Elbows have always been allowed on the table. The rule for fancy dining was that you couldn’t have elbows on the table during a course, i.e., when people are actively eating, but before/after, it’s fine. That’s a reasonable rule to be considerate of space.
If you have a large number of people eating in comparison to the size of the table, and the table is already covered in food, the only place on the table to put your elbows is in other people’s personal space.
The rule should be “no elbows right next to someone else’s food” but neurotypicals are terrible at communicating due to their underdeveloped social skills and empathy.
People other than you, who are not “neurotypicals” whatever tf that even means, are able to accomplish seating large amounts of people at a table and use basic table manners just fine. It’s just common courtesy.
Yes, neurotypicals are indeed able to have large family dinners. But they have to do it using table manners as a crutch. They can’t just have an honest conversation about what’s really necessary, they need to rely on this social construct to tell people what to do without explaining why. It’s a great weakness. If only the average person weren’t so afraid to introspect and to question why we do things.
Which is kind of the point he is making. Instead of engaging in a honest talk and understanding the reasoning behind social norms, they are just pushed as normative and understandably confusing to people who struggle with “just behave like everyone else, lol”.
Ironically this is exposing us neurotypicals to be socialy underdeveloped instead of non neurotypical people.
As someone who can’t sit straight I only wore shorts and trousers until I learnt this trick in my twenties. While I personally don’t find it lewd, other people clearly do and I get so pissed off every time someone feels the need to inform me that they’ve been looking up my skirt.
Not being able to pull off an assasination in a country where citizens can legally buy an assualt rifle must be an embarrasment in the history of assasins.
it was an incredibly close shot. looks like he coincidentally moved his head the exact moment the shot rang, if he hadn’t he would be gone. factors like windage also play a role. idk which outcome is worse.
Both Trump and the Shooter surviving would have been best. If the kid was able to say exactly why he did it, then all the conspiracy would die. An Trump would have some uncomfortable questions about his involvement with Epstein. That second part might still happen. But likely won’t.
Definitely this one. This just killed my hope that he loses again, and you know the Gravy Seals are going to step up their harassment and violence towards people - and that would have been true either way. At least with the other outcome he doesn’t get in.
He couldn’t have asked for a better gift for his campaign.
him dying would’ve turned him into a martyr and basically solidified him as a saint, if not a god, to the maga crowd. I can imagine the repercussions of that. there’s also the possibility that someone worse replaces him, someone just as fascist and selfish but twice as competent, and that would be disastrous. y’know, the whole “guys I went back in time and killed Hitler” trope/joke.
Which biden would be prepared to deal with. Keep in mind that Trump was in office for Jan 6. One might even consider that a good thing, as this time with a competent president there would be less victims, and more insurrectionists getting their voting rights taken away.
He’s already a god to his followers. People literally paint him as the second coming of Jesus Christ. There is no one worse in this moment than Donald Trump.
Sure, yet none of them are able to do what Trump does. That’s why it’s taken 40+ years for them to get to this point. The Mitch McConnells and such might be politically saavy, but they don’t have the “charisma” of Donald Trump to actually pull off the end game. That’s why they all protect him so much, he’s a cult figure, which can be difficult to fabricate.
As someone indicated below, he’s now a living martyr. I would place money that he uses this to galvanize his following and it actually benefits him in the polls.
He needed to die in an embarrassing way (lethal dose of ex-lax?) for it to hurt his reputation.
I don’t buy the ‘pave the way for someone worse’ argument. Who would that be? I can’t think of anyone right now, except for maybe De Santis in terms of actually being somewhat competent.
Cruz is competent and evil, ramashwarmy will do anything the likes of miller and bannon come up with, de sanstis as you said… There are worse options, frightingly…
Apparently, eating C-4 causes diarrhoea. Bomb tech recruits would be fed small amounts of C-4 and then chased around with a taser, a shock from which they feared would set it off, while trying not to shit themselves
No it wasn’t. He has zero injuries. It could even been a shard of glass on the stage. Stages are dirty fucking things that no one cleans once they are up.
In the video he reacts to something before being tackled, kinda ducking his head a little and grabbing at his ear. He was hit by something, but I’ve heard some conjecture it may have been shrapnel from a shot teleprompter, so seems to either be that or a bullet itself.
Some still survive injury to the head so if you want to kill someone instantly, try to aim for the heart. Security services know this that’s why persons of interest are advised to wear bulletproof vests. I am guessing Trump is wearing one so had the shooter tried to aim for the torso, that would have been more embarrassing than near-missing Trump to the head.
Best thing about this is that it is canonically true; “Cameron believed that cops, institutionalized in a system that encourages them to abuse their power, were a perfect representation of the inhumanity that led to the creation of murderous robots.” screenrant.com/terminator-2-movie-james-cameron-t…
Ironically, Robocop would have defended him from the terminators.
I really do miss the 80s/90s era anti-capitalist dystopian future movies. We have the Purge series now, which has been pretty good (at least 3 and 4), but nothing approaching the massive numbers of productions ranging from They Live to Rollerboys to Robocop to Running Man and so many others.
It feels like we’ve hit a tipping point where subconsciously at least we’ve figured out we’re actually the bad guys from Red Dawn and the Wolverines are the people we’re killing, and just decided to lean into it. I’m waiting for Handmaid’s Tale to get a Birth of a Nation makeover in the next ten years.
This was the subject of a limited run comics series by Dark Horse called Robocop vs The Terminator that was pretty rad. It was written by Frank Miller or Sin City and The Dark Knight Rises fame who also wrote the script for Robocop 2. It kind of led to a video game as well. No idea what that was like but the comics were pretty decent as I recall.
