07mk
5mo ago
Probably the most prominent example of this recently has been the phrase "from the river to the sea." Some people surely use it with a genocidal intent (there should be no Jews between the "river and the sea") while other use it as an expression of solidarity between the West Bank, Gaza, and non-Jews in Israel more generally.
I must admit I'm pretty ignorant about this phrase and why it's considered genocidal. Getting rid of Israel as a nation and even kicking out all of the Jews from there isn't genocidal, just ethnic cleansing, right? Is the issue that that was the Nazis' initial plan before they got to the Final one, and as such we can round one up to the other? That seems like the slippery slope fallacy (though I'll admit that there is indication that the people descending down the slope are doing so by pouring oil on it rather than by carefully inching down by building steps or something).
But I'd also say that, if it's the case that the phrase is genocidal in nature, then it doesn't really matter if the person saying the slogan is thinking to themselves, "I'm saying this because I really want those Jews murdered" or "I'm saying this because I want to show solidarity between XYZ and literally not an inch more;" the latter is still showing full-throated support for genocide, and their ignorance of what the phrase that they chant means just adds on to their ethical failure, and certainly doesn't mitigate it. I'm just not sure how the phrase could be genocidal in nature.
07mk
7mo ago
This breach will probably be plugged, since the exploiters are not organized. But I'm not sure how they'll do it since the only way they can do it without folding to essentialism (which they can no longer) is to require political tests which can always be faked.
Why is that the only way they can do it? Isn't the classic obscenity test - "I know it when I see it" - good enough? Arguably, the current regime is just that with more steps designed to obfuscate it. This ties into my thoughts on your first statement:
I've watched intersectionals take Liberalism apart limb from limb using its own reasoning against it. I think turnabout is fair play.
which is cromulent enough on its face, but which doesn't account for the defenses that the "intersectionals" (first time I've encountered this term used as a noun to refer to the people - I like it) have built against this very sort of thing. After all, if you master how to exploit a vulnerability, you also often learn how to fix them. In this case, it's just rejecting the concept of "using reasoning or logic to draw conclusions" as an oppressive made-up structure, in favor of "listening to marginalized voices." Which, given the degrees of freedom in determining what a "marginalized voice" is, in the context of some conference discriminating its attendants, is just another version of "I know it when I see it."
07mk
1mo ago
On the flip side, I think this post was written tactfully, but it still ended up in the negatives - in fact I was surprised to see how many downvotes it had given how anodyne it was.
I don't think that post was particularly tactful. Starting right off the bat by claiming the person is being weird isn't very tactful, just the opposite. There's a good point to be made about singling out Democrats being unfair given the behavior of the other party, but that's not a tactful way to make it. This is the kind of behavior I tend to see out of people who complain about being downvoted for not fitting into the "echochamber" of this place, that, at best, they're passive aggressive in an obvious way that's harmful to the quality of the discourse, instead of taking the effort to contribute their views in a non-combative way to produce good discussion.
07mk
2mo ago
4chan is one of the closest things we've gotten to that in the open web, and back when I used to use 4chan with any regularity over a decade ago, I recall thinking that it was not only usable, it was far more usable than any other "social media"-type websites, along with having an overall better social ecosystem (the enforced anonymity might have been the key to that one, though). Seeing how social media websites have evolved in the time since, I get the sense that the comparative advantage of 4chan has only gotten greater (though it seems 4chan itself may have changed in that time to become worse, so who knows).
07mk
2mo ago
I wouldn’t say stupid. It’s that most of them have majored in film and writing and have been working on only that kind of thing and most likely have never met working scientists, business owners, or anyone who isn’t involved in writing and filmmaking.
That kind of insular world creates all kinds of stupid blind spots. They don’t understand science or know anyone who does, so they understand science only on a popular science IFLS level where it’s either terrible and destructive, or it basically shits out gadgets and stands in for magic.
Of course they do the same with politics, history, journalism, and education too.
I think one of the biggest things holding back screenwriting is that insular perspective
From the purely academic g or IQ or whatever perspective, these people probably don't fall into the category of what people think of when they think of "stupid people." The mere ability to put together a script with a coherent plot and structure that fits a TV show (e.g. each episode presents some self-contained plot point that serves as a piece of the larger season-long plot) probably excludes them from that.
