you and say their record is perfect, though, and some of the practices and techniques they use draw serious criticism from various world health organizations."

"And the clown?"

"They have more experience with these surgeries, but the vast majority of the people who underwent these surgeries have died. In fact, he shows flagrant disregard for even the most basic and accepted sanitary standards in the medical community."

"But some people did live, right? So he can't be all bad."

"Occasionally he was part of a surgical team, and in those cases the rest of the team managed to keep the patient alive. And again, your other option is a trained surgeon."

"But a shitty surgeon with no experience."

"A questionable surgeon with limited experience. Or a clown who kills those he commits surgery on more often than not."

"I can't believe these are my only two options. When you said I had a choice, I thought it was a real choice, but it sounds like you're just trying to force your surgeon on me. I think I'll wait until another round of surgeons is available."

"You will probably die before the next round of surgeons is available."

"Honestly, I don't trust your judgement over what's best for me. I'm sitting this one out."

Undecided doesn't always mean who you vote for, sometimes it means whether you vote.

Still dumb not to vote, though.

Now do it with average households with college degrees, since that's a more reasonable comparison.

The corruption of those courtesy cards. For which he got retaliated against. And that he brought a lawsuit over, which brings the corruption to light.

I'd say that's fighting corruption from the inside.

I'll second a sleep study. I've used a CPAP for 15 years, and after a few weeks I couldn't sleep without it.

I try to describe the difference to people by referencing the matrix. You know the weird, green-tinged, fake quality of the world prior to Neo waking up in his little pod? And then on the ship everything was just more real? That's what the transition was like after a week of CPAP. I realized it wasn't a normal thing to start nodding off at long stop lights, or have my mind uncontrollably drift away even during one-on-one, face-to-face conversations.

I should say, though, I'm a moderate-to-severe case, and when I asked about surgery, the sleep doctor looked at me and said, "maxillo-mandibular advancement (shatter jaw and move it forward), septoplasty (nose surgery for deviated septum), and tonsillectomy. So surgeries." Probably will do that, while I'm still in the military, but that I'm willing to suffer all that should tell you how not-fun CPAP is. But it's considerably better than nothing.

And as it relates to this article, when I was initially trying nasal pillows (cpap mask that just attaches to the nostrils), my mouth kept being forced open, even with a strap holding my jaw closed. My sleep doctor suggested taping my mouth shut, and that was a hard no from me. With the deviated septum, I only ever have one nostril open, and if I got a cold, I'd rather not wake up unable to breathe from ANY opening until I could get the tape off.

Does anybody know what this said?! I'm having the same problem!

Edit: nevermind, I figured it out.

I imagine Sales(tm) would not manage to clear that bar, and Pulaski would have no idea either way (unless maybe she were thoroughly briefed).

But he was a LCDR in Starfleet, on board the most prestigious ship in the fleet, and clearly had the respect of the crew he worked with. She had to completely ignore all of that to display the prejudice she showed. I think it's perfectly correct to take issue with it.

"Oh, I'm sorry, is that distracting you?"

What? No they don't (not that that's relevant, as we're talking about embryos).

Baby boys get part of their genitalia cut off without consent. Baby girls get their ears pierced without consent (though, granted, not as significant or permanent). Parents make body choices for their kids outside of what is medically necessary. Babies have very little bodily autonomy.

Your gay uncle can get married for now. That's still potentially on the chopping block with the current Supreme Court.

I think you're missing the point. Bringing in difficult to obtain weapons as part of the conversation muddies the conversation about controlling the currently ubiquitous weapons being used.

As an analogy, let's say someone blows something up and hurts people, using dynamite or homemade explosive using gun powder:

"Anyone who has access to the dynamite and RPGs and C-4 should be held responsible for what's done with it!"

"Wait, there was an RPG or C4? I'm pretty sure outside the military it's pretty difficult to get ahold of either of those. They're already heavily regulated."

"What difference does it make? They're explosives used to blow things up and kill people."

"Right, but, again, those are heavily regulated, while what happened was with dynamite, which is not."

"OH! So it's OKAY since the dynamite is not as regulated!"

"No, it's just a different conversation about RPGs and C4."

"Only if you have an agenda!"

Vs.

"Anyone who purchases dynamite should be responsible for what happens to it, unless they can show they've properly secured it and didn't give access to it to someone they shouldn't."

"Agreed, dynamite and gunpowder explosives are common and not as regulated as they should be."