I think that depends on the groups that exist near you.

I know someone who was in a similar situation (divorced around 50), and she found a local hiking group of divorced people who wanted exactly what you’re looking for. So maybe ask on a local group on some social networks?

Hiking specifically is great because it’s an activity that both kinda forces people to talk, and also supplies a default topic for conversation (It’s also free, healthy and doesn’t require special skills). If you’re not into hiking, maybe a book club? Volunteering groups, like other people suggested, also fits that bill. Point is, don’t just look for [an activity] with people your age, think about how much that activity is conductive for making friends. Something with 10% people your age, but that encourages talking with each other, might be better than something with 90% people your age where the group listens to a teacher together and then everybody does their own thing separately.

Also, It might actually get easier to find new people in a few years. Some people wait for their kids to grow up/move out before divorcing, which creates a spike of single people at that age.

What do you mean by “comedy impersonation” - parody, or just copying a comedian?

If I were to set up a music show with a Madonna impersonator and slightly changed Madonna songs (or songs in her style), I’ll get my pants sued off.

If Al Yankovic does a parody of a Madonna song, he’s in the clear (He does ask for permission, but that’s a courtesy and isn’t legally mandatory).

The legal term is “transformative use”. Parody, like where SNL has Alec Baldwin impersonating Trump, is a recognized type of transformative use. Baldwin doesn’t straight up impersonate Trump, he does so in a comedic fashion (The impersonation itself is funny, regardless of how funny Trump is). The same logic applied when parodying or impersonating a comedian.

Ok, got it, thanks. I was a bit shaky on the proper terms and didn’t want to be specific, so went with the most general one.

I’m going to offer some practical advice that might help, but first there are also a few things I’d like to point out.

First of all, from reading your question and some replies in the thread - Is there any chance you might be neurodivergent (I think that’s the “proper” term. I mean what’s been known as low end autism or asperger)?  Neurodivergent people have trouble understanding social cues/norms,and might have issues understanding why people act/react the way they do.

This is meant as a general observation that might be beneficial to understand the gap between you and other people, not as a judgment or way to imply there’s something wrong with you.

The second thing - the division between introverts and extroverts is kinda false. In reality, it’s like height - there are tall and short people, but most people are of generally average height. Like height, most people are towards the middle. You are probably on the end of the bell curve of extrovert-introvert. That’s something you need to understand. This also doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with you, but right now it looks like you’re acting like a 2.2 meter tall person who thinks everyone below 2 meters is short. Yes, society is built for people who are of mostly average “sociality”. Just like it’s built for people of mostly average height, and tall people might have issues finding clothes or having enough leg room in their car.

Most people expect some level of sociality with their co-workers. They aren’t necessary attention seekers or “extroverts”. That’s just the way their brains are wired. When they don’t get that social interaction, they will look for an explanation - Did they say something to offend you? Are you busy? In a bad mood? A standoffish person? Maybe you’re just shy, and they should initiate more interaction to make you more comfortable?

So, what you want to do is to answer those unasked questions in terms they can understand and without offending them. Imagine you’ve accidentally bumped into someone while walking. You’ll say something like “Oh, I’m so sorry for bumping into you, I was in a hurry. Are you alright? OK, sorry, again, have to run”.

If someone asks “How was your weekend?”, give a bland answer like “Oh, it was good/fine/ok”, then say “Sorry, I don’t mean to sound rude, but there’s a ton of stuff I need to get done” Say this in a tone like you’re apologizing for accidentally bumping into them. Then say “But look, if you’d like some help/advice/to tell me something about that [work related thing we have], I’d be happy to”. For most people, this conveys the message that (a) you’re trying to focus on work, (b) you really don’t mean to offend them and © you’d be happy to talk to them about work related stuff. Some people might ask you again next week. Give the same answer. Most of them will figure out you’re just always busy working and stop bothering you.

Two more things:

1. Do try and offer help in work related things once in a while - “Hey, I heard [work thing] is giving you trouble. I’ve actually had the same issue and would be happy to help”. This conveys you’re approachable on work-related things, and will make people more inclined to help you when needed.

2. Walk fast and with a purpose. This serves a dual objective - to better convey that you’re always busy, and minimize interactions. The only question you’ll get is “why are you walking so fast?” or whatever. This can be handled by saying something casual like “you call this fast?”, “ah, you know how it is…” etc. without slowing down more than necessary.

Andromeda really picks up in season 2. Not a amazing, but it’s very good.

Didn’t see Sorry About the Demon, but “campy horror movies that typically have 5 or below on IMDb” makes my brain scream Dark Angel: The Ascent and Modern Vampires.

