Lorewarn

Actual outsiders or people inside who for whatever reason can't fit in, will always see any community system that is tight knit around a specific shared goal and belief as being 'cultish'. Sports locker rooms are absolutely up there with the best of them in terms of groupthink, because you fail without buy-in. That's why the leaders try to eliminate outside distractions and have clear messaging, values, expectations, etc. Same is true of churches, the military, bands on tour, etc.

I'm a fan of no stripes but if you're gonna do em that's about the best possible look. The stripes through the 00's-10's were way too big and added too much noise to an otherwise very minimal uniform.

I would disagree with the assertion that we're less than thrilled with the Iowa matchup at the end of the year. First of all, we haven't played Oklahoma regularly since 1995, so at this point we've got nearly 30 years of reps with a "lesser" program as our black friday game. Second, due to us sucking, Iowa raising their floor a decent amount, and enough time, the amount of people who would say it isn't a rivalry is much less than it was 10 or even 5 years ago. That being said, we would have no problem with PSU as a protected rivalry - I think by and large our fanbase really loves playing them and the matchups are pretty much always really solid. Unfortunately Iowa makes too much sense at this point, but once we go division-less who knows?

Absolutely brilliant relational chess playing by Rhule

I don't know, I'm not a climate scientist, and your reductionistic takes seem to scream from the rooftops that you aren't either.

Have you ever heard of the phrase 'the straw that broke the camel's back'?

Go look at a Tommie Frazier highlight reel - same idea.

These all fit nicely with the aforementioned step 3.

Your last sentence is the bingo. This is, like pretty much all of these things are, a make believe controversy that's ultimately just good marketing. Nobody is upset about this song (when I mean nobody I obviously don't include the existence of some infintesimal online minority who will be upset about anything). Nobody even knew about it until his label and team had a brilliant marketing idea. It's an easy formula. Put something out there that is pandering and antagonistic, roll out the memes, get some opinion articles calling it controversial (all you need for proof is like 5 tweets from the most random corners of the internet), then congratulations you've created a controversy that is now feeding itself with reactions, reactions to the reactions, ad infinitum. It's the same with the sex trafficking movie and it's the same with pretty much any other allegedly controversial thing people on social media are talking about. The depressing part is that everyone across the entire spectrum falls for it every single time.

Who's mad?

It doesn't even matter if humans are a main factor to climate change or not. What matters is that it's happening, and we better be a main factor in slowing and stopping it if we're gonna continue to live some semblance of the lives we've come to enjoy and expect.

My social standing has only dramatically improved since owning my light up lightning mcqueen crocs in public.

The border isn't open, and the amount of vetting that takes place is anything other than lacking. This is a bit outdated but it gives you a decent overview of how rigorous the process is:

GOTG3 a notable exception this looks terrible and continuing in the MCU's poor trajectory through phase 5.

Maybe part of the reason AOC doesn't get as worked up (if that's true) about human rights abuses in those countries is because we don't have the same allyship with those countries and we aren't aiding and abetting those countries' human rights abuses the way we are with Israel's.

You can quibble over the wording all you want, but it's still cringe imo. If you're a star quarterback, there's a big difference between everyone around you praising you for how great you are, versus you saying, "Yeah, I am the star. I am the best."

In a similar way to some folks being determined to not have expectations in order to not be let down, you (for whatever reason) seem equally determined to hold onto hope and believe that Rhule will get a magic jumpstart. Which is fine. I don't have any problem with anyone being overly optimistic or pessimistic about a sports team. But in your pursuit to convince yourself that we will or should start out strong, you also seem determined to only pay attention to the variables that you think support that idea and ignore the ones that might be pointing to a rockier beginning.

Wow. Good job nic, proud of you for growing into this very common sense level of comprehension. Eat your heart out archibald

Conceptually I'm fairly close to this, but I'm also wondering how many people are getting third trimester abortions not for medical reasons.

I'm contrasting the weight and power of one single citizen versus an entire political apparatus. When you're just a person who's hopelessly outmatched, I'm talking about all campaigns.

He doesn't have to choose one, though. He can choose both, or in the case of a voter, neither First, I'm not arguing my own beliefs here just arguing the point. Second, the steaming pile of s#!t would be Trump - Biden is the bland boring sandwich I suppose I agree that there is some culpability, but... When you're one person, and your opponent is a massive, well-oiled machine that not only has infinity dollars and resources to use up but also has the aggregate expertise on the exact ways to manipulate and control all of your vulnerabilities as a social primate, what chance do you stand?

The bolded here is where you are manufacturing the equivalency. Everyone has a certain threshold for voting for a candidate - call it a mile marker, or even better a speed limit. If one candidate speeds by the milemarker at 200mph and continues going past the horizon, and another candidate is just one mile past the marker going 10 over, a cop pulling both over and citing them tickets is not tantamount to the cop saying they are equal offenders. It's only saying they both did, in fact, go past the limit to differing degrees. When it comes to someone voting, their own criteria for whether or not they will or can vote for someone is frankly none of your damn business and very much within their rights, and does not at all mean that they are declaring everyone they don't vote for equally unworthy. A better phrase would be all unworthy to varying degrees. Fair enough, but if you're right about this, then your tactics of guilt tripping people into picking the bland boring sandwich instead of the steaming pile of s#!t are the actions that lead to us having no viable, healthy and nutritious alternatives.

You're creating the false equivalency, not the people you're responding to. The stranglehold that the two main parties have on American politics, and their uninspiring candidates, are not the fault or responsibility of the voting citizens. If someone is telling me to choose to vote between Ted Bundy and George Santos, and my vote doesn't matter, I'm not voting for either and it's not because I'm treating them equally - they just both pass the threshold of people I'm not willing to vote for.

Nice to see archy quietly accept and then abandon the premise that the argument says ONLY black people and nobody else have a tough time sleeping. Would've been nice to see the acknowledgment, but we can judge the tree by its fruit and celebrate a level up in thinking where we find it.

I'm not going to answer the question for you, but I will help you along in finding out the answer to help with your predicament of either being willfully dense (trolling) or having really poor reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. You've used the word 'only' twice. If you Ctrl+F search the article, the word only doesn't exist at all. But all of these words do (I've added emphasis): "have put certain groups in a position to have a tougher time getting a full night's sleep" "Experts argue that puts them at higher risk for greater health problems." "National data indicate that Black adults and other non-white adults have poorer sleep" "research has shown Black Americans are more likely to live in communities where the noise levels are higher." What do all of these words have in common?