But as the mother of a fictional stupid person always said, stupid is as stupid does. And the behavior you describe is extremely stupid. If you're writing a mostly grounded script that involves some scientific mechanism as a core plot point and will be presented to a broad adult audience, then obviously getting that mechanism to be plausible to a layman adult should be a high priority. Which means checking the science and the typical layman's understanding of the science, so as to make sure that they're not falling prey to blind spots created by their insular perspective. After all, it's common knowledge that everyone has blind spots and that no one has a true grasp of their own blind spots; as such, if getting this plot point to sound believable to a typical viewer matters to the writers, then they would check.
They either didn't check or didn't care to implement what they learned when they checked. This indicates that they either actively chose to write the script in a way that made themselves appear stupid or just didn't care about it.
07mk
5mo ago
Fair enough in terms of happiness. I think that just shows that, for many people, including some subset of women, happiness just isn't all that important a thing to aim for in a relationship, and they would prefer to be in a relationship that causes them less happiness and more misery than one that causes greater happiness and less misery, since there are other factors in the less happy and more miserable relationship that make it overall more desirable. I'd agree that if SkookumTree thinks that women would be happier being in a relationship with an active wife-beater than with him with all his awkward shortness, then he is wrong, and not by a little, but by a lot. But I think there's a large chunk of truth to be seen here, which is that many women would prefer being in that unhappier and more miserable relationship than with him, as shown by revealed preference (I also think he vastly underestimates both the quantity and quality of women who would prefer the opposite).
07mk
6mo ago
Bad idea. This makes the child very miserable while they are alive and causes suffering, which is something we don't want (otherwise why care about human welfare at all for anyone, we're all going to die at one point?). There won't be any lasting trauma experienced but there will be suffering at the time of the rape experienced by the child and this is bad.
Hm, what about matching the child with a pedophile? Perhaps that's just equivalent to the original prostitute case. But I'm thinking, if we could match the child with someone who would willingly do this for free and even get a positive experience out of it for it in itself, rather than someone who have to be bribed with money, this would be even better. Especially since they would be experiencing something which is normally outside their reach; it's like granting 2 make-a-wish-type wishes in one. Assuming we go through all the same approval/consent steps with the child as we would with a prostitute.
07mk
8mo ago
Why did someone make or install this mod? It clearly didn't come into existence because particles randomly happened to generate the mod. If the reason was one we would call racist, then yes, we can reasonably infer that someone at the very least made something racist that may indicate their own racial prejudice. Sure, we can't prove racism totally. But I think it is entirely reasonable to be at least somewhat more convinced that the creator is racist.
You jump from "why" to "it's entirely reasonable to be at least somewhat more convinced [of a conclusion]." I disagree with this. I think the entirely reasonable thing is to say "We don't know," and being convinced, somewhat or otherwise, of the creator's racism or other beliefs sans external independent evidence, is unreasonable. Yes, if the reason the creator made the mod were one that we would call racist, then it's entirely reasonable to say that the creator is a racist racist who racistly created a racist mod in order to spread his racism. That's a big if, one that can't really be checked by observers only from looking at the mod.
You either believe in an overly strict chain of causality and inference, or you are trying to establish a principled stance that you don't actually uphold in real life.
??? I don't see what's overly strict about this chain of causality, and I don't see on what basis you get to claim that I don't uphold this in real life. To me, it appears like you're doing here to me the same thing that I'm accusing you of doing with this mod theoretical to the modder, which is projecting your own biases onto the situation and asserting that someone else must be (somewhat more likely to be) acting in a certain way because of how your projected biases relate to their observed behavior. To me, it feels like an overly restrictive and closed view of the diversity and idiosyncracies of humanity to believe that one can just simply conclude from "He changed all the black heroes to white heroes" or "He changed all the demonic enemies to cis white people, to be murdered by the POC champion protagonist" that "He did this out of his sociopolitical beliefs that are in accordance with the direct, straight-up pattern-matching against this mod (i.e. that if I modify a work of fiction to more glorify white/black characters at the expense of black/white characters, that implies I hold some sort of belief or bias in favor white/black people and against black/white people IRL)."
07mk
8mo ago
This requires admitting that immigrants are "undesirables"
No, it requires admitting that TX regards them as such.
