Other people have more detailed and factual answers, but a good heuristic is “there must be outgroups for the law to bind but not protect, and in groups for the law to protect but not bind”. That’s what they want. They want to do what they want while women and queers and non-whites are subjugated. They want to say something inappropriate and touch their women coworkers without consent, and know if she raises her voice she’ll be fired.
They are scum.
Something should have been fired, that’s for sure
RFK sucks and is probably in the top 10 most harmful people alive right now.
I feel like they’d make more money if they targeted lower end machines. My friend has a potato laptop and would enjoy borderlands, so they’re out of luck. They’re not going to spend any money on a new gaming toy because it’s not that big a hobby for them. I imagine there are many such people.
I liked that one but weirdly there’s no NG+ and the DLC kind of sucked. I finished it with a friend and we were like, “that’s it?”. It’s not very long, and it ends shortly after your end of skill tree powers become available.
They do it for money. If people had standards, they’d behave better. Imagine if every time they announced they were doing more ads, every user cancelled. There is power in solidarity.
Unfortunately, most people are some mix of tired lazy stupid short-sighted
Kirk was a piece of shit. Everyone defending him at the very least is shit stained by association
I forgot they were even making this game. BL3 was kind of bad, the pre sequel was painful. The tiny Tina one was okay but weirdly had no ng+ and shitty dlc. Meh.
Thanks for the reasonable response.
In essence I’m contesting that strict language standards are necessary to be understood. I mean, of course some standards are still required, just not strict enough to be all uptight about it when people start to bend them.
We agree on this, I think. I’m mostly a linguistic descriptivist - that is, language is what people speak more than what’s written in a rulebook somewhere. I’m not a linguist but I have an undergraduate degree that required some courses on English language.
It can be annoying when there’s a word for something (eg: enshittification, gaslighting, woke) and people then over extend it to mean “things i don’t like”. There’s not much to stop that, other than as an individual trying to be more precise in language. I think it’s not good for one’s brain to only have a few catch-all words for stuff.
I think “slop” specifically is a very old word (1400ce, if etymology online is to be trusted). But like if there was a word for “low quality LLM content” (let’s say… slopplement), applying that to any low quality writing would kind of suck. it would almost certainly happen, though, because all of us humans are kind of lazy.
Anyway. We mostly agree. I would just recommend being mindful of one’s word choices, because a narrow vocabulary can be a drag on thinking and communication.
You say it’s foolish to enforce strict language standards, but the most important thing about language is that it is understood. You buried that point in the middle of your second paragraph.
Did you read 1984? It has a major thread though it about how collapsing language reduces the ability of people to think. One of the first and most prominent examples in the book is replacing the many words for “good” and “bad” (eg: great, amazing, excellent, terrible, atrocious, etc) with simply “good” and “ungood”. Similarly, the dispossed has some writing in it about how language shapes thought. For example, the prevalence or absence of possessive forms (eg: my house vs the house I stay in)
The reason I used “good” and “ungood” is because those are the preeminent examples in 1984. They’re not a judgement of your post.
I’m not sure why you’re dismissive of “high school reading lists”, but you are coming off as someone who might actually be a high schooler. Your last emoji didn’t render, so maybe that would’ve changed the meaning.
So long as you’re understood, it’s fine.
Burying the lede here.
But also like language shapes the way we think. If you just let all your words boil down into “good” and “ungood”, you’re reducing your tools for thinking. 1984 and The Dispossessed are great books, by the way.
Charlie Kirk was a piece of shit and the world is better without him. I will cheer for every unrepentant maga scumbag that dies.
Did the onion write a piece about how we should reflect on Unnamed Nazi #342 in Indiana Jones’s life and family yet? “Sure, Unnamed Nazi #342 willingly joined an organization focused on subjugation and mass murder of people, but it’s important to remember that he also had a family. They were looking forward to living in a house stolen from the people he helped murder, and living off the fruits of slave labor.”
This small community way of thinking you’re describing is kind of a bad system. It doesn’t scale well and is extremely vulnerable to injustice. It shouldn’t be held up as a gold standard or even an acceptable way to think. I thought most people accepted the law should apply equally to all, but that “small town” mode is going to produce “sure Jimmy stole the car and crashed into the deli, but he’s a good boy. Give him probation. But that [slur] parking in the fire lane? Throw the book at them!”
Two things can share one property without being the same in all ways.
Doctors cut people up and sometimes take organs out, but they aren’t the same as a serial killer doing the same.
…yes? Is that on the agenda?
Few people cry when Nazis die in movies about the 30s. Why should the modern equivalent get a pass?
Don’t pretend he wouldn’t have gleefully participated in that. He was an ardent trump supporter, and thus an ardent supporter of concentration camps.
Sometimes people are horrible and I’m not upset when horrible things happen to them.
I think people look at the past and go “oh yeah it’s a good thing those Nazis died in the 40s, and it’s a good thing those klansmen died in the 60s” and so on, but when it’s today people are like “oh no this isn’t appropriate”
But also yes something is wrong here and it’s scary. Climate change, the rise of fascism, consolidation of power in the hands of the cruel and stupid, rising wealth inequality. The world is fucked and it’s people like Charlie Kirk who deserve most of the blame.
Few people are saying “go shoot your Republican neighbor” (though I would probably nullify that too, as a juror) but the bigger dogs? Fuck them. They made their choice to make the world worse every day for years.
Shapiro still goes outside. He could still get kirked.
I really really think people over estimate the power of martyrdom.
Do you know who Fred Hampton was? If not, proves my point. I think most people don’t know who he was, and he definitely would have done more for the world if he hasn’t been assassinated.
One of the best responses to kirk’s death said something like “This is like writing an obituary of Joseph Goebbels that goes ‘Gobbels was a gifted marketer and father of six children’”