It’s more insidious than dead internet theory. Imagine any significant social media platform containing a large proportion of users that can be directly prompted to tout any message, or mass downvote opinions that the company doesn’t like. All this can happen while the company claims to be a “free speech platform”.

Were you not aware of it at any point? I don’t necessarily mean as part of the GCSE curriculum. I’ve been aware of the Odyssey and the Iliad from the “Ancient Greeks” part of our primary school curriculum back in year 4. Of course we weren’t analysing texts, but I’d expect any ten year old to be capable of rattling off some major plot points like blinding Polyphemus, or sailors plugging their ears with wax against the sirens and tying Odysseus to the mast.

Liam’s a tool. UK schools absolutely do teach the Odyssey, and have done so at least as far back as my youth.

According to who?

Yeah those 3 years really demonstrate how the myth of “they married young in the past” can’t possibly be a myth.

When talking about a lower bound on something, the only information one can directly infer from the statement “13 is too low” is “any number below 13 is also too low.” If you’re arguing that “13 is too low” implies “16 is too low” then ditto 19, 22, 25. It’s an absurd argument.

I’m a mathematician so I’ll give you a free lesson: 13 is less than 16. So in a thread discussing Disney and the historic attitudes of people towards a 16 year old marrying, saying that it was inappropriate for a 13 year old in a Shakespeare play is immaterial to the discussion.

Romeo and Juliet were 13 though.

There should be a narcissist’s prayer for people who bury their heads in the sand.

That didn’t happen

And if it did, it’s contained online

And if it isn’t, it’s not popular

And if it is, you can ignore it

And if you can’t, ¯\(ツ)/¯

I thought I was being a reductionist but it seems from that article I might be closer to the truth than I thought. It’s weirdly disappointing that it simply boils down to some childish tactic of pretending to be confused by the results, instead of there being some obscure legal precedent.

Can someone better versed in US politics give a quick rundown on how the fake electoral scheme actually works? I’m aware of the physical steps involved but I don’t see how the scheme doesn’t just fail at the first hurdle. In what world can a person not assigned as elector send in their own certificate and not be immediately disregarded? To my mind it sounds like this:

Mrs Krabappel: I’m the fourth grade teacher and have counted the votes for fourth grade class president. Martin Prince wins with 2 votes.

Miss Hoover: No, I’m the real fourth grade teacher and I declare that Bart Simpson wins with 2 votes.

Principal Skinner: There’s no way of discerning who the real fourth grade teacher is. My only option is to ignore the results of the vote and decide by fiat.

Sorry but that knife screams “mall ninja.”

They’re the same picture.

Depends on your frame of reference. When traversing the surface of a globe, your described concept of a straight line isn’t intuitive.

Forgive the ignorance, but are regular OBGYN appointments a thing in the US? From the media I’ve consumed it appears so. I know people with actual gynaecological issues like endometriosis, and even they find the idea of regular checkups without a cause weird.

”For a comment.”

In this day and age, who hasn’t made incredibly specific ultraviolent threats against an elected official while constantly reassuring others that they are serious/making a promise to enact these threats? Did this upstanding citizen simply forget to cite his first amendment rights to the agents?

The is me with my PhD thesis. I wrote it, submitted it, planned for an absolute grilling in the Viva, got waved through the Viva with just minor corrections for grammar, went overzealous with corrections, submitted for review, got accepted, finally graduated.

It still makes me sick to look at it on my bookshelf.

This really makes me grin, as I’ve argued these “theological debates” on multiple sides depending on which splatbook I’m into at the time. I’ve definitely been on both sides of the Caine vs Prime Archmage debate.

Jarl Balgruuf energy.

We both know who cares. Who would derail a discussion about bigotry by making pedantic observations on grammar or language?

Do they have a different tattoo or are you referring to the one circling their arm? It looks like the inscription on the One Ring to me, though I definitely could be wrong.