Imo, the neat thing about this current “weird” discourse is that only right-wingers could ever find it genuinely insulting. Any sensible, self-actualized human being who isn’t obsessing over the sex and genetalia of others is like “haha, yeah, I am kinda weird”.
But the right wing is built on the misconception that they are “normal” and everything else is a problem. They’re the only ones that could ever be bothered by being told they’re weird, because it deconstructs the very foundation of their beliefs. Without the core of “we are normal and everyone else is causing problems in our normal society” backing up their every decision to threaten others over the religon, sexuality or life choices of others, they instead have to face reality: it’s normal to be a little weird, and it’s normal for some of that weird stuff to take root and become normal. And to refuse it and obsess over it is, in its own way, kinda weird.
Exactly, exactly! To keep it going, I think their whole worldview is based on what’s “natural” and how their shitty behaviour and policies and ideas are normal and natural, because they view stereotypes about human nature (esp re sex, gender roles, race, family structures, etc) like these unshakeable institutions that they’re powerless to influence in any way.
When really it’s like, nah it hasn’t always been like this, and it will continue changing, forever.
Further, we can do the very difficult work of trying to change it in a way that benefits more of us!
Are you fascinated with the menstrual cycles of strangers? You want to look into the underwear of everyone before letting them into the public bathroom? You so grossed out by other people’s consensual sex practices you want to take away their civil rights? You want trans children to cower in fear, and all the children to be surrounded by guns? You want women to know their place and shut their mouths? And black people to stick to menial jobs so you can kick all the brown people out of the country?
Or are you normal weird, i.e. partly fun weird and partly sad weird?
Yeah. A French equivalent could be “Nique l’extrème-droite”, but that would come out as ruder. Both words have the same literal meaning and same use in their respective language, but when " fuck" is used in French, it’s further from it’s literal meaning. “Fuck X” is then always perceived as a vague statement of hostility towards X, without the sexual connotation.
I remember sitting in a cafe in Copenhagen and overhearing a conversation at the table next to mine. I had no idea what they were talking about but “fucking” was the only word I recognized. It was about every third word they said.
Pourtant c’est plutôt commun au Québec. Ça s’enchaîne pas comme les sacres liturgiques mais c’est bien utilisé. Quelque chose peut être fucké. Une personne peut être fuckée. C’est fucking chiant. Fuck ça! Juste, fuck!
ourtant c’est plutôt commun au Québec. Ça s’enchaîne pas comme les sacres liturgiques mais c’est bien utilisé. Quelque chose peut être fucké. Une personne peut être fuckée. C’est fucking chiant. Fuck ça! Juste, fuck!
One thing for danish people is the “online government id” (MitID) everyone has and needs to use for online purchases and logins to banks and various other things.
I really wish Mozilla would focus on these missing bits and bobs like WebUSB and this one you mentioned instead of whatever the fuck it is that they’re doing now
While I think it's extremely overhyped, looking at some "AI" art communities it's clear that at least some put a lot of effort on it, going over many many iterations and tweaking the program and the results.
And anyway art is "made" by the observer, not the artist, even the results of natural processes can be art.
(AI in quotes because these tools don't deserve the name, at best High Coherence Media Transformers)
I like to think that anything that CAN be art, if it can be meaningful for someone.
A pebble might be ignored by most people, but a geologist might be fascinated by it, I think that becomes art.
Even in something worked-on at the very least the artist is the observer, and they will put into it the meaning they perceive in it, and if they never share with anyone it's still art.
I get that. I don’t think they’re capable of that level of self reflection. To them, weird is BAD. It’s being a part of the “out” group, which is anathema to them.
I think the point is that Republicans detest the idea of being weird no matter what, so they would rage at the suggestion of being a good weird anyway. To them “good weird” is an oxymoron, even though they are actually very weird and not in any kind of good way.
It doesn’t matter. Convservativea cannot accept the notion of a “good weird” because it removes all justification from their beliefs. The whole conservative belief system is founded on the notion that there is an effective normal and that normal must be protected from those that would upset it.
They cannot say they’re the “good kind of weird”, because that means admitting that weird can be good. And if weird can be good, they have no ground to plant the roots of their beliefs in. They have to be normal, because if they’re weird, all the time they spent attacking others for being weird in the defence of what’s normal doesn’t make any sense. Calling themselves the good kind of weird is a complete 180 on what it means to be conservative and alienated a massive portion of their voting base who only vote conservative because they see people who are “just like them”, not weirdos who are willing to redefine sex and gender, or question historical narratives.
The “weird” angle of attack has been so effective because it deconstructs the very notion of what it means to be a conservative. Giving them an out through the “good kind of weird” doesn’t change that.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.