“I am aware of an image that appears to depict a vile and deeply inappropriate symbol near an employee in my office. The content of that image does not reflect the values or standards of this office, my staff, or myself, and I condemn it in the strongest terms," Rep. Dave Taylor said in a statement.

He doesn’t specify if he’s talking about the swastika or if he’s talking about the American flag.

I guess I had initially interpreted “normal” meaning the percent of people who have once in their life held that job, rather than the percent of people holding the job at any given time.

I thought being a soldier stood a fair chance, at least at the time of original publication. Not sure if your data considers that position?

Most of those are less normal than what I was aiming for. Even being a reporter seemed too uncommon for what I wanted to list.

Ant-Man as a Baskin-Robbins cashier? Peter Parker as a pizza delivery boy? Captain America and many others as soldiers? Many X-Men are teachers, albeit for a specialized school. Robbie Reyes Ghost Rider is a mechanic. Can’t think of any DC characters that fit the bill apart from maybe Jay Garrick Flash as a college athlete.

Alice Cooper is actually opposed to drug usage nowadays after years of memory blackout during his addiction

I don’t think that’s how that Jet Li movie worked

The condescension and man-splaining thing is difficult and is definitely a trained part of a male-dominated culture/sub-culture if it is based on prejudice. The chainsaw incident might have come from a genuine place of concern and caution since power tools can be dangerous, even variants of tools somebody has experience with. I personally struggle with gauging my expectations of how familiar any random person would be with something I’m bringing up, especially if it’s something I’ve had other people confused by in the past. I usually say “Have you heard of X?” or “How familiar are you with X?” to try to avoid either scenario of my audience thinking that I’m condescending them or them being lost about a subject they know nothing about.

I usually just say “I’m not superstitious” or “That’s not for me” and leave it and my level of involvement with their beliefs to my audience’s interpretation. As for your friend’s partner and your complicit friend, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” - Voltaire.

I think it really depends on the demographics of the immediate society somebody finds themself within. The presence or absence of specific spirituality or religious beliefs is really important to a lot of people and can make up a significant portion of who they are. Just as the commenter is requiring an absence of certain beliefs, there are others in the dating pool who are requiring the presence of these beliefs, and the commenter wouldn’t have a healthy relationship if they have to fake who they are to be with somebody.

Maybe carpool after getting to know each other and feeling comfortable/safe together?

A shared life is probably cheaper than two separate lives. Two people paying for one home tends to be cheaper per person than one person paying for one home. If you both are going to an event, then you only pay for the gas that goes into one car instead of two cars. Insurances and taxation might vary from place to place as to if they are cheaper per person as a couple.

She might also have a different lifestyle that is overall less expensive (ex. more frequently cooking at home instead of eating out, shopping at cheaper stores).

women continually declaring what they want in men, but not really wanting that.

That’s something I’ve noticed sometimes as well, and I hoped that there’d be women (or even some confused men or nonbinaries) answering this post and a discussion would follow which would help both them and others understand what they’re really after.

demand toxic behavior in a dating context

This is something I’ve seen as well, but I think of it as a separate issue as the previous one. If somebody wants a sugar daddy/mommy/whatever, that’s entirely different than an actual relationship.

The intent behind this post was to help others with self-improvement by showing why others might turn somebody down

I was meaning people you may know in person or people you see on dating apps or the like

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Change = Bad

Woke = Bad

therefore,

Change = Woke.

Conversely,

Regression = Anti-Woke

therefore,

Regression = Good

Personal death threats: I was a mod on a Facebook group that banned a guy for being hostile to others, and this guy turned out to be paranoid and probably had some other mental health issues going on and believed there was a vast conspiracy against him with us working with people we had never heard of and with other online forums that he had been hostile on

Impersonal death threats: just the typical stuff from rightwingers for being harmlessly different in some way

I think education and access to general information is a human right. However, there might be cases where a direct internet connection may be logistically impossible to provide or it may be the wrong choice for a particular person. For example, a person in jail for cleverly hacking computer systems could potentially cause problems if they are allowed to use a computer while imprisoned; in this case, a warden with a paper printer acting as a proxy may be the best option to bring them requested information posted online. There is also some media online that could be harmful to rehabilitation and is in the prisoners’ and the prison’s best interests to refuse access to, such as violent internet content provoking those who are recovering from a history of violence.

Having the right to post online is a separate issue and should typically be determined by whom the host site chooses to provide or deny service to; for example, John Hinckley Jr., who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan, was able to post his music on YouTube prior to his release. Restraining orders can also apply to online spaces to protect victims from further harm.