Warl0k3
@Warl0k3@lemmy.world
- Comment on It's always Brassica 1 hour ago:
I think we can work with that, I’ve got a couple O-rings (not those ones) you could absolutely consume without issue. It’s probably not good to eat sharp parts like screws, but chunks of the heat tiles could be put in a pepper mill and used as a topping that way, or as a filler in a dense baked good like a scone. You could also eat any of the shielding foils, the gold foil used to protect against radiation especially would be totally safe and quite decorative.
- Comment on It's always Brassica 1 hour ago:
like a truck
Who doesn’t love to tuck into a big bowl of Mac & Cheese on their deathbed?
- Comment on It's always Brassica 2 hours ago:
It’s like a less offputting cauliflower, I really recommend it. It’s both beautiful, and quite tasty.
- Comment on It's always Brassica 2 hours ago:
“Orange romanesco”
- Comment on Fuck Chad 13 hours ago:
Orbital Assembly Corporation
Hang on, this is just the gateway foundation’s grift again. They pop up every few few years to do the same thing again, it’s just a funding scam. Last time I looked into these losers they didn’t even have an office.
- Comment on Fuck you in particular 23 hours ago:
He was going for "look at how this incredibly complex textured surface looks like it’s just an outline now isn’t it wild???" but failed to realize that a big pile of bullshit painted black just looks like… a big pile of bullshit painted black. It’s almost impressive how boring his ideas were. “Look the corner is triangular wooOOoooOOOooo”. He didn’t even go with something meta, like a scale model of his super reflective Bean sculpture coated in the stuff.
Just such a fuckin’ waste that vapid asshole was the artist that got to play with the stuff.
- Comment on Fuck you in particular 23 hours ago:
I award you the official title of “More Creative Than Kapoor”! It’s not a unique title, but it’s still one to bear with pride.
- Comment on Fuck you in particular 1 day ago:
“That sounds like actual investment into the art. Howabout instead I vantablack a heap in the middle of a room, leave it uncovered an let people walk around it? Same effect but soooo much less work for me, Anish Kapoor’s straw-filled bodydouble”
Seriously though, it was *so lame.* Even in photos, the effect was disappointing.
- Comment on Fuck you in particular 1 day ago:
This is drama from a decade ago so don’t take it as gospel: Iirc, the contract Kapoor signed with Surrey gave him the right to enforce the patent when used in art or aesthetic design applications. I can’t remember if he sues as an involved party on behalf of Surrey or if he somehow has the right to sue directly, but the effect is the same. Basically Surrey didn’t want to deal with enforicng it, and signed over that as part of the exclusivity deal.
- Comment on Fuck you in particular 1 day ago:
The effect is also completely ruined if you handle it, and the broken off nanotubes from handling it are a serious health hazard. It’s expensive, dangerous, extremely fragile and almost impossible to clean.
But like mostly, having seen “Anish Kapoor” (which is the real name of the installation where that dickhead debuted his vantablack art), it… sucks. It’s impressive in photographs, incredibly lame in person. And, it can’t be cleaned without ruining the coating! so the dust from all those people builds up and just ew.
(also, and just on a personal note, he had nine years and did absolutely nothing conceptually interesting with it. Seriously it was the early-2000s 3D movie of art. Just one gimmick, repeated over and over with no change to the formula. “Look, it’s black”. It felt more like an ad for the lab that developed the coating than an art exhibition). It would have been cool if he’d developed the process, but we all know he didn’t, so it just fell so comically flat.
- Comment on The bullet engravings as per WSJ 3 days ago:
I think it’s just regular old photoshop.
- Comment on The bullet engravings as per WSJ 3 days ago:
Oh god, I can’t wait to see this reposted as actual evidence by that one uncld ffs…
- Comment on WEEEEEEEEEE!!!! 4 days ago:
Usually you see it for toolchests and generators, but it’s not uncommon to see things like portapottys hoisted up to prevent people tampering with them while nobody is at the site. You don’t want people coming in and dumping whatever garbage in there, like for example Charlie Kirk’s exsanguinated corpse.
- Comment on I just ate a little bag of popcorn without getting any bits stuck in my teeth/throat. ask me anything 2 weeks ago:
What’s it like, knowing that you’ve just peaked?
