HenchmanNumber3

It's also possible to be a person who genuinely cares about classic art and the environment already. And it's also possible to be a poor person with little to no power to influence the fossil fuel industry. Chiding people for not having the privilege of free time and minimal obligations to protest isn't very productive. Again, change needs to happen at the top and it's not going to be achieved through appeals to emotion or coercion via symbolic or actual threats to famous art or sites.

I will not be fair, the publication isn't. Why should I?

Because arguing dishonestly makes you look irrational and does their propaganda work for them.

but you are more likely to try to distance yourself from fossil fuel reform movements, and that's all they need you to do to be successful.

Not really. This isn't an effective form of protest or reform. Stunts like this allow articles like this to be written in the first place, but the stunts, even if written of with the highest of praise, are useless. Effective action would involve changing the minds of those who profit from fossil fuels the most and making it unprofitable for them to continue. You don't need to convince people who care about world heritage sites or famous artwork. You need to convince the profiteers of industry and that won't come from an appeal to emotion but from a threat to their financial well-being.

To be fair, that's a false dilemma. Caring about Stonehenge doesn't have to be compared to caring about fossil fuel reform. You can care about both or neither to any degree and they can be completely unrelated.

Find a student at a university whose student accounts get access to jstor.

I completely forgot about that game until you mentioned it. Fun times.

There's not enough information that I'd be comfortable drawing conclusions about this. One person's past flame can be another person's one who got away. It's entirely possible she's keeping tabs on you online in a method you're not aware of, but if you don't know that she's intentionally moved to be close to you and she hasn't done anything concerning like made threats or faked a pregnancy or created circumstances that compel you to interact with her against your normal inclinations, I wouldn't guess stalking. Some people do coincidentally reconnect.

That said, the important question is whether you want to engage with her or not going forward. If you don't, I wouldn't lead her on by giving her any more attention. Make a clean break and just tell her you're not interested. If she reacts with melodrama or stalking behavior, then you'll definitely know you made the right decision.

If you are interested in possibly pursuing something with her or at least giving her a chance, be honest that you're a little freaked out about how she's previously behaved. You shouldn't proceed with her thinking that the behavior was not concerning. She should respect your comfort levels if she wants a relationship. If she's dismissive of your concerns and comfort, it's a big red flag that you shouldn't engage further.

Original sin was a setup. When a child burns their hand on the stove you told them not to touch, you don't condemn them to hell for it. Also, why did you leave the stove on and leave the kid unattended? Also, why would you punish their descendants for the sins of their parents? Also, why did you invent hell, the stove, and the temptation? "Free will" is a bullshit answer for an omniscient being who knows what's going to happen.

It might be similar to a song you've heard but you're misremembering the notes of the existing song.

Maybe try playing it for an app that recognizes the song that's playing and then listen to any songs it guesses might be the song.

I'm going to be disappointed if you didn't type this out on a command line.

He also stacked the SCOTUS by contradictory practices, denying Obama a pick in the last year of his presidency but giving one to Trump. That has had grave consequences for recent rulings since Trump only nominated extreme conservatives.

This is a decent one, but a ton of the HFY stories are just so problematic. Many just feel like they're congratulating humanity on being vicious and creatively violent, like they think the Terran Empire in the Star Trek Mirror Universe were good guys.

Otherwise, a bunch just feel lazily formulaic and repetitive with others. Take a random human trait or convention from a human culture like say...fried foods. Use an alien narrator to describe how weird they think it is to fry foods. Find an angle to portray humans as plucky and great for their fierce devotion to frying foods and involve it in a narrative about humanity winning against greater odds. "And the human just dumped the entire chargizoid corpse into a vat of boiling oil! And then he took it out with something called tongs and ate it, skin and all! And that's when I knew I needed humans on my side in the coming galactic war..."

I guess I feel like the subgenre plays on the optimism of Star Trek utopianism, but ditches any real criticism of humanity's past (or our present). I think the message from Orville's Season 3 Episode 10 about what made humanity better in their past is a better heir to Star Trek utopianism than most of the HFY stories I've read.

Happens to everyone eventually.