Where do many of these students come from, who are they, how do they get into Harvard, or even our country - and why is there so much HATE?
The Harvard Corporation is run by strongly left-leaning Obama political appointee Penny Pritzker, a Democrat Operative, who is catastrophic
What a completely normal and professional letter
1968? There were literally riots
The loss was perceived to be the result of Johnson and Daley influencing behind the scenes. Humphrey, who had not entered any of the thirteen state primary elections, won the Democratic nomination shortly after midnight, and many delegates shouted, “No! No!” when his victory was announced
But the downside is that technically, regardless of what mechanism would trigger the dissolution of parliament, this has to be requested to and accepted by the King, who then sends out Writs of Electors
Of course in practice this is a rubber stamp tradition with no chance of not happening - if Charles went mad and tried to prevent this we would likely still have an election just with a side order of constitutional crisis and a wave of republicanism
But it’s still dumb
Interesting idea! What do you do if you’re busy in the evening and miss a show - save it til next week or do you catch up?
I think that’s a very narrow view of religion though, albeit one that is true of a lot and I agree is toxic. Ironically since you’re a UK person, it’s a type of religion I associate with the US and the American right (though I also know through friends growing up that it can be fairly common in some Muslim and Hindi groups)
I think a lot of times religion is used as a kind of cultural link: ‘this is why we have these traditions, this is a moral we have that we can explain with this story’ etc. And with that context I think it can be fine, even helpful to raise someone within a religious tradition
I guess I broadly agree with you mostly, but I would say that religion can be coherent with critical thinking and open-mindedness: it’s cultural as much as its about fundamental belief
(and when it is about fundamental belief then yeah it’s often awful)
Sometimes a lazy answer is worse than no answer
That is a very specific usage: ‘The Government’ as a proposer of law, Parliament as approvers. Outside of a PPE course it isn’t how the term is used and I think you know this.
In day to day use the government (small g) can be talked about as comprising anyone involved in governance, from the PM down to local councillors, depending on context
Calling people out on this based on a technicality is like correcting people when they say ‘speed’ instead of ‘velocity’, and it’s super irrelevant in a thread about MPs acting in a political capacity
You seem to be confused. The phrase ‘government official’ refers to anyone acting on behalf of the government, including backbenchers. This could even include unelected aides, spokespeople or some civil servants.
You’re thinking of the cabinet. You do not have to be in the cabinet to be a ‘government official’.
As a fellow brit, these Americans correcting you are right.
I’m the younger end of millennial - I did watch these as a kid but I was young enough that I don’t remember much. Don’t remember artax.
I wanna say there was a big big chill mammal thing but when I try to remember more I just picture Oppa from Avatar
“what is a personal pronoun”
These 100 year old Kentuckians are far too woke
I agree with your broader point about linguistics, but Chesterton’s fence has never sat right with me. Consider the inverse:
This annoying and unnecessary fence is an inconvenience, but since nobody can remember what it’s for, we dare not remove it
I hate everyone on lemmy but at least I’m hating people
100% there’s a culture of gatekeeping and elitism all too common around classical music - but it’s not the music’s fault
These potatos are woke, not enough salt
If they’re truly superfluous then they waste the time of both sides, but it’s the prosecution who get to decide whether or not to include a charge. The prosecution might not be holding out real hope of a conviction on the highest charges, but by including them they could include additional witnesses and evidence that will be heard by a jury and change their perception even on the more realistic charges, which the defense would have to react to.
Again, all hypothetical. For all I know theyre confident in the terrorism charge
But realistically criminal trials are a negotiation, and most of the work happens outside the courtroom
It’s pretty standard to charge with the most serious things they can and potentially drop/lower the charges before trial. Maybe theyre trying to get a plea deal or disposition and avoid the trial - ‘we’ll drop terrorism and the death penalty if you plead to first degree murder and life without’ or something like that
Or at least they have his legal team spending time knocking down the more superfluous charges instead of dealing with the meat of it all
Obviously I don’t know enough about the situation here to know exactly what’s up, but yeah
I think you mean Henry Kissinger
they don’t believe in western religious tenants like gods and afterlife
Yeah, but their whole point is that this doesn’t undermine their status as a religion. It doesn’t make them ‘a joke or parody religion’, which is the phrase you initially replied to:
This is a common misconception. TST is not a joke or parody religion.
What makes you say that?
They don’t exist as a semi-serious troll organisation to undermine Christianity is my point, they take their beliefs and religious status seriously.
Hamlet?