If your piss is blue or purple, you probably have porphyria. It also means you need to go see a doctor.

Max Stirner and Max Payne: will break your fingers if they feel like it

That was the other thing I had considered. I ultimately figured those tourists were in the minority, though, but I could be wrong. Visiting National parks will definitely lead to seeing more of the country seeing as most aren’t that close to a major airport, but at the same time, it’s a specific destination in the same way a major city is, in that many will come just for the park and then leave. Maybe that doesn’t matter, though.

Of course, and that’s not what I had in mind, either. All of those places are most certainly worth making trips to. I’m just assuming there are some countries even most Europeans don’t bother visiting. Maybe Moldova (sorry Moldovans)? Again, I don’t really know, though.

Yeah, but in the same sense that when one says they’ve “travelled” the US, chances are they’ve only actually seen a small portion of the country, just like it’s a little dubious when US tourists claim to have “travelled” Europe and only actually seen a small portion of the continent. The contiguous US is only a little bigger than Europe, most US states rival European countries in terms of size, and many European countries have administrative regions (using whatever term they prefer) that are also roughly the size of many US state counties, so I feel it’s actually a pretty apt comparison all the way down. San Bernardino County, CA, for example, is about the size of Tuscany.

I’m surprised your main gripe with places like LA or NY are that they’re too big and sprawling and not that they’re dirty and full of unseemly things like homelessness and drug use (though I feel those issues are blown out of proportion by the culture war and deserve actual help). That’s par for the course for many big cities, though.

I’d agree that most large cities have the same problem with travelling any large area in that you could live there for years and still not see everything. Any big city will have cool places to check out, but you’ll definitely get an authentic USA experience visiting places like the ones you’ve been: blue-collar workers enjoying a beer after their shift at the local dive bar; small town events and celebrations; regional gatherings like rodeos, etc.; tiny, greasy, 50-year-old eateries with the best burgers or BBQ around, etc. Simple living. It’s not all so romantic, though. There’s a fair amount of poverty in those parts of the country and substance-abuse is quite common in some parts, too. People tend to be very friendly, though, which isn’t always the case in larger cities.

Appalachia ought to be on your list for seeing rednecks as well. It has the same problems, but also many of the same kinds of draws. It also has a lot of natural beauty. Totally different kind of redneck. Another kind still, are the bayou rednecks.

Can’t blame you for wanting to stay away at this point, though.

This was my first thought when I saw your meme lol. Only other major destination might be Chicago

I’m sure that’s true for many people. When European tourists visit the US, however, how many are actually going deep into the interior of the US? Most tourists, I’d imagine, would be staying somewhat near one of the coasts and mainly sticking to the major cities. I doubt many Europeans have anywhere in Nebraska on their itineraries. Probably not a ton of European tourists in the US right now anyway, but I mean in the recent past at times of relative political normalcy.

It makes sense, though. Most people who are travelling don’t have the time or money to spend months seeing all the highlights of a place as large as Europe or the US. Even just these countries offer a ton to see, whether its the cities or the countryside. I can’t speak for how well-traveled Europeans are, but very few people in the US, even those who have lived long lives here, are able to say they’ve even visited every state, let alone seen the whole country. I bet that’s probably true of Europe for Europeans, too.

I myself don’t have much money for travelling, so I’ve only been to 11 states (and never even left the country), and I certainly did not see everything those states had to offer. Some states are often called “fly-over” states and, frankly, aren’t usually considered worthwhile places to visit anyway (even by Americans), so you can be forgiven for skipping those. I’m sure Europe has its equivalents, too.

Seems insane to me to not even say where it was found, that’s like a critical piece of the story. It would give important context as to why it took so long to find. Was it in someone’s personal collection? Was it just randomly dumped in some hidden alley or something?

War of the Worlds was written by H.G. Wells, not Orson Welles. Orson did, however, do that famous radio performance of War of the Worlds in the 30s that ostensibly (but probably not actually according to more modern analysis) caused widespread panic among its listeners.

I always get these two and George Orwell confused. On top of the somewhat similar names, the fact that Orson Welles/H.G. Wells both have that War of the Worlds connection and H.G. Wells/George Orwell both being famous authors doesn’t help, either.

Yeah, that seems to align nicely with the instincts I outlined in my comment. No need to apologize. Thanks!

From what I googled, it’s especially bad when you pair “man” and “female” together, which makes sense to me.