- Comment on I saw what you did there 2 weeks ago:
“This number has been disconnected. Please hang up now to try again…”
- Comment on The Mysterious Noise, The Empty Bottle, The Asshole Labmate 2 weeks ago:
Some bastard walked off with The Good Allen Wrenches again, and his corpse was found in a pile of unassembled IKEA.
Everything is reading 50 microvolts higher on the left side of the room and nobody knows why.
All my equipment was made in the 50s and its full of sand.
Which shipping dock is our crate sitting on? No, not that one either! (Better hurry, it’s starting to rain.)
They Turned The Overhead Lights On And All The Grad Students Shriveled Up And Died.
- Comment on 2hot2handle 2 weeks ago:
Why not just use a gender-neutral word
Because it’s not a gender-neutral problem. In a non-gendered language, an explicitly gendered term is generally used for strong emphasis. I’m sorry, I just don’t know why insights about semantics in a gendered language are relevant in a discussion of a non-gendered language. It’s not that it’s not interesting I just don’t know how to address this. Does german have the word “mansplaining” too…?
- Comment on 2hot2handle 2 weeks ago:
I agree - the term has reached a point where at this point it’s become an alt-right dogwhistle. The phenomenon is real, and really extremely common, and a new term should absolutely be introduced so that discussion of the concept isn’t derailed by people constantly going “ugh it’s such an oppressive thing”.
Side note:
(I wouldn’t normally point this out, but it’s beside the point. That you’re making a (literal, not dismissing you) semantic argument and the first sentence has a semantic error was too amusing not to point out.)
- Comment on 2hot2handle 2 weeks ago:
Okay I generally hate point by point responses so I’m sorry in advance, and I’ve tried to format this in way that will make it less bad to read. Also this is very american-centric, though the trends to tend to carry over across western cultures because of that convenient hegemony:
Family Court
I’m sorry, this one is a common piece of misinformation. While on the surface the statistics are clear that yes men are seldom (~10% of cases) awarded full custody, 90%+ of child custody agreements (formal or informal - it’s actually quite uncommon for a formal custody agreement to exist) are decided completely independently of the courts, and those agreements are what this statistic is based off of. Men nearly always give up custody (and yes doubtlessly the impact of the perception of court bias doubtlessly plays into this, but not enough to shift the balance this severely). The reason this is misrepresented is that THERE IS NO REPORTING on child custody decisions from the courts - it’s straight up illegal to release that information in the US and is similarly restricted in pretty much every western country - and anyone who claims that these statistics are from court decisions are either wrong or lying to you. There is almost no data on this, and the oft-cited PEW study (which was taken down) that these numbers crome from is extremely explicit about the source of the data.
Male Disposability
Yeah, this one sucks (and has sucked for all of human civilization). However, not only have feminist groups in the US been suing for decades to allow women inclusion into selective service, they are also the ones trying to get women allowed into combat roles because they legally cannot be put into them. So, feminists are also aware and also would like this fixed, and have been fighting hard to get it changed. It’s awful, but it really should be equal-opportunity awful.
Death Rate
The male death rate by accident is extremely complicated, but broad strokes is down to both a culture of heavy drinking (which is vastly improving in Gen Z/Alpha!) and that men do nearly all manual labor (the most dangerous category of jobs). There is a push for more women to be included in manual labor jobs, but it isn’t overly vehement - both biological differences make this a difficult argument, and manual labor sucks. Why would anyone want to do that if they don’t have to (this excludes skilled trades, which are HEAVILY biased against women and do not require pure muscle density - I can elaborate on how vital female welders are, if you would like, but for the sake of brevity I will delete that three paragraph rant).
Title IX
Okay this one pisses me off: This is absolutely not how title nine works, and I say that as a university professor who has to do a yearly training on Title IX, who’s been subject to Title IX hearings for sexual misconduct (both dropped, suits were not brought by the victims but a male student “on their behalf” and without informing them so that was fun, they both found out and immediately protested on my behalf so fuck yea…) and has sat on the panel for Title IX misconduct cases (though in the past twenty years at my uni, there has never been a Title IX hearing for sexual misconduct brought against a male student. It’s almost impossible to get it to happen). This just isn’t at all accurate, and I do not know where you got this information from because it is just wrong. Also, Title IX investigations are subject at very least to
reasonable doubt(and not notpreponderance of evidence, because it is a civil issue not criminal). Title IX explicitly proscribes hearings and the conduct of those hearings is subject to legal oversight and public review as well, so… yeah, go find me some examples of this having happened please.Rape
yeah, our laws about rape are terrible. Hell, there are a number of states that still differentiate between marital and non-marital rape, and explicitly state that it’s only male-on-female assault that qualifies. Here is an amazing article on how fucked up rape laws, and cultural attitudes surrounding rape, are and what feminists are doing to change the laws for both genders
Female Rapists
No argument, this one is terrible. Women also want this fixed, see above for how fucked up our rape laws are (and then just start drinking because it’s not getting better any time soon, thanks alt-right).
