People have already pointed out the legal and financial aspects. But I also want to address the philosophical aspect of your question, which I think you had in mind. And I think the answer I would give you is this one:

Marriage has the meaning that you assign to it.

I strongly believe that if we got rid of any legal and financial benefits of marriage, even if we made it explicitly illegal, there would still be a bunch (or even a lot) of people who would get married.

I would compare it to a house fire. If my house was burning (and there were no living beings in it) and I could save 5 things, what would I save? What would you save? I would take, for example, my favorite soft toy from when I was a kid, and my old box filled with diaries. Is this worth any money? No. Does it have any value? To me, it does. To you, it doesn’t. Maybe you are a very rational person that isn’t attached to anything (or to nothing material) and you would indeed make the smartest choices, saving your passport and documents and money. Maybe you would save a small gift that someone important has given you. Maybe you would save the first guitar you ever bought. You save whatever has value and meaning to you. And these things have solely the meaning and value that you have attached to it.

Likewise, people have different value and meaning attached to marriage. If you look at it from a rational, logical side - it has its legal and financial perks and benefits and if they weren’t there, getting married would make no sense. But things don’t have to make sense. The meaning we assign to rituals, things, concepts, aren’t necessarily rational. They are, however, deeply personal.

So, as a side note, please beware of ridiculing people for their views on marriage or weddings, just like you wouldn’t want to ridicule or belittle someone for other things that mean a lot to them. Always sharing the last piece of bread. Always giving a coin to a homeless person. Having a breakfast for 30 minutes every morning. A good night kiss on the nose from their partner. Drawing a dick in the first snow of the winter. Some things mean a lot to people even if they do not rationally make sense.

In the case of marriage, of course, some of the meaning comes from culture, history, and tradition. Marriage might have had different purposes than it has now, and surely the origins weren’t that romantic. (Not saying, however, that marriage has to be romantic.) But it is there. It is important to some people simply because they have, at some point in their life, decided it is important for some reasons, rational or irrational, social, cultural, and hopefully personal too. To them, it makes sense, it has meaning, it has value. And whatever marriage or a wedding ceremony mean - you decide.

So the question you should be asking is not whether or not you should get married, it is what marriage means to you. Does it have any benefit or value in your eyes? Are the legal benefits enough for you to get married? What is your stance on divorce? Do you feel like you would get “closer together” with your partner? Would you feel it would make things harder to separate? There are a ton on questions like these that you can ask yourself, I hope you get the jist. There are not right or wrong answers. The only thing that is important is that the meaning you assign to marriage is (about) the same as the meaning your partner assigns to marriage. You can both not care about a spiritual meaning, but just get married for the benefits. You can both be a type of “whatever happens, we don’t get divorced, til death do us part”. You can be “we’ll keep reevaluating whether we still belong together”. You can also be “we get married because we have children and this is practical”. Or “we get married because I am hot and you are rich and when one of us loses their asset we split”. Or “we just want a fancy huge ass party to show our love in this very moment and celebrate it with our friends and whatever comes afterwards is secondary”. It doesn’t matter what your view is, it matters that you guys agree.

I actually do because we tried to swear less when we had a baby

Now it’s hard to stop even if I am not around my baby or swear word hating spouse

Tbh I struggle to come up with an actual good and not just mediocre movie that Tom Hanks was in.

Adding to the trash list: Incredibly loud and extremely close. They massacred the book.

He is in this abomination of a book adaptation for Incredibly loud and extremely close.

I’m sorry but… Most of them? Especially since it’s his performance that has become poor. He is playing himself more and more. A similar thing happened to Johnny Depp. Look at both of them in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape and then at stuff like Great Gatsby, Wolf of Wall Street, Shutter’s Island, Django / Willy Wonka, Pirates of the Carribean, Shadows, Transcendence. The acting and characters are so similar and they don’t give an effort anymore (or try to, and absolutely overdo it).

(Sorry I somehow incorporated a Johnny Depp rant in a critic of DiCaprio, their story of decline is just too similar to me. And Gilbert Grape is an amazing movie.)

