Die Hauptschwäche dieser Staffel ist m.M.n, dass die Autoren vor lauter Antagonisten vergessen haben, einen Protagonisten vorzusehen.

Let’s reverse roles for a second. You’re the employer. What reasons would there be, for you to advertise an opening? Could your primary motivation possibly be paying people money? (Rhetorical question) Considering you already have a team, what kind of person do you want to fill the position? What profile should they have? And how would their motivation reflect on their expected performance?

P.S. I’m not saying, not to talk about money, but there’s a time for talking about that vs. finding out, whether you’re a fit. And answering a question about your main motivation on why you want to be part of their team with money, doesn’t reflect well on you or any expectations of you.

The most infamous would be South Park episodes S14E05 and S14E06 named “200” and “201”. The central theme of the episodes: Censorship. Something South Park had been subjected to ever since its inception. And this time, they centered around the limits of what is allowed around depictions of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. For context: These episodes aired after controversies around such depictions in media around the world had people killed.

So in an attempt to protect themselves, the network engaged in censorship of the episodes and it is sometimes unclear, what was intentionally in there as a plot point from the creators and what was added by the network. Although some egregious examples are clear, such as the complete bleeping of Kyle’s “I’ve learned something today” monologue at the end. While Stone and Parker inserted clear plot points like characters like Moses of all people asking, whether something was OK to show or say. I’m still uncertain whether the huge censorship bar over the Prophet is a plot point, or censorship or both.

The kicker: Prophet Muhammad had been shown in earlier episodes already, without sparking controversy and in “200” and “201” they even reference those episodes. As expected, they received death threats after the airing of the episodes and later pulled all five episodes with Muhammad depictions from their streaming sites (Super-Best Friends, Cartoon Wars 1+2, 200, 201).

Bis morgen hat er die historische Niederlage bestimmt wieder vergessen und kann unbeschwert nach vorne blicken…

Sorry Leute. Ich finde die Tür auch alleine… im Gegensatz zu Herrn Scholz. Ok ok, ich bin dann mal weg.

Mein Punkt ist ja, dass es nicht unbedingt logisch (=präfrontaler Cortex lastig) ist, sondern im Gegenteil eher widersprüchlich. Rein spekulativ, aber das mit dem Image würde ich nicht auf Merz vs. Scholz/Habeck einschränken, sondern auf das wahrgenommene Parteiimage an sich. Den Gutmenschen und Weltverbesserern wird eine harte Gangart halt weniger abgenommen. Im Gegenteil steht Weltoffenheit halt diametral zum Drang nach Abschottung.

Der Schuss kann ferner noch weiter nach hinten losgehen, da sich die beiden Parteien von ihrer Basis entfernen und diese jeweils weniger angespornt wird, aktiv zu werden oder gar zu wählen. So etwas ähnliches sah man international am prominentesten vor ein paar Monaten in den USA. Sie ist jedoch nicht das einzige Beispiel. Die Union hingegen darf weniger Skrupel haben, da die Basis nur schon aufgrund ihrer Geschichte breit, insgesamt weiter rechts ist und durch die AfD beeinflusst wird. Die dadurch erlaubte Klarheit in der Kommunikation kann ein Vorteil sein.

Hinzu kommt die wenig ruhmreiche Regierung der Ampel, welche v.a. für Stillstand und Streit steht, als für tatsächlichen Willen und Fortschritt. Und was erreicht wurde, kam in der Öffentlichkeit auch in schlechtes Licht. Als Beispiel fällt mir spontan die unsägliche Posse um das Gebäudeenergiegesetz ein, welches in den Medien, gerade auch in den sozialen Medien, durch mit Falschinformationen durchzogenen Angriffen traktiert und nie effektvoll verteidigt und präsentiert wurde.

Neben den im Artikel genannten Gründen, scheint mir das wichtige Thema “Emotionen” etwas unterschlagen worden zu sein. Für das Beispiel Angst und Sicherheit: Die AfD hat über die letzten Jahre eine Drohkulisse aufgebaut. Natürlich unter der Komplizenschaft der Medien, welche verzerrt über Verbrechen berichten . So werden nichtdeutsche Tatverdächtige im Fernsehen 19 Mal, in Zeitungsberichten 32 Mal so häufig erwähnt, “wie es ihrem statistischen Anteil entspricht”. Die Inkompetenz der anderen Parteien in Bezug auf moderne/soziale Medien gepaart mit schwer belegbaren Mis- und Desinformationkampagnen aus dem In- und Ausland runden das Ganze ab. Weiter befeuert wird die Angst durch den Angriffskrieg in der Ukraine und die Unberechenbarkeit der USA in einer zunehmend multipolaren Welt.

