@ActuallyATleilaxuGhola's banner p

ActuallyATleilaxuGhola

Axolotl Tank Class of '21

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 08 09:59:22 UTC

				

User ID: 1012

ActuallyATleilaxuGhola

Axolotl Tank Class of '21

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 08 09:59:22 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1012

I've watched a lot of R&M, but only because my enjoyment just barely outweighs my disgust for the show and its characters. And even then not always, there are times when I've had to turn off the TV because the episode was just too disgusting/crass/ugly/nihilistic.

Every season they make the family do even more horrible things, and each time the r-slurs and spergs cheer. At this point it's as if the creators are just trying to see how fucked up and cruel they can make the actions of the family before the audience finally decides that yes, these are clearly not rolemodels or anybody to look up to, but that moment never comes. That moment likely will never come, because for that moment to come there has to be some self awareness, some capacity to self reflect, and perhaps the success of Rick and Morty for all the wrong reasons is the final proof, that this country has lost its way, and there is nothing left except mindless consumption followed by death.

I don't think it's because people don't have the capacity to reflect. They can, they just subconsciously stop themselves from doing it because people under 40 are heavily irony-poisoned and can't handle sincerity. One hypothetical reflection could go something like this:

  1. Rick is an immoral, egotistical, cynical nihilist

  2. It's a bad thing to be an immoral, egotistical, cynical nihilist

  3. Immoral, egotistical, cynical nihilists are not role models or heroes; we should not emulate them or cheer for them

  4. All the R&M characters are like that

  5. Why am I watching this show about evil depressing people

  6. I'm going to watch something more edifying

I don't think most viewers can get past step 1 because step 2 requires making a judgement which it totally lame and uncool and, why are you taking it so seriously bro? And anyway (here come the rationalizations) it's just a cartoon, and what's wrong with portraying imperfect and broken** people? Aren't we all broken to some degree? Should we only portray normal and healthy people?

I have an undeveloped thought about how a lot of modern TV is just the evil twin of 1950s black hat/white hat cowboy movies. Back then the good guy was squeaky clean and always beat the bad guys by virtue of his superior courage and moral rectitude. It was all very "just world." But now, with shows like R&M and GoT it's not more nuanced, it's just an inversion of "just world" into "unjust world." Everyone is evil, sadistic, cowardly. The good are crushed by the bad. Fans try to tell me that it's full of nuance, but I'm sure you could tease nuance out of a John Wayne film if you tried hard enough.

**I can't stand the word "broken" the way it's used to describe moral failings or "traumas," but that's a rant for another post.

In my experience, they ignore these "exceptions" to their narrative because they don't have the depth of historical knowledge necessary to address them. On rare occasions they'll attempt to, say, tie the Coptic Christians to "whiteness" and "colonialism" by saying that all Christians benefited from European hegemony, or something.

First off, I agree. I used to hear conservatives say things like "she shouldn't be having four kids if she can't afford them" or "you shouldn't have children if you're not prepared to raise them." I don't hear it so much anymore. But I think that's a good thing.

What does it even mean to be "prepared" to have kids? Nobody is ever prepared. Ever. "Preparing" for kids, so-called family planning, is just some shit that popped up in WEIRD countries since the pill came along. The jury is still very much out on the entire concept. And given our demographics the verdict does not look promising, at least from a societal health angle.

Anyway, what are the criteria? How old do the parents need to be? How much money do they need to have saved? How big should their house be? How far along in their careers should the be? How emotionally mature should they be? I guess all that depends on the bare minimum "quality of life" that one (personally!) thinks the child should have. But that's just kicking the can down the road -- I can't think of anything more subjective than "quality of life" outside of outlandish situations like the Omelas kid.

So "nuts" to people who want to dictate who is and isn't prepared to have kids.

  • The thermostat, TV volume, and radio volume must always be on even numbers. My wife also does this.

  • I avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks when I can

  • If I walk across a tiled or patterned floor I try to step on only tiles of a single color or walk along the shape of the pattern

  • All the cards have to be facing the same way before they get put back in the box

  • When I put away my daughter's pencils I always either organize them from tallest to shortest or into a single continuous color gradient

It makes me slightly irritated if they're not facing the right direction just on principle.

I think I have other little things like this, but if I can't do them they just annoy me slightly. They're not compulsive, fortunately.

Man I hate that, lol. I used to always make sure that both zones were on the same even number.

It feels so good. Ironically I'm probably least gifted in math. I still did well in my math classes, but I found calculus and physics math pretty hard to grasp. Simpler math was a breeze though and I can do mental arithmetic faster than most people I know.

I haven't, thanks for the recommendation.

@ZorbaTHut I tried to report this as AAQC but the submit button on the report pop up is grayed out. I'm on mobile if that makes a difference. Just FYI.

I used to sneer at "sportsball" as a teenager but started to enjoy casually watching games in college. I have a college football and NFL team that I follow and I'll occasionally watch a baseball game.

What I still don't understand is how people keep up with all of the names of the coaches, the players, the interpersonal drama between them, scores, etc. When I watch a game with someone and they ask me what team I follow and I say $NFL_TEAM_NAME, I sometimes get a response like "Oh man how about that thing with your QB last week during that press conference? And do you think John Doe is going to play again this season after that epididymis injury? What do you think of Coach Fillintheblank getting fired? And what about his replacement Coach Newguy?" And I just shrug and say I don't follow them that closely.