The whole issue here seems to be that states other than TX, such as CA, finds it undesirable that TX give these people bus tickets that have places like CA as the destination. I'm not sure how it's possible to frame this in a way that doesn't fully admit that the decisionmakers in places like CA that are complaining or at least pushing back at this action by the decisionmakers by TX are seeing these immigrants as "undesirables."
07mk
30d ago
I wonder how differently this will impact the music industry versus how generative AI has and will impact the digital illustration industry. I'm not much into music, but I feel like a lot more of the appeal to music comes from the personalities attached to the songs than in the case of illustrations. And the personalities can't ever be truly copied without deception; even if we reach AGI with AI personalities indistinguishable from a human, the knowledge that the personality came from a computer instead of a human who had actually popped out of another human will color the perception. When someone puts on a Taylor Swift song during their daily commute or a workout, the knowledge that it was actually written and sung by Taylor Swift almost certainly plays a significant factor in their preference to listen to that song over something else.
That said, there are plenty of more functional uses of music, like BGM for ambience in works like video games, TV shows, films, other videos, b-rolls and the like, where no such personality matters. Even for big time composers like John Williams or Hans Zimmer, I'd bet the typical movie fan wouldn't care if the music had been made by AI, as long as the music actually served the purpose exactly as well as music that had been written by those people. This is analogous to the functional use of illustrations like for movie props, game textures, or book illustrations that provide employment for unknown low-level illustrators, which is what AI seems to be best positioned to disrupt (probably is already). But what I perceive with the music industry is that, even at the low level, fans tend to care about the musicians attached to the music; they don't go listen to the small local band or buy their albums just because of the audio that they put out, they do so because they want to support those people in particular. Again, AI fundamentally can't challenge this without deception, so those low-level employment opportunities for unknown musicians may survive in a way that it won't for unknown illustrators.
Another aspect is how using technology to automate music production seems to have been more accepted than for illustrations pre-AI, i.e. sampling and stuff like that. Some illustrators seem to see AI art as "cheating" because it allows the creation of very high fidelity, high detail illustrations without developing one's hand-eye coordination through years of practice. Whereas musicians are still respected even if they don't play the instruments or sing the vocals themselves. But generative AI will allow people who didn't even write the music or have any understanding of music to produce high quality songs merely from a text prompt, which is certainly a big difference. But also, just like how AI art is being used by illustrators to aid in their workflow, I wonder how/if AI music could play into it. Udio and Suno go straight from prompt to produced song, but what about prompt to lyrics and sheet music, or prompt + lyrics and sheet music to produced song, or any other intermediate steps? In illustrations, it's pretty easy to use the same tool selectively to aid in the workflow since it's all just putting pixels on a grid at the end of the day, but with song production with the different mediums involved, we'd need to see more specialized tools to aid musicians' workflows.
To some extent, it's understandable - it must be a pretty big blow to one's ego for the art one prides themselves on to be so easily recreated and automated by the equivalent of a Chinese Room, especially when the field is still in its infancy and hasn't even come close to anything we would consider agentic - but I can't help but see many of the naysayers about the ability of AI to achieve supposedly uniquely "human" tasks as being clearly myopic and wrong.
I had a conversation with someone last year who was insistent that actually good (i.e. human-equivalent) voice acting AI would require us to first invent general AI, because the various tones and inflections needed to properly convey the character's emotions to the audience would require actual understanding of what the character was going through with all the various nuances and details and such. I just don't understand this perspective, since voice acting, like music, is merely the production of sound waves at the end of the day. AI will only get better at manipulating sound waves, and there's no need to understand the emotions of the character the same way a human actor needs to, merely what sorts of sounds give positive feedback from the human audience (i.e. evokes certain emotions). Same goes for text, images, and video, of course. But even once these technologies become superhuman in ability to create truly meaningful, inspiring, insightful works of art, I imagine there will always be a subculture of people who will insist on only appreciating the maximally manually produced artworks. It's just hard to tell right now if they will be the mainstream or a tiny niche like the Amish.
07mk
2mo ago
I've seen people claim this a lot, but as best as I can tell, this is a naked claim without any actual evidence. Are there any documents anywhere showing what scores different companies have, how putting in uglier women or more pathetic men into their products changes the scores, or how much investments into these companies get affected by that score? And is investment from institutions that demand woke capitulation that big of a factor in financial success in the gaming industry when compared to simply putting out a good product?