The IDF once traded 1000 prisoners for 1 IDF soldier, what makes you think they will not kill 10000 children if it means it saves 1 soldier?

Because… the moral considerations in both cases are completely different…? How is this even a question?

That’s like saying “He once bought a car for $50,000, what makes you think he won’t steal $500,000 if it meant getting a Tesla?”

No, he’s not.

Also, he’s barred from being a minister as per Israeli’s supreme court ruling (exactly because he’s been convicted with fraud multiple times), so I highly doubt he could be appointed to the war cabinet even in theory.

One could argue that the ultra orthodox parties are active behind the scenes, but there’s no indication of that anywhere. Israel has free press, so this type of thing would probably come out as rumors at the very least (By contrast, there were reports he was the de-facto minister of social services after the supreme court ruling).

Not to diminish the political power they hold, but in this specific case there isn’t any indication they exert said power.

No, I take offense to comparing Israel to Apartheid South Africa because it’s dumb. Not even saying it’s wrong, it’s just a dumb comparison.

Read again what the person you replied to said - it’s basically “I don’t have any information about Israel that’s relevant to the question, but I’ll just go ahead and assume Israel and Apartheid South Africa are the same thing and reply based on that. This will show Israel and Apartheid South Africa have a lot in common”.

That’s a great insight into Israeli society.

The answer to your question is a resounding “yes”.

In fact, among the 4 members of war cabinet, at least one other has children in active combat units, and ALL cabinet members served in a combat unit as well as had at least one child in active combat duty.

Most children of Israeli politicians are absolutely conscripted to the army, and the public would look very badly on a “fortunate son” type situation.

Furthermore, there’s an unwritten rule the ultra-orthodox parties do not involve themselves or even voice an opinion on military matters because, and this something often said in Israel, “they don’t risk their children’s life in the army” (the ultra-orthodox are essentially exempt from conscription).

The Israeli Jewish public doesn’t see the Israeli combatants as poor or uneducated “others”, but as their children, brothers and fathers.

I think that’s a more ethical way of looking at it. However, this also helps explain the seeming lack of consideration for Palestinian life. Take a random person and ask him to choose between risking the life of his kid, who is in active service, in a military operation or throwing bombs and risking harming other civilians. Most people will choose to risk others. And among those who’ll choose to risk their kid, most would either be lying or didn’t really think about the question.

Against all flags. Pirates of the Caribbeans is more accesable to the modern viewer, but against all flags stood the test of time for 70 years.

Dude, that just means that without vaccines you would have had, like, 10 kids.

That’s the thing - to be valued by “the public” (mainstream society), one generally has to know something or be able to do something. If someone can’t do that (because they didn’t have the chance to learn or develop skills, or because their skills become irrelevant), the simplest way to feel valued is to change your point of reference. These people are treated like idiots by most of society, but within their group they’re the smartest people there are. And all those sheeple that make fun of them? well, they’re the real idiots, and when the whatever happens, they will see just how wrong they were. All one has to do so he can be considered smart and valued by this group is to accept some BS about the earth being flat or whatever. for someone who isn’t valued by society anyway that’s about the lowest entry price possible.

Anyway, my point is that it’s very easy to believe all of it without being sceptical, because once you lose the trust in society, you don’t trust anything they say.

Yep, you hit the nail on the head. 99% of people don’t believe conspiracy theories because they’re dumb or mistakenly came to the wrong conclusion. They believe because it allows them to create a reality where they are a part of a chosen few who have seen the light.

I knew a conspiracy theory nut who said that society is about three months away from collapse. As in, on any given date society was due to collapse in a few months.

First society was due to collapse due to cancer caused by COVID vaccines. Then it turned to “COVID vaccines cause sterilization and cancer, which will collapse society in a few years” and complete disregard to the prior time line. Then society was due to collapse due to a global war caused by Putin using nuclear weapons. Which turned to "Putin will invade [my country, which does not border Russia. Or any country that borders Russia, and so on].

The fun part was that each theory didn’t over-ride the previous, but they somehow build on top of each other. The atom bomb didn’t replace the vaccine cancer, they were both part of the same plan. He believed in many other world-ending conspiracy theories, so I think he, like, gradually added layer. There was a thing with 9/11 that was somehow related to a world ending event (Probably began as a “The US is going to atom bomb the middle east and start a world war”) and a weird economic conspiracy theory about countries not having any assets that probably grew from the 2008 financial crisis.

In Hebrew, it’s a horseshoe turn.