Capitalist International

Kelleyite Tolerationist, Sanctioner of the Sanctioners, Atomic Individualist, Subverter of the Faith, and Master Dualist of the Realm

[voxette-vk]

What about the Everett branches where SBF became a quadrillionaire?

[voxette-vk]

I officially just finished all my work for law school, I think!

[twoheartsoneclara]

people on this website loves days and dates. you could make a post that says “it’s sweet fat of the hog tuesday” and people would go nuts reblogging it every tuesday

[drethelin]

You know what day it is

[ghostbrawl]

[fatpinocchio]

With the deterioration of search, is it time to bring back web directories? Real websites only, no SEO garbage.

[discoursedrome]

at this point talking about political or artistic movements as “neo-” whatever feels dumb, and it’s not really future-proofed since you end up with repeated waves of things and only one can really be new, so I think for any such movement that started between like 1990 and today, we should just use “cyber-” instead, like cyber-reactionaries, cyber-pronouns, etc. Everything is online and has a technological aspect nowadays so it counts I think

[intactics-deactivated20211231]

this one is still killing me

[garmbreak1]

I got a message from my estranged child the other day. It said, “Father, what do hyenas eat?”

And I told him, “Carrion, my wayward son.”

[jadagul]

Student in my office hours today has:

Complained that when I send emails at 4 AM, the audible phone notification wakes her up

Said I was a “G”

When I said I didn’t know what that meant, she said “But I thought you were cool! You use Discord!”

“You are such a dork. The more you talk the more you’re convincing me you’re not actually cool.”

[reasonableapproximation]

Oh, kids still say G? I remember that being a thing almost 20 years ago when I was in school.

[jadagul]

Okay, great, can you tell me what it means? :P

[reasonableapproximation]

I dunno if I can! I wasn’t cool twenty years ago.

It’s (as it was used in my school) definitely complimentary. In my head it’s short for “gangster” but I don’t know if I have any reason to think that. Certainly I don’t feel like the content of the compliment has much to do with gang membership, it just feels like a generic “I approve of this person’s general thing” kind of compliment to me.

[rendakuenthusiast]

It’s bad that this person doesn’t know how to turn off notifications on their phone when they want to sleep, and blames a person sending them email for it.

[jadagul]

They know how. We talked about it. They don’t want to turn off notifications on their email because then they might miss one.

“It’s not a problem! You’re the only person who ever emails me at four in the morning!”

They’re not actually mad at me. But they are leaving their phone configured so 4 AM emails wake them up.

I tried to explain that the whole point of email is that it’s asynchronous, but they were having none of it.

[fyridis]

Does their phone not have an automatic sleep/do not disturb mode? I have notifs silenced from 10 PM to 7 AM. I don’t have to worry about forgetting to turn them back on, because it’s automatic, and in the morning all the notifications from overnight are conveniently on the screen!

But also… Why are they getting emails from you at 4 AM in the first place? Time zones? In my department we don’t send emails (to students or otherwise) outside of business hours. :b

[jadagul]

I suggested that, but they don’t like the idea of do not disturb mode because then they might miss something.

I send emails at 4 AM because that’s when I do my work, and again, email is asynchronous so it shouldn’t matter when I send them.

[rustingbridges]

nonetheless it’s a bit weird to send non-urgent emails in the middle of the night. there could be any number of reasons why somebody might have notifications on on any given night. some messages are important and timely! sure, hopefully they have their inbox configured so that unimportant stuff won’t wake them up but who knows.

just do what everybody else does when they’re writing emails in the middle of the night and schedule it to go out in the morning

[jadagul]

Is that actually what “everybody else” does? Is that actually a thing anyone else does? I’m genuinely shocked to learn that.

Like, I’m still baffled by the idea that someone had sound alerts for their email. Email is the thing you batch and look at once or twice a day. Sound alerts are for texts.

[shlevy]

I send emails when I write them.

Your student is the wrong one here.

[voxette-vk]

It’s okay to send emails in the middle of the night but I don’t because it’s weird. I just send them in the morning.