The 80s/90s anti corporate dystopia was oddly (or maybe not so oddly) a prediction of the outcome of the other 80s/90s movies and media which were very much pro corporate propaganda. The young white male up-and-coming corporate exec, making money, driving fancy cars, was definitely an image they were selling hard in the 80s. Which seemed to align with Reagan’s view of the world.
You’re absolutely right. In my memory, though, the ones that stick out the most are the ones where the hero is pro-corporate but in an anti-corporate way. I’m thinking about movies like Working Girl, 9 to 5, and Secret of My Success, and even Other People’s Money. The villains were the very straight and square boss types and the heroes were the young(er) upstarts who could out-business them. OPM was a little different but I think it fits the theme.
The main difference I’m seeing is that even in the pro-capitalism shows, it was still all about sticking it to the man. If the good guys were cops, the man was the chief of police. If the good guys were businessmen, the man was their boss. If the good guys were soldiers, the man was their CO, or the generals or politicians back in Washington.
Maybe it’s purely subjective on my part, but it seems like there’s a lot more pro-authority movies being made now. You can’t take a movie like Top Gun (which still had the shaggy haired rebel as well as one of the most homoerotic themes in mainstream cinema at the time) with something like Bill Murray in Stripes. Stripes is great comedy that I’d place almost at the level of Caddyshack, but even though both movies could have been shown by recruiters to get people to enlist, Stripes was still a goofball comedy of the slobs against the snobs (with the snobs in this case being their leadership).
I’d really like to get back into that kind of default cultural image. Cops were mostly corrupt (Serpico) or idiots (Cannonball Run), or else inept (Escape from New York, or all of those stupid Charles Bronson movies).
It just feels like we hit that point where the default is to love Big Brother.
It’s also a tactically sound decision for the T1000 to impersonate a cop, because they have powers that are made to be abused. It’s a perfect reflection of the fact that the job attracts abusive personalities.
Also, this was only two years before the Rodney King beating and subsequent LA Riots, with 911 Is A Joke and Ice T on the radio. LAPD as villains was in the air.
retains clunky 7-day week that doesn’t interact will with decimal counting system
I like it, but I got an even better proposal. Weeks should have ten day weeks, and each month should have 3 weeks. summer/winter solstice and the spring/autumn equinox as well as new years day are special holidays that fall between months and interrupt the week cycle. In leap years, new years is two days.
The 1st, 11th and 21st of each month are now Mondays, so you can tell the weekday of any date. Months are the same length just like in Jesse’s proposal, but an even 30 instead of a clunky 28.
We could fit three break day in a a 10 day week (3/10 is slightly bigger than 2/7). We could put the third day in the middle of the week to not have 7 work days in a row. In the fourth day mabey?
As a software developer, I would rather give up the 1.25 days off a year just to not have to work around some weird monthless and weekless date every year.
Hm fair enough. Let’s make the intercalary days part of the last week of the last month before they happen for programming/numbering purposes. So Midsummer is just June 31st, or the 11th day of the 18th week.
They had 5 or 6 intercalary holidays to celebrate the new year and adjust to the rise of the Nile (and we’d adjust it to astronomical time with leap years). It actually worked really well, and kept the people happy with a 5-day rest and celebration each year (something this world could definitely use).
They didn't have software though and you don't know if it either worked well (since the ppl who kept this system going were the same people who wrote about it) nor of it kept ppl happy. Besides: you can do that without the "not counting those" part, couldn't you?
I think of it like the appendices of a book. The main story is counted with numbers, page 10, but the appendix is counted with Roman numerals, page X. While adding to the appendix increases the number of pages in the book, it does not change the length of the story.
Current workforce is schedule around a 7day centric week. It’s far easier to reorganize where the weeks fall in the year than changing the structure of a week. Suddenly the workforce would have segment of work overlapping between weeks, it’s an organizational nightmare.
The international fixed calendar did propose a solution for the 365 days and leap year but it’s basically out-of-the-week holidays.
Weeks should have ten day weeks, and each month should have 3 weeks.
Here's why I'm going to say no. It's because businesses would just rip us off by turning the working week into 8 days and just retaining the 2 day weekend.
Businesses don’t have the power to do that if we collectively tell them no. But that being said, how DO you split up a 10-day week keeping the same basic ratio of “weekend” days?
Three weekdays, followed by a single “weekend” day or mid-week break, then four weekdays followed by a two-day weekend?
That’s very pessimistic. It assumes that there is a corporate led reform. Which is unlikely. If it was a grass roots campaign, the call for change would include a weekend proposal from the start. By the time businesses come around to supporting it, the weekend will alredy be defined as 3-work-2-off, or 7-work-3-off.
What names shall we give the new weekdays? Because I was thinking maybe we should rename a few existing ones, so no weekdays start with the same letters. Then they can be abbreviated to their respective first letters.
No dammit, we want 3 days off in the current 7 day week cycle. 5 days off a 10 day week works for me. We ask for that, get negotiated down to 4 day weekends and it works.
Congratulations, you’ve successfully reinvented the Egyptian civil calendar, complete with the intercalary holidays and all. Literally the only change is to add weeks. And yes, it did work really well, especially since the feast could add or lose a day to adjust to a known reference (the rise and fall of the Nile in their case). I second this proposal to go back.
And instead of calling them “weeks”, we could call them by the much more self-explanatory term “tendays”.
summer/winter solstice and the spring/autumn equinox as well as new years day are special holidays that fall between months and interrupt the week cycle
You can simplify it a little bit by putting the intercalary days between months, rather than using them for the solstices. We can put Midwinter between January 30 and February 1 and Midsummer between July 30 and August 1, in the northern hemisphere.
