The analogy isn't a good fit.

When you sum up the entire concept of a relationship with another person as being equivalent to eating 1 skittle, you will just end up alienating men and further polarizing.

The analogy is simply just not a good one. It completely misses what matters.

The skittle analogy is a great example of one that tries to sound smart but when you analyze it, it fails under scrutiny.

It's easy to just "not bother" with eating a skittle, it's just a skittle.

But relationships aren't a bowl of skittles at a party you can just shrug your shoulder and go "no thanks" too. There's other food than skittles, and Skittles aren't even very nutritionally sound.

A better analogy would be something like:

You live in a giant castle where there is an eternal feast enjoyed by all. However, one item at this feast is poisoned and will cause you extreme unpredictable harm if consumed. This is the only good food available though, your only other option is to live off an extremely flavorless gruel that is gaurenteed not poisoned, as if you leave the castle, you die. Thankfully though if you make friends with the other people in the castle, you can gain some insight on what foods tend to be poisoned vs not, but it's not perfect. Many people also remark the food is the greatest they have ever eaten, and they enjoy their meal safely each day... Do you choose to risk the very small chance of harm, or do you choose to starve?

That is a closer analogy to the actual situation, and suddenly the answer is no longer so black and white. Skittles are not an apt comparison to a relationship, because a relationship is deeply coveted and desired by most people. People in history have killed and gone to war over relationships.

No one has ever burnt a city to the ground over a skittle.

I knpw what the analogy means, it's exactly what I addressed above.

The analogy implies women only interact with men akin to a bowl of skittles at a party. They never meet them at work, they have no friends who know some they cab recommend, they literally only interact with the "bowl of skittles" in a discrete moment and must make their assessment explicitly and directly on dedicated time.

Which is a very incel way of thinking relationships work.

In reality the "bowl of skittles" is pretty much constantly being observable anytime you step outside the house, in fact it's pretty much impossible to not be swimming around in the bowl of Skittles anytime you step outside the house.

You don't have to specifically dedicate time to sit and study a skittle.

Furthermore the "studying a skittle" time is made out to be a labour intensive, solitary, strenuous activity in the analogy.

In reality we call that a date and most sane people consider such things to be quite fun and engaging, and in fact are often considered to be the best times of their life.

So to take something as fun and interesting as "going on a date with a potential partner" and turn it into "studying and dissecting a skittle", signals pretty big incel terminally online energy.

It's what makes the person talking about it sound bitter and lonely, and like they've never actually gone out on a real date. Normal sane people in real life dont view dating like that.

If true, sounds kinda personal and will prolly result in repercussions.

But the fact so many MAGA idiots were acting violent towards FEMA operatives prolly is enough to justify it. Can't blame em, if a group of people are actively fighting against your help then it's better to not waste time/energy/safety on em.

I heard shit about MAGA idiots pulling out guns on FEMA folks, that's fucked up lol

An excuse removes responsibility.

A reason does not.

"You are excused" means you no longer are responsible for the outcome.

"I literally wasn't present when it happened, so I'm not responsible for the outcome" < excuse, which can be valid

"I knew what was going to happen, here is why I did it for a good reason" < reason

Example: three kids are present, 2 are graffiti'ing the back of a house

When caught, 1 kid says "I was trying to stop them, they wouldn't listen". This is an excuse, they're claiming they aren't at fault and not responsible for the graffiti.

Another says "the home owner deserved it, he's an asshole", this is a reason as they are clearly not avoiding responsibility.

When you try and use an excuse to get out of something thar you clearly are responsible for, that's when you will get served the "I dont want an excuse" line.

Sounds like a real story, and definitely not the sour grapes rambling of a racist incel...

Exponential growth, thats about all there is to it. Advancing from clacking rocks to hunting deer is actually already a huge advancement.

Those 190k years in caves however werent non-advancing. A lot of advancements happened over those years.

Fires, wheels, knot tying, ceramics, pottery, grains, hunting, animal husbandry, medicine, language, art, music, rope...

Also, 10k years is after we gained writing of various forms to store information.

Keep in mind thats at the stage of shit like egypt, the great pyramids, etc. We were waaaaay beyond "cavemen" at that point. We already had trade routes, cities, nations, countless languages, doctors, etc.

The big issue was before that point, all our forms of storing information were just not able to stand the test of time very well, is all. We stopped being "cavemen" way before that mark though.

IMO the only valid move for Biden right now asap, is to use his new immunity powers to invalidate his immunity powers, as a display of self checkmate.

Declare the full supreme court under threat of death has to go back and redo the decision, and all of them must vote to reverse it and remove the presidential immunity, or be hung.

This of course means "if you dont remove my ability to kill you, you will die".

Its the ultimate display of being handed ultimate power, and rejecting it through the power itself.

I cant think of any other move that makes sense really. It would be a headache in court but thats what the supreme justices get for making such a stupid ass decision.

The "antisemitic" graffiti in question was:

"Zionism = Fascism"
"Your neutrality/apathy is enabling genocide"
and
"Free palestine"

The fact that is being called "antisemitic" is fucking nuts. Labeling a genocide as a genocide isn't antisemitic.

Summarized: micro managing remote workers is harder, and that's apparently a bad thing according to CEOs.

People will really do such incredible mental gymnastics to avoid actually learning how to quantify business value. If you don't know how to measure the value an employee has brought to your company, you don't deserve the title of CEO, as that's pretty much your job.

Far too often people forget that Right to Free Speech is not your first right, and it is superseded by other human rights above it.

Your right to Free Speech only applies as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights to safety and freedom from prejudice, hate, harm, etc...

It's not that complicated and yet countless people always fuck something so straightforward up.

Sign of a shit manager/boss, usually.

Good boss who sees this will go "oh thank God now you have your time freed up to do that thing you've been telling me we really need to get around to doing", cuz there's always at least like, 5 to 10 of those on the backlog anyways.