[silvermoon424]

In late 2016, New York’s Glory Gospel Singers went on a Japanese talent show called Nodo Jiman the World! They sang “A Cruel Angel’s Thesis,” the theme song for the insanely popular anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion.

This gave me goosebumps and I can’t stop listening to it. I really hope the Glory Gospel Singers will release a full-length cover someday!!

[andmaybegayer]

AND YET A TRACE OF THE TRUE SELF EXISTS IN THE FALSE SELF

[femmenietzsche]

They [the Babylonians] do not use physicians; instead they carry their sick people out into the public square and allow people to approach the sick person and advise him about his illness. Some may themselves have suffered from the same illness that the sick person has, or have seen someone else who did. They go to the sick person and give advice, encouraging him to do whatever they themselves or others they may know have done to be cured of a similar illness. And it is not permitted for anyone to leave the side of a sick person before having inquired what illness he suffers from.

Guy in ancient Babylon trying to convince everyone they have Chronic Lyme

[snizabelle]

[varrictithrass]

Hate this

[dd-ganspam]

perhaps predictably, it turns out that neuralblender is really good at making blade runner versions of things

[absolute-immunities]

did you know that the Japanese word for “teacher" comes from the popular Netflix series “Sense8”

[mcnostril]

I have discovered the truth about chainmail bikinis, and it is imperative those wearing such armor do not think about it too hard or they may inadvertently cross the line between Sexy Hero and Homicidal Pervert.

[randomitemdrop]

Item: enchanted chainmail bikini/headband/anklet set

[afloweroutofstone]

The reason liberals will always lose the gun control debate in the US is that the other side can credibly threaten to murder them for their opinion, and it’s not even considered an abnormal part of American discourse. Like even any small proposal altering the background check process is routinely met with “molon labe” arguments that amount to “if you implement this policy you should expect me to use physical violence against you.” Threatening to murder your neighbors is a 100% accepted part of US gun policy discussions

[centrally-unplanned]

This seems like an irrelevant factor to me - when gun control legislation is actually passed, acts of violence are extremely low, republican candidates either authentically believe in gun’s rights or just want their vote (fear of safety is not a motivator) and on the other hand democrat politicians just seem to have other priorities like healthcare or stimulus, so they don’t spend political capital on the topic. And why should they - as a constitutionally fraught topic, situated often at the federal level, AND one that is not budgetary and therefore cannot be passed through reconciliation, prospects for real change are dim in the veto-land of American policy.

It isn’t even the biggest culture war topic anymore - you are going to get far more violence around Trump or Covid issues, as 1/6 showed (which even then failed to kill any actual politicians and clearly did not dissuade any democrats). I don’t see any concrete evidence “fear of guns right advocates” is motivating any relevant political actor.

[mini-wrants]

I’ve been trained since 3rd grade how of react to a mass shooter. 3rd grade. That was the year Columbine happened.

Right now, there’s several different trials happening that center gun violence:

- Kyle Rittenhouse, who at 17 had an illegally owned gun, took it to a protest, and when people assumed he was a mass shooter (because was carrying a semi-automatic) tried to disarm him and he killed them for it.

- Ahmad Aubrey’s killers, who saw him jogging, decided he was a threat, and so tackled him to the ground and shot him.

- Terry Duane Turner, who shot an unarmed man in his driveway. The victim was most likely lost, trying to find his way home. The man was already reversing out of the driveway when Turned chased him down and used his gun to break the drivers side window to shoot him.

Our windshield wipers broke on our car about a month ago in a storm. We pulled over in someone’s driveway to try to fix them, so we wouldn’t be on a busy road and get hit by a car. When we pulled out of the driveway, we saw a man in his house staring at us. Thank god that man didn’t think we were a threat, because if he did, he could’ve shot and killed us for the crime of…trying to fix a windshield wiper off the street.

We’ve had mass shootings at massage parlers, schools, malls, grocery stores, churches, synagogues, movie theaters.

As a guns-right activist, if I go to a protest about gun control, and counter-protestors show up armed? Even if I think “wow, these people might shoot me” I cannot do anything about it.

