I second most of these other recommendations, but since I haven’t seen them said yet, The Magnetic Fields. Somehow manages to be funny while also being very geniune and touching, which I think is kind of what I look for in a band.

“What do you know about bionicles lore?”

Maybe this freak should just text uncle steve whatever he wanted, or a “call me when it’s convinient” message, and then steve will probably see the notification at some point in his morning routine before too long. If this guy really needed to call steve anyways, for whatever reason, he shouldn’t care about time zones, because it’s an emergency.

If you were commonly calling whatever place you were calling, you’d probably be able to intuit what time they woke up anyways, so it’s all moot.

I dunno. I think it’s pretty easy to make a big deal out of time zones and calendar measurements and whatever but I don’t think it really, actually matters that much, because the main thing they facilitate is communication. Time zones and timelines should be engineered more around the human condition, I think, than around anything else.

But then, I think, to construct anything around the human condition is kind of paradoxical. If you create a schedule, then you have created a schedule. I.e. if you construct time, then you imply the existence of something that needs to be measured. That implies deadlines.

Frankly, that’s too much pressure for me, so I’m going to take the more controversial stance here: Abolish time. No more time, no more numbers measuring when I should do what. You’re either gonna tell me whether or not to do something now, or to do it later. The people gotta learn that time is more subjective and contingent, and they gotta start showing up to their work shifts whenever they want to make money, instead of just showing up at a given time when the fuckin steam whistle goes off like it’s the 1800s.

Yeah no I hate songs in books. Most of the time it’s pretty hard to figure out what the actual tune of the song is supposed to be sung like, unless the author’s pretty good at it, and most aren’t.

I dunno, I’m sure there’s a more complicated and interconnected series of events which lead to them truly being popular, not least of which was the movies, but in terms of how they’re structured, it kind of makes sense to me why they were a successful fiction. The various different houses, even though they’re mostly indistinguishable from one another internal to the books, give kids something to identify with and self-categorize into, which is something that teenagers kind of love doing in a struggle for identity. They’re also part of the hidden world subgenre, which means it’s even easier for tweens to self-insert into.

Then, I think it also helps that they’re kind of poorly written, weirdly enough. Every character isn’t usually a real, fleshed out individual, they’re just an archetype, and a shorthand, a common trope. I think this is probably desirable for a tween audience, and I think probably also a simple to follow plot and set of plot elements is also more desirable. There’s no lore to keep up with, it’s just like you’ve taken a bunch of other tropes from other, better works and compressed them into an easily digestible series of books full of melodrama. It’s not super hard to understand. Those other books, they’re like the various PDAs and shit you’d see floating around in the 90’s, they’re explicit works of art constructed for a singular purpose. Harry potter is like an ipod touch, or an iphone, or something, it’s just engineered to have more mass appeal at the expense of complexity and possibly quality.

i’m a paid troll.

Wait, you guys are getting paid?

cause it’s cool and I like it, which should be reason enough. more practically it works for cases when you lose your remote, maybe cases where you want to change the channel on some TV in a pub somewhere, shit like that. it’s fun.

Every time it comes up I must lament the switch to screens too tall to watch content, the decision to remove wired 3.5mm jacks in order to drive sales of wireless headphones, the switch to increasingly fewer physical buttons. No more IR blaster.

“Dead in the middle of Little Italy, little did we know that we riddled some middlemen who didn’t do diddily.”

Yeah. I just kinda write how I talk a lot of the time. The commas end up being necessary because I kind of naturally talk backwards, yoda-style. If I had/wanted to commit more time to this, I also probably would’ve written a shorter letter.

Yeah, but I’m conscious of it. I’ve kind of thrown out conceptions of unbiased news as being something that even exists in the first place anyways, so I’d rather at least have something that sort of, is given from a perspective I understand, and which conforms to whatever my standards for information are, rather than just having like, unbiased reporting on events.

