sthetic @ sthetic @lemmy.ca

Posts

2

Comments

44

Joined

9 mo. ago

Because it will be written in Papyrus font.

This is the appeal of Halloween for society.

You are allowed, and encouraged, to go knock on a stranger's or neighbour's door and talk to them. . Most of the year, that would be an intrusive faux-pas. (And yes, as you say, kids can roam around in packs misbehaving.) Halloween is very community-oriented in thay way.

At the same time, it is individualistic. You dress up as something that expresses your personal whim, not a mandatory group tradition.

It is a holiday explicitly centered around negative things like fear and gruesome monsters. It's not a supposedly-wholesome holiday with problematic undertones, like many others. At the same time, you can avoid the scary elements and dress up as a cute puppy dog if you want.

I would think pyracantha, based even on the post title alone. The picture only makes me more certain.

Then again, I am not familiar with some of the other plants suggested in the bot post.

At least by redrawing it, the tattoo artist is injecting (pun intended) some of the human skill and decision-making into it?

But, ugh! Who would get an AI tattoo?

And what's the point? Let's say I have an idea of a tattoo I want (Jack Sparrow, dressed in a McDonald's uniform, fighting off a rabid poodle, in the style of Baroque painting), but I cannot draw. So I use AI to render it, how clever!

But wait - a tattoo artist will be physically drawing it anyway. They know how to develop concepts into sketches, don't they?

Just get them to do it! Skip the pointless AI step!

No rulers = not straight?

I think it references the term "sealioning," which means: someone on the internet who pops up, like a sealion, into an argument. He says, "BUT WHAT ABOUT XYZ?" which starts everyone responding and debating. But the sealion never continues the conversation. He was just there to disrupt.

The Crow Has An Eye

We’ve turned airports into shopping malls, because airline passengers aren’t an airport customer they’re the product to be sold to. Longer dwell times to fill with shopping, therefore, have become a feature not a bug.

Restaurants, too!

Even if you resist the urge to buy books and souvenirs at the airport, arriving 3 hours early will probably mean you need to eat a meal that you would have otherwise eaten at home or at a cheaper restaurant.

And even if you're not hungry, you might choose to sit in a comfy seat at one of the airport bars, having a few drinks and appetizers.

I agree. I hate Trump as much as anyone else, but if a President I liked did this, it wouldn't be the end of the world.

In principle, I don't mind if a space mainly used for events, with chairs placed there often, should be hardscape. It's not as if lawn can't be put back there in the future. Lawn isn't a heritage tree or rose shrub.

To be fair though, the photo makes it look pretty huge as an expanse of paved area.

Saying, "Both these things are bad, and one is worse," is not the same as saying, "One of these things is more okay than the other." Neither one is okay.

If we cannot compare bad things without that comparison implying, "one of them is more GOOD than the other," then all bad things are equally bad. If I said that committing pedophilia is worse than beating your wife, am I now saying that beating your wife is better? What about stealing from the cash register at work, or jaywalking? Are all bad things just equally bad, with no comparison possible, or else we're praising the virtues of crime?

To your first point, in that sentence I wasn't talking about actually dating or having sex with the 15 year old. I was talking about looking at them, and thinking they are attractive. So no, nobody would say that the "relationship" was okay, but they wouldn't roundly condemn someone for being attracted to them, or having the urge to look at them sexually, in their own head.

It used to be relatively acceptable to say something like, "Man, I sure think that 15 year old looks hot, but of course I won't go anywhere near her, because she is too young," but never, ever, to say the same about a 5 year old. That first sentiment is the basis of many distasteful songs and jokes and movies. The second one would be met with confusion and revulsion for even thinking it.

And once again, I am not saying that is right. I am just saying how attitudes have changed. For the better. Now we say that even looking at a teenager is wrong. That looking at their body is as bad as looking at a very young child's body. Because in both cases, it's not how messed-up you are in the head to even think about it. It's about how it would harm them to go through with it. And that's a better attitude.

I think that back then, people defined pedophilia in terms of the perpetrator's attraction, not in terms of impact to the victim. Essentially, "is it weird for the adult to be attracted to their body?" more than, "would the young person be harmed, physically or emotionally, by sex?" Now we are more evolved.

Back when I was a kid, pedophilia meant what she said - attraction to a prepubescent child. If someone was an adult who thought a physically developed 15-year-old was sexy, that was just logical. Because their bodies had secondary sex characteristics. (It wasn't considered a good idea to actually have sex with them, at least from what I could see. Maybe in Azalia's experience it was considered OK.)

But if an adult thought that a flat and hairless child was attractive, that was messed up on their part. The same way people think that furries or scat play or other fetishes were messed up. But even more so. There was just nothing to consider sexy about an actual child.

Now, we consider the impact to the victim. Pedophilia is defined as attraction to a victim under the age of consent. Because their brain is not fully developed, their body can't handle pregnancy, they are socially able to be manipulated, and a host of other reasons.

I am not trying to be accused of being an apologist, but from someone who grew up in the 90s, I find it strange that we use the same word for someone who rapes a toddler, as someone who "statutory rapes" (as it would be called) a 15-year-old. They are both wrong, but it seems to me that one is much worse than the other. Both because of the attraction (or I guess power fantasy) on the part of the adult, and the impact to the victim.

I think Azalia is wrong to say it was always totally fine. But she is right that it was considered right or wrong for a different reason back then. The definition was different.

You put your finger on it. Most of the ads say, "this is not for you," to a young girl.

Old ads for cars, alcohol, cigarettes etc. were like that as well. They're aimed at the hotshot guy who has a chick he's treating poorly, or more accurately, the guy who wants to have chicks throwing themselves at him. They have nothing to offer a woman or girl, because why would she want to be ignored arm candy?

I guess the one with the woman holding a controller in the bathtub may be an exception.

I'm sure a lot of boys and men were weirded out by these ads too.

Or: Everyone decreases their discretionary spending to invest in companies that make consumer goods.

As a result, few people are buying the products these companies sell, like books and iPods, and they don't become successful.

I know this is terrible, but I find it fascinating in a sort of juvenile, teen magazine personality quiz, collect all the dolls type of way.

We've got our Businessman, Jock, Normcore main character, Sensitive Grunge Musician, Dweeb and Rebel.

Ignoring the manosphere bullshit and blithely viewing this as a team of characters planning a heist, or potential matches in a farming game or dating sim, how is this not kind of cool?

Seconds after the last human being dies, the Wikipedia page is updated to read:

Humans (Homo sapiens) or modern humans were the most common and widespread species of primate

"Unwomen" rings a bell for me.

I looked it up, and in Margaret Atwood's novel The Handmaid 's Tale, Unwomen were infertile women sent to clean up toxic waste in the colonies.

:(

Yeah, that's what I like about the joke - you don't even realize what his hand was doing under the table, until the last panel

Oh look, it's the guy from this comic:

dǝlq

I agree. Eugenics is about harming the rights of the would-be parents. It means telling them, "You have traits we consider undesirable, so we will forcibly prevent you from having any child whatsoever."

To me, that's different from parents choosing to avoid having a child with certain traits. Or not having children at all.

If parents decide to cure a disorder in their future child, or decide to abort a pregnancy, nobody is stopping those parents from trying again. The parents themselves have not been deemed undesirable and unworthy to pass on their genes.