As the proud owner of a Santa Claus beard (though in color and texture, it’s more of a Grizzly Adams beard) I would say that the most important thing is to turn the care over to a professional. Just like your hair, don’t attempt to manage it yourself (beyond washing, combing and the like). Find a stylist who also does beards and go on a regular schedule and have them trim it and maintain it. And they’ll also be able to tell you if you need to do something special to care for it.

And…?

You’re talking about two different things.

Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods

This would mean they’d be against food safety regulations, would it not?

It’s entirely possible to be in favor of food safety regulations and opposed to the government banning foods outright. In fact, I think one could safely presume that those are the positions most commonly held by most people.

It’s not that they’re truly synonymous but that each also implies the other. If it’s true that he’s dead, then it’s also true that he died and vice versa. So it seems like they mean the same thing because if ypu say one, it can be taken for granted that the other is necessarily also true.

But even that’s not 100% - it’s possible that “he died” is true but “he’s dead” is not, since he might’ve been revived. That illustrates the fact that they actually each communicate something different - “he died” is an experience through which he went at some point, while “he’s dead” is the state he’s in right now.

So again, they broadly communicate the same thing since saying one implies the other as well, but they don’t actually mean the same thing.

I keep wondering the same thing.

It’s especially galling when I see some cautionary piece in the legacy media about how some Republican policy “might” lead to some negative consequences. As if the Republicans are unaware of that and it’s up to the media to gently nudge them and point it out.

The Republicans are fully aware of the harm their policies are going to do and that’s much of the point. They quite simply want everyone who’s not one of them to die. They’re not only okay with that - they’re eagerly looking forward to it.

Imagine not recognizing that central authority is the problem.

To the degree that fascism has a distinctive economic system, one of its most notable qualities is a combination of private ownership of the means of producton with government/corporate partnership and a “revolving door” by which powerful individuals pass back and forth between business and political leadership positions.

If only it was that simple…

Discworld, no contest.

It’s those roughly squared off, dirty, slushy heaps of packed snow that were plowed out of the way after the snowfall and are the only thing left after the rest of the snow has melted.

I can’t see any situation in which I would.

Mostly I have zero interest in sucking any dick (other than maybe my own, and I’m not that flexible).

But beyond that, $20 just seems wrong no matter what - if I wanted to do it, $20 would be pointless and if I didn’t, it wouldn’t be near enough.

The timing here is what makes this move particularly baffling…

It’s only baffling if you cling to the ever-more-laughable belief that the Democrats are any sort of meaningful opposition.

If you instead simply shift to the ever-more-supported belief that they are in fact essentially oligarchic co-conspirators, then the timing makes perfect sense.

That whole family is just rich white trash, aren’t they?

Yes.

If you qualify, they’ll contact you.

And so on, and so on…

If my government the government that’s managed to weasel its way into power over the land on which I happened to be born proposed an initiative to tackle fraud, I would look for the catch, because it’s guaranteed there would be one.

“Lefties keep calling us Nazis but they don’t even know what Nazis are, and oh yeah, by the way, all of these people over here should be killed because they’re an inferior race.”

Even setting aside the staggering psychopathy of the modern right - their complete and utter disregard for the lives of other human beings - I don’t even begin to understand how any human being could have so little self-awareness.

In the terms of the cliche, they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too.

They want the immediate gratification of being rude assholes, so they do it just long enough for that initial rush, then they back away to try to avoid the consequences.

I think that if humanity can manage to survive long enough, anarchism is inevitable.

It’s essentially the adult stage of human society - the point at which humans collectively and consistently, rather than just individually and situationally, can be trusted to generally do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing and therefore the most reasonable thing to do.

For the time being and the foreseeable future though, humanity is nowhere even close to that. Through the course of history, human society has managed to advance to about the equivalent of adolescence. There’s still a long way to go.

In spite of that, I do identify as an anarchist, but my advocacy is focused on the ideal and the steps humanity as a whole has to take to achieve it. I think it’s plainly obvious that it cannot be implemented, since any mechanism by which it might be inplemented would necessarily violate the very principles that define it. It can only be willingly adopted by each and all (or close enough as makes no meaningful difference), and that point will come whenever (if) it comes.

This is a coup.