chuckleslord
@chuckleslord@lemmy.world
- Comment on Can anyone explain why? 7 hours ago:
Ah yes! The prostitutes, JFK and Stalin
- Comment on Stay safe, everyone. 7 hours ago:
I don’t respect shitty weather channel naming shit. It just devalues actual weather systems worthy of names.
- Comment on Can anyone explain why? 7 hours ago:
They’re not? But they do help with the anxiety of academic and social pressures
- Comment on Y'all got one, right? 1 day ago:
71,000 mating pairs isn’t exactly an L, dude.
- Comment on Y'all got one, right? 1 day ago:
Ah! I see it. That’s, umm, old news. The population has made significant gains since hunting was banned in the 60s. That, plus the banning of DDT, brought the 417 nesting pairs in 1963 to >71,000 pairs today.
- Comment on Y'all got one, right? 1 day ago:
… it’s illegal to touch a bald eagle, let alone hunt one. Their populations are thriving in the US. What are you even talking about?
- Comment on Anon gets nostalgic 4 days ago:
Ah yes. Romanticizing gentrification. Elegance!
- Comment on Bioindicator PSA 5 days ago:
The meme removed what they actually indicated for just “soil”. It’s absurdist, though technically correct.
- Comment on It's barely a science. 5 days ago:
It’s a field full of grifters that get lifted up because they tell rich people what they want to hear.
The Chicago School is the driving force behind the rise of neoliberalism, the movement right of Western democracies, and the return of fascism in America.
Yes, there’s good work done in the field. But economists could prove definitively that capitalism is killing us all and that socialism is the only solution to organizing civilisation, and the only economists being platformed would continue to be neoliberal shit heels.
- Comment on Exploding 🌳🌲🌴🌳🌲🌴🌳🌲🌴🌳 1 week ago:
It was raining here two weeks ago. Temperatures were in the 20-30s earlier this week. It’s being far below freezing AND recent warm weather that’s the danger.
- Comment on Keep everyone safe. Please cover coughing and sneezing 1 week ago:
Wrong. Cover with the crook of your arm, not your hand. The point is to reduce the contact between your phlegm and other people’s faces. If you cough into your hand and then touch something, you’ll get others sick.
Honestly, this disinformation makes me sick! /s
- Comment on what an odd reoccurring pattern 1 week ago:
I’m neurodivergent as fuck, but I think this post is supposed to be sarcastic. So stating that you see it sincerely rings odd.
- Comment on Learning Japanese 2 weeks ago:
Really? That’s why I got a down vote? Dude, my metaphor in the first comment was likening it to “if we (Americans) called First Nation land ‘Indialand’”. So, no. If you map the metaphor back onto to the counter, it’s the UK’s fault, not America’s.
- Comment on What team would you put and why? 2 weeks ago:
Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers. Rita Repulsa and Lord Zedd
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
Yes, it is. It’s why they moderated that they did it as “very intentionally, just trying to get through”. Moving someone or their stuff without permission is an act of physical aggression. I’m not saying they punched them or anything, but there were aggressive in a physical manner.
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
Such a great piece of fiction that the phenomenon I just recounted has been lived by real people before
reddit.com/…/asked_reddit_why_white_people_dont_m…
Am… am I god?/s
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
So, you attempted regular social queues to communicate what you wanted, and when that failed you escalated to physical aggression and then got upset that the other person got upset?
Like, not trying to throw you under the bus or anything, you both miscommunicated in that situation but you were the one to escalate. If the other person didn’t know what they were doing wrong, couldn’t you have just told them “I’m so sorry, but I can’t get my cart around yours” when they didn’t get why you couldn’t get past?
It really sounds like you were both tired and didn’t have the grace in that moment for each other, rather than some failing on either of your parts.
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
I feel like you don’t understand the position because there is nothing in what you’re saying that implies that you do.
I’m going to play this conversation as it occurred from my perspective to see if you see what I mean.
Your first response is “you’re taking an absurdist position, so I’ll take the opposite absurdist position to demonstrate the problem. Could we eliminate all racist rules, of course not. Car rules can be racist, but we can’t just not have car rules”
I reply “yeah, but we can not have cars. Cars aren’t a requirement for society”
You reply “but rules would still apply to those who do the not car transport”
I reply “yes, but that wouldn’t exclude them from society. They would still be able to participate, unlike those kicked out of the hypothetical store”
To which you reply “but the grocery store wouldn’t apply to everywhere”
And I retort “no, but if they had any popularity, they would expand in order to deny disadvantaged people groceries at these ‘better’ stores”
And then your latest reply, which I can’t summarize without it becoming a straw man (my failing, not necessarily yours).