For the sake of putting it in a more user-friendly location, our leap day should be in the summer for the northern hemisphere (where most of the population is). So put it the day after Midsummer.
The only thing I would do differently from the Calendar of Harptos is that, like you, I would use New Year’s Day as the 5th annual intercalary day.
the equinoxes and solstices are roughly 90 days apart anyway so we can do both
Right, but my point was that we shouldn’t use either equinoxes or solstices, because they occur around the 21st of their month at present. It’s better to put the intercalary days in between months so that a single month doesn’t get awkwardly split up.
Should be from workers’ perspective, but 3-1-4-2 is still a win for pretty much everyone as it would most likely improve productivity potentially more than 4-3 while also giving “more” (marginally, but still about 4 days per year) time off than 5-2
I don’t see why 7 day weeks are bad in regard to the number system. We rarely need to divide the days of the week into equal portions. Remembering 1, 8, 15 and 22 as mondays would be trivial after a while.
You also claim that failure to address the 365th day and leap years is an issue, but your proposal also includes several cycle-breaking days. So the same issue would persist.
Moon deviation isn’t something I really worry about, but having a period which almost align with the cycle seems useful. It would be easy to just examine the initial phase within the month to chart out the rest of the month.
However, I think the biggest flaw is that the calendar would be divided into 13 equal parts, which sucks to divide into typical use cases, i.e. into 2 parts. You could split the 7th month, but it’s not really elegant. Dividing the year into 3 or 4 parts would be a mess.
The liberal SDP split with the communists, supporting “centrist” Hindenburg in the name of unity.
The communists campaigned on “A vote for Hindenburg is a vote for Hitler is a vote for war”
Hindenburg won the election, getting more votes than either the communist or fascist candidates.
Hindenburg, the liberal candidate, then proceeded to make Hitler the chancellor and staff positions of power with nazis while purging the government of communists.
The nazis then barely had to do anything to assert complete control.
The nazis didn’t get in power because communists stayed home, they got into power because the liberals would rather work with fascists than communists.
The Nazis didn’t get in power because communists stayed home, they got into power because the liberals would rather work with fascists than communists.
Lets not bury the lede. You run weak Democrats, you comprise with fascists (or just do the policies yourself; Biden’s border bill, Congressional support for making criticism of Israel a hate crime) : this is the path you put us on.
We’ve been saying from day one, that if Biden doesn’t move to the left and use every tool at his disposal to improve people’s material conditions, Trump’s going to win in 2024.
Biden didn’t just not go left, he tried to outflank the republicans from the right by facilitating genocide, ending covid protections, and passing the most draconian border bill since like the 40s.
This is the closest thing he could have done to handing Trump the presidency, short of appointing him VP and stepping down.
Your hyperbole is over the top. Trump’s Title 42 and Muslim ban were far worse.
POTUS has no reasonable control over grocery store prices, which is the part of the economy everyone is most concerned with. Last time an Executive Order was used to price fix the food industry, it blew up in Nixon’s face. Supply chain constraints were industry wide, and when the order expired, prices went up far past standard inflation. The other big concern is housing, which could be addressed with legislation if Democrats had congressional majority.
I completely agree about support of Israel. The only comparison is knowing Trump will be worse for Palestinians. It’s terrible to reconcile, but those are the options.
Abstaining isn’t voting for Trump, it’s refusing to stand in his way.
Biden waited 3.5 years to end title 42 and tried to close the border. He has deported more people than Trump.
POTUS has no reasonable control over grocery store prices
He literally does though. But there’s a million other things he could have done when he had control. Instead we just get excuses about how powerless the party controlling both houses and the presidency was because of Manchin or the parliamentarian or the SCOTUS or some rules the dems set for themselves or norms or whatever.
There’s no point in quibbling about whether Biden was less bad than trump, these actions decrease how many people will vote for him. Implementing policy that makes you lose the election is refusing to stand in republican’s way.
Did you not read the second half of my comment? He ended Title 42 a year and a half after taking office. Federal judges stopped it for a year.
You wrote three and a half years.
You fabricate information in your comments often. I will always call out misinformation.
Cite your sources and stop with the lies.
Incidentally, you quoted my point about the Muslim ban in your previous comment. So yeah, we were certainly talking about it.
Biden has done plenty of good where Trump did nothing or actively worsened things for the working class, minorities, and the planet. You only select Biden’s worst policies to define his presidency.
It doesn’t matter if his excuse was some court he can just ignore and face no consequences asked him to keep it in place or if did it on a whim, he had the power to change it, he didn’t use it. It was in place for like 3 and a half years.
You’re not calling out misinformation, you’re quibbling.
You inflated his inaction on Title 42 by two years. Quibbling my ass. I’m calling you a liar. This is not the first time I’ve called you out on false information.
POTUS is the head of the Executive Branch. He has no control over the Judicial Branch other than appointing judges in the event of vacancy.
Telling them to “fuck off” is meaningless nonsense.
Also, it still wasn’t three years. From inauguration in January of 2021 to May of 2022. You seem to really want to be right. You’d probably have more success if you cited accurate information.
Telling them to “fuck off” is meaningless nonsense.
The SCOTUS has no means to enforce its decisions. It knows this and has historically kowtowed to the executive when faced with its own marginalization.
As I said, it was a year and a half when he ended Title 42. It was two and a half years due to Federal court. Your initial claim was three and a half years. Is it that hard to admit that you’re wrong?
I’m done with your repeated misrepresentation of my argument, and childish suggestions that “he can just do what he wants” and tell the judge to “fuck off.”
Read the thread you’re so confident in condemning.
