You can choose another last name when you get married in the US too, but people just don’t choose to for the most part. The marriage license name change is a shortcut to a regular name change that can be made through the courts.
Also known as snooggums on midwest.social and kbin.social.
You can choose another last name when you get married in the US too, but people just don’t choose to for the most part. The marriage license name change is a shortcut to a regular name change that can be made through the courts.
Shame on you for deadnaming!
Cyberm would be a silly first name.
It is obviously Cyber M. Ass.
The M is short for My.
Having one name is easier for social reasons. Going with the man’s name is easier for social reasons.
It all comes down to social pressure to keep the status quo. I even offered to take my wife’s last name and she declined and took mine instead.
An important thing to know is that all cultures have practices that involve shunning people, and that they are all applied to people who did nothing wrong and are not applied to people with enough connections or wealth. Some bad things that are almost universally punished but with differences in severity are being pregnant out of wedlock, not being a member of the dominant religion, being LGBTQ+, and speaking against other cultural norms. Exactly who is shunned does vary, but Japan’s is also pretty terribly implemented.
Almost everywhere the main coubter to shunning is connections and/or wealth. Royalty, high level politicians, people like Epstein, etc. are able to get away with stuff until they piss off the wrong people and lose their connections. Some may even make it to their graves without ever being punished.
The main people that suffer from being ostracized in practice are oppressed minorities. It is never fairly applied, even if some places do a slightly better job of mostly targeting the people who deserve it.
Nah, this will be much worse as you know they will still be censoring the stuff conservatives don’t like. They want free speech for hate and discrimination, like how Musk is handling twitter.
Trump’s pick to lead the FCC, Brendan Carr, wants Big Tech to start contributing to federal funds.
So they should pay taxes? Agreed.
and to be compelled not to censor content.
Oh fuck off.
I’ve got more than my share of typos, but they aren’t always as funny :)
Peoper editing
hehe
Closer would have been actually being grazed by a bulllet…
I was commenting mostly on this one user having posted three articles about bluesky to Technology in about an hour.
Yeah, but it didn’t get him the attention he wanted so he stopped trying.
Chicken scratch.
No visual shots of Trump are going to be as close as you looking at your own body.
Why would someone who plasters orange concealer all over his face in an attempt to not look like the pale ghoul that he is cover an imperfection with makeup?
I have no idea why a vain person would do that. It just isn’t like vain people to cover up small imperfections!
He got nicked by some shrapnel that did so little damage that you couldn’t even tell it ever happened when his ear diaper came off.
An impact from a blunt object like a bullet would absolutely show damage, and clipping an ear would have to take a piece off.
If it was clipped by a sharp piece of broken glass or plastic it might, because cuts from sharp objects can bleed a lot but be pressed together and heal pretty well. My wife cut her finger on broken glass last week and it bled like crazy at first, but with a little pressure and a bandage for a couple of days you could barely tell it ever happened.
Trump was nicked by some shrapnel and played it up as being hit by the bullet for his base.
Trump is appointing a pedo to be Attorney General.
Trump is a pedo.
One is a lie is based on projection and the other is pointing out that pedos are pedos.
Probably because Trump hates real dogs.
Credibility is earned by being consistently credible. A source that posts misleading or false articles can be assumed to not be credible, and I don’t trust them just like I don’t trust people who say stuff that ends up being not credible.
With newer information, concensus between difference sources us a good indicator as well.
What I am far more likely to use to dismiss something is checking out the purpose of the group. If they have a website and their description sounds like a weasel pretending to be a benevolent protector of a hen house then I just ignore them. Anything that sounds pie in the sky, like revolutionizing or disrupting an established industry is probably another Theranos and easily dismissed. If they say anything that sounds like conservative doublespeak, they get ignored.
It seems to be a pretty reliable system even if the occasional thing that is too good to be true slips in because I want it to be true. But having low expectations and recognizing potential being different from the results helpas a lot with being pleasantly surprised when things turn out better than they sounded.