ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
No bio...
User ID: 822
I've always found OS X to be extremely barebones as far as functionality goes. I do like that, but I also like most DEs except for maybe GNOME 3, so maybe I'm not the best judge.
Windows does a lot more, especially because it allowed itself to advance beyond the state of the art in 1984 (or rather, 1980, since OS X is just a copy of OS 1 is just a rip-off of what Xerox was doing at PARC). The Start Menu, and searching within it, is far and away superior to the way macOS handles applications (and Linux splits the difference and fails at both; both KDE and Gnome suffer from this, though in different ways).
OS X still has some weird bullshit, too- specifically the way it fails to allow you to copy folders in anything resembling an intuitive way. "So you don't get confused"? Yeah, not buying it.
Oh yeah, and keyboard shortcuts belong on Ctrl, not Alt/Command. It's a stupid compromise and Apple is just straight-up wrong here- I get you can customize it but it's still bad. I mean, they literally had the NOMODES guy [Larry Tesler] working for them and they still couldn't figure out that the ergonomics of holding down Alt-C are strictly inferior to Ctrl-C? Come on.
By the way, the best mobile OS ever designed was webOS and I will not hear slander otherwise. Yes, iOS and Android ripped off some of the good parts, but they didn't get all of it...
I don't think justice systems in general are ready for this. Indeed, they're already vulnerable to this now, and they depend on other social institutions to carry out their will (just as they always have done- courts don't actually have legions).
That said, what prejudice (and the dismissal thereupon) is also happens to be defined by the court. As is who even takes appeals.
[At least it's an argument for having fewer laws- but then, that might not be advantageous since "just ban everything and never hear any appeals because fuck you lolol" is already what happens most of the time in 2A cases and doesn't even require dismissing cases like that.]
a win for American democracy
And specifically an advantage of it over Westminster systems, where the Executive is just the party with the most votes in the Legislature (even if a minority government) and actually have the power to impose retaliatory tariffs at the snap of their fingers.
Weird, I thought conservatives were generally against that kind of thing.
and a surprising--to me--amount of cross-dressing
it would honestly be more surprising to me if they didn't cross-dress; I'd actually kind of expect a race of people that seem to possess a below-average amount of sexual dimorphism -> they can pull it off more convincingly to be more into it on average
your example is kind of exhibit A there, but in fairness he's not wearing the female battle standard of 'literally all the makeup'
It's not intentional adolescent cleverness.
Yeah, there seems to be a lot of the 'that' emotion in play. I don't have a word for it; I don't have a word for the 'this' emotion that makes you appreciate intentional adolescent cleverness either, though its opposite/suppressant seems to come from prudishness/disgust reflex; maybe if [the thing that suffers disgust] is the group you get more of the 'that' emotion, since the 'this' emotion doesn't really work if [the thing targeted for disgust] is not you.
Considering how many puns Japanese media tends to contain, at least to my eyes, there's very little 'this'.
There's a willful blindness to irony and/or satire in Japan
Do members of more homogenous cultures inherently possess more willing suspension of disbelief?
I heard stories that the government used to hand out bricks of cheese and other foodstuffs in plain boxes labelled only with the name of the item
This is part of the brand identity of a certain major Canadian supermarket chain, fittingly called 'No Name', with bright yellow packaging.
Progressivism becomes “conservative” once sufficiently mainstream
Hence the reason some political parties actively named themselves "progressive-conservative", or PC for short. They were just ahead of the curve.
And yes, it always feels weird that, technically speaking/currently, conservatism and [classical] liberalism are the same thing, and when progressives call themselves "liberals" it stinks of stolen valor.
Plausible deniability of wanting attention.
lululemon
The company logo features a semi-abstract/plausibly deniable picture of the back side view of a woman bending over. They know what they're doing.
It's a marketing term, typically employed by sellers of ice cream and other desserts.
In all seriousness, the reason nobody bothers is that they believe it's self-defining. I suggest the actual meaning is something more along the lines of 'taking the material conditions for granted becomes the rational move' for X% of society, finding X being an exercise for the reader.
This lines up with the people most likely to [feel they] be in charge of providing those material conditions, which is why claims of 'decadence' tend to just be grievances from male instinct, lightly laundered. (Hence why "physical strength decoupled from material wealth" is decadence, why "women don't have to submit to men" is decadence, why "peepee in the but" [translation: men not having to compete with each other for sex with women] is decadence, etc.)
