The Flintstones, for what it’s worth, came out in a time before cartoons were seen as “for kids” by default. The Flintstones is basically The Honeymooners but animated and prehistoric, so while Winston would’ve unambiguously known it was marketing to some children, The Flintstones was an adult animated sitcom.

The Flintstones is retrospectively seen through the lens of “kids’ show” in large part because of things like kids’ merch (e.g. Flintstones vitamins and cereal), rerunning on stations like Cartoon Network, generally a more heavy “animation is for kids” defaultism, and the fact that later adult animated sitcoms like The Simpsons pushed the envelope much farther.

monkei

I think they also think they’re vegan while holding that position. Hey OP, the animal kingdom doesn’t stop at the doorstep of genus Homo, you fucking nutjob.

Peace for our time!

I guess they think they’re a Homestuck troll.

• People in much more extreme climates bike at rates an order of magnitude higher than the US and Canada.
• People physiologically adapt to the climates they live in by being outdoors.
• North Americans who complain about the cold use the wind chill rather than ambient temperature when that’s not actually the temperature they’re feeling with clothes on that block the wind. They also take the coldest data points and just say “that was the whole winter”.
• Poor weather magnifies the US and Canada’s unsafe bike infrastructure. If we had safe, well-maintained bike infrastructure, it would not be nearly as much of a problem (shown by the Nordic countries biking all the time in the snowy dead of winter).
• Car infrastructure makes hot weather much worse by creating a heat island.
• In extreme weather, you can still delay your trip, take public transit, take a car, etc. Commuting via micromobility isn’t a binary yes/no thing; if you can’t on some days, then don’t.

People in normal countries who have to commute 65 km take the train. Sorry the car lobby has deprived you of that.

And you must live within walking distance of a train.

Or they just take a bus? It’s crazy to think about, but not all buses are US and Canadian ones that come every hour and take two hours and five connections to get you to the station.

Also, locking up a bike is comparatively very easy to parking a car. The only reason car parking is often easy in North American cities is because of ridiculous, overinflated parking minimums that subsidize car ownership through free storage for giant metal boxes, blanket the landscape in otherwise-useless asphalt, and vastly increase the distances between locations for the people not using cars (including from, say, your house to the train station).

Thank you, Not Just Bikes, for finally giving us this video when someone pretends that winters are normally -25°C.

They’re not remotely safe for this shit in most places

Yes, good, and why is that? Keep that thought going.

That, and the nearest grocery store being 15 miles (25 km) away is highly unusual even by US standards. In the US alone, over 80% of people live in what the Census Bureau calls a city, defined as “encompass[ing] at least 2,000 housing units or hav[ing] a population of at least 5,000 people.” The fact that someone chooses to live in bumfuck nowhere shouldn’t mean that the other people who live in a town with population > 5 shouldn’t get to have safe, affordable, well-kept walking/micromobility/public transit infrastructure.

People don’t suddenly stop driving cars when not-cars becomes the predominant form of transportation. Like I said, “main form of transportation”. That cars are by far the main form is the problem because, among other huge problems, it induces reliance on cars and creates expensive, unmaintainable sprawl that makes other forms of transit completely impractical. Hell, even bumfuck nowhere towns used to have passenger rail that came through them before the tracks were ripped out. I think people who worry that good not-car infrastructure will destroy their ability to drive are projecting, because in reality, it’s always been car infrastructure that eats up everything else around it, not vice-versa.

“What do you mean ‘boats shouldn’t be the primary form of transportation’? Did you ever consider that I chose to live on an island off the coast of Michigan??”

> setting has bikes and trains

> still using cars as main form of transportation

AROOOO, BROTHER. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN LIFE IS THE CONNECTIONS WE MAKE WITH OTHERS. CHERISH THOSE AROUND YOU LIKE YOU CHERISH THAT MF’IN HOG.

Jesus christ, dude, we already do this on food packaging. What’s up your ass? Read two paragraphs into the article:

“They will have to disclose ingredients including milk, eggs, shellfish and tree nuts […]” That’s basically just what we already do on food packaging: list common allergens. Fucking no shit they’re not exhausting every single possible allergy. Again, what problem do you actually have here besides the fact that people with food allergies might have easier lives?

And by the way, the California Prop 65 joke you’re making isn’t indicative of government overreach or myopia; it’s indicative of how extremely present carcinogens are in the products we use. The list of Prop 65 ingredients is very thoroughly vetted, and items are only included when a clear, causal link to cancer can be reliably established.

with less interpretation of social cues and a greater ability to focus.

“ability to focus” is more accurately described as “tendency to focus”. “ability to focus” connotes control over focus, which… from lived experience and what I’ve read, just isn’t generally true. Autistic inertia – the inability to defocus and then focus on a new context – is very real. Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder not just because of an ignorance of social cues but because of how rigid, inflexible patterns of behavior often interfere with daily life.

and the Supreme Court did nothing because

Because the SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism for what you described. Even just for Worcester v. Georgia, what is the USMS supposed to do against the state of Georgia without support from the Executive? Jackson literally wrote in 1832: “the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” Jackson did eventually threaten enforcement as part of what became known as the nullification crisis.

But either way, Worcester v. Georgia wasn’t directly about the 1830 Indian Removal Act or 1835’s Treaty of New Echota; it was about the freeing of Worcester etc., which did eventually go through. The Treaty of New Echota should’ve been illegal on the basis of Worcester v. Georgia, but again, the SCOTUS doesn’t just go around enforcing cases it didn’t rule on unless it gets back to their court to rule on that separate case; that’s the Executive’s job.

“The Supreme Court did nothing because they hate Indian Americans” is such unfounded bullshit that you just made up because it sounded right. You can correctly argue all you want that this shows separation of powers is just an illusion because one single person has to agree to enforce laws and can only be removed (theoretically) with a supermajority of Congress if they fail to do so.

Putting aside the fact that a formal concept of an opposition wouldn’t help, because the US has a de facto opposition by nature of having a two-party system: what do you mean, “The PM couldn’t just, you know, make up lies”?

Yes they could. This is obvious if you think about it, but this is provable experimentally; the UK had Boris Johnson for three years who lied all the time. Australia’s Scott Morrison constantly lied about fossil fuels and climate change. Parliamentary democracies aren’t magic.

Yes.

Are you really even celebrating Halloween if you don’t have a 1:1 animatronic of The One Reborn in your front yard?

I agree with that, and I think that one comment below has it wrong. My comment wasn’t a defense as much as it was a neutral clarification for readers at home™. I try to offer additional context when Wikipedia stuff gets brought up on Lemmy, because 1) selfishly, I think demystifying it makes it more likely that new people try editing, and 2) with Wikipedia being a major anchor of the modern information ecosystem, it’s healthier for said ecosystem if people better understand what goes into it.