The egg is the only possible correct answer to this.

Modern chickens didn’t exist until something like 10,000 years ago. The egg was a key development in allowing animals to live on land, and first came about somewhere around 300 million years ago.

But if you want to narrow it down to just chicken eggs, then you have it right. The immediate predecessor to the first thing that can be called a ‘chicken’ laid a chicken egg from which hatched a chicken.

The egg absolutely came first.

I’m not debating the the Democratic Party has moved to the right over the past decade. However, (a) I wouldn’t call the Democrats Progressive, and they never really have been. There is a fringe of the party that is progressive, but they’ve never been the majority or leadership. And (b) both progressives and the Democratic Party are still to the left of George W Bush on most issues. He campaigned on a same-sex marriage constitutional amendment. He was a climate denier. He fabricated evidence of WMDs in Iraq in order to start his second of what would become decades-long wars. He opened Gitmo. He institutionalized a torture program as policy. None of that is anywhere close to what progressives are pushing for now.

I guess my main question to you is this: who are you defining as ‘progressives’?

All the President’s Men is my favorite political movie.

This is a common myth that isn’t really backed up by the historical or archeological record. Most pirate crews were not proto-anarchists looking to live a life of absolute liberty. They were more comparable to modern street gangs. The captains tended to be a strongman type leader who imposed their will over the crew through fear and coercion. The pirates themselves tended to be outcasts from society who couldn’t turn to authorities to try to escape their situation for a variety of reasons, mostly because they were criminals who knew they’d be imprisoned or killed if they went to authorities.

Probably the only place where anything close to what you describe ever really existed was small communities in Madagascar which became the inspiration for the probably mythical Libertatia. The communities that definitely did exist weren’t some ideological project to try to craft a society absent hierarchical power structures. They were just small, impoverished communities of families where the patriarchs (the pirates) spent most of their time away (at sea doing pirating) so the communities largely ran themselves without a power structure. This isn’t because they had an ideological opposition to them, but because the authority was the pirate leader who spent 3/4 of their time away (and, therefore, couldn’t do the job of being in charge) and when they were home they spent their time partying.

History is written by the victors

I have a BIG nitpick with this framing. While it is correct in many instances, it’s imprecise, and sometimes just flat out wrong.

A better framing is “History is written by the historians”. In other words, the historical narrative is set by those who put forth the effort to do so. In many cases, those historians are writing from the perspective of the victors, but not always.

I’ll give you a few examples:

The Mongol Empire was one of (if not the) largest contiguous land empires in world history. They conquered everything from China to eastern Europe and Mesopotamia. By any interpretation of the word, the Mongols were the victors in virtually every conflict they had. Yet they also didn’t really write histories. There’s only 1 real Mongolian historical text we have: The Secret History of the Mongols. It was an account of the life and conquests of Genghis Kahn written shortly after his death. Yet, as the title alludes to, it wasn’t a public document. It was written for the ruling dynasty. The earliest copy we know of is a copy from ~200 years after the original was written, and it didn’t become widely read until another 300 years after that. For the first half-millennia after the Mongol conquests, the historical narrative was entirely based on the accounts people who were conquered by the Mongols. In other words, the history of the Mongol conquests and their subsequent empire were almost entirely written not by the victors, but by the conquered. This heavily influences our popular conception of the Mongols as barbaric war mongers who committed horrific acts of violence. We don’t think much about any other contributions the Mongols had in the realms of culture, economics, political administration, philosophy, diplomacy, etc because the people who wrote about the Mongols (and set the historical narrative) had no interest in portraying them in a positive light. Compare that to someone like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, etc. All of them were similarly successful conquerors and warlords, yet the historical narrative about them is FAR more complex and positive than that of Genghis Kahn. Because the history of Genghis Kahn was not written by the victors.

Another example which is probably more accessible to a lot of people: The American Civil War. For most of the 150 years after the war ended up until just the past couple of decades, the prevailing popular narrative portrayed in pop culture and taught in schools was the Lost Cause narrative. The war was about States’ Rights. Slavery was not a part of the war at the beginning and the Union only brought it in later to justify their aggression towards the South. It was called the War of Northern Aggression by many. The South was primarily fighting to preserve a pastoral and romanticized way of life, etc, etc. This is the narrative portrayed in fiction such as Gone With the Wind and The Birth of a Nation. Of course, we know this to be bullshit. It was a war over slavery and the South was fighting to maintain the most brutal and oppressive form of slavery the world has ever seen. Yet for over a century that wasn’t the broadly accepted historical narrative because after the war ended people in the South put a lot of effort into creating and disseminating the Lost Cause narrative while the victors (the Union) didn’t put any effort into crafting an historical narrative. The North was more concerned with reuniting the nation and rebuilding, so much so that they completely gave up on Reconstruction and let the same people who had led the Confederacy run the South as an apartheid state for the next century.

These are just 2 examples, but they aren’t the only ones by a long shot. History is not always written by the victors. It’s written by the people who put forth the effort to write it, and the historical narrative ends up reflecting this down to the modern day.

