Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)L
Posts
0
Comments
262
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • The second half was a joke about fetishes. Some could seem bizarre to others while ultimately benign. That it didn't land with you is informative.

    Your response, in general, is troubling in its shortsightedness. Stripping away all privacy as a requirement for office is not the filter you want it to be. Recent history illustrates that certain movements are unfazed by repulsive behavior as long as they believe a candidate will get them what they want. With that in mind, who would stand to be damaged most by your proposed requirement: the candidate who visited Nazi websites or the one whose browser history includes research on how to help someone legally obtain an abortion?

    Taking it further, who do you suppose would be most likely to use such information to self-cannibalize, the already barely cohesive left or the increasingly monolithic right? Consider that the post-9/11 reality we live in has seen both a constant erosion of personal privacy and a steady shift towards fascism, and ask yourself if you can honestly say that the two are unrelated. In this scenario, who truly benefits from stripping away privacy rights from those seeking office?

    You suggest a law that would almost certainly be weaponized, which I do believe is your intent, but the most likely targets aren't who you seem to think they would be.

  • Firstly, because seeking public office should not incur a complete loss of privacy.

    Secondly, because what we'd see would likely be mortifying.

    I mean there's probably some things there that simply can never be unseen. No amount of brain bleach could ever suffice.

  • What an absolutely disgusting thought. On multiple levels.

  • And the Ship of Theses is when you rewrite the seven parts of your dissertation so many times that you're not sure if it's even your original intent anymore

  • See that's the whole problem, gotta shell out for better wigs.

    "It costs a lot of money to look this cheap!"

  • So...

    Jump
  • That's exactly why I deleted it. Seemed a little too dry and slightly mean right after I posted it, so I immediately hit delete.

  • So...

    Jump
  • I find it hard to take seriously anyone who throws the term FUD around with no sense of irony.

  • Blackberry jam is my go-to

  • Why are you cutting a 2x4 with a hacksaw?

  • Something something hammer...

    Something something nail.

  • Both of you are in this thread! What are the odds?

  • The point being made is that Jamaican Patois is a language, not an accent. It's an English Creole.

  • The Aquabats

  • That's a big reaction for a tongue-in-cheek comment on an unpopular opinion post! Joe, is that you? I'm sorry they used Steve in Crossroads instead of you, but you gotta let it go! Sometimes the student becomes the teacher!

    Joking aside, the whole "soul" thing can be seen as somewhat of a compliment in a sense. Blackmore, Yngwie, Satch, Petrucci, Vai, Johnson, and other neoclassical players strove for technical perfection. The bits and bobs of music that are generally lumped into the idea of "soul" are the mistakes, the imperfections, the unintended, the miniscule fuckups. As an off the top example, think of Merry Clayton's voice cracking as she belted out a vocal masterwork in her pajamas and curlers after being dragged out of bed at midnight to back up Mick Jagger. It's imperfect, it's unrepeatable, and it's amazing.

    Contrast that with what the technical shredders were intending to do: they wanted to hit every note with exacting precision every time they played. It's no less impressive than those one-off moments like Gimme Shelter, but it's markedly different. Listeners who don't identify with the sound sometimes perceive a sort of sterility in the style, whether deserved or not. The degree of technicality alone can almost come across as machine-like. That doesn't mean that it has no merit, or that anyone who feels it deeply is in some way "defective". These guys wouldn't have had 40+ year careers if nobody was feeling what they were doing.

    Enjoy what you enjoy, groove to what grooves you, and above all else, be secure enough in your own taste that a bit of banter about a genre doesn't seem like a personal attack. Remember: Barry Manilow has sold over 85 million albums, so there really is a market for everything!

  • No? Well...

  • For me, that description fits Yngwie more than Satriani. Satch had at least 1%, maybe even a whopping 2% soul. Vai is probably sneaking up on double digits.

  • I like the list, but there's a disturbing lack of Steve Earle.

  • Between the username and the shopping list, I believe we've got a Roman on our hands here...