I cited my statements while your friend here repeatedly made false claims.
The Mexican Border bill you’re referring to is an Executive Order, not congressional legislation. Trump’s border Executive Order was the Muslim ban. Neither of which required congressional approval, and therefore are directly equatable.
Maybe you two should get a place together in misinformation land.
If you look at many people’s material conditions during Trump and during Biden, they haven’t gotten better. You can say whatever you want about Biden’s policies, his cabinet appointments, and how much Democrats have done when they hold power, but at the end of the day it hasn’t changed most folks’ lives one bit. It might be good metric-wise, but until folks feel like they’re better off it doesn’t matter.
Also, it’s hilarious to me how much shit Republicans seem to get done even when they don’t hold the House, Senate, and White House together, but the minute Republicans get one of those, suddenly it’s “oh shit Democrats can’t do anything”. It’s like Republicans are playing with nukes and Democrats are showing up with rubber band guns.
And no, I won’t be voting for Biden, I’ll be voting third party. And I know, you think “a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump”, but I don’t give a shit. I’ve been seeing this same “at least I’m not…” shit for 25 years and watching our country be sold to the highest bidder under both parties. At this point, if we can’t figure out shit out, we deserve to be razed to the ground.
That’s true of the post-pandemic food industry prices for sure. That description was regarding the failure of Nixon’s attempt to price fix with an Executive Order.
Biden didn’t just not go left, he tried to outflank the republicans from the right by facilitating genocide, ending covid protections, and passing the most draconian border bill since like the 40s.
This is one of the worst examples of confirmation bias I have ever seen. The Biden Administration’s entire record is out there for you to peruse, and you pick 3 things out of hundreds, possibly thousands, that you think justify your comparison.
During Hitlers Ascent to Power, the communist still considered the SPD to be the bigger threat and refused to march with them. And the SPD of the 1930 were by no means “liberals”. They were further to the left than any democrat has ever been.
the communist still considered the SPD to be the bigger threat and refused to march with them
…which was confirmed when they agreed with the Nazis… And when they collaborated with the Freikorps to crush, torture, and murder the communists.
And the SPD of the 1930 were by no means “liberals”. They were further to the left than any democrat has ever been.
Go ask Rosa Luxembourg, leader of communists in Germany and murdered at 47 at the order of SPD, how progressive and left the SPD was. “Left is when you agree to murder and torture communists”. Fucking revisionists man
They agreed with Hitler? They were the only faction voting against him during the Gleichschaltungkrise.
“Left is when you agree tp torture and murder communists”. So we both agree that the Stalinist Sovietunion and the KPD, which allied themselves with them arent left?
No, both SPD and KPD were way to the left of all pther political parties and had they banded together, like they did during the Kappputsch, my homecountry wouldnt have been destroyed and 60 Million People would probably still be alive. After every other institution failed Germany, these two failed them in conjunction by not even trying to organize a joined force.
So we both agree that the Stalinist Sovietunion and the KPD, which allied themselves with them arent left?
One country ended up with Nazis. The other ended up defeating the Nazis. I’d say the Bolsheviks did a better job, didn’t they? The fact that there was oppression against Mensheviks and SRs in the context of a civil war, doesn’t mean they’re anticommunists, they didn’t quite literally enable the Nazis in order to murder the ones who were more communist than them, but defeat them instead.
Want to find the blame for Nazism in Germany? The fault is primarily of Nazis, and then of Nazi enablers, and then of anti-communist leftists.
The other ended up defeating the Nazis. I’d say the Bolsheviks did a better job, didn’t they?
Uh. The Bolsheviks actively collaborated with Hitler and the Nazis, right up until Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets carved up Poland between themselves and Germany, and tried to invade Finland (Winter War, Continuation War), which is why the Finns ended up allying with the Nazis after Operation Barbarossa.
Got it bro, the actual Nazis aren’t the Nazis, neither the ones who eliminated the most radical oppositors to Nazism, but actually the ones that died 26+mn of trying to fight them. God, you anti-communist revisionists are exhausting.
The Bolsheviks actively collaborated with Hitler and the Nazis, right up until Operation Barbarossa
Ugh, not this Nazi talking point again… The Soviet Union pursued for all the 30s a policy called “collective security”, in which it desperately tried to achieve mutual-defense pacts with England, France and Poland because the soviets knew that their 15-year-old nation which had only just started industrializing since the end of the feudal and backwards Russian Empire, didn’t have a chance alone against the Nazis with their 150 year long history of industry (as would be seen later with the USSR suffering 26+mn deaths during the war, in places like Belarus 1 in 4 people died). The USSR wanted these mutual defense agreements to the point of offering to send 1 million soldiers to France and England if they agreed to mutual defense… which France, England and Poland denied because they thought Nazis would attempt their declared goal of eliminating communisnm and massacring the “slavic untermenschen”. After this was denied and it was obvious that the west would rather see the USSR invaded than reach a mutual defense agreement, they did the only possible course of action: delaying the war as much as possible to prepare for it and industrialize a bit more. That’s where the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact takes place, not before a decade of exhausting every possible negotiation route with France and England in opposition to Nazism.