Again - there is and must be a distinction between the blame, responsibility and guilt of an 18 year old uneducated soldier, nurse etc and a political leader. But this does not automatically absolve the former from all responsibility and guilt. You should and hopefully do focus on the latter’s guilt and responsibility, as it is much larger than the others’. Focussing on the people who follow orders is not what I would advertise for and this isn’t the intent, it is actually the exact opposite. By differentiating different aspects and kinds of guilt you have tools and language at hand to talk about it without putting everyone in the same boat.

It is not a black and white issue. Everyone got blood on their hands - you and me included - just in different amounts, in different ways.

Very honestly - I’ve still not read the book entirely and I have started because I felt some feeling of guilt myself for being a Russian living outside Russia. I think that’s actually exactly what Jaspers, along with his students (the book is basically a dialectic lecture written down with results of work of his class from one semester), was trying to figure out. So I am not the best person to lecture you about that.

From as far as I have read these distinctions are exactly what allow people to talk about guilt, responsibility, trauma, the past, etc, without judging everyone by the same standards. Like, a criminal is judged by the court who defines for a crime they committed. A politician who took part in ordering crimes will be judged by the victor of a war. A soldier (just like a secretary) will be judged in dialogue with others and by his conscience for their individual actions, even if they were following orders. And a normal person who looked away or didn’t actively do their best to stop the atrocities that happen in the world, well, this person’s metaphysical guilt can basically only be judged by a metaphysical instance itself, be it God or another undefined transcendence. Basically all of us bear the latter.

They are very distinct and do not have the same repercussions. It is without doubt that political leaders have a much different, much more facetted responsibility for crimes committed. And we should focus on that. But this does not clean the people who followed their orders from all guilt, and their responsibility and crimes (against humanity) will be judged, just in a different way.

Edit: I’ve added a better phrased summary in my original comment above, since I have realized that translating German political philosophy isn’t my strength exactly.

In the aftermath of World War II, Carl Jaspers formulated in Die Schuldfrage that there are four types of guilt (/responsibility). Criminal guilt, political guilt, moral guilt, and metaphysical guilt. It is a great distinction in general. Yes, political leaders bear a different kind of guilt for the actions than the soldiers, but acting on clearly morally wrong commands do not obliterate guilt from the soldiers. Just like everyone who basically didn’t give their life in pursuit of the good and the right bears some metaphysical guilt for what is happening in the world.

Edit: I realized that, since I am neither an English native, nor very articulate in philosophy or politics, I would rather ask perplexity for a summary. So here it is: Karl Jaspers, in his work The Question of German Guilt, distinguishes four categories of guilt and assigns specific instances to each:

1. Criminal Guilt:

   Definition: Violations of objectively provable laws that are legally considered crimes.

   Instance: The court, which determines the facts and applies the laws in formal proceedings.

2. Political Guilt:

   Definition: Arises from the actions of statesmen and the shared responsibility of every citizen for the government of their state.

   Instance: The power and will of the victor, especially after a lost war, as in the case of Germany after World War II.

3. Moral Guilt:

   Definition: Refers to individual actions for which every person is morally responsible, even if carried out under orders.

   Instance: One’s own conscience and dialogue with others.

4. Metaphysical Guilt:

   Definition: A shared responsibility for all injustice in the world, based on human solidarity. It arises when one does not do everything possible to prevent injustice.

   Instance: God or transcendence.

Jaspers emphasizes that this differentiation is meant to avoid simplistic or generalized accusations of guilt. He rejects the idea of collective criminal or moral guilt for an entire people, arguing that guilt is always individual.

First it was hanging, now it’s shooting. Make up your mind. It might help to first get your head out of your ass though.

I’m a parent too, and here are my thoughts on this. I would rather knowingly live next to a pedophile - someone who outs themselves and goes to therapy - than not knowing about whether or not my neighbor has ever had such tendencies. I wouldn’t forbid them from having contact with my child, if they are sure it is not too hard for them, and obviously, keep them supervised. (I have barely ever left my child with another adult outside of the kindergarten setting though.) As was commented above, pedophilia is a valid and incredibly unfortunate, isolating and lonely sexual orientation and a disorder that can be treated, if not “cured”. I wholeheartedly agree with what you said about society’s hostile mentality driving people into the shadows and keeping them from seeking help.

