• 0 Posts
  • 86 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 21st, 2023

help-circle



  • Hi everyone, JP here. This person is making a reference to the Weird Al biopic, and if you haven’t seen it, you should.

    Weird Al is an incredible person and has been through so much. I had no idea what a roller coaster his life has been! I always knew he was talented but i definitely didn’t know how strong he is.

    His autobiography will go down in history as one of the most powerful and compelling and honest stories ever told. If you haven’t seen it, you really, really should.

    ITT NO SPOILERS PLS


  • The enumeration on the losing side of that debate is probably correct. But as a person who was in my early 20s in 2000, I’d like to offer what I will characterize as The Historical Context and Definitive Conclusion to This Debate.

    No one actually gave a shit about that debate. Sure, it came up, but it did not alter anyone’s party planning. We weren’t actually celebrating the changing of the millennium, we were celebrating because we had a permission slip to do so. Any attempt to withdraw that permission was unwelcome.

    In Paris on December 31st, 1999, at around 11pm local time, someone threw themselves in front of a metro. The trains were free that night (because it was the 100 year anniversary of their opening iirc), but because of that suicide, at least one of the train lines was substantially delayed. The streets from the center of the city to the north side were crowded well toward dawn as everyone chose to walk home instead of wait indefinitely in a stinky train station.

    That person, who chose to end their life on the tracks that night, holds the core truth of the debate within his death: it’s a ridiculous debate and those who would fight for it should just stay the hell home and let the rest of us drink a lot and dance.




  • You’re being downvoted because people people think you’re being obtuse, but, as a person that overuses logical thinking to a diagnosable degree, my suspicion is that you’re doing that. Also because your tone is kind of…not good.

    The whole point of the Serenity Prayer (“accept the things I cannot change”) is that it includes “change the things I can” – so the things Davis is changing are things she CAN change, by definition.

    But her point is that she is reframing what she believes she can and cannot change. Recategorizing, if you will.

    She’s invoking the third part of the Serenity Prayer: the wisdom to know the difference. As we grow and learn, our wisdom increases, so the things that belong in the first two categories will shift.

    Things that used to be things that can’t be changed are becoming things that she can.

    To understand the quote, you just have to give it some space to breathe, and not be so logical about it.







  • Obviously you’re right. That said, in the universe of Trump’s fiction, it tracks (kind of). If the machines were rigged and if the election was stolen, then several things logically follow:

    1. Trump’s actions to retain power were not only justified, but also imperative, and very much within the scope of his duties as president, since he’s the executive branch; while DOJ might normally handle the day to day, a stolen election is a big deal, and it makes sense he would step in. And therefore he would be immune to prosecution for any “law breaking.”

    2. If you’re a superhero cop - not an actual, fat ass fascist bastard cop we have irl, but the kind of cop TV says is what cops are like, you don’t have time for subpoenas and warrants – you break down the doors and you grab the evidence. Maybe you’re not even sure if there’s a crime, but you can’t risk it – and if you’re president, you can argue there’s room for “better to ask for forgiveness than permission” in that context.

    3. If you’re not sure whether there’s been a crime but there’s a massive time pressure and extremely high stakes (as would be the case if the election was actually stolen), you would need to act as if there was a crime, since the consequences if there isn’t pale in comparison to the consequences if there is. So: if you are the head of the executive branch, and you are concerned that there’s a crime of that magnitude, you could easily make the case that you are duty bound to investigate.

    4. So, the situation is this: if you investigate, and there’s a crime, you’ve saved the world; if you investigate and there is no crime, then you will go to jail for it. That’s a bit unfair – so, a warning that, if you investigate this and there’s no crime, then you’re going to jail, might’ve been called for.

    So – if Trump was able to produce even a single piece of evidence to support his claims, the fiction he’s established on top of them is arguable, and, if you start to look at his cases through that lens, his absurd motions and arguments kind of make sense.


  • Oh I pirate the shit out of everything – and partly it’s a boycott, but I think mostly it’s the convenience. “Owning” things and enjoying them on my terms (no Internet? No problem) is just better than subscriptions.

    And I block ads, 100% for sure. I would literally give up most of the Internet rather than subject myself to ads – I’m “on the spectrum” and I have a very hard time with overstimulation and distraction, so ads substantially interrupt my ability to read (which I already have trouble with).

    Like – I love lemmy and everything, but I’m here because Reddit disabled the ad-free app I used to use. I was a daily reddit user for like 13 years. if I could still use Relay, my ethical resolve against their anti-user practices, and my personal commitment to foss, probably wouldn’t have held up.

    My feeling is, if I behave in a way that’s conducive with good mental health and life satisfaction, and what I do is also a political statement, then the universe is in harmony.

    It’s really just the "voting with your wallet’ perspective I mean to illuminate and undercut – it’s a very tempting idea, but I would rather we (as a resistance movement) remain sane and comfortable than ascetic and underengaged.


  • Voting with your wallet is literally plutocracy – those with more dollars get more votes.

    Not only is our theoretically bad, but it’s practically bad: the impact of a boycott is negligible, but the impact on the people doing the boycott is huge: not having access to the conveniences everyone else has puts us at a significant disadvantage compared to our peers.

    And finally, it’s not just practically bad, it’s actually contraindicated. The executives of a corporation are legally required to maximize immediate returns to their investors. It’s literally illegal for a CEO to move a company in the direction of civic responsibility over profit. And it’s not just “profit” – it has to be increasing profit. Line has to go up; they can’t just keep it flat, even if “flat” is hugely profitable. To withdraw our financial support will just cause them to squeeze harder on everyone else.

    (There’s an argument that there might be more profit in social responsibility, but unless you have numbers to back that up, and it demonstrates immediate returns in addition to long term benefits, then it’s just a guess, and a guess is never going to be more convincing to shareholders than facts.)

    The only way to change this is with regulation, and a cultural shift away from “line goes up” mentality. And you can’t effect political change when you’re spend 3x as long making dinner because you’re boycotting processed food.

    Suggesting that we just give up all the conveniences that our labor, our creativity, and our cultural contributions have enabled, for the sake of convincing a CEO to be nicer is just ineffectual.




  • You don’t have a “case,” you have an opinion that amounts to no-true-Scotsman. If any of these posts are “Reddit brained,” but yours is somehow not, then “Reddit brained” is an empty concept you fill with whatever you don’t like. Your post, like the ones you’re criticizing, is short, low-effort, unfriendly, critical, and contributes nothing to the discussion. You’re just expressing the opinion that you’re unhappy - and, as far as I can tell, no one asked. If you’re allowed to post your irrelevant, negative opinion, then why aren’t they?

    If you don’t like other people, with different motives, interests, and moods, joining your social media platforms, I have bad news.

    Although, this is the fediverse - you could make your own server and just defederate every time you’re about to make a post like you did here. The rest of us would be grateful to see less toxicity around here.