is like comparing New York with Kingston

Hmm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston,_New_York

I hope he was paying

The whole idea that it would be a demand is baffling to me.

Someone asking if you’re mad, assumes they know you in some way even if just in passing.

Nope. It’s the same way as people might think someone looks happy, we just look at faces and try to interpret their emotions. And some people’s faces set off the “looks angry” assumption.

In this situation you are the predator and the asker is the prey that is hoping that you already have a full belly.

Taking the stance that someone else is a predator based on how they look and you might be their prey. And not only that, saying that aloud to them. Can be pretty damn insulting.

Yes, there should have never been these ridiculous restrictions.

Could be people see Greta as an anomaly rather than representative of her generation. Or as I’ve often heard, in the sort of patronizing “well isn’t that nice that kids are doing that sort of stuff” way.

I see Millenials bemoaning Gen Z helplessness all the time. I think the only generation thinking or Gen Z as capable are the Gen Z themself.

Weird, the stereotype I’ve seen everywhere is that they don’t know how to do anything for themselves

Lame

About time

I was expecting there to more to it

What does this have to do with Gen Z?

Bold move

I feel like with men’s issues it’s more consistent, but as a man I probably notice it a lot more so who knows.

Fuck as if Belgium wasn’t a mess before, now they’ve moved Israel there

you look cute

Definitely a compliment

you should smile more

Dunno what the intention was, I read it as “you look cute when you smile” but could be “you would look (even) cuter if you smiled”. If it’s either of those, that’s going to my compliment book.

And yes, men are famine level starved of positive attention. So this “creepy demand” (demand??) defintely would count for me.

Democracy is not binary. That is why democratic scholars consider the United States to be what’s called “a flawed democracy.”

Yes. It just seemed like you considered it as democratic/not democratic, instead of a scale where you could have such a thing as flawed democracy. I might’ve just misinterpreted your words.

That’s the problem. California and Wyoming are separate, but they are not equal. Wyoming has 1/40th the population. One person in Wyoming has the same voting power as 40 people in California to determine their own laws and taxes. That’s reminiscent of taxation without representation. For all practical purposes, the people of California have been disenfranchised by the US government.

I guess they could’ve made the original system such that US Senate accounted for population, but it would’ve been hard to get smaller states to join. It’s the reason why we in EU have the equal status.

Lastly, how Ireland, or Star Wars, or anyone else organizes their federal system has no bearing on whether the US Senate is in fact anti-democratic.

It was just an aside I was hoping you’d find interesting.

I mean in 1960 the “non-Hispanic white” population was 85.4%. Not to mention this is probably a single family. Though making one of the people black for diversity would be pretty funny. At least there’s some women in there, but they’ve had to settle for two fifths.

Well grandpa seems to be enjoying it.

You are thinking of democracy as a binary thing instead of as a sliding scale. Not to mention you can have democratic form of government that isn’t very democratic or representative in actuality.

Federations often have that sort of two tiered setup where there’s general population vote and a level where each state can represent themselves as the states. The idea makes sense when you think of it as a federation of separate and equal units, with the state tier you make sure every state is equally represented. Otherwise they might not want to be part of the whole federation. Of course it can be horribly uneven when you consider the populations. But that’s not too different from EU, where amount of MEPs differs but council seats and number of commissioners stays the same. Both Germany with 83 million people and Malta with 0,5 million people have the same number of council seats, commissars and both have veto rights. Unsurprisingly it’s a topic that sometimes gets heated, but like i said, without it there’d be outrage because everyone would be worried of core big countries deciding everything. Many countries would probably fuck right off from the Union.

I think there’s been some misunderstanding here. None of this is some value take from me or me arguing for or against something. I haven’t at least consciously given much of an opinion on this, I’ve just described the reasoning behind the system and how it makes sense to me from the member state perspective.

Now I want to know the joke