I also want to point out that the majority of minor sex offenders (sorry I can’t remember the correct term, English isn’t my first language) has no pedophilic tendencies. A lot of sexual assault happens not because of attraction but because of power, dominance, violence, control. It’s something so important to keep in mind. Your local pedo might be the nicest and most harmless guy, while some other, heterosexual and “normal” oriented person in your neighborhood might have actually assaulted a child. Not having pedophilic tendencies does not mean a person won’t commit pedophilic acts.

In a way, my heart goes out to pedophiles. I can’t imagine how incredibly lonely it must be to have a desire for intimacy only with people who you will never, under any circumstances, be allowed to touch. You will never be able to act on your desires. You will never be allowed to live like yourself, be yourself fully. This must be hell. Even without the witch hunt. The least we can do as a society is to offer all the help and support we can get.

(It goes without saying - fuck all sexual offenders.)

Oh then try falafels. Jesus I can’t bring myself to make falafels or something similar at home because you literally fry it in oil and you need to do that in order for the raw legumes to be not toxic.

Legumes like beans, lentils, peas, hummus, chickpeas,

Oats, quinoa, amaranth, buckwheat, whole wheat products,

Tofu in its various forms, including silk tofu as egg replacement in pancakes,

Other “meat substitutes” like seitan or sunflower seed mince,

Nuts, nut butters, nut flour,

Dairy products such as cottage cheese, joghurt,

Soy milk

I mean for real, eggs are super unnecessary for a protein rich or healthy diet. I would argue that unless you literally want to treat yourself with a sunny side up or an omelette you shouldn’t be using eggs at all. I like eggs, but a dozen lasts us (family of 3) a month easily.

I gotta say the cybertruck one is so hilarious and desperate I’d spare it my rage

Yeah now try being absolutely unknowledgeable when it comes to tech and very much into makeup, skincare, 90 day fiance and parenting content. Lemmy, it’s been nice, but after one and a half years I started lurking to Reddit every once in a while again.

I would honestly be interested in meeting him.

That purple apartment was rent controlled because officially Monica’s Nana was still living in it and the janitor knew and used this as leverage to make Joey dance with him so that he could impress a girl. Iirc…

I mean that’s not the point but I just wanted to add this. You’re of course correct that times have changed dramatically.

Most people are trying to be somewhat proud of their country of origin. And basically every country in the world does have some cool stuff in their history to be proud of. Be it Russia, Germany, the USA - every country’s history has dark sides as well as achievements (non political) to be proud of. At the end of the day, it is a longing for community and identification with one’s community. If you are Russian, as a part of Russia, then it is also your people, your homies, who built sputnik or sent Jury Gagarin into space.

At the same time, overidentification with a national identity is odd in itself. You may be proud that your country invented something 100 years ago or pioneered into space, has cool traditional clothing or dances, but this has little to do with you specifically, or with the state of the country today.

People who say they are ashamed to be Russian (or any other nationality) usually say this in reference to either the negatives in their country’s history (e.g. slavery in the US, WWII in Germany, Stalinism in Soviet Russia), or in reference to their current government. But a government is not the same as the people, history and culture.

But most importantly, these things don’t exclude each other. You can both be proud to be a Russian as in not hating your genes, your heritage, your identity and ancestry, cherrypicking achievements and parts of culture, as well as condemn the current government and state of the country, while simultaneously seeing your nationality as an abstract part of your identity. Your passport or your MyHeritage results do not make you who you are. What you believe in, what you care about and how you act do.

For me it’s the other way around. That pizza is looking at me replacing the finished pea package yet again for months and months on end.

I’m afraid you won’t have time. It will take minutes. And I’m not even sure it would be announced.

Absolutely agree with you, but, unpopular opinion probably, I also don’t want a lazy ass who can’t or doesn’t want to get a job to be homeless. Like, I don’t care how much of an asshole you are and how many drugs you take and that you don’t care to hold a job, I still want you to have shelter, food, and basic necessities. Let alone kids of these people.