If the thing in question is changed, and the only part of us that can directly affect is our opinion, then I would call that a social construction.

We define what existence is. We have all collectively agreed that being here in the perceptible world means that something exists. We could choose to include the imaginary in its definition and then would be able to say that dragons and wizards exist. We could also choose to say something has to be present in 4 dimensions to exist, in which case we’d not be able to say that anything exists.

A social construct is simply an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society which includes the dictionary itself. I’d also say that these definitions are often useful at allowing us to communicate and cooperate with one another, but that doesn’t mean we didn’t make up the idea.

Our naming and classification of things is all socially constructed. So yes, our categorization of edible things as food is a social construct, but our physical need to fuel our bodies with something digestible is not. But also, using it that way makes existence a social construct, so it depends on how rigid you want to be.

Again?!

Who’s going to post that 2 nickels meme?

The USA first needs a serious left wing party for that to be possible.

The world is literally burning.

The world is actually burning though, and there are fewer birds, and people are tired and stressed all the time, and money is tight, and this is all in the real world, no internet required to experience any of that. The internet may expose you to others struggles that don’t affect your real world, but it still affects theirs. The ability to commiserate is what helps a lot of people cope with their real world, and might even invite insight on how to end some of those struggles.

I don’t agree with now being the time, given who that would be. But I do think it would be good to elect a convicted felon to the white house at some point.

That’s just a safety tip

I was about to question the “zionist left” part and decided to do a quick search. Apparently it’s real, one of the largest parties in Israel is the “Labor Zionist” party which actually holds certain leftist values like proletarian* ownership of the means of production. Bibi is a right wing liberal all the way and his party reflects that, just to be clear. But it shows how any movement can be devastating and harmful when it adopts a mentality of exclusion. In the case of the LZ party, it’s the *Jewish proletariat that they want to build socialism for, while keeping an underclass of gentiles. So once again racism and hierarchies are here to ruin your movement.

Children also don’t feel shame about being naked until they gain the knowledge of sexuality. Parents would probably notice a child covering themselves up after an encounter of that nature.

I’m also assuming the story would be altered in a number of ways to change the meaning to the biblical one.

For a dog example, a black lab (with dark skin) is more genetically similar to a yellow lab (with light skin) than a black pomeranian (with dark skin).

Just proof of the necessity of that little /s

Oh and what dangers are civilians in Gaza facing?

Edit: this was indeed a sarcastic comment. The correct answer to my “question” is the IDF and American weapons. The point was Biden is willing to admit they’d be in danger over there but is not willing to state the nature of that danger.

In which case I would point to this part of my comment.

And I think reading intention into that is probably giving the studio too much credit. Especially when you could replace the board with a literal roadblock and it wouldn’t change anything about the rest of the plot.

That and (speculation) I’m pretty sure most of the people making this movie are liberals themselves.

That didn’t happen in the movie though, there was no next step taken. America pitches the idea and the man in charge is about to say no until another man says it will make a lot of money. There’s no implication of her being promoted or anything. The Mattel leadership doesn’t change, the patriarchy doesn’t change, and Barbieland didn’t fundamentally change either. A couple characters changed their outlooks on themselves, which isn’t a bad thing but it’s also not that profound. The movie identifies some bigger problems but ends up just accepting them and moving on. And I think reading intention into that is probably giving the studio too much credit. Especially when you could replace the board with a literal roadblock and it wouldn’t change anything about the rest of the plot. To be clear, I thought it was a fun movie, I just don’t think it’s as groundbreaking as many make it out to be.

Also there ended up being no point to the Mattel board drama. It didn’t affect the plot at all and at the end it was still all men making decisions based on profit.

Perfect liberal movie, lip service without changing a thing.

Parasite

It didn’t feel as grounded as it seemed to want to be. A bit too indulgent with the family take over. And overall it was much more sympathetic to the wealthy family than to the poors, but that one is more of a moral critique than an artistic one.

Why not just a second white noise, or other white noise adjacent sound? Even if they’re both looped they’re not going to have the same loop length and that will be a changing rhythm that way.

The one I played the most was burnout 3.

Though I think the one I replayed the most was ace combat 4

Honorable mention to James bond eon