Male Acceptance Rates
Again a real fucker of a pet peeve: Men are being accepted less on the whole because we are getting fewer male applicants. There are doubtlessly cultural baises behind this, but it’s not the unis choosing more women over men - we’re choosing proportionally the same number from our applicants, but there are just not as many men as there were previously (also, application rates for women have also decreased, though markedly less. Application volumes are down across the whole of the educational system!)
Demonization of Fathers
This one, man, yeah this one is a real fucker. I won’t expound too much, but the cultural shift towards the fear of pedophilia and kidnapping is a fascinating subject to get into (while you drink. Or smoke. Or do whatever escapist activity gets you through the day).
Male Loneliness Epidemic
Man, yeah, I don’t know about this one. The death of 3rd spaces has been horrible for society, and covid just exacerbated that. It’s just hard to make new friends anymore, boy do I know that pain. Just sucks.
Feminism’s conceptualization of how to achieve equality is essentially limited to, “women should be given more supports”
I’m… look, I’m really trying so hard not to just go “no you’re wrong” in this whole conversation, and except for a couple points above (which are, sadly, just wrong) I’ve been pretty good about refraining… but this is just wrong? I’m truly curious where you got this from, especially since you say you’ve both read Brotopia and SMNTY and that’s completely antithetical to the core message of both. No seriously, who’s saying this? You see it presented in rage bait subreddits like r/TumblrInAction or r/TheRedPill, but I genuinely doubt you browse those cesspits so… I’m just not sure where you’re getting this. This has never been the messaging of feminism. Please, why do you think this is what’s happening?
- Comment on 2hot2handle 2 weeks ago:
I’m sure I’ll get into the rest in a moment, but for the sake of “I’m cooking dinner”: to your mind, what are men’s grievances?
- Comment on It's still a crust, mom 2 weeks ago:
all perfectly reasonable outcomes.
Alright.
- Comment on 2hot2handle 2 weeks ago:
Punching up again. You keep using that word, and I don’t think it means what I think it means. You’re using it as a stand-in for asserting inherent superiority over another person, but correcting someone on the internet does not actually imply that.
But the only real requirement is #1
Why? No, seriously, who says? You’re the one making that claim here, and you appear to be the only one doing that. Why is that the only real requirement, and why does it conflict with all the broadly accepted definitions (including the one you just provided)?
- Comment on 2hot2handle 2 weeks ago:
And gays are literally crucified in the middle east, and yet the fight to be allowed to change one tiny letter on your driver’s license is important. Why does the first one negate the second one?
Sorry, that was snarky. But seriously, where are you getting this? No not in a dismissive way, I think there’s commentary to be found here - but I’m incredibly curious what actual interaction with the subject you’ve had. The opinons you’re presenting here are almost identical to the fundamentally misinformed ones presented by commentators like ThunderF00T, Sargon of Akkad, Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan and Charlie Kirk (I can find examples of all of them repeating this stuff…) and I’m pretty sure you’re smarter than this. I don’t see that you’ve been confronted about these ideas in the last two months on lemmy (and that’s clearly all I can draw on), but have you ever confronted these ideas?
You’ve presented an idea of the world that’s quite optimistic, except on this one point that you hold an inherently contradictory position on. You’re reacting with habitual hostility, not reasoned consideration. Please, please, think about this. Have you ever actually gone and listened to, say, any video essays from feminist figures? Have you ever engaged with feminism at all outside of internet commenting? Or are you being told that this is what feminism is.
Feminism is necessary. It’s not delusional, it’s not dishonest, and women’s and men’s rights are being eroded every day in the western wold because of the current far-right administrations. When does it start being acceptable for women to fight back again, when every victory the second-wave feminists won have been reverted (instead of just half of them)? No, really, that’s a good question.
