To be fair, quacks that claim to be able to do magical stuff are still around, some do quite well well for themselves even
I mean, you can't really say that we're going to drive ourselves to extinction, until we've been driven to extinction. Most things people list as likely to do this, climate change, nuclear war, are things that could conceivably do so, but honestly aren't likely to. Destroy civilization maybe, but that just takes disrupting supply lines hard enough. Extinction means nobody, anywhere on the planet survives, even if it's some little pocket of people in some corner of the world whose climate is good after warming is considered and which isn't a target of any nuclear arsenals, because in a number of generations such a little pocket can grow to repopulate the planet again. It's not an impossible thing for sure, but killing off a species capable of surviving in almost any climate zone found on the planet, with the ability to manipulate the growth of it's own food supply, and adapt new tools actively in response to problems within a single generation, is a difficult task.
the headline did, but the actual article does not
bad title, the actual article is talking about the percentage of each that own homes, not expecting half of all homes to be owned by LGBTQ people
the literary equivalent of:
the original undermines its own message: they are lifting it, even if barely and with difficulty, which implies that those characters are within an order of magnitude or so of literal divine power.
If chess were a new game released today, I imagine a lot of these "why'd they make it political" types would probably object to the fact that the most powerful character in the game is the only one that's clearly stated to be a woman.
The ironic thing is, conflating any and all criticism of the state of Israel with anti-semitism could be argued as anti-semitic itself, because to suggest that jewish people in general and the Israeli state/military are one in the same such that criticism of the later is also hateful towards the former, is also to suggest that jewish people as a whole are responsible for the actions of Israel.
As cultural groups as a whole are inherently unable to be guilty of crimes (since even if a large number of people belonging to one commit some crime, such a group will also contain members that cannot be guilty of it, like young children), but states and similar entities, being organized and capable of decision-making, can be, then any attempt to link the moral culpability of a state and that of a cultural group is inherently to apply unfair accusations to that group, and thus hateful to it.
Realistically I imagine that having access to resurrection would have fairly dramatic consequences on how a society applies punishment. It'd probably be a crime of some sort to revive the executed, sorta equivalent to breaking someone out of jail, states might be more harsh with handing out death penalties when it is possible to undo them if new evidence is found, and the remains of the executed probably would be carefully stored and locked up to prevent unwanted revival and to have in case the state decides to bring someone back, assuming the body is needed for it.
Might also get things like a monarchy which kills off heirs to the throne after a certain age and stores them careful to revive when the current monarch dies or abdicates, to prevent scheming between them to increase their place on the line of succession or take over from the current ruler early, and to ensure they are young and healthy when they take the throne.
I mean, the United States has, to be fair, developed a food culture that emphasizes using a lot of meat, especially over the past century or so. It's not surprising that people from an area that eats so much meat, who go vegan, are going to want to look for ways to still make dishes familiar to them
- sets browser to request the desktop site instead *
Vore.