Declaring your refusal to vote certainly is not hard work, and unsurprisingly it wasn't even remotely effective. It was literally based on not voting, not actively doing anything, and it paved the way for policy to get exponentially worse, so to be honest it was objectively worse than "literally nothing".
You don't get credit for trying when everyone pointed out to you repeatedly that what you were trying wasn't going to work, and was in fact going to make things worse.
As do I, but that has nothing to do with anyone doing hard, necessary work. I'd call the Uncommitted movement about the farthest thing possible from hard work to give good options a foothold. It was people doing literally nothing and pretending that would somehow improve anything.
If the "practical left" is just voting for the less-bad, while shitting on and shunning the people trying to do the hard work because the magical Fairy of Good hasn't yet shown up to establish that foothold with a wave of the wand
No one is doing that.
Which is why the practical arm of the left promotes the Dems. Not because they are enough, or even good, but because of the two options they are the less overtly fascist. We don't vote blue because it's sufficient, we do it because it's necessary to slow the descent enough for sufficient methods to take hold. Neo liberal democracy is a farce, but it's a farce with a bad outcome and a catastrophic outcome.
We vote for bad to stave off catastrophe, so good can actually establish a foothold. Didn't pay off this time unfortunately, now good has to be fantastic to even slide a toe in the door, and it's a steep uphill battle at that. You're right, fascism is definitely more prominent in the MAGA right, our job is harder than it had to be, but so it goes.
Silver lining, I guess we can lean into accelerationism now. Not my first choice, for the sake of those less financially stable than myself, but not really much option now. Send it, sure, might as well at this point. I would've preferred building a viable labor movement under the "stationary" part of the ratchet cycle, but we're here now. If we're playing the hand we're dealt, sure, accelerationism.
Is it? It seems more introspective than anything. She acknowledges her initial confusion at his contentment despite not achieving those things, then turns right around to ask why she herself has trouble finding contentment that way. She only really brings up the "belittling" comments to immediately subvert them.
Cavatappi, hands down
Technically correct since those are all people, and people in general are as you describe
Hell, even I Robot, a movie that should have had a female lead, turned Calvin in to a supporting role to put a man in the lead.
That's exactly the point, arbitrarily changing the characters is unsatisfying. I, Robot should have been about Calvin.
I eat kiwis with the skin, still wouldn't eat the strawberry leaf
The stuff random folk "make up" perfectly aligns with the experiences I had before I blocked them, so I have no reason to call them on it.
Cylinders are the extreme upper limit of a prism
Looks innocuous enough at first glance right? Let's zoom in on the problem:
These don't go together. If the semicircle on the left is correct, then this is showing moon phases, and the symbol on the right should be of a gibbous moon:
If the cookie-with-a-bite-taken-out in the right is correct, then this is showing an eclipse, and the symbol on the left should be of a 50% partial eclipse:
It drives me crazy every time I look at it.
According to who? Because I was here, and that's exactly what happened. Pretending a bad plan had merit doesn't make it so. You are allowed to be done with the Democratic party, but that won't make anything better. Just look around you.