I don’t think we (as in humankind, as a collective whole) will be “getting back to normalcy” for awhile.

Apparently most people who have gotten infected by COVID-19 only hold immunity to it for three months on average. And since so many people as a whole, especially those who are in positions of power who are tasked to make decisions like these for those “underneath them”, are desperate “not to let the economy die” and to “get kids going back to school”, these things are being rushed to the point that people are continually being infected with the illness to the point that it still has new bodies to infect, and these lawmakers are left scratching their heads feigning ignorance as to why we are still in a pandemic, why it continues to actively infect people and why it has not just “gone away”. I still think that if we had committed to longer stay-at-home orders that we, especially the United States — who is the absolute worst at this, in my opinion as a citizen of this country — would not quite be in the position we’re in now. In spite of there having been pandemics in the past, and global ones at that, it honestly seems like no one knows how to be in a pandemic or quite manage one, although some countries are doing better than others, and some countries are doing much better than others. For the United States to do well at all, we’d have to start with another President.

And I don’t even have faith that we won’t elect this one right back into power for another four-year term.

Seriously though, why can’t people just sit at home and watch Netflix? Play video games? Wait this virus out until it no longer has live bodies to infect and then get on with our lives? That would be the more preferable alternative to what we’re doing, because what we are doing right now is clearly not making this go away…

The only true thing about this statement is that if a custodial parent has non-mutual children, the “first child” is eligible for 20% of the non-custodial parent’s paycheck in terms of child support calculations unless there are other factors to consider (criminal history as a deterrent to seeking and holding substantial gainful employment, disability on the part of the non-custodial parent, things like that). Children born of the same non-custodial parent are only eligible for an additional 5% of their pay up to a certain percentage when things like sizable arrears are not taken into consideration. But Father’s Rights Activists thinking that a woman intentionally “gets multiple baby daddies for more money and more government benefits” is absolutely laughable, especially since they disseminate “tactics” amongst themselves to try and reduce if not eliminate their obligation to pay child support. (And also, doesn’t child support typically stop at age eighteen assuming that the child is not disabled and the order is safe to collect on? Riddle me this, you bozos. Really.)

I don’t know how they rationalize this kind of thing in their minds, but this is absolutely not how it happens. And I speak from the point of view of someone who has both of their child support orders permanently in non-enforcement for safety reasons, for whom co-parenting will never actually be an option to be explored.

This picture does a good job mocking those who have actually been involved in shootings, though, I’d say…

The fact that Father’s Rights Activists think that they are the victim in these situations is hilarious and sad.