themeatbridge @ themeatbridge @lemmy.world

Posts

9

Comments

7,364

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Not exactly what you're asking, but Cabin in the Woods is like a love letter to all horror movies. It drops references and homages left and right, making horror movie tropes actual plot points, including bizzare foreign horror movies that aren't explained at all. The more you know about horror movies, folklore, and monster cinema, the more you will understand the movie.

If you haven't seen it, go see it now. I won't say anything else.

Can't come in unless invited, don't have a reflection, sensitive (or deathly allergic) to light, garlic, and holy water, these things are rarely explained.

Senior devs love vibe coding because they have the knowledge and skills to recognize and fix errors. They hate it because it makes morons think they don't need the knowledge and skills to recognize and fix errors.

So, by definition, the people who do like you are...

Says the guy who lied about being progressive to win.

Covid masks can be effective, and it's not as suspicious as asymmetrical makeup or a reflective hoodie. But no, there's no good way to avoid being photographed in public.

We're also not talking about Epstein, either.

For what it's worth, Vantablack isn't a pigment, it's a process for applying carbon nanotubes that absorb light. They don't sell the "paint" part by itself because it requires special equipment and it finicky. They don't sell it because then a bunch of social media influencers would try to spray their bathrooms with the stuff and make a bunch of videos about how it doesn't live up to the hype.

The owner of the exclusive license to use it for art might be a douche who uses the licensing to make himself feel powerful, but there is a justifiable explanation for why the licensing exists in the first place.

This is a constant struggle for me. I'll think "Oh, I can wait until the kids are in bed and then have 8 hours of quiet time to get shit done. I could even take a nap!"

Here's what I heard you say you think about yourself:

There's something wrong with me.

Here's what you actually said:

I recognize I can do better, and I'm trying.

Nobody is born perfect. Babies are little sociopaths. You, like everyone else, are a work in progress.

You should read a little about maladaptive daydreaming. It sounds like your lying is just a form of wishing your life was more interesting than you think it is.

Who you actually are is enough.

Practice spending time in social settings asking questions. You don't owe anyone entertaining stories, and people would much rather talk than listen.

Don't beat yourself up for mistakes, but don't forget them, either. Regret is your brain reminding you not to do that again. Give yourself grace to try to do better next time.

The problem is that the left gets people cancelled for hate speech. The right gets people cancelled for objective truth. Read the comments that people are getting fired for. It's a blatant doouble standard that shifts the overton window on public discourse. Fascist bigots are running the country, and there's no room for compromise with hate.

If he talked to you about it, you probably would have talked him out of it. Tells me deep down he knew it was stupid, but he wanted to do it.

I would talk to him about that part of it, help him recognize the choice he made to ignore your voice of reason in his own head.

I wouldn't punish him for it, especially because he came to you to talk about it, but he's getting closer to the age when he has to really pay attention to that voice in his head because you won't be with him for every decision. Although, my kids often act like having to talk to me about things is punishment enough.

Well that's the trick, isn't it? The people who rule presume consent, but what they are really expecting is compliance. Your compliance is presumed consent. You can revoke your compliance any time you like, but the rulers will respond to noncompliance with force.

There's a process within the law, and there's a process where we replace the current law with something else. Within the law, we can vote for representatives who will impeach the current corrupt justices and approve new ones who are hopefully not corrupt. Let's call that option A.

Option B is the total overthrow of the government, which is ridiculous to even consider, but it's the alternative you're hinting at. Denouncing the SCOTUS doesn't change the ruling government in any way. Society is built on the idea that we all more or less agree to be ruled in exchange for fair rules and national defense. In a democracy, you have the appearance of agency, but you cannot simply withdraw consent to be ruled. The difference between democracy and fascism is that fascism explicitly defines violence as the means of control, while democracy merely implies that violence will be used to keep order. Once a democratically elected ruler decides to become fascist, there is no remedy but violence.

To wit, those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

That said, I do not think we're quite there yet. I have no doubt Trump will try to go all in to remain in power, but I don't think he actually has enough followers to pull it off.

But that still leaves the corrupt justices on the bench. We need to focus on elections for representatives willing to impeach corrupt justices. If you think that process is too slow, consider that a violent revolution would probably take decades of bloodshed, and there's no guarantee we don't get some other despot as a result. Violence is not the answer to this question.

Isn't that a simp?

I mean there's as much evidence for that as it was a trans immigrant Palestinian or whatever they are claiming today.

Patriotism. Democracy. Representational Government. Freedom. Liberty. Take your pick.

Charlie Kirk was about to call for the release of the Epstein files. That's why Putin had him killed.

Source: The same place conservatives are getting their information.

How about news so ridiculous you wish it were satire, but we actually just live in a dystopian hellscape run by madmen and thieves?

I agree with you entirely about all of that, but we're not talking about making a statement, we're talking about doing the absolute bare minimum to avoid a controversy in the middle of a chaotic situation. Would there be more violence? Would there be retaliation? Would arsonists decide now is their chance to target the "liberal" media?

Also, to your point about his statements on empathy (and gun control, in the same context) I agree that Kirk is undeserving of our respect or our empathy. But empathy is not a gift given to others. It's a choice you make about your own character. People like Charlie Kirk are the prime examples of how hollow life becomes when you live without empathy.

I won't say he deserved to be killed, but I will say he lived a life deserving of ridicule, and his death doesn't change that. We are all of us defined by our choices. Charlie Kirk made his decisions, and I think they were the wrong way to live. I choose to live with empathy because that's the person I want to be.

I'm not saying that you or anyone else should feel empathy for the man, because I have empathy for you. I understand how Kirk made you feel, and how he made me feel. But I also have empathy for satirists who chose to pull punches yesterday, not because of some performative respect for the dead, but simply because they weren't sure exactly how they wanted to respond yet.