|
blackmet posted:My partner totaled his 2018 Passat last month.  I totaled my Wrangler in 2014. I walked away from this without even a bruise. Well...it SEEMS I walked away without a bruise, with all the poo poo that's happened since then like Trump winning I do somewhat suspect I'm in a coma and this is all delusions.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
A lady rear ended my work truck with a 2018 Honda civic, slamming into it at 40mph when I was stopped at a light. The entire front end of her car past the windshield was like a scrunched up accordion. She walked away from the wreck with just a shoulder abrasion from the seat belt slipping against her shoulder. I figure a car 60 years older would have pancaked her when the engine block shot through the dashboard from such an impact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
I would simply not total my car.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
When I was in school (which is now 20+ years ago) one of my friends had a VW van, which was old enough to be a pretty classic car even then. One day when they were driving from school they had a run in with a modern (by which I mean 1990s) SUV. With no engine in front, appreciable crumple zone, or airbags, the only thing protecting them was the car frame. My friend ended up breaking his pelvis and leg, spent the entire spring semester in traction in hospital, and eventually had to relocate to get proper physical therapy and recovery care. His father died in the ICU. By comparison, the SUV was in good enough state that the driver fled the scene (he was probably drunk) and got home in his vehicle and didn't need any treatment at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
Okuteru posted:I remember that even cartoons like the Fairly Odd parents had a joke about calling old cars" Screaming Metal Death Traps. " iirc that episode was also the father character having a midlife crisis and buying said "Screaming Metal Death Traps" also lol at talking about houses when those people the blood sucking house as long investments industry. oh and then HOA redlines and keeping non whites out so their account numbers can go up up up
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
Craziest thing about those old cars is guys were driving them drunk all the time, often with a drink in hand. And it was all manual, so I imagine they had to set the cocktail glass on the bench seat to shift. And cops would frequently be like "Well, how far are you going, pal? A mile or two home? Okay, drive safe." If you were white, anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
From the flashback in Bojack Horseman: "Lady you're out of control! Have one last whisky then drive your poor daughter home, it's past her bedtime!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Craziest thing about those old cars is guys were driving them drunk all the time, often with a drink in hand. And it was all manual, so I imagine they had to set the cocktail glass on the bench seat to shift. And cops would frequently be like "Well, how far are you going, pal? A mile or two home? Okay, drive safe." If you were white, anyway. Cracking down on drunk driving was, predictably, called communism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xcQIoh3FQQ
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 02:39
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Craziest thing about those old cars is guys were driving them drunk all the time, often with a drink in hand. And it was all manual, so I imagine they had to set the cocktail glass on the bench seat to shift. And cops would frequently be like "Well, how far are you going, pal? A mile or two home? Okay, drive safe." If you were white, anyway. Lol no, you let go of the steering wheel to change gears while holding your drink. Inertia will keep you safe for a few seconds, probably. Cup holders were actually a significant safety innovation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 02:54
|
|
|
You just hold the cup with your fingers and palm shift.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 03:40
|
|
|
chug every time you have to shift, crack a fresh one after
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 03:54
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Cracking down on drunk driving was, predictably, called communism. Famous teetotalers, those Soviets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
Roads were much safer back then because everyone just assumed that all other drivers were drunk, so they were more careful in traffic. We could still have that. Make it so that at certain hours on Friday and Saturday nights you can drive drunk from bar to home. When people know that those are the DUI hours, they either stay off the streets or exercise extra caution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Roads were much safer back then because everyone just assumed that all other drivers were drunk, so they were more careful in traffic. Cautiously getting t-boned at the intersection when someone drunk off their rear end plows through the red light.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
Willatron posted:Cautiously getting t-boned at the intersection when someone drunk off their rear end plows through the red light. I bet you also blame the deers when you collide with one in an area where you know there are lots of deers. What happened to common sense!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Famous teetotalers, those Soviets. The Soviet government made attempts to curtail drinking, it just didn't go very well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
“Boris, you must drink twice as much as would kill a normal man, or less, from here on out.”