If we’re giving them the benefit of the doubt, which I don’t think most deserve, there’s also a theological argument. For religious people (specifically Christians), they believe that people are made to God’s plan. If you are born male, they believe that’s what God intended. So changing your gender is, in their mind, blasphemy against God because it’s denying his plan for you.

Of course, this argument completely falls apart when you draw the parallel to people who change their hair color, get corrective or cosmetic surgery, etc. God also intended you to be blonde with bad eyesight, but you dyed your hair and got Lasik.

But the real answer is just bigotry. They try to rationalize their bigotry, and may not even recognize it as bigotry themselves, but that’s what it is.

Right now, it would likely harm other countries at least as much as the US. We’re just too interconnected into every aspect of the global economy. Cutting off the US cuts off a lot of services that other countries rely on.

But, Trump’s current foreign policy is driving countries away from the US fast. Give it a few years for countries to disentangled themselves from the US and it would likely be more effective without harming themselves in the process.

Did you read the post?

So, given that you don’t live near DC, what are you doing?

This is an honest question.

No, we need people. All kinds of people. As many people as we can possibly get. Absolutely NOBODY who is considering attending a protest should be told to stay home.

I attend protests all the time. Ever since my early 20s (which was over 15 years ago) I’ve made it a point to attend at least 1 protest every month. For the past 8 years that’s been closer to weekly than monthly. I have plenty of experience at protests. My question here is solely about the phrasing for my sign.

I do protest in DC. Often. I was at one last weekend. I am unable to go into the city this weekend. I have about 2 free hours while my kids will be in a class, so I’m trying to use that time to participate where I can.

I don’t need a lecture. I know what I’m doing and when and where I’m able to participate. I am solely looking for advice on whether this one sign might lead to problems or not.

Ranked choice is fine, but it’s never going to end the two party system on its own. We can already see in some states (Alaska and Maine) and in some smaller municipalities in the US, and in countries outside the US, which have switched to RCV after having a 2-parety system that it doesn’t end the 2-party system. At best, it makes campaigning a little less negative.

People tend to simplify the concept of 3rd parties when thinking about RCV. They get it in their head that everyone who dislikes the 2 major parties would all vote for the same 3rd party as a first choice under RCV. In practice, that’s not how it works. Most people still vote for one of the major parties as their top choice. Among those who don’t, they are extremely divided in which 3rd party they pick. People who traditionally vote Republican but don’t really like them may be willing to vote Libertarian, but their never going to vote Green. Likewise, someone who doesn’t really like the Democrats but typically votes for them might prefer the Green Party or DSA or something, but they’re not voting Libertarian or Freedom Party.

When RCV is implemented in a 2-party system, what almost always happens is that the first choice 3rd party vote gets split among a number of different 3rd parties, giving none of them enough votes to win. When those get dropped in the first round of instant run-offs and those votes switch to the 2nd choice, one of the 2 major parties almost always wins.

If you want to get rid of the 2-party system, you need to get rid of single-member congressional districts. Switch to multi-member districts with proportional representation. Say a state gets 5 Representatives to the House. Each party (including 3rd party) puts forth up to 5 candidates all running in the same race. Everyone votes for either their preferred candidate or preferred party (you can even implement RCV here to rank candidates if you want). Then seats are allocated to each party based on which proportion of the vote they get. If the Green party gets 20% of the vote, they get 1 seat. If Republicans get 40%, they get 2 seats, etc, etc. The specific candidate(s) who wins from each party would be whoever got the most votes within that party.

This almost eliminates strategic voting. You don’t have to worry that your party is small with nowhere close to a majority support because you don’t need a majority to win a seat. Nearly everyone gets the representation they want.

I mentioned “non-creepy, non-prying” because I’ve been on the internet a lot and understand internet culture. Several things mentioned in your post give a distinct vibe of the type of person whose brain has been so overcooked by the internet that they have a tendency towards being creepy. I’m specifically talking about stuff like:

feel like liking someone is a need like taking a shit. if i give too much affection, would a girl get scared and run away, or fall in love with me? what do i do if i accidentally make a girl love me?

i don’t want girls to love me too much. how do i make them not love me too much and still be myself?

what do i do with the freedom and power to do whatever i want?

I am not autistic, mentally ill, ugly, or weird (I guess those last two are subjective). I have no diagnoses at all and have never been regularly medicated. I am happily married (June will be my 10 year anniversary), with 2 kids. I also had previous relationships before meeting my (now) wife, so clearly I’m not so hideously unattractive or weird as to repel everyone.

You are overthinking things to an ENORMOUS degree.

What you need most of all is to get off the internet and go engage with people in the real world. These are all questions people grapple with as they enter adulthood, but most of us do it subconsciously.

What you’re really struggling with here is knowing yourself. You can’t figure that out without life experiences. You need go try things to find out what you want out of life and who you want to be.

