Yeah, this seems like a case of “it’s not my job to interperet my boss’s incomprehensible behaviour on their behalf”.

Gonna have to tune in to Knowledge Fight to hear their take on this. I hope those boys are doing okay.

It’s also the smallest community unit that we can reasonably be broken up into whilst still reproducing labourers for the economy.

The more society is ground down and split apart the less we can help one another out of solidarity, and the more we have to spend on housing, transport, and every other appliance that needs to be duplicated for each separate dwelling, and the more dependent we are on money, capital and the state to provide for our needs. The lonelier we are, the more profitable we are and the less power we have.

You could argue that a lot of this was just a gradual evolution of society into a form that suits the ruling class, but also neoliberalism was a deliberate project to bring this about. Thatcher knew what she was doing when she said, “There is no such thing as society, there are individual men and women and there are families.”

I know right, people hold elaborate ceremonies that cost many thousands of dollars and invite all their family and friends for sometimes a week at a time just to announce, “Hey everybody, we’re fucking!” They even get small children to participate in these shameless sex rituals, they should all be locked up for child abuse.

Ban marriage.

We’ve seen how wildly popular it is when someone actually acts on this concept. Luigi became a folk hero, and the ruling class can’t contain that no matter how hard they try. It’s going to be harder to do next time because they’ve ramped up their security, but there is going to be a next time.

With spree shooters, there’s been an effort in recent years to stop saying their names, stop giving them notoriety because it encourages people to copy. That doesn’t work with Luigi because people love him. There isn’t public buy-in to shame him. So there have to be copy-cats plotting how to blast their way into the history books just like he did.

Also, banger quote. The punchline is all in one syllable, it hits so hard. Also, it’s literally not a call to violence. It’s literally just stating two entirely uncontroversial facts in close proximity and letting the audience connect the dots. If people hear that and it sounds like a call to violence that they have to distance themselves from, that’s because they know how obvious the conclusion is.

“We’ll take our ball and go home, and you’ll all miss out on our fabulous AI products!”

“No. Wait. Don’t.”

Yeah, that scans for me. It breaks up “getting ready…for a night out”, but I think it works.

I think honestly it’s just a reality that, if brevity is the soul of wit, then a punchy sentence needs to be compact and that means you need to get a bit funky with the grammar, so maybe the audience has to do a little work.

Maybe also “at which” is fine too, and I was just overthinking it.

One thing I won’t bend on is that “to be starting to get ready” is objectively worse in every respect and is the main thing that throws people about the sentence.

This is a slightly wacky sentence. It’s not wrong - it does make sense and communicates the idea, it just forces you to do a bit of work to straighten it out in your head.

I think the biggest issue is the way they unnecessarily used present continuous tense with “be starting to get”.

It’s convoluted and adds syllables. You could eliminate the “be” and “to” entirely and change it to “start getting”. That starts with an active verb which feels stronger and more natural.

So then it would be:

“This can’t possibly be the same 9pm I used to start getting ready for a night out at”.

That preserves the flow & punch of the delivery but shortens & simplifies it a lot without losing anything imo.

Also ending a sentence with a preposition can be awkward. You read “at” and you need to refer it back to 9pm near the start of the sentence. Plus it comes after another preposition, which itself is not acting as a preposition but as part of the nouned phrase “night out”, so you end up with “out at”. Again, not wrong, but it can be awkward. I think using “at which” can move it closer to the noun it’s referring to but it’s not necessarily better that way.

Make that change and it’s, “This can’t possibly be the same 9pm at which I used to start getting ready for a night out”.

It’s a little easier to parse, but honestly I think it loses something, because it doesn’t have a casual delivery. “At which” is evidence that the sentence was very deliberately constructed. It adds a syllable and loses some punch. I’d stick with just the first change personally.

Maxwell immediately adopting an unexplained and unflappable admiration for Wealwell is such a Murph thing to do and I love it.

“Samwell, Blanewell, Roywell, Hatwell, Wealwell, Johnwell”

https://youtu.be/Odo3F1WqO4A

Thanks, I’ve wanted to do this for ages, but I got this current phone before I knew about grapheneos and the compatibility issue. Now all I need is to fully switch my main email and I’ll be significantly de-googled.

I was writing a comment that my device is unsupported and all the supported pixel phones are flagship priced. Then I decided to check my work and look it up.

Long story short I have a refurbished pixel 6 on the way, it was cheaper than my current phone was.

Also my mum brought me some costco hotdogs the other day. It’s hard to get good American food in grocery stores here in Australia but those delicious smokey dogs have me considering a membership. So good.

This has a similar energy to, “Lend me a dollar, but give me fifty cents. Then I’ll owe you fifty cents, and you’ll owe me fifty cents, and we’ll be even.”

Do you have a sauce for that claim?

You live in a different universe where talk matters more than actions and individual voters have more power than the systems and people that consistently screw them over.

That’s not a gap I can bridge.

If all of the people who stayed home would have been kamala voters then it sounds like she failed to inspire them to vote. It sounds like she lost an election.

Yes, if an unprecedented, impossible turnout occurred then dems might’ve won, but that’s not actually a strategy, that’s fantasy. Assuming there isn’t some level of divine intervention, then people are right that their vote doesn’t matter, because this is the real world where we already know a plurality of people don’t vote.

It’s almost like voter disenfranchisement works.

I don’t know why liberals can’t get this basic concept: if electoralism is meaningful at all, then the electorate cannot be wrong.

If the electorate voted “wrong” then your democracy doesn’t do what it claims to, it does not represent the people. <- this is actually the correct answer btw

Blaming the electorate achieves nothing.

The electorate didn’t fail the dems, the dems failed the electorate.

It’s hard to blame the people who stayed home when disenfranchisement is an intended feature of your electoral system. The vast majority of people know for a fact that their vote mathematically does not matter and a huge number cannot get time off on the weekday it is scheduled for.

If a full third of people stayed home, that’s a systemic problem, not an individual responsibility problem. Your electoral system is completely captured by capital and you are stuck blaming the electorate.

Folks please: US corruption is not a cultural or personal issue, it is systemic. Power corrupts, not just people, but systems. The US has been at the head of the global hegemon for most of the last century, they have most of the billionaires, of course they are corrupt. That’s where capitalists focus their efforts to get the most returns. It’s not an accident that the guy doing DOGE just happened to be the richest man on the planet.

Maybe focus your energy there instead of on the people who have literally no power.

Iran getting nuclear weapons would be an immense boon to peace and stability in the Middle East.

I think you just put your finger on exactly why the US doesn’t want that to ever happen.

That was me, actually, and I didn’t run out, it is still valid. You are denying that we should criticise the dems for their genocide, and you haven’t gone back on that. That is a kind of genocide denial.

Your entire point in calling me a pedophile was that you literally could not substantiate it. You were talking out of your ass. You were done with any sort of argument.

It’s amazing that you don’t see what that says about you, just like you don’t seem to see what an absolute repudiation of the democrats it is to say that it is useless to accuse them of genocide because the choices in your “democracy” cannot exclude genocide.

And you wonder why so many people stayed home.

It was already turbo genocide, and the idea that what’s happening now is somehow worse is just your fantasy.