LonsomeSon fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Nov 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
ContinuityNewTimes posted:The Soviet government made attempts to curtail drinking, it just didn't go very well. The 1980's campaign was somewhat successful in that as production of alcohol fell, life expectancy and birth rates rose, birth defects from alcohol declined and so did crime rates. But it was still too little too late. It can be speculated that letting people have their drink would have allowed communism to continue a bit longer, opium of the people etc. Instead, an alcoholic came to the helm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
LonsomeSon posted:“Boris, you must drink twice as much as would kill a normal man, [i]or less[/o], from here on out.”  "No"
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:
Put your Johnson away. They meant yeltzen
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 06:34
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I bet you also blame the deers when you collide with one in an area where you know there are lots of deers. I blame the government for forcing the deer to cross in an unsafe area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 09:40
|
|
|
quote:I love the fact that whenever I point this out, some Democrat invariably claims "Derrrrr... you don't even know what fascism is!" So let's explore fascism a little, shall we?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
quote:5. Children belong to the State and not their parents. Unsurprising to anyone in this thread, I'm sure, but that's pretty telling. Children don't "belong" to anyone because they're not property.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 18:45
|
|
|
All that's missing is multiple instances of FACTS peppered throughout the document with no actual supporting evidence at any point. F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Unsurprising to anyone in this thread, I'm sure, but that's pretty telling. Children don't "belong" to anyone because they're not property. I'm sure this is in reference to something like schools not telling a parent if their kid is using different pronouns at school. Which is still a lovely point to try to make, but I'm sure that's the reference, at least partially.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
the_steve posted:I'm sure this is in reference to something like schools not telling a parent if their kid is using different pronouns at school. Which is still a lovely point to try to make, but I'm sure that's the reference, at least partially. Yeah a big argument these days is "teachers are demanding my kids turn into boys/girls and change their pronouns! Why, they're even forcing gender reassignment surgery!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
Nah they're freaking out that the state can take your kid from you if you don't let teachers trans them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
Well a big chunk of the current "parental rights" framing still boils down to an "ownership" argument. They're angry at the idea that their children would be allowed to be trans by people who aren't them. Their argument is still "this is my child, and I get to be the one to decide what their pronouns are!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:Well a big chunk of the current "parental rights" framing still boils down to an "ownership" argument. They're angry at the idea that their children would be allowed to be trans by people who aren't them. Their argument is still "this is my child, and I get to be the one to decide what their pronouns are!" Yeah I always try to counter that with statements, using my own parental status, along the lines of "parents dont have rights so much as they have responsibilities. and one of the fundamental responsibilities we have as parents is to foster an environment that lets our children and teens grow and learn and be themselves. we have the responsibility to protect them, so that they can feel safe to come to us or to their teachers with anything. we do not have the 'right' to tell them who they are or what they believe. it's not our decision, it's not our life. we are their caretakers, not their dictators"
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
Most of these are an actual problem for the exact opposite reasons that the OP is saying. Yeah let's not examine why the US army allows movie studios to use their equipment and what that might mean for media. The problem with the "government can take your kids away for wrongthink" thing is that, much like a lot of expressions of government power, it's bad when taken at an absolute surface level because it relies on the government being an arbitrator of what is good and bad. Saying that the government can take your kids for not accepting they are trans is hateful, but I have no doubt in my mind that places like Florida are rolling the idea of putting trans kids in CPS because "the parents must be forcing this on the kid and therefore it is abuse". It's a power that is easy to abuse but at the same time it's necessary because whooo boy do American evangelicals love beating the poo poo out of their kids.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 19:16
|
|
|
Medullah posted:
(yes they'll say "that's Biden" despite voters on his side not even really liking him)
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 19:16
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:The problem with the "government can take your kids away for wrongthink" thing is that, much like a lot of expressions of government power, it's bad when taken at an absolute surface level because it relies on the government being an arbitrator of what is good and bad. Saying that the government can take your kids for not accepting they are trans is hateful, but I have no doubt in my mind that places like Florida are rolling the idea of putting trans kids in CPS because "the parents must be forcing this on the kid and therefore it is abuse". It's a power that is easy to abuse but at the same time it's necessary because whooo boy do American evangelicals love beating the poo poo out of their kids. It's like the people who only care about police and prison reform because of the plight of the J6 Martyrs, in that they only give a single poo poo when it threatens their perceived way of life. If the government is weaponized against their enemies, they cheer it on. If the government is weaponized against them, it's tyranny. No additional thinking required. Sadly it shows why accusations of hypocrisy are meaningless, because "CPS should take away 'trans' kids from their parents because they are definitely being groomed" and "CPS is bad because it doesn't let me hit my kids like the Bible tells me to" are like two completely different genres of thought in their mind, they don't experience any sort of cognitive dissonance at all. No consideration of the actual institution factors in at all, it's all just a measurement of The Other's suffering versus their personal discomfort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
I’ve worked close enough to CPS that when someone cries about their kids being taken away by CPS it’s because they are extremely lovely parents. CPS does not want to take your kids because it’s a huge pain in the rear end and they don’t want to do the paperwork to make you stop being a lovely parent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:I’ve worked close enough to CPS that when someone cries about their kids being taken away by CPS it’s because they are extremely lovely parents. CPS does not want to take your kids because it’s a huge pain in the rear end and they don’t want to do the paperwork to make you stop being a lovely parent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
The Islamic Shock posted:I used to work with a guy whose sister got split from her mother because she bought into DARE propaganda and told the cops the mom does weed. Is that like blowing weed smoke in a cop's face in a "lowest priority" city where they really don't want to give a poo poo but they basically have to in that case? What a morozov! quote:His story was a subject of reading, songs, plays, a symphonic poem, a full-length opera, and six biographies. His politicized and mythologized story was used to encourage Soviet Bloc children to also inform on their parents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
The Islamic Shock posted:I used to work with a guy whose sister got split from her mother because she bought into DARE propaganda and told the cops the mom does weed. Is that like blowing weed smoke in a cop's face in a "lowest priority" city where they really don't want to give a poo poo but they basically have to in that case? Not saying it's exaggerated but it comes off like all those poor guys sob stories about how they were arrested for indecent exposure for peeing behind some bushes once and ended up on the sex offender registry as a result.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 21:01
|
|
|
That kid is hogging all the forehead like a dirty capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2023 02:17
|
|
|
 Yup....still arguing over pretty settled science in 2023. e: Fixed hosting. F_Shit_Fitzgerald fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Nov 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Roads were much safer back then because everyone just assumed that all other drivers were drunk, so they were more careful in traffic. Ah yes, the "Bike helmets cause more fatalities" argument. I get that there's a large chance you're being facetious, but it's an argument that comes up fairly regularly, and is somewhat annoying every time; the safety equivalent of "If you get a raise you'll get bumped into the next tax bracket and *lose* money".
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
The tax bracket thing is so hosed. A regular-rear end person can be forgiven for not easily understanding safety statistics but you can just read how the tax brackets work and no longer be a rube. It’s not, like, obfuscated or anything, it’s part of the basic structure. I knew someone in the early aughts who avoided changing jobs for more pay because of that (or it was their rationale anyway, i think they just didn’t want a big change, which should be a fine thing and not require them to avoid becoming slightly less poor).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2023 19:22
|
|