Die Union hat sich bezüglich dieses Themas extrem nach rechts gerückt, ohne sich den Stank des Rechtsextremismus anzueignen und steht in den Augen und eben auch Herzen vieler, für Sicherheit. Zumindest gefühlt. Zusätzlich konnte sich diese Verhindererpartei, gerade dank dieses Themas, als eine Veränderungspartei positionieren. Das sorgt auch unter Menschen, die wirtschaftlich durch die CDU Politik leiden werden für Zulauf, gerade weil der Status Quo unbefriedigend ist.

Eine Alternative, welche aus ihren eigenen Prinzipien und wertebasierten Weltanschauung heraus eine andere Erzählung und Erklärung der Ereignisse anbieten würde, steht nicht wirklich zur Wahl. Die am ehesten dafür in Frage kommende Linke befindet sich in einer organisatorischen Krise, die SPD folgte der CDU nach rechts und Bündnis 90 weiss gefühlt noch nicht so recht wohin. So gibt es nur vereinzelte Personen, welche jedoch kaum wahrgenommen werden.

Edit: Weltpolitik als Angstgrund eingefügt.

You seem absolutely sure that this will materialize and that its implication means that you have no scope of action. Again, with enough institutionalists in important positions, even if he tries, it would be difficult for him to actually get rid of federal, let alone local and state elections. What is much more likely is that he will make it easier to skew or how he might call it “rig” elections. You know, like voter suppression and gerrymandering on steroids. So what I’ve written still holds: On a local and state level (or even federal level), pressure your elected officials and organize around the protection of voting rights. Be an active part of the legislative process. Democracy isn’t making a cross every four years. And she’s calling on all of us.

Sidenote: For everything that man says, you can find a clip of him saying the absolute opposite. So watch what he and his lackeys do, not what he says.

Outside perspective: It doesn’t have to be. It is the moment democracy, its values and its people are tested. The path towards open dictatorship and/or fascism is not set in stone. What is clear is that some setbacks, even catastrophic setbacks, are unavoidable. But as a whole the free-fall can be avoided and you can bounce back from setbacks, even if it takes time. This is actually somewhat universal, since it’s not only the U.S. which is sliding more and more towards fascistic or anti-democratic tendencies. It’s just that, like with so many other things, everything does seem to be bigger in the U.S. (and Texas).

Although I’m sure a lot are feeling economic pain and/or are generally under stress and uncertainty (IIRC 50% of households struggle to make an unplanned $1000 expense), and I don’t expect it to get better under the new administration, the U.S. is still a federated system. If you look at what affects your daily lives directly, a lot more is done on a local and state level, than on the federal level.

From where I’m standing, organizing with like-minded people in your community around issues is the most promising way to go. Unfortunately the issues are back to basics issues like human rights and democratic principles, but that’s where we are. This entails more than just protesting, but actively pressuring elected officials around legislation proposals. Suggest ballot measures (find out how such a measure gets to the ballot in the first place, because it’s very different depending on where you are). And of course having people run for office and for the others to support them to get in, and get the anti-democratic forces out, once it is time. Don’t succumb to the nationalization of local elections. People can be reached way better and more directly on the local level, when they can see it directly affecting their lives and talking to the people responsible directly than for anything happening in Washington D.C. Counter the anti-democracy spewing media outlets with true alternatives (maybe there’s an entrepreneurial-minded person wanting to found a cooperative media outlet).

It sounds like a lot to do. But you are more, than you think. Even the disillusioned might be good allies. Take yes for an answer. And more people than you might expect have been part of ‘the struggle’ for a long time. Welcome them. And yes: Coordinate with and support other local actions.

Another view on what will happen with the federal institutions: Although Trump will put more loyalists than ever in powerful stations, there will remain many (even among the loyalists) who profit from the system’s status quo. This includes the Supreme Court justices and ironically corporate goons. So in furthering their own advantage, they might resist things leading to an overall degradation. Of course they will go along with and actively lobby for anything that gives them more power at the expense of the general populace, but that is already the case. Again, if you make unlikely allies on single issues: Take yes for an answer.

