I am legit one of the men who likes to play as a woman in games from time to time without any excuse. I have always been a maverick. I always like to go against the perceived norm and I enjoy doing something different. Playing as a woman for me is always spicing things up and a break from the usual man things, whatever that is.

That said, FemShep is the only Shep!

US trying to be 1950s Ireland on how much they can persecute unwed mothers and kill babies.

That’s because it is full of shrapnels.

You have a point. I guess Brazil got lucky that the judges who prosecuted Lula and the Worker’s Party turned out to be partial and have ulterior motive, after finding out that these judges were bribed by the right. Those judges were removed. The new judges seem to be doing the correct thing by prosecuting Bolsonaro.

That being said, the US could still learn from Brazil. The US Supreme Court judges–especially Clarence Tomas-- were revealed to be corrupt, but what happened? Nothing. If those judges are in Brazil, they would have immediately been removed. In this regard, Brazil is still doing better than US in combatting authoritarianism.

Reminds me of the same reaction, but inverse for the right, when Squid Game first came out. The right keeps insisting that the show is about socialism, even though the creator explicitly mentioned it’s about capitalism.

I see. You could start small and then see where it takes you from there. Hobbies does not always have to lead to full time business. If it happens, it happens. I think hobbies should always be, first and foremost, hobbies. Everything that comes out of it is secondary. I would do hobbies as enjoyment while being unemployed; to keep myself busy and sane. That’s just my two cent :)

If medical professionals are punished for refusing to treat patients because of race, then the same goes for refusing to treat someone for “having different lifestyle”.

I’m not USian, but from what analysts worth their salt would say, it is combination of-- but not limited to-- intentional dumbification of Americans, the opposition not really being opposition, the US Supreme Court legalising bribery, the atomisation and polarisation of American communities, de-industrialisation, growing wealth inequality and general corruption. These contributed to the growth of frustration and populism among the voters to vote for anyone who is “not establishment”. Someone who “tells it like it is” unlike most politicians who always do politician speak. In the minds of many Americans, Trump may be a grifter and a pervert, but they see him as genuine. If the democracy is a sham after all, might as well pull down the mask and show tje country for what it truly is. That’s why people say Trump is a symptom, not the cause. The same symptom is happening across the world which is why we’re getting the same far right populism.

Because spineless Establishment Dems have some obsession with "playing nice insider trading

Ftfy.

The Dem party is known as the party of insider trading after all!

Brazil has experience with dictatorship so they known how to deal with it. America is yet to have a fully fledged one. But speaking of which, the Brazilian dictatorship in the 1970-80’s was sponsored by the CIA. Manufactured dictatorship is coming home to roost.

As for your point 4, De Gaulle was right to refuse being subordinated to the US after World War 2, and to pursue “strategic autonomy” instead.

Even before Trump 2.0, I always thought about the nature of the concept of alliance itself. Jacobin magazine made a point about not building alliance, but solidarity instead. Alliance implies impermanence and a tit for tat deal. Whereas, solidarity shows unquestionable mutual cooperation that does not look for anything in return. Jacobin wrote it in the context of social justice particularly on gender, race and lgbt; but going back to De Gaulle, he did say that there is no permanent alliance, only permanent interest. He knew that alliance with US is not everlasting and was correct to de-couple. France has its own interest for sure, but their policy is to first build cultural, political and military solidarity with Europe, which would translate to alliance.

In some industries, job hopping is completely fine because of their nature and circumstances. But in my one, it is tolerated for those who are just new in their career, especially the newly graduates. In my field, the longer you are in your career, the more they expect that you to stay in a given company. Each companies in my field have their own quirks, so they appreciate people who stay on for long because they don’t have to train new starts on the nuances (some companies backstab their long time employees, but that is kind of expected in any industry). Some might even think weirdly if you are doing some practices you picked up from your previous company (like reading the SOP). So, adjusting to new work environment can be daunting because different companies (in my field) do things differently.

I am a pretty sociable person. I consider many of my previous and current colleagues as friends, but they are different kind of friend, which is work friend. I would hang out with them and go for drinks or talk about things outside of work; but I won’t share with them too intimate details of my life, as I do to my long time friends I grew up with.

Liberals: What are you offering?

Leftists: Wtf dude??!!

I don’t think I heard Americans pledge in the name of Huxley and Orwell.

You could only get away so much with job hopping. And besides, I have job hopped before, adjusting to new working culture and environment can be challenging and eventually drain you as a person.

I take mentoring others seriously, and although I’m not naturally a very patient person, I am always patient with my coworkers and clients.

This is what I mean. You have to have “people’s skills” because it is important in a job where teamwork and mentoring are required. You don’t have to socialise on every company events or be friends with coworkers outside of work. But being professional and friendly goes a long way. I know of people who may be good at their jobs on technical level, but are bad with managing people because they lack both social skills and social intelligence, which makes them pass over for promotions.

What kind of spice has it eaten?

I am convinced that Lemmy tankies are just in it for the sake of belonging in a group, albeit in a toxic way.

This is meme has a bad implied advise. You have to interact with your coworkers in so far as you build working relationship to trust each other, because teamwork and professionalism is required in most jobs. Also, building a work friendly relationship with coworkers will pay off when you want to get promotion or recognition, because you will get good word of mouth from colleagues and thus build a good reputation.

I understand where people are coming from with this, but one has to balance knowing when to recognise if your workmates can be trusted and become good friends, or knowing how to keep professional but friendly distance. Unless you work in an environment where teamwork has less importance, or you don’t plan to move up the corporate ladder which requires good reputation, or really don’t want to make friends with colleagues because they are toxic, then by all means be “rude”.

Yeah, plenty of people have misconception that it was just the Taliban who the US funded. The US funded everyone who were against USSR. The mujahideen was a catch-all term of Afghans who fought against the Soviets.