This grocery store isn’t “people extending basic decency” it’s “people not inconveniencing others on threat of permanent removal”. One is a social contract extended by and agreed to by others (basic decency) and the other is a threat enforced by the system, in this case the grocery store. You’re arguing that systems need rules. I’m arguing that using systems when it could just be standard human interaction is insane. Do you see the disconnect now?
Systems should be built to accommodate humans, not replace human interaction. Jane paying with a checkbook isn’t a reason she be barred from a public service. Christ on bikes, man.
- Comment on Learning Japanese 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, just like it was an Italian man that first called them Indians. Wouldn’t make it Italy’s fault if Americans called it Indialand, though.
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
Agreed. Fuck cars and accept that other people aren’t going to be perfect and that that’s okay for them to be.
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
Separate but equal, eh? Gonna introspect on that, or nah?
Someone in this thread went the extra mile and even called them “the shitty” stores. Which is nice. Brings the warm and cozies, that /s
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
People walking towards each other on the sidewalk usually subconsciously move out of each other’s ways. But there’s a hierarchy to these interactions that you’re probably only aware of if you’re at the bottom of it. White people tend to resist deferring to people of color. White women will rarely defer to anyone, expecting everyone to get it of their way. People of color will defer to white people, etc, etc.
If you break this subconscious hierarchy, people notice and assume you’re being rude or weird. Like if you move enough out of a white women’s way so that she, too, can move a little out of your way so that you both avoid each other (like equals would do), she might just walk into you. Or cuss you out for being rude. Or when I, a white man, defer to person of color, it trips them up for a second.
Since this hypothetical grocery store is nothing but “don’t break unspoken rules about rudeness or you get kicked out” it means that a black person would need to act meek and submissive in order to avoid scrutiny and thus be able to stay. Meaning the rules would be more stringent against people of color, thus less people of color would be accepted, thus justifying their usual exclusion.
Ableism is super easy. Since this hypothetical prioritizes convenience over people, if you’re slow at something or need more accommodation, you’d get kicked out.
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
Lol, you think Karens would be kept out of Karen heaven. Lmao, even.
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
If this idea was implemented and had any amount of popularity it would spread everywhere like wild fire cause it’d be one more thing
to crush the poor withcater to white people whocan’t be fucked to talk to peopledon’t want to be inconvenienced. People usually don’t have much choice in what stores they have access to (see food deserts) - Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, I tend to be perceived that way. I’d rather be seen as aggressive than be a polite asshole
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
Yes, because that would be their job and they wouldn’t be excluded from society if they fail to live up to that. They’d just take public transit like anyone else.
I’m saying “systems need to be oriented towards people and how they act, rather than punishing people for being unable to act in a way that they’re not wired for”. This hypothetical grocery store punishes people for being minorly thoughtless to spare other people the indignity of having to say something or silently suffer with the minor inconvenience.
It takes a human interaction with low stakes and turns it into a systemic interaction where harm to people becomes an abstract thing, so harm tends to become more prolific.
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, the solution is to orient society in such a way where the operation of a deadly, several ton method of conveyance isn’t a requirement to participate in the world. Public transit, biking, and people-oriented spaces. Fuck cars
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
Bruh, I got autism. This person decided to create a hypothetical grocery store instead of just saying “what’s the deal with people in grocery stores? Why are they always in my way?”
You make a hypothetical system as a funny observation, I’m going to shit on the hypothetical before anyone thinks its an actually good idea. Cause people do that shit. Like a whole lot. Check the person who’s trying to defend it as a good idea for an example
Demi Adejuyigbe made a parody of racism in his stand-up special “Demi Adejuyigbe is going to do one (1) back-flip” where he said all Latina women were 6’2" and people started parroting that shit back to him with no introspection on what the fuck they were saying.
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
Wow, false dichotomy much? I get it, you liked the idea and think me attacking it is like me attacking you. Once you grow up, you’ll realize that not everything is about you.
Sorry, I meant if you grow up.
- Comment on What a great idea 2 weeks ago:
Not what I’m fucking saying, but good try. Something being used to justify racism isn’t saying “this is on its face racism” its saying “racists will use the stringent, strict rules of this place to deny people of color access to this space”. All of these complaints are things that everyone does to some extent, you just get frustrated by them when you’re probably already frustrated.
People of color take up more space in white people’s heads, so they get more policing of their behavior even if it isn’t justified. A group of white boys being loud in a grocery store get head shakes and “boys will be boys” comments. A group of black boys being loud in a grocery store get followed around by security and white women clutching their purses.
Also fun how you sidestepped the ableism I brought up in that same sentence. Cause you know there’s no fucking argument there, huh?