I’m guessing this commenter was thinking something a little more… Revolutionary?

I feel like there’s a certain minimum income level/social safety net you need to have to be able to live like this. Like at some point the desire to keep having food/shelter becomes enough of a motivating factor that you have to work out what you need to do.

I see what you did there!

Love it!

Knowledge Fight fan by any chance?

Yeah I get you, I think my discomfort is more of a general thing than this particular situation. I think it’s like making fun of someone’s physical features when someone nice may also have those features. Or like an effeminate male homophobe deserves to be mocked but you risk repeating things people who’ve been bullied for being effeminate have been hurt by. Maybe not a hill to die on but I try to avoid it myself.

I see your point alright, I can’t say I’ve much heart to argue my point TBH. The village gossip vibe isn’t for me but enjoy!

I detest these people and I understand calling out their hypocrisy. Is there anything to be said for not policing how a woman is supposed to grieve publicly though? There’s plenty wrong about the shameless exploitation of Kirk’s death, but something about the current narrative feels gross. Stooping to their level? I mean yeah, maybe you could infer their relationship was shallow and transactional, but like, is this really a gotcha moment that we care about?

And Smurfs

I’m probably not in the same country as you but I’d say absolutely take it. You’re probably in a field where you can do the same thing again. Take the time to set yourself up as a company, get your tax affairs in order and charge everything (appropriate) to expenses and take the extra time to look for your next gig. Worst case you spent the extra time/money finding your next employment.

What’s the context? It would be good to know who’s saying this (random poster? clickbait headline? Influencer?)

What’s the creamy stuff under the chicken?

Can someone help me with this one please? I presume the message is not to side with an aggressor à la the leopards who eat people’s faces party. But am I over-analysing the picture? Is liberty trying to constrain/detain security? Can the liberty avatar in this image choose a different avatar for security or is the message that freedom is inherently unsafe and wanting security is folly?