I don’t know you or your life, so it’s difficult to give specific advice. I think what would be best for you is to go out somewhere with people and just engage with them in a non-creepy, non-prying, normal way. Become a regular at a local dive bar. Find a local low-stakes sport league (like kickball or pickleball or some shit). Find a gaming/hobby store that has live gaming nights and start attending. Find a recurring class you can take.

The specifics don’t matter so much. The goal is to find something/place you can go to which is likely to have some of the same people at over and over. At first, you’re not trying to meet everyone and form friendships. That’ll come in time. At first you’re just trying to get comfortable and confident in the space. Present yourself as open and easy to approach. Be willing to make small talk with people when appropriate. Over time you’ll start having those small talk conversations with the same people. Then you can start building on that. “Hey, I’ve seen you here before. We had that small chat about XYZ. It’s nice seeing a familiar face. My name is ABC…”

Then be willing to say “Yes” to things. If someone invites you to something, say yes. If they ask if you want to try something, say yes. Obviously within reason, but don’t shut yourself off for nothing.

The biggest thing is, don’t try to have an agenda. Don’t go out to meet people with the intention of trying to get laid or find a romantic partner. Don’t focus all your attention on trying to meet potential romantic/sexual partners. People pick up on that shit really easily and it makes you come off as a creep. I’m not saying don’t form those relationships if the opportunity presents itself, I’m just saying don’t make that your focus or purpose.

Humans are social animals. Our biggest evolutionary advantage that led to us being the dominant lifeform on the planet is our ability to connect with one another and form communities. We are hardwired to crave that and thrive on it. All this may sound daunting, and I’m sure your gut reaction will be to reject it as impossible for you personally for this reason or that. You’ll say you can’t do any of this because of health reasons, or because you’re not attractive, or because you’re autistic or neurodivergent, etc. Those are all just excuses. More people than you can count who are uglier, less healthy, and more neurodivergent than you are perfectly capable. Socializing is a skill just like any other. When you first start doing it, you’re going to be bad at it. But the more you practice and try, the better you’ll get.

That absolutely 100% exists. In commercial buildings, this is the standard. Nobody has to go to the BMS (Building Management System) and tell it to switch to cooling or heating. It’s all automatic. Even higher end residential thermostats do it. A couple of years ago I had my gas furnace replaced with a heat pump/electric heat system and it automatically switches between heat and cool as I’ve programmed it.

Hell, you can get systems that are sophisticated enough that every individual room in your house has an independent thermostat that automatically maintains a different temperature in each room. Of course, that’ll require a separate VAV for each room, which isn’t common in residential buildings.

The primary reason you don’t see “smarter” systems in homes more often is because they’re more expensive. Most people leave the fan on their HVAC system on auto and just switch between hot and cold manually as needed. And for most people, that’s only a few times per year. Most people switch it to cool sometime in the Spring, then leave it there until the Fall when they switch back to heat.

A more complicated system is just paying more money for something you don’t really need.

Misogyny. It’s really not more complicated than that. Even if people don’t recognize or acknowledge it, our culture has trained us to be much more critical of capable women than men.

Every single person who disagrees with the administration on the internet? Incredibly unlikely. That’d be literally 10s of millions of people, if not over 100 million. The US prison system currently has a capacity of ~2 million. It’s estimated that globally there are ~11.5 million people in prisons. So you’re talking about locking up several times more people than are currently locked up. It’s just not possible.

The scale of what you’re suggesting is just unimaginable. How much manpower would be needed to lock up tens of millions of people? Nearly the entire non-incarcerated population of the US would need to be employed in building and staffing prisons and doing the police work to track down and arrest people.

And what would that do to the US (and global) economy to remove tens of millions of people from the workforce and force the rest of the population into servicing those prisons?

Even in the strictest countries with the most draconian censorship, they don’t lock up people who are just disagreeing with the dictator/administration. They lock up people who make a name for themselves and get recognition/go viral. If you have an account that gets a HUGE following and you don’t just disagree, but attack and criticize, then you might end up with some problems.

To avoid this, just don’t let yourself get a big following with an account that’s super critical. If you notice you start to get a following, just delete that account and start a new one.

If Marshalls ignore an order from a judge, what does the judge saying “I compel you” or “I hold you in contempt” do?

Everything you’re saying is just judges saying words at people. The administration has already shown they’re willing to ignore words coming out of the courts.

We’re very close to the “don’t quote laws to men with swords” territory here.

Wouldn’t ever even come to that, at least not under the current Trump administration.

Yes, the US Marshall Service is technically the enforcement arm of the judiciary, but they’re under the Department of Justice and answer directly to the US Attorney General. The DoJ is part of the Executive Branch and the AG is a member of the Cabinet appointed by the President. The current AG is Pam Bondi, who is a VERY close Trump ally who’s been working for him in various ways as a lawyer since at least 2019.

The Supreme Court doesn’t order the Marshall Service to do anything. They send a request to the AG, who then gives orders to the Marshall Service. Even under previous administrations it would have been incredibly difficult to imagine the circumstance where the AG would order the Marshalls to arrest a member of the Executive Branch, and it’s just never going to happen under Trump.