No stupid questions time: This kind of lurks in the back of my mind and I sometimes find myself hesitating to use the term “female” to refer to female figures in any context. I don’t have to do that, right? Like, would “woman lawyer” be better than “female lawyer” in contexts where specifying gender might be relevant? I would conversely prefer the term “male lawyer” in the same context and “man lawyer” sounds just as odd to me as “woman lawyer”. “Lawyer who is a woman” is a little verbose, too. Am I overthinking this?

TL;DR? It’s not written like an article at all (i.e. the important information isn’t what’s included first like it’s supposed to be). It’s all one long buried lede that goes on and on.

I was curious, so I pasted it into a word processor. This article is literally thirty three pages long. It’s really more of a short story than an article.

It already exists as the intro to one of the maps in Nazi Zombies in COD: Black Ops

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zv61MWfg20&pp=ygUPamZrIGNvZCB6b21iaWVz

Not too far from the one I came up with:

Show me your feet, boys

And taste my soles

Treat my toes like a tootsie roll and lick away

You’ve changed the subject immediately, none of this has anything to do with a general strike. Did you seriously think I was talking about 2020 when I brought up Seattle? But hey, if you want to change the topic to another thing I’m pretty knowledgeable about, that’s cool, too.

Oh right, I just remembered you also used to complain all the time about BLM because you had to briefly sit in traffic a couple times and now are on the side of the police state. Way to remind everyone of your petulant pettiness, too.

It sounds as though you’re advocating against any kind of protest now. Your sentiment seems to indicate that if you don’t get every single demand met permanently, then it was a total waste and you should’ve just stayed home and stayed silent, but that’s ridiculous. It’s worthwhile to stand up and fight against an unjust system simply for the sake of opposing evil in the world. Getting crushed under the boot of the police doesn’t make you wrong for that. You don’t protest with the expectation of winning any concessions, you protest to stand up for what’s right.

Besides, cops having a way outsized budget was the case before the protests, too, so what’s your point? It’s still just as worthy of protest now as it was then. The protesters won concessions, but they were almost immediately and undemocratically reneged on. For all the “defund the police” hysteria the media threw around, it never really happened anywhere (not even Minneapolis), despite many promises from officials in major cities all over the country. It’s like if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was dangled to get marches to stop and then it was thrown out as soon as they did. You make it sound like it was the fault of protesters that city councils nationwide voted to increase their police budgets after promising they’d decrease them.

Tell that to Seattle.

General strikes can be localized, too. They don’t need nationwide adoption.

I think I’ll take my activism advice from someone who doesn’t actively despise homeless people, but thanks, Jordan.

It’s true, but intelligence and counterintelligence is kind of their whole thing, isn’t it? They’ve certainly had a long list of laughable fuckups, like their many failed assassination attempts on Castro, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, Iran-Contra, etc., but they’ve also successfully toppled governments in South/Central America, the Caribbean, the Middle East, Asia, etc. Apparently they’ve made at least 70 attempts at regime change since the end of the Cold War, according to Wikipedia. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the CIA as a non-threat, personally, especially if they’re going to be following the malevolent orders of a Trump loyalist. I fear the CIA will turn more inwardly to our own country and use their efforts against US citizens (more than usual, that is), specifically against those who would oppose a Trump regime.

We already saw FBI agents engaging in 60s-and-70s-style surveillance of BLM activists in 2020, where they and other feds went around in unmarked vans snatching random activists off the street and traded literal baseball cards they made about different individual activists for fun. Those feds were also sent in at the express direction of Trump. With that in mind, I have no doubts the CIA would do the same in heartbeat. I know they already conduct domestic surveillance operations, but I’d predict a substantial increase in that under the current administration, especially given the ways things have been going after only the first couple weeks with Trump demanding absolute fealty throughout the government and vilifying all opposition. It’s just frightening that Trump had a ready-made intelligence org that was so easily converted to his agenda and seems poised to be his personal secret police. I think that’s probably even scarier than the CIA of old. At least for right now, I might somehow prefer a CIA that says, “Sorry, Mr. President, but we don’t follow orders.”

CIA, too. I thought they sort of just did their own thing and aren’t really beholden to the president. People think the CIA is such a rogue organization that some people have suggested they killed JFK because he sought to shrink the org and make them more accountable. Seems unlikely, though, since apparently all it takes to completely take it over is just to change around some personnel.

Like, my head cannon is that the new leaders would be figureheads only and that there’d be someone secretly chosen to keep things running behind closed doors and pulling the real CIA strings to resist such changes (and maybe have an encore, pretty please?), but that’s based on nothing at all. I’m no fan of the CIA or anything, but I do fear what such a shadowy government org might do when wielded by Trump cronies even more than the stuff they usually get up to.