You don't have to like her music, but you have to respect her ability to sell her image and music.
Actually this is a point of conflict for some of her fans. Some of my friends are swifties and they hate consumerism and high concert prices and collectibles and marketing that incentivize FOMO to spend more money. They jokingly call her their capitalist queen.
I am deeply interested in the thoughts of billionaires who benefit from the incomparably greater amount of work other people perform to provide them with obscene amounts of wealth so they can find a comfortable balance between exploiting workers and flying in dick rockets for fun.
I'm not saying I disagree with your position, but being a Trump supporter or anti-choice is a choice, whereas being LGBTQ isn't, so the comparison isn't of equal demographic descriptors.
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.
If drug use while pregnant is child endangerment, then society should be indicted whenever a woman is denied all the prenatal care necessary to deliver a healthy baby regardless of her income or wealth, otherwise we'd be prosecuting people for being poor. Oh wait, we already do that in other scenarios! My bad. Carry on!
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 law’s section that bans books depicting sex acts from school libraries includes an exception for religious texts, like the Christian Bible.
What a coincidence! My deeply held religious beliefs in a new religion I just made up holds all LGBTQ+ books as sacred religious texts...
The idea that random people pick a select few musicians to be inducted is just more artificial scarcity bullshit. It's not a legitimate institution if it can't recognize more people to give a wider breadth of exposure to the legacy of rock n roll. By inducted some, they pretend they have the authority to determine the legacy of rock n roll, but their snubs say more about their deficiencies than about those they snub.
The mom already caught a charge for it.
Never try to do anything good because bad might inadvertently result from the action.
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.
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.
No, you're only allowed to have 365 holidays! Maybe an extra one for February 29th, but that one's already taken anyway.
The idea of a holiday is entirely arbitrary and the meaning and value is entirely subjective for any given holiday. Getting upset because your made up religious holiday happened to coincide with some other designated day is just irrational.
If you have to coin a phrase for it, I'd say something like comparative minimization rationalization.
#sapphoandherparkingjob
Find a student at a university whose student accounts get access to jstor.
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.
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.
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.
Did you respond to the wrong comment? If not, you read a lot into what little I said and much I wouldn't have said, had I said more.
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'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.
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 completely forgot about that game until you mentioned it. Fun times.
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.
This sounds like a walkaway hashtag comment.
Famous sportsballer ages like every else. News at 11.
He also stacked the SCOTUS by contradictory practices, denying Obama a pick in the last year of his presidency but giving one to Trump. That has had grave consequences for recent rulings since Trump only nominated extreme conservatives.