Do some people just read sports news all the time and relish all the drama? Seems like the male version of those women who are really into what the royal family is up to. Baseball stat nerds at least make sense to me, but I don't understand the drama people at all. Maybe there's more to it than that?

Edit: Thanks for all the awesome responses. I think I have a better understanding of the appeal now.

I googled the Lizzo and thing and all the top articles have one of "racists," "racism," or "dogwhistle" in the headline. My inner conspiracy theorists wonders if these are written before the event even happens and then auto-posted the day after. Or maybe even GPT'd.

I'd be interested. I'm thinking of putting in a camera system myself.

I've heard the "CrossFit is a cult" thing many times now. I don't know any CrossFit people and enjoy working out by myself, so I'll probably never get a chance to ask someone IRL. What is it about CrossFit that is cultlike?

I think there are more potential gains than you imply. I can run a 7.5 minute mile and I feel pretty good. Running a 6 minute mile would probably make me feel even better, psychologically of course for achieving a goal, but also just in my daily fitness. It won't be as huge as the difference between 9 minutes and 7.5 minutes, but it will certainly be abig improvement.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that returns do diminish, but never to the point where shaving another minute off my mile would equivalent to finally painting the entire map in Europa Universalis while playing as the Knights of Saint John. The fitness gains would still provide way more benefit.

I dunno, I could totally see the transplant contingent of Seattle or San Francisco mocking and sneering at southerners getting fined or imprisoned for bootlegging sweet tea. Culture War schadenfreude runs deep.

What does this even mean?

I had never heard of HBD before showing up at the SSC sub in my lurking days, and it was the very poor quality of the opposition there that first clued me in that the advocates must be on to something.

This was my exact experience as well. I subconsciously held that evolution stopped at the neck but ones the arguments and evidence were laid out the idea seemed to me completely absurd.

I understand. The point I perhaps failed to make is that the point of diminishing returns for exercise is quite high IMO, especially relative to the amount of effort people put into keeping fit. Put another way, very very few people are at the point where they wouldn't benefit from getting fitter, including people who exercise regularly. I think you hit "completing a stamp collection" levels of marginal return when you're, say, trying to shave 5% off your half marathon time or whatever (probably before then, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point).

Edit: I reread my post and I see that I didn't acknowledge that there is eventually a point of diminishing returns. Oops. I agree with you on that point.

This also bothers me. I'm continuously baffled by how the same people who never shut up about "protecting" "our" "democracy" can still get away with shitting hard on the opinions of the common man. And it seems like there's a large minority of the country who can doublethink this stuff into a coherent ideology. I'm deep enough into conflict theory territory that whenever I read thinga like this I just order more ammo for the day when they inevitably decide that something must be done about the ineducable subhuman underclass.

So sacrificing food and other resources to gods that there is no evidence for is not wasted time and resources that has been done for millenniums? All of the superstitions that people use to have that where disproved by science in one form another makes them valid again, because they were practiced for longer than it has been disproved.

They very clearly were not useless. Such rituals granted legitimacy to kings, united the people for whom they were performed, and often gave those people the "why" they needed in order to suffer through the current "how." It doesn't matter that gods are not actually eating the food. If these rituals had truly been stupid and pointless they would have quickly died out and been replaced by something that wasn't.

Other people in this thread are making comments about the Drug War and other failed government programs. Similarly, there is a vast bureaucratic behemoth that benefits from the Drug War continuing. Whole areas of law with specialized lawyers, myriad government task forces and agencies, lots of police work to be done, lots of political points to be scored by being "tough on drugs." The Drug War is a waste of resources if you only measure it's efficacy at keeping drugs out of the hands of Americans. But as a self-licking ice cream cone it's a highly effective.

Maybe I'm sheltered but I think it's hard to find people who'd be okay with spending all day sticking splinters under defenseless, terrified prisoners' nails or whatever. It takes a morally deformed person to do that day in day out and enjoy it. I suppose if you have a large enough group of people you'll always find some one like that, but pre modern people didn't always have such large groups.

Yeah, this is how I feel as well. It is for the male gaze regardless of the official narrative. Not just a receptiveness to male advances, but a tacit acknowledgement that men and women are different and that women should try to be at least somewhat attractive to men. So it signals that she's not entirely lost in the feminist frame.

As one of the few dyed-in-the-wool, practicing rightists on here (in that I have multiple kids and had my first in my mid 20s, come from a red tribe family, have been a practicing orthodox Catholic since a young age, never considered myself a leftist or "liberal" even in high school or college, etc) I don't think this place is "right-wing" in the way that normies would usually use the word. I know this because in the past I've gotten into tedious arguments with people about whether god exists, or why the family is important, the intrinsic value of human life, the existence of only two sexes/genders etc, all issues that most normal right-wing folks (i.e. not Twitter monarchists or whatever) would just consider self evident or settled. That would happen if everyone here were run of the mill right wingers.

There's a large majority of anti-progressives here that includes libertarians/Grey tribe people, transhumanists, and disillusioned leftists who just want to go back to "tits and beer" leftism. They all have way more in common with each other than they do with me in that they think that a lot of recent "progress" is good but there are just some problematic bits that have recently popped up, and they especially dislike the rise of the evangical Woke religion since it is an exclusive faith that refuses to make common cause with heretics. That's why there's so much bitching about woke stuff.

In many of my teenage friend groups I was actually the weirdo for not being interested in anime, and that counts both the male and female friends I had.

As an older millennial I can only marvel, not without a little jealousy, at the brave new world we live in. Wow.