My expectation was that one might rotate an equine on an axis other than yaw.

Yes. The power to do literally anything would allow one to do this.

I’ve seen this one before, but the alt text had me in a (silent) laughing fit anyways.

If you want an honest answer, I’d recommend finding some place that has a decent population of openly right-wing people so you can get an answer from them directly, rather than left-wingers snarking and saying they’re all brainwashed fanatics that would never dissent from the party’s candidate.

I’ve never seen that association with my friends who use it. It’s always been more of a meme word, a meaningless adjective you throw into a sentence to make it “funnier.”

Makes sense. You don’t exactly have atheist scriptures to study and discuss, and you’re not going to have any atheological discussions on how nature reflects the lack of a god.

To be clear, I’m not trying to say it’s unfair for atheism communities to have those rules. Your community, your rules. But if I’m seeing those posts, I’m going to be bothered, and if I respond, I’m going to break the rules and bother everyone else. Better to not see it in the first place.

In the same way, I’d expect atheists to block a Christian community if it were trending - though I’d be willing to meet them in constructive debate in such a community if the rules permitted it.

Blocking is a community is how I control my personal feed, it’s not a condemnation.

29 communities, mostly news. I’m here for memes, not links to articles.

Also a few atheism communities, because I’m not a fan of seeing posts bashing my religion from a community where the rules forbid me from saying anything in its defense.

Thanks for this. I had read up on it some time ago, and it seemed like par-for-the-course “paint the government our color once we’re in power” except for a couple concerning points, so when people around here were talking about it like it was literal fascism, I dismissed that as misunderstandings and exaggeration. I hadn’t realized that civil servants were hitherto untouched by the government switching colors.

So it sounds like it’s not literal fascism, but it’s more like… how in some fantasy worlds, higher powers will avoid getting involved in mortal affairs because doing so will give their enemies license to do the same and then the world becomes a mess. It sounds like if Project 2025 happens, then blue’s going to retaliate in kind when they get power back (because otherwise they’re at a major disadvantage,) and it keeps going, majorly hampering the government’s operations. Who wants to get a job that you’re gonna be fired from in 4 years? There’s a chance that blue’s just going to try to hit the undo button, but if red keeps knocking the block tower over and blue keeps rebuilding it, that’s still not going to go very well.

But at the same time… they’ve already stated their willingness to do this. So the damage to the unwritten contract between parties is already done, and the only way to avoid the consequences is to keep blue in power until red redacts, and hope blue doesn’t decide to do it first (which they probably won’t, unless they say something like “the only way to defend against red doing it is to make sure they don’t have their own people in there when they get the power.”)

I don’t like that, though. Sure, blue is generally more reasonable than red, but that’s because they have to be in order to secure votes from reasonable people. If all they need to be is more reasonable than the guys who are literally planning to destroy the government, that’s going to let them get away with some pretty undesirable things. I think a better move would be to try to address the deteriorating two-party dynamics we have. My money’s on Literally Anybody Else.

Just Lemmy, and I only moved to Lemmy because of the Reddit protests.

The only reason I use Twitter is so I can follow Sonic and Project 06. I don’t think anyone’s copypasting that to Mastodon.

Ladies and gentlemen, we gottem.

And bears around 130 probably know that too.

You wanna work weekends?

If talking about work is undesirable at the meetings, maybe you can treat it as more of a social event? I don’t know the atmosphere, but it sounds like it might be. You’re getting paid for it anyways.

Yeah, he specifically doesn’t like guns, and it’s because his parents were shot. Other weapons are fine. Even a grappling gun is fine. A gun that shoots bullets is not fine because it reminds him of how his parents died.

Not here, that’s for sure, but keep in mind the community you’re asking.

He doesn’t use guns because he specifically doesn’t like them. If it were just about killing, he’d use nonlethal bullets. The no killing rule is a separate but related phenomenon.

As for explosives, he generally only uses flash bangs, but when he’s fighting someone who can clearly take it (like Superman or Darkseid) or a robot that it’s okay to kill, then he uses more lethal bombs.

I searched through the whole crossword puzzle twice before I realized you were mentioning an alternate answer (which doesn’t fit in the blank) and not pointing out a nonsense word in the puzzle. 88 across is was, by the way.

52 down: What you say if you’re angry.

Thanks, now it makes some sense.