Ha, i am somewhat familiar with the genre, i just wanted to contribute :) studied ancient rome, so that is legit what i typically think of when i hear goth.

To me, goths are the people who sacked Rome in 410. None of this makes sense to me.

Looks like the label says blueberry

I don’t think this is a particularly fair take. Some people bought at high prices because it seemed like the right move (in 2008, for example), market crashes, you’re stuck with your investment even if you’re underwater (upside down).

It’s definitely not fair to assume what his costs are compared to the cost to rent. It isn’t necessary to have the example above to reside in an area where mortgages far exceed rent. Northern Virginia in the USA is a good example, where townhomes can easily exceed 1 million USD, which would typically require a 30-50k+ down payment plus closing costs, and would then be 5k+ in a mortgage. Rent that place for 4500 and that’s a loss on monthly costs, but of course the landlord is earning long term equity (and that is the value, but they may not be turning a profit).

Edit: I’m simply stating that it’s unfair to assume the original commenter is lying about not making a profit. I’m not suggesting they aren’t experiencing a net gain in equity.

Yeah i totally missed that, edited my edits. Thanks!

Comments like these remind me that so many maps are super unfriendly to the color blind, which has to be annoying to so many people

Edit:

Didn’t realize this was specifically in 1922, so it looks like it is probably due to a combination of war/control and legal changes.

Austria was apparently split based on which part of the country was controlled by Napoleon, and this lasted for quite awhile, though a few sources cite different lengths of time for the mixed driving laws. I wanted to use a local source here but it was paywalled.

Also, apparently Italy and Spain (and Canada?) changed from left side to right side drive in the 1920s, so this probably reflects that change in Europe.

I think the question is asking for an explanation of how that is possible that some areas are right and some are left within the same country. Does the local government decide (city, state, etc), or is it something else, and why.

Additionally, they seem to be partially color blind, since they can’t differentiate the purple from blue.

Edit: Copying my other comment here, based on some light Internet research which may or may not be accurate.

Austria was apparently split based on which part of the country was controlled by Napoleon, and this lasted for quite awhile, though a few sources cite different lengths of time for the mixed driving laws. I wanted to use a local source here but it was paywalled.

Also, apparently Italy and Spain (and Canada?) changed from left side to right side drive in the 1920s, so this probably reflects that change in Europe.

I don’t think it’s fair to flatly posit that since the CDC has been wrong at some point in the past, they can’t ever be trusted. While i understand the concept of don’t blindly follow words regardless of who said it, the sheer amount of research and dedication from an organization such as the CDC should count quite a bit more than the folks who have done none.

I don’t have the means to do such research, and as such i will more heavily weigh the words of the applicable research team than i will the words of someone who has no knowledge on the topic.

I think the question really should be not “have they ever been wrong,” but instead, “do i think they’re wrong on purpose.” A lot of research teams are funded by one side of an argument, which is cause for concern. The CDC is most likely not, and it would be fair to say they could be wrong, but likely not on purpose. Therefore i would say in this instance they are the more qualified experts who are also trying their best to be objective, and therefore, they likely have the more reasonable statement on this topic.

I’m not having a glass of wine, I’m having six. It’s called a tasting and it’s classy!

Now you’re making assumptions, and have already missed the point entirely. This would be the engage the community portion, not the get new members portion. It’s a long process. You can’t just proselytize at every moment, it simply doesn’t work that way anymore.

That isn’t the point though, it’s to first better engage the community, then preach later. there’s an art to proper outreach. Convince the community that you’re part of it, then they express interest in your organization. That’s when you go for it. If it’s all preaching all day, that simply won’t attract new members. And overly preachy metal music would probably chase almost everyone away. And who would want to hang out somewhere that’s just non-stop preaching? That sounds horrible

Not everything is completely black and white. In fact, that kind of exclusive thinking is what drives people away. The point here is to improve the image, encourage the community to get more engaged, and just be there. Potential new members will come along.

Honestly, the mindset of “why bother if you aren’t preaching” sounds very similar to a business caring only about its stocks. What about research? Quality control? Community outreach? Those things are important for a good company to thrive, as opposed to one looking only at short term profits. Look at what’s happening with Boeing. They’re focused on stocks only, the same way some churches only care about preaching. and their image is tanking, and everyone is wondering what happened.

If your goal is to acquire more members, then you need to find a way to reach other people in a way that makes sense to them, not you. Imagine trying to teach English to non English speakers. You don’t just do it randomly in the town square, spouting off the virtues of English speaking. you need to entice people to even want to not only learn English in the first place, but from you.

That’s the part I’m not understanding. So how do you recruit new members if you exclusively advertise to people that already agree with you? Your audience is explicitly people who already are part of your group, and that number continues to decline.