The decision of what events to cover isn’t necessarily going to be unbiased, the decision of what language to use when covering those events isn’t necessarily unbiased, the decision of which sources the “unbiased” news trusts for their reporting isn’t necessarily unbiased. I would kind of rather just have a news source that I can sort of, trust to do it’s job, and present me with information that I can understand, and know what to do with, rather than a news source where I have to do my own journalism to find out whether or not their story really means anything as a whole.

If you understand and can more thoroughly comprehend the bias of the news you’re given, it’s easier to kind of push it through the framework and turn it into easy to consume gelatinous news paste.

Stupidly, anything that requires too much of a time commitment, which has led me easily to death by a million cuts. I’m conscious of my zoomer mentality in this respect, but it’s much easier to generally piss away all your time on like, 50 tiktoks, that all last 5 seconds, compared to a TV show or a movie or whatever. The secondary effect, understated, I think, of this, and I think this is the kind of, horrible advantage of those platforms, is that you will inevitably spend more time trying to find stuff to look at that interests you, rather than actually watching content, so I think they can skate by a little more with a little less content. More efficient for them, less efficient for you.

I find myself doing the same thing with 10 minute youtube videos, but I also will end up watching multiple hour long video essays on random garbage, so I don’t really know what that’s about. Maybe just easier to convince myself that it’s a “productive” activity, to learn about some random nonsense, as compared to engaging in some sort of probably wholly escapist form of media, that might in reality lend itself towards an easier foothold for conversations with other people? I dunno, maybe the problem is just kind of trying to look at media in terms of its pure utility value, rather than looking at media through some other lens.

Certainly, I think the biggest contributing factor is just environment. I’m on my computer and phone a lot more than on my e-reader or my TV, so I naturally engage with the easier to access forms of media found on those platforms. Regression to the lowest condom domino gator, or whatever.

Also, I feel like I’ve seen enough people answer “anime” that the anime… subs? boards? communities? communities sounds a little too long. Anyways, it should be more popular, but I really haven’t seen any engagement on any of them, the anime holes.

I’ve watched “some more news” a couple of times, I found them pretty alright. They’re pretty clearly biased, they’re just biased in a direction that I tend to like more than others. Still kind of, full of stupid skits though, and for the comedy, ymmv, certainly, it doesn’t really land for me at all. Quality of the information is kind of. Iffy, it would seem like, but I haven’t looked into it that hard.

don’t knock the choccy milk protein shake powder, that stuff can be pretty good sometimes. it’s mostly just that you gotta shell out a buttload for it most of the time, for the stuff that actually tastes good.

have you tried chocolate milk flavored protein shake? or does that not quite hit the same, for you?

Whoever keeps throwing in the shit about law enforcement in these stories, which I think was actually a security officer for the embassy, drawing a gun, is doing a pretty good job of distracting from the main issue of what this guy lit himself on fire and died for. Doing a much better job than all the whinging about how he was mentally ill, and how this won’t change anything, and how there’s no clear cause, that mainstream news outlets are doing when they cover this type of stuff, if they cover it at all.

I would also like to kind of point out here, that “this won’t change anything, this guy was mentally ill, he killed himself for nothing”, is really only true if you decide it to be true. We get to decide whether or not this motivates us to do something or not. We get to decide whether or not we let this affect us. Whether or not we do something, to make sure this doesn’t happen again, you know? And that’s mostly, in my mind, the purpose of this kind of protest.

Maybe it makes the institutions think about what they’re doing, probably not, since, if they were gonna think that, they should’ve probably thought that about the 20,000 or so palestinians that have been killed. This protest is mostly engineered to get you mad, and sad, and to make you, the viewer, think about why this is happening, and think about what you can do to stop it. Not just deflecting immediately to whether or not it was effective, because by doing so, you let it not be as effective.

Brings to mind the discourse against, really any form of protest that I’ve seen. You could take the george floyd protests, for example. So, sure, the government throws in agent provocateurs, in order to turn what would otherwise be peaceful protests, which would shut down any traffic into and out of the city, and would choke off any economic activity (puts pressure on businesses, utilities, puts pressure on local government, which needs to please these people who don’t really care about the protest but want things to go back to normal).