In any case, assuming every single claim about ESG scores being the driver of this phenomenon is true, that would explain how the ideology has taken a pretty firm root in the industry.
07mk
2mo ago
Arguably, "solving" that "problem" is about an order of magnitude more difficult than developing the types of genetic engineering tech being talked about here. The latter is just technological progress. The former is a political revolution in a way that is basically intolerable to both women and to the men most positioned to make any sort of change in society.
07mk
2mo ago
This anecdote brought back memories to my own middle school sex ed in 8th grade in a very small hippie school (50-60 students per grade) in Cambridge, MA in the late 90s. We were taught using some illustrated book that had explicit drawn illustrations of adolescents (around our age at the time, i.e. preteens) nude and also actively experimenting with their own bodies. I don't remember if masturbation or orgasm were explicitly shown, though I recall at least one picture of a girl using a mirror to look at her genitals and of a boy with an erection.
Given that, a book with sexually explicit illustrations of preteens being used for sex ed today doesn't really surprise me. What I do find interesting is that, as best as I can remember, there was no actual hardcore sex between two people depicted in the book we used, and it also didn't cover sexual acts that were purely for pleasure, like blowjobs (I recall being amused when one girl complained that the book didn't teach us anything about anal sex). These seem like significant changes compared to what I was taught, and I'm honestly not sure what I think about it.
I'm curious, though, would the books that I was taught be more acceptable to you than Gender Queer, based on the way I described them, or would you consider those to also be inappropriate for teaching sex to middle schoolers?
07mk
2mo ago
The thing for me is that, by that analogy, the thing that conservatives of yesteryear were fighting against was that rising tide that was lifting the one boat called "gay marriage" and claiming that by raising the tide to lift that one boat, we'll also inevitably lift other boats that we don't want lifted. Accompanied with the argument was that you can't just install hover jets onto that one boat and lifting that boat inevitably requires raising the tide (i.e. the argument that eliding any boundary between gay and straight marriage necessarily pushes social norms away from people taking responsibility to do their duty to keep human society running and existing and more towards self-discovery and liberation).
There are arguments to be made on whether or not the current trans movement is a good thing or a bad thing. But in my view, all the conservatives whose slippery slope arguments I poo-poo-ed back in the day have every right to say "I told you so" to my face now, as their slippery slope did come true. We could try to draw a thread from gay marriage to the current trans movement, and I'd bet we could even do it pretty well, but my view is that that's largely irrelevant. Because the point was never about gay marriage specifically, it was about the principles underlying - and necessarily implied by - the push for gay marriage.
07mk
4mo ago
One of the other members of this forum (I can't remember his name right now, stupid brain) is utterly convinced that he is so ugly that he can never have any success with women unless he settles for a literal meth head or someone so obese that he would be her caregiver more than her boyfriend/husband.
I recall it began with "Skookum," but there was a 2nd half of the word.
To rudely psychoanalyze someone online, there's something about his constant coming back to the phrase "Choose where to park the ambulances" (or something of that sort) that strikes me as something in his brain that has him caught in a loop obsessing over the fear of the domestic harm caused by people with low impulse control (more specifically women whose low impulse control have made them sufficiently unattractive as to have to settle for him). I wonder if there's some trauma beyond the anecdotes he told about seeing some shit as a med student.
07mk
4mo ago
To be fair to the Democrats, they had no moral reason to fight fair after Kerry got swiftboated in 2004.
I used to generally agree with this in 2012, but I changed my mind since. From a moral standpoint, dishonestly smearing someone is wrong, even as part of a tit-for-tat response.
But more strongly, I've come to realize that, for purely selfish reasons, Democrats should have fought fair then and should always fight fair. This applies to the Republicans just as much, of course. This is because the reason that I am a Democrat, and the reason I believe most Democrats are Democrats, is that I honestly believe that there's something morally/ethically/economically/etc. better about the Democrats than the Republicans. Which means I have a selfish motivation to make sure that the Democrats really are better, so that I don't suffer the shame of having backed the wrong side.
Now, a minor implication of this is that Democrats being dishonest is, in itself, something that calls into doubt their moral superiority. But Republicans are arguably (evidently?) just as dishonest just as often, so that's not that big a difference maker*. The bigger implication is that if Democrats are using dishonesty to win people over to them now, then that calls into question how I was won over to them in the past. So out of purely selfish reasons, I want the Democrats to prove to me that they have a commitment to honesty, so that I can be more confident that when I was won over, then I was won over honestly rather than being duped.