The fact that the USSR then proceeded to (rather bloodlessly, around 50k deaths overall, very comparable to the oppression within the USSR itself) invade Poland, has to do with the USSR not trusting the Polish government. Why? In 1917, the Bolshevik revolution drafted an unprecedentedly progressive constitution which granted the right to self-determination and lawful secession to all peoples of the former Russian Empire. That’s how many countries such as Finland or Poland suddenly gained independence lawfully and peacefully in a never-before-seen act of respect of the right of self-determination. What did Poland immediately proceed to do? Become fully nationalist, ignore the right to self-determination of other peoples, and invade Ukraine (and later the USSR) in an attempt to gain territories they considered theirs by historical right. When they had conquered a good chunk of modern Ukraine and Belarus, the Polish Government decided it was a good idea to start a war against the USSR, since the USSR was plunged deep into a civil war and didn’t have many resources or troops to defend itself, and some conquests and victories could grant them a positive peace agreement which granted the territories the Polish Nationalists considered theirs (while ignoring the right to self-determination that the Bolsheviks had granted them less than two years earlier). Poland was also happy to make peace and appeasement treaties with Nazi Germany as long as they could also get some territorial gains from Czechoslovak land.
Similarly, Finland in 1917 after gaining independence, was plunged into a civil war between communists and whites, which the latter won and proceeded to imprison communists in Finland who had supported the Reds, around 80k of which some 12k died (funny how nobody talks about that). The USSR had reasons to suspect of a possible alliance between the Finnish government and the Nazis, and proceeded to invade Finland. After the failure of the invasion, as you said, Finland joined the Nazis.
Blaming the USSR for entering a non-aggression treaty with the Nazis, when all western nations had done it, and after 10 years of the USSR trying to make mutual defense agreement with Poland, England and France, is at best ignorant, and at worst purposefully misinforming with an agenda. The USSR had reasons to suspect of Poland and Finland (especially given its history of constant betrayals by all European powers since the October Revolution, with 14 countries sending troops to aid the Tsarist loyalists against the Bolsheviks) and, while outright invasions may not be justified, it could all have been prevented if the western powers had actually agreed to fight nazism. It’s absolutely nuts to blame the USSR and call them “collaborators with Nazis” given the historical background of the two decades before the war, especially the latter.
50,000 deaths is ‘rather bloodlessly’? And since that’s comparable to oppression within the USSR, it’s not that bad?
while outright invasions may not be justified,
Correct. That, right there, is the most important point you’ve made. They collaborated with Nazis to carve up territories, and were then shocked when the Nazis turned on them. As far as the appeasement pacts made with Nazi Germany by France, England, et al., there’s very, very good reasons why the Vichy gov’t and Quisling are viewed so negatively by everyone that isn’t an apologist.
Good job evading the uncomfortable 90% of my comment. Since we’re at that point, I will proceed to evade 100% of yours, seeing how you’re not interested in discussing actual facts such as the reasons for the USSR to make a non aggression treaty with the Nazis after a decade of systematic rejection of military alliances by Poland, England and France.
It looks a lot like in a way History is repeating itself: the Democrat Establishment in the US (who are a hard neoliberals, not lefties) fielded directly and without a Primary a guy like Biden who is less than in his prime and even supports an ethno-Fascist regime commiting Genocide (and, more importantly, is unwilling to walk back on that support even to improve his odds of winning against Trump, which is what we are being told is the most important thing in the World) all of which is making it far more likely that the Fascists will get power.
There are vast contradictions between what we are being told is the danger of Trump getting elected and the DNC and Biden persistently making choices that increase the chances of Trump getting elected and not walking back on those.
Surelly if “Stop Trump” is the most important thing in the World for them, the Democrat Establishment too would be walking towards the wishes of the electorate not just trying to push the electorate to do all the walking towards the wishes of the Democrat Establishment.
We can’t say we must do everything to stop Trump and then shrug and say hold your nose and vote for the guy that’s polling poorly.
That’s not trying everything that’s people in power wanting one outcome that are willing to risk everything they say they don’t want because the scared masses should hopefully fall in line without even a backup plan for it not working.
This isn’t trying and doing everything to stop a fascist dictator taking power this is capitalist conservatives trying to stretch out their win for a little bit longer using what they think is a sure win. This can only ever end poorly even if it’s just another 4 years later from now.
the democrat establishment is already getting what they want from voters and the system and they won’t get any of the blame should they lose; so they both have no reason to change nor do they have anything to risk by trying something new.
those contradictions you referenced are the centrists version of fox news stoking the culture war, but more vague because they’re trying to appeal both both centrists and leftist; that and project 2025 are the talking points that the moderates are parroting to justify against voting progressively, thus proving martin luther king’s opinion of the the american moderate is true.
Exactly, the country that shared a massive land border with the NAZIs and was a direct target of their aggression suffered many more casualties than the ones what didn’t, who’da thunk it? Without the combined efforts of essentially the entire rest of the world, the USSR would have been toast.
Me as an instance admin sitting here reading about how Lemmy doesn’t have trolls and Russian bots, while I’m in a chat with other instance admins and mods where we need to actively coordinate to fight the trolls and Russian bots 😐
After hexbear got defederated from most of the major instances, the fucking losers just make alts on different instances so they can continue defending that propaganda filled shithole. Now .ml seems like the new worst, no matter what you do these no-life losers will find a way to spread their bullshit.
Takes much more effort to try and stop them than it does for these losers to make alts unfortunately.
Ml is run by the creators of Lemmy, and hexbear is well… Not. Hexbear made their own fork of lemmy a long time ago and only in the past year or so have they been actually able to federate at all. I don’t see the creators of Lemmy going through all that effort to hide their identities if they were actually running hexbear behind the scenes
Hexbear wasn’t federated to begin with for many instances, and Lemmy.ml hasn’t really changed as a result of Hexbear getting defederated by servers like Lemmy.world and Lemmy.ca, because Hexbear has a more secluded user-base. Hexbear intentionally tries to be careful with who they federate with.
Somewhere in Moscow, there’s a big red phone that connects to its counterpart in Beijing, where Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping discuss the latest attempts to influence an indie reddit spin-off with an elaborate network of Markov Chain LLMs producing comments like “I wish y’all wouldn’t be so nakedly racist towards people from other countries.”