But by doing so, right, by causing those passive forms of damage, but also by causing active forms of damage, say, burning a big box store down, right, the public showcases that, if a certain legal decision to, say, let derek chauvin off, occurs, then there will be potentially more protests and more destruction, which provides great incentive against that decision occurring.

Now, in this case, there’s not as clear of a process, because there’s not as clear of repercussions if they decide to do nothing. About the only thing that might happen is that this might happen again, which, might, by some process of media coverage, put enough pressure on politicians to cause this to stop, if it becomes a political issue. The same thing is happening with mass shootings, which aren’t a greatly impacting issue, by the numbers, right, they’re much less than that of road deaths, heart disease, other forms of gun violence.

But they are so horrifying to the american public and to really anyone of moral conscience, that they should serve as a clear marker that something is wrong, and something needs to change. Serial killers create a similar effect. It’s almost like a kind of terrorism, using that word without judgement, here. That’s the power of these protests. We’ve already seen it spread across a bunch of news media, even though it’s being reported about as poorly as you’d expect.

I’m not particularly sure that repeat incidents would do any good, and I think I’d generally be opposed to that, as should anyone, but, an instance of self-immolation is what caused the arab spring. This sort of thing isn’t ineffective, I think it does a disservice to aaron bushnell to say otherwise.

If you want to stop this sort of thing from occurring in the first place, you should really try to understand why it was happening, instead of brushing it aside.

It encourages violence, it desensitizes us,

We can understand why that’s like, not a very concrete justification to be against espousing violence, right? I also find it weird, right, that we’re doing this step-around thing, where you’re calling everyone out for the hypocrisy of, oh, well, people are against this violence, but they’re not against this violence? Have you maybe considered that the two forms of violence are distinct? Perhaps that the two forms of violence are actually not similar? That people have reasons for, say, wanting violence against one party, but not another?

That’s what they’re commenting about. You say “it’s either all okay or none of it’s okay” because it encourages violence, right, but, I am giving you an opportunity to show your work, when it comes to this very basic claim, upon which rests the rest of your argument.

I tend to think that twd is fiction, and the people who negan piss off, who want to kill negan, only need to get lucky once, while negan needs to keep succeeding over and over (I’ve never seen the walking dead tho I’m just kind of going based on vibes).

I’m not the smartest guy or the most well read or what have you, but the idea is basically that whenever someone becomes overtly greedy or authoritarian, the mutual benefits of co-operation kind of ensure that this is a non-issue. Everyone that’s co-operating would simply choose not to co-operate with that person, or that organization, and then they end up not getting very far. Maybe if it turns violent, then the same thing happens, just in that everyone kind of mutually crushes the organization, or dissolves it, or what have you.

You know I think the point most people fire back with is that authoritarianism tends to be thought of as like, more effective, right, because they can “make the trains run on time”, or some such nonsense, but I think they’re just conflating this with the idea that authoritarianism is more effective in a crisis, which is partially why authoritarianism is constantly inventing crises to combat. The idea, basically, is that if you have a singular leader, you can pivot and accommodate things more easily, make judgement calls easier, and you gain a capacity for rapid response. This is, you know, questionable, things end up being more complicated in practice, and leaving everything to a singular point of failure is a pretty easy way to make a brittle system. At the same time, even were it completely true, it’s still only true for the short term, that it’s more effective for short term gains. Long term gains, mutual co-operation, is much more effective.

Basically, the refutation is that greed isn’t really a fundamental component of humanity insomuch as it is a choice, and anarchism tends to think that greed is a pretty bad one. Not only for everyone but the greedy, but just generally, for mutual, long term gains. If you change the environment significantly enough that you can ensure this is more overwhelmingly the case at the macro scale, then you’ve kind of “won” anarchism, in a sense, you’ve won the game.