One argument I used to buy into was that the Democrats had a moral duty to win. I've since come to believe that that was motivated reasoning on my part. Given that I prefer the Democrats, my belief that the moral disaster of Democrats losing is so high as to justify underhanded tactics to prevent it is not just suspect, it's meaningless. And if winning requires such underhanded tactics such that I lose confidence that our side really is the better side, then that removes any satisfaction from winning; I want the correct side to win, not my side to win - I try to align those by changing what "my side" is to be the "correct side." And I can't get those aligned properly if the side I want to support is dishonest.
* There's a small issue here that I can't be trusted to have an unbiased view of the situation. I like Democrats and dislike Republicans, so if I perceive Republicans as being more dishonest, then that tells us nothing about if they really are more dishonest. And if I perceive a similar level of dishonesty, then almost certainly the Democrats are being more dishonest, since I'm far more likely to unconsciously gloss over their immoralities than Republicans'. I've just given up and decided to be aggressively agnostic on their relative dishonesty.
07mk
5mo ago
I've seen people talk mention The Terminator a bunch with respect to inspiring AI Doomers, but I just don't see it. Obviously the plot of the films helped to popularize the idea of AI killing us all, but the line of thinking that AI Doomers display seems to have no connection to those films, which posited an AI that quickly decided that getting rid of humans was in its best interests and decided to use a nuclear war to help to accomplish this, followed by robots and cyborgs like the "terminators" to hunt down the survivors. This is very different from what I hear coming from Doomers, which involves an AI or multiple AIs that have no antipathy for humans or particular desire to hunt them down and also posits that the mechanism of robots hunting us down would be silly compared to easier methods they have at their disposal (and also that if robots did hunt us down with AI, then they would do it pretty easily, since their reaction times, accuracy, and precision, to say nothing of mental focus and stamina, greatly outstrip our own, by orders of magnitude).
07mk
5mo ago
Hm, I always presumed that Palestine would control the area by expelling the Jews, but I can see that I was jumping to conclusions. Since Palestinian government has made multiple costly signals that mass murdering Jews is something they desire, so if Palestine "being free" refers to something like "current Palestinian government takes over all of that land (between river and sea), as if all of the IDF suddenly disappeared or lost their weapons," that's clearly calling for genocide, I would agree. Still, it seems to me there's enough ambiguity in "being free" to give room for doubt. Certainly some - likely many - people use the chant as a way to cheer for the murdering of Jews, and I also sympathize with how hypersensitive Jews would be to being murdered due to recent history, but it still seems unwarranted to call the chant genocidal, at least without independent individual evidence.
07mk
6mo ago
At any rate, I have tried working out consistently for about 6 months when I was in college. Sure, I lost weight and became more toned, but I certainly didn't look very muscular. I am aware I probably did a pretty bad job of it, especially when it came to nutrition, but it's not like I've never hit the gym.
I'd guess that you did a pretty good job of it if you noticeably lost weight and became more toned after 6 months of consistent working out. Unless you're starting from a baseline of already being very fit and toned, becoming actually noticeably muscular by the standards of what counts as muscular for men with 6 months of consistent working out would require doing an outstanding job of it, not merely a good job.
07mk
7mo ago
I'm no expert on this, but off the bat, there are two things I believe you did wrong.
One is that you did it via text. Text might be okay for relationships that form over text (e.g. OLD or internet friends), but if she's someone you have any sort of IRL contact with, I believe finding a way to ask her out face to face would have been better.
Two is that you hedged with the last part, showing a lack of confidence in your part. If you had ended it before the "if you're interested," that alone would have made the message much better. Even better yet, remove the part that starts with "I think" and ends with "pretty and." Just state your intent and desire, and let her do the work of shooting you down if she chooses to. Preceding with compliments just screams insecurity to my eyes.
There's, of course, always the possibility of the zeroth thing you might have done wrong, which is just not being attractive. This is the biggest factor that dominates all other factors, including the content and medium of your request, which could very well have had literally zero impact on the results, depending on how "wrong" you were on this. But that's outside the scope of this post.
07mk
11mo ago
This raises a natural question: how much empirical evidence would be necessary to overturn the idea of "male privilege"? How much evidence of a reversal of power would have to be accrued before it became acceptable to start talking about "female privilege" instead?