That’s honestly pretty amazing that you’ve been here a year and haven’t seen a troll! Though you’re on an instance with a very active and determined admin, there is definitely a difference in how much you see between instances because of how removals work.
You guys are pretty proactive about blocking and defederating bad faith instances, or even ones not doing enough to deal with bad actors. You were one of the first to defederate Hexbear, and I think you even defederated world at one point?
Chasers are dangerous to the trans community and turn people into fetish objects, rather than recognizing them as people. It ignores the desires of trans individuals who wish to be seen as the gender they identify with and explicitly chases trans individuals for their being trans.
Ie, a transwoman is pursued for being a transwoman and not for being a woman.
Hey that was me back when I had a kbin account. I’m the account in the screenshot.
That was a direct response to someone asking if I would have sex with a trans man. I got accused of being a chaser for saying “sure, I guess, pre-transition” (the first part) and being a transphobe for saying “but I’m not sexually attracted to dicks” (the second part). Note those two accusations are more or less mutually exclusive, but it doesn’t matter because they’re both deeply, incredibly stupid accusations. The mods and admins of blahaj pointed out how incredibly stupid the accusations were, and some people didn’t like being called stupid, so they went back to hexbear. And continued to be stupid.
Because chasers undermine the expressed gender identity of trans individuals for the sake of their own sexual pleasure. Calling it “transphilic” is just semantical wordplay that dismisses the inherently predatory nature of chasers.
How is it undermining that and not affirming? I mean to fetishise a group is wrong, I get that and that is also my opinion but if they want to fuck a transwoman they want that because she is a woman which affirms the womanhood?
And the point is how is it transhate if you like the trans aspect specifically. Doesn’t make sense to me.
It is not a wordplay it is what those words mean. Phobic means something like hate or fear and phile means something like love or attraction.
Edit: as phobic means you want to get away from something or don’t want it to exist. Fetishising is the exact opposite.
If someone is arachnophobic that doesn’t mean he wants to fuck a spider or undermine the identity of the spider. That someone wants the spider be gone because it is a spider.
Did you read the original reddit thread? Chasers are dangerous to the trans community. It isn’t about being attracted to trans individuals, it’s about specifically seeking them out for being trans and fetishizing them being trans.
Can you not see how this may look if you are the trans person in this relationship?
I’m not stupid, I know it means “fear of.” Do you think Homophobes are “afraid” of gay people? What abiut transphobes? In the context of bigotry, phobia is used to refer to invalidating or undermining ones sexuality, gender identity, etc.
Literally talk to a trans person, or just read through that thread, it isn’t difficult.
Talk to trans people about how they feel about lumping anti-trans views into the “transphile” category because rather than being hated outright, chasers simply prey on trans individuals and undermine their gender identity in a sickeningly fetishizing way.
This is the most bizarre stand I’ve seen someone take online, and that’s really saying something. Phobic means an irrational fear or disgust off something, these people are clearly neither afraid or disgusted of trans people.
I wrote a lot more than 1 sentence in the beginning and linked a good thread with a bunch of trans individuals discussing said topic. They aren’t adding anything, just playing semantics with philic vs phobic.
To use an analogy, imagine you’re fat and trying to lose weight. Someone admits they are attracted to you, “sure, as long as you’re still fat”. Can you see how this would not be a good basis for a healthy relationship? You could even say it is a sign of a “chubby chaser”. Likewise for transness.
Also, people are overly sensitive because being denied full/legitimate relationships is a frequent pain point for trans people (esp trans women). The classic trope is the boyfriend who will take you on dates but refuse to introduce you to his friends/relatives.
So yeah, I can see why a queer friendly instance would defederate an instance whose admins promote/defend that sort of rhetoric. Hexbear might have jumped the gun (as I told them at the time- the turnaround time was less than 24 hours and the head admin had no chance to respond) but the blahaj admins weren’t great either
You could even say it is a sign of a “chubby chaser”. Likewise for transness.
Yeah, if you’re deeply stupid. Or, as you suggested, so traumatized by life that you have no understanding of normal human interrepationships. Just because you are open to the idea of having sex with a fat person, that does not make you a chubby chaser. That’s not at all what that means.
In your analogy, the proper response for the fat person would be “that makes me feel bad” and NOT “you are a bad person”. Take some ownership for your feelings. People are allowed to have sexual preferences. That is 100% normal. If it’s triggering for you, then it’s on you to manage your response, not lash out.
Also, people are overly sensitive
Understatement of the year. I think we need to acknowledge that some trans communities can get extremely toxic. Woe unto you if you get caught in their crosshairs for whatever reason. Sure, this may stem from trauma or transphobia/discrimination, but we shouldn’t pretend it’s not a thing.
My pet theory is that trans people are excluded from so many groups that groups of trans people by necessity get very insular. And insular groups tend towards shittiness, almost universally.
It’s not just being attracted, it’s being attracted conditional on the person having x characteristic (that they might not even want to have). That’s the very definition of fetishizing/objectifying and it’s not toxic to criticize it.
I will grant that this is more of an issue for relationships than for hookups etc. As a wise woman once told me- chasers are gross, but they also help pay her rent, so really it’s impossible to say if they’re bad or not.
Potentially yes, they can exhibit similar patterns. In fact lots of cishet women have also complained about being objectified because their (potential) dating partner is attracted not to the whole package but to a specific part of them- it’s a classic feminist talking point. The “chaser” label gets added when the person being objectified is marked as deviant in some way. But it’s def not just cishet men who are capable of it.
