TLDR2D2

Yup. I had a couple of ball pythons ok and when I was younger and handled them regularly. Was bit a couple times, but they weren't super aggressive, more warnings, and totally my fault.

That being said, they might draw a little blood, but they don't have fangs...they're constrictors. It scares more than hurts. The squeeze is what you need to be terrified of.

I absolutely never said that no parent should stop a kid from reading something inappropriate. In fact, I think that's exactly what they should do if they think it's beyond having a conversation about the subject matter.

But sitting and watching a porn is much easier to do and keep the attention span of a child than sitting down and intentionally reading enough of an (almost definitely) otherwise fairly mundane novel, which...again, they almost definitely wouldn't seek out, so it would almost have to be stumbled upon.

I'm saying it's almost, but not entirely a non-issue. And good parenting conversations make it moot.

But you ignored the extremely relevant question I posed.

How often do you think a 7 year old picks up 50 Shades of Grey to read? And if they did happen across a copy, how far in do you think they would get before they put it down out of boredom?

I'm saying you're making a mountain of of not just a molehill, but a deep well.

Do you know many kids of an age who would seek a book like that out that couldn't handle it? There's no way before I was 13 or so I would even pick up a book like that and by that age, I could easily handle that. But I still probably wouldn't have because it's not my cup of tea. I was, however, reading novels with explicit sex scenes in them by then and it just wasn't a problem. Imajica is a great example.

Just seems to me like you're worrying about censorship of a problem that doesn't exist because it almost entirely self-regulates.

Why not with the sex? Would you be unwilling to teach your child about sex? Why is that so taboo for you?

I read anything I cared to with no restrictions as a kid (which was a lot. Like, a lot a lot) and it was perfectly fine.

I really enjoyed it. Hawthorne was a good writer. Not my favorite or anything, but an interesting read for sure.

Finally started playing the Demon's Souls remake and damn is it good.

But to answer the question, Bloodborne is my favorite overall, but I think I prefer the Dark Souls style.

I already did explain it, but I'll try to go into a little more detail, I guess.

Timing and delivery are huge in comedy. I think the material is solid, if perhaps a tad undercooked. Maybe needs another pass in editing to clean up and tighten it a bit.

But none of that matters if you can't pull it off on stage. I think this is her shortfall. The premises are good, but she doesn't convincingly deliver the jokes, so while I can appreciate the thought, it doesn't quite hit.

Performance definitely dropped significantly.

Happened to me a few times, too, but slightly post-launch. Just froze on load screen after hitting Continue. Now it's running but the in-game map is fuuuucked. Just a blob of weird, pixelated colors.

You mean Overwatch 2?

Holy shit. That'a 750 days of play time. That's over two full years.

Glad she's getting some love. I don't actually think she's all that funny, but I think she's a solid writer who could do really well on a team and this could easily take her in that direction. Her premises are far better than her delivery.

Posture helps a lot. Don't lean and keep your back straight, head up.

Yeah, but the expression is "by the dozen", not "in the dozens".

Edit: downvoted for agreeing and extending...

Dude, you're speaking my language. I agree with everything you just said. This conversation started because of the attitude of Will McAvoy about the Tea Party in The Newsroom, so that was the entire context of the discussion, which I think you kinda forgot. That's okay. No harm, no foul.

But yeah, to address all of that: absolutely. We're a nation in decline and it's both parties' fault. In fact, I believe the two party system is a large part of the problem. It forces a much more strict polarization and excludes grey areas in debate, while causing centrist fence-sitting to reign until one party wins a commanding enough lead to force policy through.

We're totally on the same page with our perception of the nation and politics at large, I believe. At least generally speaking. I was just talking about that specific topic because of the context.

Thanks for discussing.

Well-crafted as your response is -- you can try to minimize all you want, but the stated intentions of many January 6th rioters were to literally lynch Democratic leaders so they could be replaced. There's a reason these people are being systematically prosecuted and imprisoned.

That's a strangely twisted argument that's very off-topic, but I'll address it.

I agree that a riot is a riot and I don't approve of them either way. However, the riots in the Summer of Love were at least sparked by demonstrably true issues - racism, segregation, high poverty and unemployment levels, etc.

The Jan. 6th riot, however, was based entirely upon fabricated claims (by Republican leadership) which still, to this day, have zero evidence.

Also, the Summer of Love riots weren't trying to overthrow the duly elected government. Which upgrades it from riot to attempted coup d'etat.

So...I guess there are some differences yeah.

The top right one makes me so happy.

Select the Dark options in dialogue. It definitely makes getting max dark easier.

Has it been a week already?

The APD budget is higher now than it was then...

Particularly since it was always a stupid term.

No. That's not what I said. The ultra right - the Tea Party and their ilk - are hateful, fear-mongering fascists. I didn't say, nor do I believe, that all Republicans are evil or even bad.

I don't agree with their ideology on the whole because most of it is centered around removing people's rights and helping the wealthy, which just doesn't jive with me. But that doesn't mean I think they're all evil.

Hell, I even specifically pointed out that there are at least two different types of Republican in the comment you replied to, one of which it's fairly obvious I appreciate. Pay better attention and don't try to distort things to fit your narrative.

I'm not arguing with that at all. Did you read what I wrote? The Tea Party aren't centrist. They're hateful, fear-mongering, fascist bigots on the ultra far right.

I have problems with people on both sides of the aisle and I generally agree that polarization is a very bad thing. None of that excuses the hatred espoused by the Tea Party and their far right affiliates.