domain:abc.net.au
birb_cromble
2hr ago
The crime scene. I've seen this claim, but no proof, and I'm interested in it.
Totalitarianit
2hr ago
Right now, there are people on the right attempting to doxx, cancel, and censor left leaning people. Some of them will obviously go too far and attempt to cause harm to reasonable people who have opinions that don’t align with their own. That will happen, and I will not like that. I see people like Laura Loomer, or catturd on twitter, or Candace Owens, and it is obvious to me that these individuals are a net negative for Republicans and anyone right of center.
The distinction here though is that the mainstream left has been treating political disagreement in this country as an existential and moral struggle for years, and the liberal principles that you're trying to hold me to have been completely weaponized by them. That approach has been done to the detriment of this country and whatever unifying culture we used to have. So, when you call me out for not holding tight to the idea of "free speech" (all while the other side has essentially completely abandoned it) all I really see is you acting confused at why people like me are no longer fighting with one hand tied behind our back.
WandererintheWilderness
2hr ago
There are instances where I might cut you some slack (e.g. NYers cheering OBL's death), but it is not wholesome.
I should clarify that I meant that by "it is perfectly wholesome" I meant that in the context of the film it is treated as perfectly wholesome, and that no one questions this when talking about The Wizard of Oz. I didn't mean that I thought celebrating someone's death in real life was "perfectly wholesome". As I started by stating, I personally disapprove of it, just as you do. My point is that it is commonplace and benign - that it is in the vast majority of cases disconnected from any genuine desire to encourage vigilante killings - with the uncontroversial Wizard of Oz scene being an example of this sentiment and its broad harmlessness.
But yes, unrelatedly, absolutely agreed with your second paragraph.
Muninn
"Dick Laurent is dead."
2hr ago
Then you're on your way! I do want to say that I totally understand and respect your skepticism WRT coffee tasting, but I strongly suspect that even with a mediocre palate, if you get into it in any depth you're going to find that there's enough flavor there to draw you in more deeply. The growing caffeine addiction is just bonus points! More seriously, though, regional coffee characteristics are often pretty distinct at the lower levels of roasts and are the gateway for lots of us that have taken the plunge. You'll notice the brightness of African coffees and the earthiness of Southeast Asian coffees, for example, even if you don't get every hint of lemongrass or honeyed almonds promised by a particular bean.
The other thing that I came back to say was that I'd strongly recommend that you stick with buying whole beans and let your Krups grinder do the work. As @srf0638 has said above, the Krups will be fine for pour-overs (and +1,000 for Sweet Maria's, yay!), and getting your beans pre-ground will effectively kill the advantage that you'll get from using fresh beans to begin with. Ideally, you want to grind your beans right before you begin your pour-over.
What has happened in the last few days? I mean this literally, it's been such a deluge that I feel like I've forgotten important things. Asking here to sanity-check.
- Charlie Kirk assassination, world-altering shitstorm, the swings of the manhunt
- Iryna Zarutska murder, up-to-genocidal frenzy, progressive release of ever-more-uncensored video
- Russian drone incursions into Poland
- Nepali zoomer revolution, burning down parliament and beating ministers, Discord election
- Israel bombing Qatar
- Greta flotilla drone attack
- Trump Epstein birthday card
Is that it? Was there some more israel/gaza stuff? Some other twitter culturewar flareup that seemed to matter?
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
2hr ago
Yeah, I recall the case, still waiting to see if it has real impact or gets worked around by some other loophole or discretion.
"Correctly", because "absolutely". If I'm having an amiable conversation with a new acquaintance, and I say something insulting out of the blue, and there's common knowledge that I realized it would be insulting before saying it, then no matter what other thoughts I was having at the time (excluding thoughts such that there's common knowledge that I had them and that they're mollifying), or the emotional coloration of those thoughts, it's fair to say I've insulted my interlocutor. E.g., if my interlocutor weighs 500 pounds and my insulting comment is a fat people joke, he'd be right to take it personally. It doesn't matter if it's ambiguous whether I meant it personally first and foremost, or if I habitually make fat people jokes and his being fat was just icing on the cake. The common knowledge that I might "just" think of it as icing on the cake won't endear me to him. You don't make fat people jokes around unmistakably fat people either unless you mean to cause pain, or there is common knowledge that they're meant in good fun. And if I only realized after the fact that I'd said something insulting, and determined my interlocutor had probably noticed the insulting interpretation, I would consider disavowing it.