Some people like being fat. Some people like being women.
A person who likes bobs and vagene entering a committed relationship with a trans man would be toxic. Ditto for a person who likes fat people entering a committed relationship with someone who is trying to lose weight. That said, firstly, I don’t see anything wrong with a one-night stand in either of those scenarios, which is what the original question was, and secondly, more importantly, you’d have to stretch really hard to say that a person who’s into a little chub and a person who’s perfectly happy having a little chub entering a committed relationship is in any way problematic. OP is into women. If anyone unironically tries to call someone a pussy-chaser I’m going to recommend them for commitment.
OP saying he’d have sex with a trans man who hadn’t transitioned yet is no different than a lover of booty saying they’d have sex with someone who hadn’t lost weight yet. Sure, it might be a little confusing and/or disheartening for his potential sexual partner to be told that he likes them for the one aspect of themselves that they’re working to change, but if it’s only for one night, and that person otherwise has a good support network, and, most importantly, it’s two consenting adults, I don’t see the harm.
Ok I went and looked it up, the original question in the screenshot was about specifically dating and specifically trans men. Not a one night stand, and not someone who likes being a woman
Welcome to IT. If everything is on fire, they ask why you’re even here, and if everything is ready for the fire and there’s nothing left to do, they also ask why you’re even here
Because it was treated as a reading of historical texts. I haven’t personally looked up if those historical texts are legit but it’s funny to think that historians would disregard lesbian relations by saying they were just friends/roommates
It wasn’t just lesbian relationships. Pretty much any gay/lesbian relationship when written about by historians calls them roommates or very close friends or some bullshit like that
That’s it. That’s really all there is. And yet whenever you see posts about women in love there’s always a reference to this one 5 second video. It’s also never in the stories about people’s uncles having a “friend” who lives with them in a one bed flat in the Castro, it’s only ever a wlw thing.
We don’t have to do this. Not everything is black and white. Tesla would not be where it is today without his intervention. I expect SpaceX wouldn’t either.
I don’t think it’s about whether what he did with Tesla is good (it is at least debatable whether it is unilaterally good given they are anti-competitive in the EV market). It’s rather about the pretense for the good thing. Elon isn’t driven to help the environment. The sum purpose of Tesla’s operations isn’t environmentalism, else they’d not be selling carbon credits to ICE manufacturers, incentivising them to avoid EV production.
And it’s not even just that “the good” was only to make money, it’s that it’s as a member of the landed gentry he had the opportunity to throw many things at the wall that failed before the Tesla takeover stuck; his ‘intervention’ is simply a VC success story by happenstance.
Taking this at face value, is what he did with Tesla really laudable at all? It is a lucky byproduct of elitism.
The Nazi enabler part being the bad side, you’re saying we should to reconcile this with the good side. I’m saying the good side is actually just some good shit that happened. Attributing it to Elon would be a mistake because of all of the times he did the same thing with the same intent and it never amounted to anything. For the truly good person, their opportunities to do good things would have been well exhausted before the Tesla opportunity arose. If we’re trying to balance the perception of how good we are it should be a function of the proportion of the things we do that are good vs. bad, not a function of how many things we have the means to try.
Philips screws are awful. They strip if you look at them wrong. Flatheads should only be used on thumbscrews just in case you need a little extra torque from a screwdriver.
They’re mostly just used for tamper-proof screws for things like bathroom stalls so people can’t take them apart as a “prank” or whatever. The screw driver bits tend to break easily, which is usually worse than the screw stripping.
I work on electronics and woodworking and Phillips are the utter worst of both of them. The thread lock in computers makes them easy to strip when unscrewing. The resistance of driving them into wood makes them guaranteed to strip when screwing. Fuck them.
The big issue I see with people driving Phillips screws is that they don’t use a large enough driver size. Computer screws for example are Phillips #2 and I’ve never had an issue with them stripping.
I use the correct driver, I’ll go through my kit to find the best fitting bit. It simply comes down to the fact they are designed to strip to avoid “catastrophic failure”. Plus the fact that companies use intentionally cheap, soft screws, to make repair and service harder. Cough cough zinc screws on a $10,000 iMac (steel screws would have cost 25 cents for 10, zinc like 5 cents for 10, fucking ridiculous).
I read that the thing about them being designed to strip to prevent worse failure is just a myth. Or at least they weren’t originally designed to. It said that the original patent never contained any feature for that. Wouldn’t surprise me though if modern companies do use screws designed to strip to prevent disassembly/repair.
I think originally the screws would cause the driver to cam out and stop driving if a certain amount of force is applied but the screws are so soft and cheap that the harder driver damages the screw head when it cams out.
This and the centered shape that Philips and Robertson have were key. The lack of a sharp driver bit being able to slip out of the fastener prevented a lot of injuries.
I always figured it was intentional but for the other reason: screws soft enough that overtightening can't damage/crack the multi-thousand dollar components, the screw head cores out first.
It’s also a design flaw that it’s so easy to use the wrong sized driver and it will sorta work. It might be annoying that you have to have a set of different star drive or hex drive bits, but you’re less likely to strip them.
Maybe I’m just being lucky but I’ve never experienced screws stripping anymore since I’ve started getting better tools for myself.
And in woodworking it can also help to pre-drill a hole using your smallest drill, before screwing a screw in. This also prevents the wood from cracking. I’ve also seen wood screws that have some lubrication pre-applied.
The problem is, when working with electronics, you can have a great screwdriver but it won’t help if the screws in the device are very cheap (and probably partially stripped already from someone opening it previously).
I’ll be honest that I’ve never really experienced problems like that before. I’ve had cheap screws and partially stripped screws. But so far I’ve always been able to open them with the right screwdriver.