There are two groups to try to entice - current members who are losing interest, and non members who are currently non believers. If you only create events that are catering to current and active members, you alienate the others and won’t grow

Not sure I’m following your points here. You suggest that the church needs to keep and maintain a community, but doing things that attracts such potential members is inappropriate? I’m not really understanding what the idea to get new members is. Outreach and knowing your audience are important factors in growing a community.

One way to attract members is to showcase that the things that matter or are interesting (within reason) to potential members matters to the current members. People tend to be attracted to people that at least appear to understand them. Highlighting that everyone around you is wrong and doesn’t get it kind of pinpoints a major underlying issue with the church today.

Unfortunately, the reality is that every group needs a way to attract members and increase attendance. I’m providing one from 1400s Germany, and some areas in Germany are, to this day, prolifically religious (bavaria, for example). Maybe it turns out it was a good idea to do what you can to keep members?

I’m not from England, but i do pay a lot of attention to music and, broadly speaking, religion, and I’m not entirely sure this is a fair take. Places of worship are not traditionally meant to be exclusively worship zones; they can and should be places to engage the community. An example is that old (medieval) german churches traditionally gave free beer to their patrons as an incentive to attend mass. One major criticism of modern religion is their inability to adapt to modern youth, and this seems like a creative way to engage the community.

Additionally, a lot of “heavy metal” (which is separate from Rock) is basically classical scales but sped up and using distortion. For me personally, there’s a subgenre of metal that incorporates operatic vocalists that i find surprisingly fitting for such a sitting.

i think it could be a reference to saying no to plastic clothes hangers, since clothes hangers are an enormous source of plastic waste.

Edit: yes i understand the anti dangerous abortion symbolism, but here are some sources to explain the environmental impacts that are starting to gain some press.

https://torrancerecycles.org/guide/coat-hangers-plastic/#:~:text=Plastic hangers typically wind up,and BPA into the environment.

https://www.commonobjective.co/article/are-sustainable-hangers-all-they-re-cracked-up-to-be#:~:text=Made predominantly from expanded polystyrene,800-1%2C000 years to breakdown.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plastic-hanger-fun-fact-20-billion-landfills-every-year-gary-barker

I don’t think it’s fair to assume, at best, an accident is negligence. There are numerous things that can lead to an accident that wouldn’t be negligence, such as normal wear and tear causing problems with something such as brakes or steering (perhaps not caught during routine maintenance as they weren’t issues at the time), something falling into the road (weather related, wildlife, erosion), a glitch of some kind (two green lights, not negligence necessarily) , or visibility issues (even cautious and solid drivers can be at risk during poor conditions). These are just some examples, but in the cases nobody involved would be at fault.

I believe the comparison to a gun is woefully inaccurate and invalid. Both are machines with the capacity to cause harm, but the similarities end there.

I can totally understand, and that makes a lot of sense. I think the sheer volume of accidents in the post are what’s so shocking. I’ve only been in a vehicle with an obviously reckless driver two times (so far. And to clarify, two people, once each), and from my perspective, some people really shouldn’t drive. Heck, one of those two times was supposed to be a casual date (she was picking me up, we were in college), and i asked her to drop me off immediately. Big nope.

That’s why i added not high volume times, so what i meant was regarding specifically driving when you aren’t stuck in traffic. I’m suggesting that the act of driving itself isn’t normally a horrific experience, though yes, sitting in traffic is awful.

Edited for some clarity

I can agree with some of your response to what was said by the other commenter, but my impression is that person was shocked that someone at a young age has been involved in double digit accidents that mostly sound like their fault. Some people really just are incapable of driving, though that shouldn’t diminish that small lapses or true accidents do happen.

I would disagree that driving in general is miserable, though I’m sure this can vary by location. While i would prefer better access to efficient public transit (live in the USA), being able to get in a car and go anywhere is pretty freeing, provided it isn’t during high volume times, especially on a freeway.

I’m not entirely sure this is a fair take. Although i can understand where you’re coming from, i think it’s reasonable to consider that a decent number teachers (although certainly not all) are both passionate about their profession and also underpaid. This almost forces teachers to have a second job (side hustle) to enable them to continue teaching. The teacher in the article chose a less socially acceptable side hustle, but not an illegal one, and once found out, her employer activated a morality clause to fire her.

From a purely monetary standpoint, she’s probably fine (assuming she continues her other job), but I’m not sure it’s reasonable to say that money is the only thing she cares about. Being fired from her (probable) passion of teaching sucks.

Also, being unemployed sucks. It isn’t really about being bored so much as not feeling like you’re part of society. And for many, of course, it’s a financial hardship, but it can definitely be mentally taxing when feel like you don’t have a meaningful role in life or your community.

There is also added social connotation. For example, meeting people, you often ask what you do. “I’m a teacher” will elicit significantly different responses than “i used to be a teacher” or “I’m an onlyfans model.” Whether or not any of us agree that it’s “ok” has no bearing on her future interactions and life. Labels like these matter to a lot of people, so i could definitely see how this would be mentally and emotionally taxing.