I think there basically is common knowledge of how negatively all but the lightest (or most candidly non-maleficent), say, 10-20% of criticism of Charlie Kirk will be received by both enemies and allies. Lots of leftists out there don't care to clear themselves of a reasonable suspicion that they think he deserved it (reasonable because that seems to be a common belief, and because there's somewhat of an incentive, at least for respectable people writing under their real names, not to say "he deserved it" in so many words), and they put things out there that their enemies and allies will know (etc.) that they knew in advance would code as "good riddance". The timeframe is crucial: what you can say at what point in time is a social convention that creates the conditions for common knowledge. If you go on the offensive before the body is cold, you know what you're doing.
There are some exceptions, like professional anti-2A lobbyists. In their case, there's some common knowledge that they pretty much have no choice. I guess you can generalize that to everyone who has surrendered some of their agency to an egregore. Along with anti-2A people who credibly demonstrate remorse, like Dean Withers, they serve to weaken the chain of common knowledge.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
2hr ago
But once it does happen, celebrating this happy turn of events is perfectly wholesome.
I am personally of the view that celebrating someone's death is bad, even if the person was an asshole, because exercising sadism is bad for you. I understand why people aren't tearing their clothes and gnashing their teeth. I likewise understand (and basically agree with) why they push back on efforts to lionize Kirk. However, even with all that, to actively celebrate it is too much. Most of us have negative or inappropriate thoughts, but you should aim to tame them, not cultivate them. There are instances where I might cut you some slack (e.g. NYers cheering OBL's death), but it is not wholesome.
What sticks in my craw about pearl-clutching from conservatives over less-than-decorous reactions to Kirk's death is how one-sided it is. Trumpism is a movement literally founded on turfing out respectable conservatives in favor of tribal nastiness. A significant part of Trump's initial appeal was that he was a loud and proud asshole who didn't care about decorum, and that has carried forward through his entire movement. The aesthetic of cruelty, a gleeful willingness to offend ("facts don't care about your feelings") has been a central element post-Trump conservatism*. The reason you're not supposed to celebrate Kirk's death isn't a generalized principle of decency or respect for the dead. It's because Charlie Kirk is a Good Guy and you're not supposed to make fun of Good Guys. It's totally cool to celebrate death and misery as long the subject deserves it.
*It was always present (e.g. Rush Limbaugh), but under Trump it came to the forefront.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2hr ago
It's got a lot of silliness, slice of life humor, and it's, eh, I guess the way I would describe it is sorta the opposite of grimdark. Very optimistic, but not generally in a flippant way. It takes itself seriously most of the time, but Berserk it ain't. I consider that an unalloyed positive, but YMMV.
5434a
2hr ago
For practical purposes, lower middle. My family background spans doctors and engineers at the upper end to car mechanics and carpenters at the lower end.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
2hr ago
“If not more so”?
just here to push buttons, aren’t you?
anon_
2hr ago
Right, so this boils down too: I should be mad that we didn’t pull the trigger first.
Implicit in being mad that we didn’t pull the trigger first is the judgment that the action was good in itself.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
2hr ago
I saw it recommended but idk man! Wanted something a bit more serious. Perhaps I could check it out.
True! I thought that I was pretty explicit about the money part, especially with the upfront stereo equipment reference, but I had to think about your comment for a minute before I really unpacked the time part, mostly because my brain was stuck in the past and thinking about how unreliable specialty roasters could be and how a good one is worth their weight in gold when these days, any decent-sized town will probably have a coffee shop or two that sells good fresh roasted beans. Hell, I've bought them myself more than a few times to try and calibrate my own equipment against a fresh shot from the shop's machine, definitely good practice.