This also allows the US being able to afford to get its soldiers ice cream on the front lines in WW2 to not be decadence, but the expectation of such every day in peacetime might be. It depends on the cultural attitude towards how and why the ice cream got there.
Just because a thing is commonplace doesn't mean it is not itself miraculous (compare 'manna'), but the importance is the remembrance of those who maintain and sustain that miracle (and how well they are paid/treated/valued).
Perhaps one could argue that decadence is when the working of miracles in a society is so common that they, and hence those that provide them, become sufficiently devalued that they begin to be despised? Even the Israelites reacted that way.
but an approach believed to help best with standing aim.
Come to think of it: doctrine from instructors invented in the 1800s = 100ish years of single-action revolver (including cap-and-ball) dominance = you were only really able to have one hand on the gun.
And given the number of cartridge conversions of those guns, to the point where .36 (.38 Special) and .45 (.45 Colt) are literally hold-overs from the C&B era, just couldn't afford to buy anything else- it's maybe a little less surprising that doctrine around "one hand on the gun's all you need" persisted.
It's easy to think of progressives as moustache-twirling villains who wanted little beyond stigmatizing non-progressives and keeping them down, but perhaps there was an actual practical reason for this type of segregation?
The purpose of this place is specifically to exclude this line of reasoning, because the answer of "the outgroup is ontologically evil" is trivial and boring. That way lies shady thinking, bad arguments, and no room for synthesis.
The [unstated] paradox of this place is that, if our outgroup wasn't ontologically evil, it wouldn't need to exist.
Or in other words, "State surrogate mother" narrowly beating out "private mother".
Musk is African-American, so by the standards held by half the country he's the most American you can possibly get.
There are countless thinkpieces about how people don't know or trust their neighbors as much as they used to
Yeah, I wouldn't trust any random neighbor empowered with a catastrophically powerful State-backed heckler's veto over my family unit either!
the "free range parenting" trend seems to have peaked around 2009-2010
A few states have taken steps to decriminalize or legalize young people existing in a public place since then, and the people who want freedom for their kids have had time to self-sort into those areas. A good chunk of the "free range" is on the Internet, by the way- the Karens have gradually been coming for that too by banning them from the spaces they visit and restricting what they can freely do there.
Are American parents just becoming disturbingly vicious and attacking their kids more than in the past?
No, but
Are American adults just becoming disturbingly vicious and attacking kids more than in the past?
is true, trivially. Where else do you think the CPS reports are coming from? They don't just magically appear out of thin air, a concerned citizen hysterical, typically middle-aged, woman has to call them in.
Hysterical middle-aged women have more power now than they did in the '50s and '60s, so when they call and complain about unattended children the State listens unless it has been expressly prohibited from doing so, and this is more likely to be the case in states when this type of woman has less power, Utah being the best example.
1/3 of American children are threatened by State abduction by the time they are 18. That sounds like a ridiculous number.
Considering the rate women claim to be abused/assaulted by men, I actually don't think it's that out of left field for women to abuse/assault children at the same rate, and the premium on top of that is because (despite the feminist claims about the former) we actively encourage that abuse.
No, this one's a lot more systemic. If I recall correctly this guy was already convicted of a crime co-morbid with multiple mental disorders, but let off easy. (Can't imagine why that would be.) Failing to punish crime properly, which is a progressive goal, has actual consequences that look shockingly like dead 12 year olds.
and I am sure you have some story of some Trump supporter having a psychotic episode and shooting up a shopping mall getting spun as MAGA violence.
I mean, I have a story of some illegal gun owner who may or may not have been an RCMP informant shooting roughly 20 people and that getting spun as right-wing violence (and being banned and confiscated as a result), just like 2 million other people who have Canadian citizenship do.
Up until yesterday the dominant narrative in Canada was the notion that all mass shootings are straightwhitemen committing femicide against helpless women because Muh Patriarchy. That narrative is dead now, and ironically referring to the killer as a woman hurts it a lot more than admitting the killer was trans.
Sure, "the victims deserved it" is always an option.
Unfortunately for the TRAs, this wasn't a Christian school.
I'm sure the TRAs themselves are pushing this one on the backchannel.
"The mass shooter was female" is the best concession they're going to get. Because the truth- that this was violence the entire progressive political stack (by its own rules) is directly and solely responsible for- is an inconvenient one.
If anything the TRAs should be signal-boosting the couple of politicians who will inevitably shoot their mouth off too quickly in blaming trans people for this. They're completely dependent on progressive success for survival.
Anyone can change their identity and pronouns at will, but by choosing to do something heinous, they have switched their identity to male.