Bottom line: Democracy and basic rights are ideas, made by humans. And they can only survive, as long as we believe in and fight for them. Always keep the belief, always keep on fighting. If you hit your head and fall down: Get back up. As the saying goes: This is a marathon, not a sprint. All the best!

Oof, yeah I was about 23 and wanted to help my now wife to get some of the correct size, which was an almost impossible ordeal. Wanna hear the story? Fine:

Taking the two measures was the easy part (and doing it again during her period, because of course the size changes during the cycle, anything else would be too easy). Then I read that the cup size is the absolute difference between bust and band measurement no matter the band measurement. Furthermore since the material is elastic, for a good support, the band should be a tad below the measurement*.

So far so good, went to the store and there are only A-D cups everywhere, E if you’re lucky. So basically no matter what exact measure they take between the cups, you’re ok if you’re thin and have small or somewhat big breasts, or you’re a bit fuller and have tiny breasts. Everyone else is automatically screwed. If you’re lucky enough to fall into those categories you then have to try on so many to sift through different positioning and forms of breasts until you find one that is comfortable. We had to order some all the way from the UK because it wasn’t possible to get anything coming near the correct size here.

*women who wore normal cloth bras before and continued wearing the same size have felt that the elastic hasn’t made things better necessarily. Can’t find the source for that one right now though.

Many reasons. One major factor imho is the belief or illusion to be living in a meritocracy. Which would mean, that someone who’s rich has to have earned it and therefore criticism must stem from envy or jealousy. The same belief fuels the ideology of thinking of poor people to just be lazy leeches on society.

Diskussion gestartet: Am Anfang der ersten beiden Weltkriege, wussten die Menschen noch nicht, dass sie sich bereits im Weltkrieg befinden. Die These: Ihr Satz kommt zu spät.

Never have I ever watched/read anything relating to Lord of the Rings.

Generally yes, but I believe it is best done on a case by case (meaning type of sports, level and skillset) basis.

Generally on the recreational level, the differences between the sexes are much smaller than the differences within one sex. The best example that comes to mind is Tennis. Although it is physical in that it requires a lot of high-speed strength, which theoretically should be an advantage (on average) for young men, the skill difference between a man and another is far greater than that between an average man and an average woman. Go to a public court and you’ll see a non-ignorable amount of women outplaying men (if they even dare to play each other) and what’s even more baffling, older people beating younger people. On the absolute elite level though, they seem to almost play a totally different sport. Ball speed, running speed, ball spin and variety in spin on average are very different on the WTA compared to the ATP and therefore similar but different tactics and even technical styles are employed in the two. The difference within the Top 100 ATP or Top 100 WTA is much smaller than the average Top 100 WTA and average Top 100 ATP. So on that level, imho the segregation is merited.

As some others have already suggested, there might be better criteria to judge this separation on, like with weight class for martial arts. It is not always clear where that divider should be, though. As for tennis: Is it body weight or height? Maybe your fastest or average first serve? Maybe your fastest or average ground stroke? 30m Sprint time? Wherever you put that line might change the nature of the game played in that group and not even eliminate the de facto separation on sex or age, but in turn make it unattractive for some people to engage in a competition in the first place.

Which comes back to my initial statement of judging it case by case depending on the average difference between sexes and the difference within sexes.

edit: replaced gender with sex. Didn’t think of it because in my native language this distinction isn’t made.

Ah ja, dies ist ein weiteres Kapitel des internationalen Rechts - insbesondere Menschenrechte - als Wahlbuffet. Man bedient sich wann und wo es gerade passt und lässt links liegen, worauf man gerade keine Lust hat. Nennt sich Rechtsstaat. \s

Was in der Diskussion etwas verloren geht, ist diese Paralleljustiz namens “Schiedsgerichte”, wodurch sich Konzerne versuchen aus der Verantwortung zu stehlen oder geltendes Recht auszuhebeln, um sich Vorteile zu verschaffen. Es sind eben diese, welche auch in Freihandelsabkommen mit den USA auch dem Rest der Welt aufgedrückt werden (Siehe dazu bspw. die Kontroverse um TTIP und CETA und das darin enthaltene Investitionschiedsverfahren).