ETA: Not surprised to see that you're also referencing Sweet Maria's! They've taught me most of what I know about coffee and I've been buying my beans from them for decades.
Soteriologian
2hr ago
This is such asinine analysis. Obviously there are many factors to a complicated system. Turning the rudder normally changes your ship’s direction one way, but if there’s a strong enough current, or you have the sails up pointed a different way, obviously the boat could go any direction due to the overall balance of forces.
Your analysis is basically saying “See, Newton’s laws of motion are bunk because when we trace the current’s effect on the ship it doesn’t always go that way!”
Honestly, if you don’t see it, that’s fine, good for you. Trust whatever graphs make you happy. I cannot and will not try to convince you further, congrats, you win.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
2hr ago
That’s an absurd steel man. Floyd gets sainted because he wasn’t evil enough? Celebrating violent idiots makes the world a worse place. No excuses for that.
popocatepetl
2hr ago
cradle
I just posted a comment recommending Cradle. Good job me. Since you've already read Cradle, I agree with FC that Beware of Chicken is extremely funny.
As for another... I enjoyed listening to an AI audiobook of Release That Witch, despite an embarrassing pseudo-harem element. It's an isekai where a chemist bootstraps an industrial revolution in a magical setting; the "progression" is more Civilization than Amazing Cultivation Simulator though.
Very interesting how Communist theory seeped into the Chinese author's depiction of a state planned economy.
Primaprimaprima
Aliquid stat pro aliquo
2hr ago
Out in the world, life continues.
...but not for Charlie Kirk.
"Just don't worry about it lol" is a really tone deaf response right now.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
2hr ago
No, I have no sympathy for those people and no sympathy for the concept of celebrating a death. Publicly. Like some soulless amoral ghoul.
There are people I hate, politicians and intellectuals that I think are strongly net-negative for the world. To be clear, I would not mourn them, were they struck by lightning or fed to sharks. But neither would I celebrate, it wouldn’t cross my mind. Especially not publicly. At most, a passing thought that thank goodness such tragedy didn’t happen to a decent person, but I’ve got enough of a heart to keep that to myself.
Dean
Flairless
2hr ago
Control over framing is truly one of the most important parts of narrative building. In the same sense that any metaphor can break down if examined too closely, being able to set initial scopes of conversation- and refuse/refute attempts to reshape it- is an almost necessary skill in any sort of competitive/contested narrative environment.
Learning how to handle it subtly / gracefully / reasonably is another important skill, since 'I'm just going to ignore what you said and repeat my point' tends to go down badly, but framing devices ranging from timeframe and cultural contexts are significant.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
2hr ago
Still a process as punishment situation if the university wants to risk it.
Ward Churchill is one of the most infamous for calling the 9/11 victims Eichmanns, he got no payout and didn’t get his job back. Some teachers and professors fired for things like deadnaming did, eventually, get a payout or their job back. The climate is certainly different now than it was then, but I wouldn’t want to be a university employee floating a test case in it either.
The remedy is to take a break from going to social media sites where people who sit online 18 hours a day fling shit at each other, and to take a break from hanging out with ideologues in real life, and to go interact with people in general.
Out in the world, life continues. The birds are singing, the flowers are blooming. The majority of people are not paying attention to this stuff.
You are reacting the way that many people reacted when they heard that JFK was assassinated, or that MLK was assassinated. An emotional shock. But the rational response, I think, is to remember that assassinations are really really rare. There is no actual civil war going on. Well, there's a cold civil war going on, but not a hot one.
Why is that the case?
It's because of law and order. Which, for all of the current system's faults, and I sure would love it to do a better job of taking care of ordinary people like me instead of exposing me to random street violence and so on, is doing a good job of dissuading that subset of the left who would love to kill right-wingers and that subset of the right who would love to kill left-wingers from actually doing it.