If I assume they’re a mass shooter and try to disarm them, I die. If they ARE a mass shooter and I do nothing, I die. And because the only thing between me and death is that gun carrier’s control on his temper? I’m not allowed to carry angry signs or shout slogans, because he might kill me if he gets mad enough.

Election officials and gun-control politicians are getting voicemails with explicit threats to shoot and kill them, voicemails with their addresses and childrens’ names, and authorities are doing nothing, because apparently a threat to shoot and kill someone isn’t actually a threat anymore. It’s just a way of life.

OP is right.

[centrally-unplanned]

Sorry, I disagree with OP and your points are virtually irrelevant to the discussion. All of the shootings you listed above had *nothing at all to do with gun rights reforms*. Most of them are not related to any policy at all, and others are related different policies. You will die to gun-toting mass shooters at any protest over any issue - and protests are, to be frank, a pretty small and often-irrelevant part of how policy change happens (not always, but usually).

Politicians receive death threats every day over *everything they ever try to pass on any topic* they get death threats over vaccine and mask mandates, over agriculture zoning reform, over *certifying elections*. And those death threats have virtually no impact on policy at all - most of the time it steels people's resolve, but generally is background noise. They pass or don't pass bills or execute policies for other reasons.

None of this is to say, to outside readers, that the growing violent radicalization of politics in the US isn't a problem - it is, it has tons of downstream warping effects. I just see no evidence that "fear of violent retaliation" dissuades any politicians or even voters, and certainly not around gun control, which doesn't even make the top 5 violent political battlegrounds today.

[mini-wrants]

This just in, mass shootings have nothing to do with gun control reforms pushes.

Mass shootings are not the reason politicians want to reform gun control laws.

Threats of violence against the parties and politicians that advocate for gun control (like, idk, armed people storming state and national capitals when a Democrat wins office) is totally irrelevant to gun control policies being unable to be passed.

A gun-control politician that gets a threat to be shot and murdered left on her voicemail with the name of the school her children attend will have no affect on that politician, actually.

(We for sure haven’t seen a wave of politicians, both local and national, retiring and stating that threats of violence made their decision for them. That never happened)

[centrally-unplanned]

In order by paragraph:

-No, mass shootings make gun control *more* likely, opposite (kind of) of OP

-Again, agreed, you seem to agree with me and disagree with OP (again, kind of)

-Yes

-Vis a vis how many votes bill X gets in the senate? Generally yes.

-Yep, this generally did not happen! Not zero of course, but it's A: not a major factor for politicians retiring, and B: threats around gun control bills are a tiny amount of the net threats, so it's a 1% of 1% kind of deal.

Glad we could clear that up!

[facts-i-just-made-up]

My Problems With The New Dune Movie:

The new Dune film is certainly an impressive feat and a fun movie to boot, but I feel it totally botched the adaptation from the original novel. Here are the biggest changes I objected to:

The film doesn't address future space travel and how the spice warps reality at all, for all we know this could take place in Egypt of the past.

The Harkonnens are barely in the film and aren't referred to by name, instead they seem more like a resurrected corpse and cult of evil resurrected warriors.

Though Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz are well cast as Duke Leto and Lady Jessica, their characters are much more flippant and humorous than they were in the novel. Paul Atreides isn't even in the film, they must be saving him for the sequel.

The main plot of the book is completely ignored in favor of an original light adventure story, ignoring the complex culture and events of Frank Herbert and focusing on old ruins, adventures on camels, and gunfights with old mummified henchmen.

Thufir Hawat has been replaced by a pilot named Winston who flies our heroes in a biplane (not an ornithopter like in the book!) to a city called Hamunaptra, which wasn't even in the novel.

The greedy character of "Benny," a most unfuturistic name, is concerned with gold instead of spice, giving the story too much focus on money instead of the fight for Arrakis.

The title card is illegible and looks more like it says "The Mummy" than "Dune Part 1."

That said, the special effects were very good, the late 1990s style look of the film was cool, the music was memorable, and the action was lots of good natured fun. 9/10 as an action flick, but 2/10 as a Dune adaptation.

[voxette-vk]

lol this had me at first