As in, the desired results arent permanent. I’ll edit to rephrase.

Yet the big changes typically aren’t the cosmetic surgery, they’re the damage. Either literally, or an attempt to treat it.

They might remove some cheek fat, but even that is them trying to catch up: because degraded filler makes their face look puffy and their lips ill-defined.

The filler is spread put around their cells regardless. It is impossible to remove. As is any muscular damage from long-term paralysis.

And yes, agreed. Reconstructive plastic surgery has lower risk, but when it comes to soft tissue cosmetic surgery, the only winning move is not to play.

It’s largely incidental.

Soft-tissue cosmetic surgery doesn’t last. They’re foreign objects in the body, so over time your body tries to break them down. Lip filler slowly diffuses around the bottom of your face, for example. Botox paralysing muscles affects strength and elasticity.

So it’s a cursed treadmill. You can’t stop getting surgery once you start. A single surgery will look worse than your unaltered face if you only have one, so every few years you have to get it again.

But… all the old stuff is still in there. The muscle damage accumulates. The filler accumulates, and is impossible to remove. You might remove some of your own tissue to ‘reshape’ as it gets more advanced, but many just ‘top up’.

Either way, you are permanently altered. They don’t choose to look like this, they choose to make minor adjustments to look younger/hotter/etc that slowly turn them into this.

While thats also true, Im talking about reading comprehension, not Poe’s Law.

If you’re using "s, it indicates that it’s not something you’re actually saying. You’re quoting somebody else, including a hypothetical person that you’re satirising. It’s explicitly saying they’re not your real words.

That’s an issue of reading skill, and while we can certainly work to make writing more accessible for those that aren’t great at it, I don’t appreciate how people blame the writer for the treatment they receive for what is, at best, a mutual misunderstanding.

It’s gotten bad enough that I can say in the comment the person I am satirising, and again in a concluding statement. But without the ‘/s’, people still accuse me of being a monster for believing a heinous thing I deliberately used provocative language to describe.

If those "s were already in your comment, you shouldn’t have needed it :/ satire on the internet is getting harder to make I guess

I think its more likely that the abstaining countries rely on America for trade or military in some way and don’t want to aggravate them politically but clearly aren’t willing to vote alongside them.

Tell me about it. NZ has the most right-wing neo-liberal pro-American-politicking cabinet we’ve had in a long long time. (The PM is also so incompetent he’s polling the lowest approval we’ve had for a long time, possibly ever). They got in power off the backs of post-Covid economic hardship, despite having no proposed solutions other than funding landlords and cutting environmental policy.

If it had been put to the citizens, I believe we would’ve been for it. But the current cabinet doesn’t want to piss off American partners no doubt, hoping abstaining let’s them sit on the fence a little longer while pretending we’re ultimately n9t the bad guy. That will be the reason for most of those abstaining.

I’m disgusted.

The reality is that a person in a cult leaves it quietly. At the start of the process, they have doubts and fears but repeat the mantras about how they’re still absolutely a member of the cult.

And we’re seeing that. We’re seeing people upset about what’s happening, yet claiming they still support him. That’s what a person leaving a cult actually looks like – doubt, self-assurance, and then quietly quesstioning it whilst acting to their peers that they’re still believers. They’re not necessarily aware that this is the beginning of them leaving, many want their leader to reassure them of those doubts, and get slowly unsettled when they don’t.

If you ask them point-blank if they renounce their faith, they’re not willing to admit it publicly. That’s too real. They’ll just slowly fade away, and try to live like it didn’t happen.

Which means if you want people to leave a cult, you have to let them do it quietly. Even if its hard, if you’re angry and want to punish them. If they’re giving up a community they know accepts them, it won’t be to join a community that never will.

So a loan of $10 million has like $5mil taxed right away? You get $5mil to spend, and still owe the bank like $12mil? Those interest rates are insane, and will definitely affect the working class more than the ultra-wealthy. Specifically businesses, which will increase giants’ monopolies. And you can’t make businesses an exception, because then the ultra-wealthy will borrow through those.

The money is not the problem. Money isn’t real, it’s just a tool that represents power and resources. There’s nothing you can do to tax or control money itself because what wealthy people have is all the resources, and they can leverage them with or without money.

You can’t tax your way out of hierarchal Capitalism. The rich are paying as much tax as the current system legally asks of them - which is very little, when your wealth is in resources and not money.

The poor and workers are more affected by taxes and costs because most of our worth is in money. Once you have enough to start investing and have resources, your worth can grow rapidly.

Well if it doesn’t, sell your stock to yourself a la Elon Musk, who sold X at a loss to XAI (a company he also majority owns). The ‘loss’ of ~6bil in value (iirc) means he can now gain ~6bil from any other sources without paying gains tax.

Billionaires technically don’t have much personal wealth. They leverage their illiquid assets as collateral to take out massive loans. Which they can later cover with taking out even bigger loans.

The liquid wealth of the wealthy is very low, technically in debt. This is another way they can avoid paying tax as they technically don’t have much of anything, and the reason why ‘declining to take a salary’ is typically meaningless.

I’m not. Most people are very passive politically and only know what the evening nees mentions. Most of them probably don’t know who AOC is (or perhaps only knows her by ‘AOC’ and the forms used her full name).

Harris is their default poll vote because they recognise her name

Feel like this title should’ve been Wisconsin Demands Arrest of… Because holy shit my heart skipped a beat to think something might change :(

Most people vote Conservative because they are afraid, and are drawn to leaders that seem strong, powerful, and promise to destroy or protect them from the things they fear.

They might’ve been dumb enough to be tricked. Now they’re too afraid to admit they were. They’re in too deep, and they’d have to sacrifice standing, community, stability, and their understanding of their place in the world if they were to admit they were wrong.

That’s too scary. Most of them aren’t too dumb to understand, they’re convincing themselves because the alternative is too horrible for them to admit.

[he’s] an extreme germ, a phobia.

I love the new version where now he’s straight up just a singular bacterium with strong opinions, and that’s freaking you out. Pls don’t change it again

But like. Are you stopping him? He’s been doing shady and illegal shit for ages, and yall can point out its illegal and shady, but like. Are any of those critics actually stopping him or nah

Like please, I want some good news, and Moral High Ground does not count

It also gained a ton of market value before the election, when Musk’s relationship with Trump was announced.

It’s ‘nice’ it’s lowering at all, but last I checked it was lowering to pre-announcememt levels, it’s just flattening out the surge. A return to normal of you will.

Haven’t checked for a while so maybe now it actually IS lower than it was in July. But not by ad much as the post-inaugeration stats make it look.

Tesla hasn’t lost that much value… yet.