Liberalism, for now, is holding. I mean classical liberalism, not the weird American "liberals = the left" definition.
Yes, there are plenty of angry people in this country who would love to assassinate the leaders of their political opponents, or maybe even put their political opponents in mass into extermination camps.
But liberalism, for now, is holding. As a centrist moderate, I sure hope that it continues to hold. There are some good reasons to believe that it will continue to hold. For one, I think that probably the majority of rich people have no use for a civil war full of populists who are ready to murder anyone who is more successful than them and can be painted as being on the other side.
Given how many guns are in private hands in the US and how many politically angry people there are, assassinations are actually surprisingly rare.
People almost never get killed for their political opinions in the US. It happens very rarely. Now, people do get frequently killed because of political policies in general... and that's one area where I sympathize with the right, despite disagreeing with them on most things. What I mean specifically is, pathological empathy-driven progressive policies that end up unleashing street criminals on the public. That's something I disagree with progressives on.
But the murder of someone like Charlie Kirk is an easily foreseeable consequence of what happens when you have hundreds of millions of guns in private hands in a country that is politically polarized.
Note, when I say that I am not calling for gun ownership rights to be reduced. I'm just saying that statistically, it's an obvious consequence. These things are inevitably going to happen from time to time. It's surprising that they happen so infrequently.
Social media is currently awash with people who are using this incident to get cheap dopamine hits and/or to propagandize for their side of the great chimp shit-flinging fight that is the culture war.
They're deranged. And they should not be taken seriously. Most of them are sad people who are using political engagement to make up for the failures of their individual lives.
Someone who is highly politically engaged and spends 18 hours a day writing angry comments on social media will end up creating more online political content than 100 ordinary people. Social media enormously over-represents the opinions of angry no-life losers on both sides of the culture war.
Some view it all as a war between good and evil. And, if I was in some part of Mexico where people fought against murderous cartels, I'd see it that way too. But I live in the US. I am lucky enough, because of the continuing success (for all their faults) of the US' liberal systems and norms, to be able to see our situation in the US as a war between the stupid and the smart. A delineation that cuts across left/right lines.
As in the famous Revenge of the Sith crawl, "there are heroes on both sides"... well, in our reality it's not quite that epic, it's more like "there are smart and stupid people on both sides". And "there are decent people and sociopaths on both sides". I'm lucky to live in a part of the world where that's actually the case. But it is the case.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2hr ago
You make left-wingers sound like retarded children who can't grasp the basics of cause and effect.
That's the mistake theory explanation, yes. People think this because the conflict theory explanation- where when pressed, they pretend it's a game, then pretend they weren't serious, then attempt to remind you their inherent moral worth deserves your leniency, then make it clear they know exactly what they're doing and proceed with the destructive thing anyway- is just not something humans have evolved to deal with.
We don't accept explanations of just following orders "actually, I'm just retarded" from the right[0] for deep-seated biological reasons. That we accept them from the left[1] (also for deep-seated biological reasons) is actually a big deal.
"Oh, no! She's going to be insufferable after this. She's going to ride the sympathy and milk it for the next 50 years. She might get to be president now. This is a disaster."
Not that "involuntarily attending a school shooting" isn't a viable way to political power (David Hogg), but I very much doubt that if you get shot like Kirk was, you'll be enjoying anything after that (much less political power).
[0, 1] For rightists, being retarded is never believed because, as human doings [or in modern times, people more aligned with human doings], it's strictly an evolutionary malus (stupidity is a detriment to executing your will) so any assertions you were retarded accidentally are naturally looked upon with extreme skepticism. For leftists it's always believed because, as human beings [or in modern times, people more aligned with human beings], being able to convince human doings to take pity on you while manipulating them when their back is turned is an evolutionary bonus (feigning childishness is an enhancement).
I find that I still have a presumption that when the news says "shot", that means "still alive". I guess things might break too fast anymore for that intuition to hold, but it's still part of my immediate thought process ("If he were dead, then they'd say that!")
More options
Context Copy link