psychothumbs

Traditionally both parties had to agree to get divorced if there had not been some "grounds" for the divorce that could be proved in court. That's why the classic business for old timey private detectives was proving that their client's spouse was committing adultery in order to legally justify a divorce.

Yeah I actually came across this statistic in this article about those guys wanting to make divorce much harder, which linked to the study: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/05/no-fault-divorce-gop-republicans-mainstream-podcast-dudes/

Not cool, reverse this

What are you saying here? My criticizing Mao's leadership implies I think China collapsed last year?

Thanks I appreciate that, I do need to be right and will think whatever I want.

That seems more like you are going to hang out in a place where those people also hang out, and are encountering them there, as opposed to them following you around.

What inbox? Like people are sending you angry emails? Still doesn't really have a "following you around" vibe.

Tbh everything I said above could be applied to Mao as well. He had the genius insight that the path to power in China lay in a military struggle mobilizing the peasantry when everyone else in party leadership thought that was crazy and un-Marxist, but then when that insight translated into running China he did not do a good job and should have listened to his fellow party members.

Lenin is such a tragic figure. So brilliant at taking and holding power, so bad at communist theory.

But the reality they're referencing is someone being "in their house" in the sense of being in their tweet replies. Nobody is following you around online, you're carrying them around in your pocket.

Sure people talking on the phone can be annoying, but that's not the main thing people use their phones for - scrolling and texting are the ultimate tools for getting people to sit silently for long periods.

This is a public facing site, none of that data is secret.