People I figured had some capacity for thought seem sort of excited about it, if anything.
So one of the predictive questions on OKCupid is "In a certain light, wouldn't nuclear war be exciting?" For men, a yes on that has an 83% correlation with wanting sex on the first date. The other questions that correlate like that for men are "Assuming you were in the position to do so, would you launch nuclear weapons under any circumstances?" and "Could you imagine yourself killing someone?"
Draw your own conclusions.
(Some of those women are even Trump voters.)
I mean... what? Maybe, optimistically, this bodes well for a one-term presidency? Maybe I'll just have another beer.
There is also now a march in Dunedin. If you know of other NZ events, please link to them here.
Supporting the cause is rather easier than supporting her cause in this instance.
It's not her cause.
On November 9, Teresa Shook of Hawaii created a Facebook event and invited 40 of her friends to march on Washington to protest Trump's election. Similar Facebook pages created by Evvie Harmon, Fontaine Pearson, Bob Bland, Breanne Butler and others quickly led to thousands of women signing up to march. Harmon, Pearson, and Butler decided to unite their efforts and consolidate their pages, beginning the official Women's March on Washington. To ensure that the march was led by women of differing races and backgrounds, Vanessa Wruble, co-founder and Head of Campaign Operations, brought on Tamika D. Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour to serve as National Co-Chairs alongside Bob Bland.
Organizers state the march is not intended to target Trump but is "more about being proactive about women's rights," and, more broadly, "a stand on social justice and human rights issues ranging from race, ethnicity, gender, religion, immigration and healthcare"
I keep meaning to do what I usually try and do – write about it in a way that might be useful to other people – but it’s surprisingly difficult.
It's really difficult! I even used an exclamation mark, which, ugh. But y'know, we argue with them, they become more entrenched. We try to push forward information, but information's lost all its value. What's the solution? I don't fucking know.
But this is why stories like the Jennifer Holliday one are so important. People gave her information and explained how they felt, and she changed her mind.
Planned Parenthood saw a 900% increase in appointments for IUDs after the election.That's how scared American women are: they want long-term birth control while they can still access it. I want people to know that. I just, man, I wish I had some better words, more powerful words.
Yeah, Steinem is problematic on trans issues, like so many feminists of her generation, which is a fucking shame. (Maher is not problematic. Maher is an arsehole.)
This is a list of the Women's March supporting partner organisations, who will be marching and/or providing some kind of support. It includes a number of LGBT organisations.
I can't remember the last time I saw any kind of large-scale protest action that didn't have some kind of problematic angle to it, especially ones like this that have been basically franchised. Likewise, I've never met a political party whose policies I agreed with in their entirety. Everyone has to decide where their "too problematic to support" line is.
I don’t quite understand, was he pretending to be Scottish or pretending to not be Scottish?
He was pretending to be Scottish. (Not my story, someone else's.) When called on it, he said it made him more interesting and he didn't think she would mind. The woman involved said he must have been sitting there at his keyboard furiously googling Scottish stuff while they messaged.
OKCupid is actually very good because they have questions like “when is it ok to rape someone” and “when should you use intimate partner violence” etc, but words them so that arseholes are more likely to answer honestly
QFT. Things like, "Would you let your identical twin pretend to be you so they could have sex with your partner?" And people will answer yes.
These sites don’t earn money based on success rate, only access to other members of their sites.
There is a fantastic episode of the Allusionist podcast about this. Basically, dating sites don't want you to find your Forever Person, because then you leave the site.
They want to match you well enough, so that you’ve got dates to go on; but again, the business model incentivises them not to match you perfectly, every single time. If they had a magical algorithm that really worked, that would obviate the need for a monthly subscription, or a six-month-long package, or a year-long package.
It honestly doesn't bother me, though, and not just because I never give a dating site money. Also... just after I joined OKC, it gave me a 96% match with someone I had already been in a relationship with, and they were Not Wrong.
it seems to be a great way to meet a life partner who is well suited
One of the reasons I prefer to use OKCupid as opposed to, say, FindSomeone, is that it gives you so much more information about someone before you decide whether or not to engage with them. Guys have messaged me, and I look at their questions and they've said, yes, women are obliged to shave their legs, men should be the heads of their households, gay people are yucky, etc. Saves me a lot of time. (Also, OKC is the only site I've used whose algorithms cope with bisexual people.)
It certainly seems safer than the traditional "go to a party get wasted hook up" method of meeting people. Though that has also worked for me.
Stiff competition this year, but I feel I must put in a vote for 'shit-weasel'.
Actually, staying with movie stars, it’s tempting to think of Shearer not as Firth (way too buttoned up) or Willis, but as Jimmy Stewart in Vertigo. Confused about the true nature of the world he finds himself in but determined to help. Determined, moreover, that his own decency will save the day. And yet, fatally, besotted with something he doesn’t understand.
I don't want to derail or anything, but Jimmy Stewart's character in Vertigo is a horrible person.