So sorry to hear. It happened to my father, too, but we all saw it.

I can’t pass up the opportunity to point out that that list of words was not part of the cognitive assessment that he “aced.” He forgot that list. Person, man, woman, camera, and TV were just objects in his field of vision at the moment he was speaking in the interview.

I’ve been pointing out his dementia symptoms for years now. Why does it still feel so shitty to be proved right by time? :-/

In this case, I think adding an article would also have cleared the garden path— that is, “The Doctor Who […]” — but yeah, the meaning is clear enough this way.

Kinda tongue-in-cheek questions, but: Honey isn’t an animal body part, it isn’t produced by animal bodies, so if it is an animal product because bees process it, is wheat flour (for example) an animal product because humans process it? How about hand-kneaded bread? Does that make fruit an animal product because the bees pollinated the flowers while collecting the nectar?

But have we tried feeding a human infant 24kg of fish per week? Y’know, for science.

In a nutshell, the Democrats can’t convince people to vote against the dangerous candidate because right-wing populism inoculates people against facts and logic by making those things out-group markers, per se. Identity is powerful, and the human brain treats threats to identity in exactly the same way as physical threats.

And, on the other side, Democrats can’t recognize this and respond appropriately, because they’ve made not-recognizing-it a marker of in-group identity, and they are thereby unable to decode what would make an attractive policy plan.

All of these examples across your comments have this in common: People who were feeling guilty about something, and then lashing out at you in anger for allegedly calling them out on the issue. This is a very common coping strategy that people use, and it’s really not your fault at all because they didn’t tell you up front about their feelings. They just want to make it seem that it is your fault to deflect from their own unpleasant feelings.

This is a really hard one to learn to detect if you’re not tuned into people (that is, autistic). Hell, it’s a hard one to detect for everybody. You kind of have to watch for body language which indicates discomfort: Body stiffness, blank affect, disengaging from conversation, flared nostrils, clipped syllables, curt replies. If you see those indicators, change the topic.

In-progress vs. potential? I dunno, seems pretty self-evident to me.

Well, now that you put it that way…

More directly relevant, many members of Netanyahu’s government have also called for the extermination of all Palestinians, and they have the U.S. government providing political cover while they do it.

Thanks! I knew what kind of replies I’d get, and did. Essentially, doubling-down on the electoral calculus argument, and not considering that other people have different motivations.

For what it’s worth, I’m comparing what’s actually happening (genocide and the Middle East spiraling into war) with Democrats in office (tsk-tsking but providing material support to Netanyahu) to what history shows would likely happen with the other guy in office (hot air and bombast, but almost certainly not any greater material support).

Let’s break down this bullshit: A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein. The election clerks count ballots marked for Stein and report the vote totals that Stein received. A vote for Jill Stein is literally a vote for Jill Stein.

The statement that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump is, of course, metaphorical. It’s asserting that a vote for Stein is morally equivalent to a vote for Trump by the speaker’s moral reckoning. It’s a rhetorical shortcut. This shortcut rests on the notion that either the voter would have voted for Harris, or that it is a moral imperative to stop Trump above all else.

That’s a moral judgement call. Other people may judge differently. Flatly stating that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump so vehemently and absolutely elides any possibility of discourse and clearly tells the Stein voter that the speaker will not listen to or consider any of their views, or reasons to vote for Stein.

Fine, you believe that, but when has telling people more or less directly that you do not have any intention of considering their political beliefs won them over to your side? How is that a good tactic? If it worked, then why not employ it on Trump supporters? Go ahead, tell them that the party you support will ignore what they think and want, and demand they vote for your candidate.

If it doesn’t work on them, why should it work on Stein voters?

Which is which? Like, seriously. Put the recent headlines about Israel’s actions against the other guy’s vague, contradictory statements and demonstrated lack of deep interest in foreign affairs. It’s not clear at all.

People talk about black ice in near-mystical terms, like some sort of malevolent spirit that waits to ambush its prey. But, really, while it is every bit as slippery as they say, it’s also not hard to avoid. I’ve had great results by simply treating any pavement that looks “wet” as slippery black ice. It’s not hard to see; the pavement color changes. It’s not always black ice, but it’s the same principle at treating every gun as if it is loaded.

To jump in here with a clarification: Wisconsin does indeed have a bar exam. However, the Wisconsin courts offer diploma privilege to graduates of the Marquette and University of Wisconsin law schools. You do not need to sit for the bar exam if you graduate from those schools, but everybody else must pass the exam to gain admission.

Good news, though: Milwaukee and Madison are very blue cities.

He’ll be a martyr in prison, too. He needs to have a massive, disabling stroke so his followers can see him look irredeemably weak.

Tell me it’s 68f out and I will fight you.

Note to self: High heat levels make Canadians cranky.

Around here, 32°F is very cold in October, but an occasion to wear shorts in February. (Both are still cookout temperatures, though.)

No, that’s not it, we’re measuring in incredulity units, which are syllables.

“One hun-dred and se-ven?!” == 6 syllables

“For-ty one?!” == 3 syllables

Also, the first one has more vowel sounds to really draw out to indicate higher levels of I-can’t-even. It sounds only golly-jeepers in Celsius, and much more I’m-so-done-with-this-shit in Fahrenheit.