Does it? Is that question all that natural in this context? Is the question "how much empirical evidence would be necessary to overturn the idea of 'immaculate conception' or 'transubstantiation' to Catholics?" a natural one? The idea of "male privilege" as it's used in practice in sociopolitical contexts, much like all "[x] privilege" in the context of modern identity politics, is inherently non-empirical*. In practice, when "[x] privilege" is used to justify certain policies or narratives or such, it posits, sometimes explicitly but often implicitly, an all-encompassing force that unjustly nudges social interactions in the favor of [x]. This is an intrinsically something that's impossible to measure, not without measurement tools with near omniscience that border on literal godhood, and there's furthermore no rigorous scale by which to measure whose favor these interactions point to, and how much. There is no empiricism taking place here, and so empirical evidence fundamentally can't overturn the concept. It's the wrong tool for the job.
* Interestingly enough, it's not inherently but in practice is anti-empirical due to how it supports arguments attacking the concept of empiricism and rigorous science as being tools of privileged men and whites who value those things higher than the rest of us.
07mk
24d ago
Surely these things aren't mutually exclusive, but rather in concordance with each other, right? Which is to say,
they understand enough to know the art is “prestigious” so they trick themselves into liking it whilst looking down on bourgeois taste
is the mechanism by which they arrive at their genuine, honestly held aesthetic preferences such that
They don't think it's ugly. They actually prefer it.
...
To them uglyness isn't ugly. It's genuinely mindnumbingly beautiful.
I mean, you see this talk about manipulating, say, straight men into genuinely, honestly believing that fat women and transwomen are beautiful and sexy by putting them on magazine covers or pushing them to watch porn featuring such people. If one believes that such manipulation of one's genuine, honestly held aesthetic preferences are possible, it's not unexpected that they themselves have undergone such intentional transformations of their own genuine, honestly held aesthetic preferences in order to better conform to what they believe is socially just or whatever.
07mk
1mo ago
Obviously there's no way to know for sure, even if you were this man and/or his health professionals, but I interpreted BurdensomeCount's comment as saying that this man genuinely having this rare psychological disorder is his attempt at becoming weaker to gain status within a culture that values weakness above strength. Very few people are going to consciously think to themselves, "My culture values weakness above strength, and so I will cynically weaken myself in order to gain status above others." Rather, their unconscious attempts to gain status within a culture that they unconsciously understand as valuing weakness above strength will manifest themselves as a rare psychological disorder that drives them to take action that weakens themselves.
07mk
1mo ago
I think it's that - there's a pleasure in overcoming an unfair challenge. And I think a lot of it is the unfairness. Other video games are difficult, but they play by Marquess of Queensbury rules - no sucker punches or surprises.
I haven't played a Souls game, but having played Bloodborne, Sekiro, and probably half of Elden Ring, I believe this is actually the opposite. The challenges in these games tend to be very fair, even the sucker punches and surprises are ones that could have been prepared for. Which is to say, when you're in a boxing ring facing against an opponent, there's no such thing as a sucker punch, just poor attentiveness. These games have their share of surprise encounters, but every one of them could have been anticipated just by looking around a corner before stepping in - it's just that looking around each and every corner in a large, complex game world with tons of enemies is tough to do and can be quite stressful.
And it's that sense of fairness that makes these games so well-regarded in contrast to the generic difficult action game. They're not perfect and so exceptions do exist, but by and large, they telegraph to the player very well exactly how to react to any challenge to overcome it; they just demand great attentiveness and consistent execution while under pressure. The reputation for difficulty tends to come from how few mistakes a player is allowed to make before their character dies (most regular enemies can kill you in 2-3 hits most of the time). The fact that healing locks your character into a vulnerable animation and thus needs to be strategically used based on one's knowledge of the enemy's behavior also plays into this.
I've noticed that the people who tend to emphasize how bad online abuse towards women is tend to carve out an exception for Rowling because she's someone who managed to convince lots of people to voluntarily hand over billions of pounds to her and as a result has substantial resources at her disposal. In a very real way, this is an honest and straightforward way of analyzing the situation based on the privilege framework that such people tend to subscribe to. The fact that such a thing is an exception rather than the rule would have been an interesting observation at some point in the past, but that seems banal now.
More options
Context Copy link