(And… what? What’s wrong with intersectionality? It’s literally just the study of biases in culture, it’s a core branch of sociology, and the first tenet of anti-racism is education about the historical realities of racism. There’s nothing more to it than that.)
- Comment on 2hot2handle 2 weeks ago:
I’m sorry it’s gotten late here, is your basis for claiming it as an anti-intellectual term really just that the word is a malformed portmanteau?
- Comment on It's still a crust, mom 2 weeks ago:
Like all things biological, some people
are just fuckin’ weirdosdo not follow the standard developmental cycles. Your tastes may start changing, or may never change, and those are all perfectly reasonable outcomes. - Comment on 2hot2handle 2 weeks ago:
I didn’t liken the two though, because that’s not the representation of your perspective I was interested in. I’m curious in the meta-analytical nature of why you hold this position - as an example, where is the line drawn between “being threatened with death” and “punching up”. I assume we agree on the idea that objecting to calls to gas all the queers isn’t problematic - but is calling someone a bigot for expressing the (deeply homophobic) view that femboys are constantly horny “punching up”? Or, if not there, calling out the ‘did you just assume my gender’ joke?
I’m really curious where you draw the line here. We sincerely appear to agree on damn near every issue except the one of feminism. Why is that? Where do our opinions diverge? Do we disagree on other things that, given our respective positions on so many other topics, one could be forgiven for assuming we’d share?
(And yes, I am claiming that the internet dipshit is an authority. I don’t think they are, I think they’re a dipshit - but my opinion isn’t the only opinion that exists, and the undeniable existence of the anti-vax movement has clearly elevated those self-same uninformed internet commenters to positions of trust and authority. They even put one in charge of HHS.)
- Comment on 2hot2handle 2 weeks ago:
So if I understand you correctly, your position is that there are two distinct facets to ‘arranging’ society — Order (that one person is inherently above or below another, a concept I agree is wrong) and Authority (that being the broad agreement to respect one person’s limited and highly contextual “superiority” within a specific area of knowledge).
Extrapolating an example to ensure I understand: this would mean that the legal system is granted the authority to enforce those rules society has agreed on, onto those people we’ve agreed are subject to it’s authority (which is a good way to think about it). And conflicting authorities can be handled in the same conceptual ‘framework’, like how people that respect Anthony Fauci exist at the same time as people who think Anthony Fauci is trying to inject us with ground up infants. Or how there are both authorities that respect LGBTQ+ people’s right to exist, and those that want us all rounded up and gassed.
But where I’m stumbling is that you’re considering “punching up” or “punching down” as something that can only be done against the Order of society (thus trying to elevate or denegrate someone as inherently above or below another person) and not something that is done against the Authorities in a society.
To my interpretation this fairly explicitly reads as you saying that when (ex:) LGBTQ+ people attempt to “punch up” against the authority figures who want them all gassed, that action is inherently implying that they are attempting to establish themselves as inherently superior to that other person in the Order of all humanity.
Is that misrepresenting your position?
- Comment on 2hot2handle 2 weeks ago:
Okay, I can work with this!
So to my eye, a lack of social hierarchy seems like a pretty ideal view of the world. How do you reconcile that outlook with the existence of things like governments or a legal system? Those would be what I consider an ordering of humans, and in that light it sounds like you’re saying “punching back” (as it were) against those social structures would be reinforcing those potentially oppressive structures (‘the patriarchy’) - have I got that right?
- Comment on 2hot2handle 2 weeks ago:
I’m circumspectly asking what you believe are the driving forces behind feminism’s popularity, absolutely. To carry your allusion, the first step in understanding any software is to check it’s dependencies; as natural languages just really messy formal languages, and by the transitive property of “I just made this up but it sounds good”, it holds that the first step to understanding someone’s statements is to examine the fundamental concepts they used to construct that statement.
To that end then, lets look at you holding some contempt for the idea of “punching up”. I doubt you intended that to be the takeaway, but it’s presented as the justification for an idea you have expressed strong disagreement to. If you held it was totally valid, there wouldn’t be much a conflict. So: why is it wrong to do in this case?
- Comment on 2hot2handle 2 weeks ago:
You seem to have a preconceived idea of what ‘mansplaining’ is and, in an effort to examine that, could you tell me why you think the term has achieved such widespread cultural use?