"Choosing to do something heinous" and "changing their identity and pronouns at will" tend to go hand in hand, so this isn't acceptable to TRAs. Their entire thing is that the community has no right to tell you who you are, no matter what.
but by choosing to do something heinous, they have switched their identity to male/"men bad, women good"
Older Boomer women currently wish this was the case so they could go on blaming men [and guns] for mass murder. Having a pet of theirs rack up the highest kill count to date west of the Canadian Shield is incongruous with the "gendercide" narrative.
I think the pronouns will stick in this case; the demand for violence from straightwhitemen might exceed supply, but the reaction to that is an increase in the demand for violence perpetrated by non-straightwhitemen (because the demand for violence comes from the highly passive-aggressive "see, we were right about them, now it's time to make them pay" that characterizes most Western nations, in particular English-settled ones).
none have let a shooting go to waste because it doesn't line up with the bill that's already in the chamber
Sure, but none of the perpetrators have been expressly, blatantly, inescapably representative of every Establishment failure.
This is part of why they want to call him a woman, but it forces the anti-gun side in particular to give up being able to use the superweapon of blaming men; conversely, allowing them to call him a man costs them credibility with the TRAs.
If the government can't protect against attacks like this, and the reason it can't protect against attacks like this is that it let an ugly/unpopular Progressive token minority off the hook while acting to punish everyone else (and in a way that directly led to their children being killed), at a time where the government can't even keep the fucking nation together?
Then yeah, I'd be trying to lay low too. The most rabid anti-gunners in Canada might be tempted to go full Twitter meltdown, but if they do their time as a political force in Canada will be over.
There aren't enough guns left to ban for that (they already blew their loads on this 4 and 2 and 1 year ago), and the lack of coverage about what the guns the shooter used (along with how fatal the attack was given the near-immediate response time) suggests they weren't special in any way- likely a bog-standard hunting rifle or shotgun.
It's going to get ignored for that reason. The gun-banning side will take an L, since most of the narrative is "u need to ban guns to protect wimminz", and this guy being [allowed to be] a woman damages that narrative- it's best for them it disappear.
The media has 2 choices- double down on "we need to ban guns to protect women from male mass shooters" and throw trans women under the bus, or double down on TWAW and throw "it's all men's fault" out.
I think they're still figuring out which one it's going to be, but TWAW's in the lead right now.
they listed off the genders of all of the victims (which I found a bit weird)
If you found that weird you're not being cynical enough.
The demand for straightwhiteman crimes against young women far exceeds supply.
The demand for woman or transwoman crimes against young women, not so much. Of those, calling them a woman is perhaps the less damaging option.
Perhaps they were giving a Straussian hint.
The Canadian media already fell into that trap- "woman in a dress" = obviously trans.
but clearly Canadian gun laws as they stand didn't stop this one
It's worse for the regime in this case because there's an active confiscation going on. The government has been campaigning for the better part of a decade on it. AUS murders did not happen under those conditions and the victims were perceived as having it coming- not quite the same thing.
Sometimes there are signs
If the most uncharitable rumors are true, institutionalization in some form have already occurred.
it's a shitty, inaccurate headline
It's made solely to justify reprisal attacks on the outgroup.
There is hardly anything about this in the American media today.
American media fails to publish story about news likely to be highly damaging to the preferred narrative of American media, news at 11.
Canadian media already fucked up and said too much about who the shooter was, so it's too late to deny it. The fact they haven't reported anything else suggests the other facts of the case are likely not in the regime's favor.
I don’t feel the raw anger and hatred from when the Catholic school in Minnesota was hit.
Canadians are a lot more passive-aggressive than that.
- Prev
- Next

I've literally never heard anyone talk about it; otherwise I'd've used their name for these emotional states. I don't have a name for them, I just [think I] understand what they are.
I think it's slightly deeper than that in the sense that, if you can't obfuscate for humor's sake, you can't obfuscate for malicious purposes either. So doing it is always in earnest, and thus [generally] perhaps perceived to be in earnest by the average member of that culture.
Think about why the modal English speaker groans at puns- there's a specific emotion that mediates this, and I think it's emergent from... something, but outside of the disgust one feels when one perverts the language, I don't actually know why people would feel this otherwise. Assuming it is disgust mediating the interaction, though, it makes sense that playing with words implies the intent is hostile to the individual or group, but if group cohesion is high enough that nobody really thinks about it in those terms then maybe they just don't feel the [protective] emotion.
More options
Context Copy link