But I believe you when you say you did and maybe you have a lot more experience than I do so I’ll respect your opinion.
I haven’t had any completely fail yet, but I’ve seen some come worryingly close. I don’t really have all that much experience, but from what I’ve seen it just doesn’t seem like the most reliable design.
PC fan screws come to mind because they are self tapping and a lot of people seem to not use the right screwdriver or don’t yet know the trick of running the screws in and out of the fan one time outside of the case first.
Could be that it’s not a Philips but a JIS. I didn’t even know that JIS existed until a couple years ago. The shape is close enough to Philips to mostly work but make it super easy to strip.
Square is nice too but square/Phillips is a good damn lie. Because the Philips side of it doesn’t work well enough so it is still just a square but with extra slots
We had our 20 y/o deck repaired and stained last year. I was chatting with the overseer about what he was going to do and the topic of screws came up; he said he was going to use Torx, and only ever used Torx anymore - I just about cheered.
I’d been losing hope in humanity lately, but little signs of sanity like this, professionals finally getting rid of the hell-bits that are Phillips heads, lifts my heart and gives me hope.
I work at a big box hardware store, and I can confirm that almost all deck and structural screws are moving to torx. (much to the older generations dismay)
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a philips or slotted deck screw. I have and have purchased many boxes of these things and they’ve always been nearly 100% Robertson. Is this a US thing?
Yes, and you’re Canadian. Robertson is the standard there, and while it’s used in other countries, not nearly as much.
In the beginning was slotted heads, mainly because mass machining and casting wasn’t good enough to have more precise forms. Then came the Great Connector Wars, and in the US the Phillips head won and was standardized; almost every house built in the US in the past 80 years will be built with these (and nails). Slotted heads are much less common, but you find them in various specific places, like where the heads are visible and you want to hide the screw as much as economically possible.
Canada, however, was smarter and standardized on the Robertson head; IIRC one reason for the divergence was the Phillips licensing cost. In any case, Robertson is superior to Phillips in most ways, except it’s even worse to dig out if it gets painted over.
As machining improved, many attempts were made to improve on Phillips, which mostly amounted to polishing a turd; Robertson remained unchanged as it was already pretty good.
Then came hex, which is great except it’s structurally pretty terrible for the head. Still, it can be seen as an improvement in Robertson, but not quite so good as to be worth all the retooling. Good enough that it’s probably the second, or at least third, most popular head in the US.
Finally, someone did some fucking math and came up with Torx, which is provably and demonstrably superior to all other screw heads. It maximizes force transfer, and leaves more material in the head; it’s harder to strip out, and can be applied effectively to very small screw heads. There’s a security version, which was mostly useless (for intended purpose) the day after it was released, but beyond that, there’s no real improvement that can be made.
The Phillips patents expired decades ago, so it’s holding on mainly from inertia. Commercial contractors don’t have much invested in it, because they have to literally buy boxes of replacement Phillips heads because of how shitty the design is and how often the heads break. While manufacturers have a steady stream of revenue from selling replacement Phillips tools that have broken, this is balanced by the mouth-watering prospect of every contractor in the US buying new Torx size-sets and high-end Torx tools. And the screw makers probably DGAF as they’ll sell screws either way; Torx screws might be a little more expensive - they used to be, but I haven’t compared lately.
Canada may just motor on using Robertson; there’s less incentive for them to retool since Robertson isn’t nearly as crappy as Phillips, so the cost/benefit to upgrade to Torx is less compelling. But who knows?
These days, all but the cheapest outdoor-grade screws in the US are torx, generally with a bit thrown into the box that, while cheap, should work fine for a few boxes’ worth.
Freaking awesome. Better and better. We’ve finally fixed the screw heads, and pretty much also computer connectors (and small device chargers!) with USB-C. Just in time for the end of the world via total ecological collapse.
I’ve heard that was more of a European thing, but the only two serious contenders are Pozidriv vs Torx for screws (and hex vs Allen for bolts).
I just checked my local hardware store’s website, and out of the 176 kinds of 4/4.5mm screw boxes in their inventory, 74 are Torx, 55 are Pozidriv, and 38 are Phillips (ew).
Either Torx or Pozidriv is fine when used properly, however most DIYers don’t understand the difference between PZ and PH and end up stripping their heads. Also it’s much harder to use the wrong-sized bit with Torx than PZ.
So yeah, Torx wins in just about every category and other heads only get manufactured to appease old people and penny-pinchers.
That’s one of my issues with Pozi - it can be hard to see the markings, and not everyone has great eyesight. I mostly object to Phillips-related screws because there are so many variations that mostly look the same and require a table to differentiate. And none have the torque-transfer performance of Torx. Plus, you can use a hex head in a Torx bit in an emergency and you don’t much care about either the bit or the head.
Flatheads should only be used on thumbscrews just in case you need a little extra torque from a screwdriver.
The only other legitimate use I’ve seen for flatheads is on wooden boats, where you’ll be gooping the head up with tar for waterproofing. Since you’ll eventually have to scrape it back off again to get to the fastener, you want a simple geometry that’s easy to clean.
Square (Robertson) drives are actually great too. Better than Hex/Allen, but Torx is the most reliable, and the most German. Phillips can take a long walk off a short pier.
Great advice. I’ve sometimes woken up several fields over after the fire has been a bit ferocious. The screams of my family as we’ve flown over people’s houses has also caused some complaints.
In the case of SVB it wasn’t fraud though, it was more poor risk management; they didn’t hedge against an increase in interest rates and that, together with the bank run when people learned about it, killed them. But yeah, the common pattern is failure.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.