You must log in or # to comment.
So wake the fuck up and don’t go to that Thanksgiving dinner if you don’t feel like it!
We skipped my wife’s family.
👏
This is why I avoid everyone.
I mean, I guess it depends on what you mean by coexist?
Unless this is intended as a call to murder all unpleasant people I guess.
It means exist in the same space, interact with regularly.
Given that it is Thanksgiving in the US, after we just elected a corrupt rapist fascist who promises to destroy the economy, environment, etc., this is almost certainly about it being fine to not go to or not invite your insane QAnon/MAGA family friends to Thanksgiving.
I assume it means what it always means?
Have you ever seen someone use “coexist” to mean “not instantly murder someone” before?
I know bars get lowered at record pace these days but have you ever seen it used that way?
Yeah, absolutely. That’s, like, the whole idea behind tolerance, right? The idea that you can find someone abhorrent but still accept that they have a right to continue existing?
Tolerance as a concept is pretty central and integral to any functioning society.
The point I was making, was the line between “coexist” and “not murder someone” is a pretty wide gap.
It’s like saying anyone with a dollar is “rich” everyone else is “poor” and those are the two options.
Or like if you told me “good morning” and when I reply with “morning” you accuse me of wishing death and destruction on your city because that wouldn’t be good and I left good off.
Just a ridiculous reduction of language.
Apparently though, that’s just where the bar is these days. And language doesn’t follow rules, it follows how people use it
I mean, my opening point was that “it depends on what you mean by coexist.”
The “coexist” language has long centered around religious divides, where the intent was literally, “don’t kill each other.”
Yeah, sure, you could say that you’re “refusing to coexist with your racist cousin this year at Thanksgiving,” but it’s not like he ceases to exist. He still lives down the road. His kids still go to the same school your kids go to. It feels like a complete redefinition of the word “coexist” to me.
But I’ll agree, language follows usage. I just feel like I’m the one defending the traditional usage of “coexist” and you’re the one who’s slid the definition to something far softer than it has always been intended.
Then, how to avoid it? Most people who I know are fucked up, including me. Growing a thick skin is only thing you can do, or you can close yourself with increasingly smaller and smaller group of people falling into a depression.
Consider it a “crusade” as they’re described by evangelical groups.
Is she calling for the extermination or exiling of people she doesn’t agree with, or is this a “get out of abusive relationships” argument?
Edit: she probably meant on a local level, and not as in society as a whole.
You gotta get me your yoga instructor because wow, what a reach!
It definitely means get out of abusive relationships lol.
It’s just not legal to stone people for pissing off the immoral morality police. The talibangelicals are working on it.
It’s called reality?
Not a meme
By its original definition, anything other than genetic information shared between people is a meme. The post is a meme. This comment is a meme. Whatever music you may be listening to in the background rn is a meme.
He writes “not a meme” on memes that criticise republicans. Less so other ones.
Dawkins’ definition of cultural meme is not the same as internet meme which is a picture that is funny, ironic or relateable. In fact, I don’t think this even fits the definition of cultural meme - it’s just a screenshot of random person’s opinion. If everything is a meme then nothing is a meme.
