Oh derp, I saw "October 9th" and glossed over the rest. Yeah no surprise. Telling a joke like that in that environment might get you killed. Not that they see any problem with that I guess.
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 647
- Joined
- 12 mo. ago
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 647
- Joined
- 12 mo. ago
Extremely disgusting. I already found most of these people uncool and unfunny but I thought Bill Burr was at least alright (still didn't think he was funny, but he at least seemed to have sane political views - guess not). The only way any of them can make this a respectable choice is if they're doing it Trojan Horse style, and they're planning to tell a bunch of jokes shitting on Saudi Arabia and calling them out for their infinity of evil acts. Not getting my hopes up for that, though.
The Guardian remains respectable and has not pulled punches in this article at least.
No I haven't - is there a particular book you'd recommend?
Whaaaaat. Unexpected fallout indeed. What a mess...
I feel like certain extreme adventures should involve waiving your right to rescue. Why should four plus competent, trained, healthy people have to risk their lives to save someone who is most likely incompetent, untrained, and unhealthy - but merely buying their way into extreme conditions?
If I decided I want to make a trek across the Sahara using nothing but authentic 1000 B.C equipment, why should anyone have to endanger themselves to save me? If I want an extreme outdoors adventure, isn't foregoing rescue really adding to the appeal?
But the worst thing is that those who survive will just have the ultimate accolade, in their minds. Of course out of all the cool places on Earth to go, dumbass shallow LinkedIn-posting, Medium-blogging C-suite "grind" types have to pick the place that elevates them above all the other peons (aided of course, by some peons they underpaid to take them there). And when their own hubris endangers them, rather than accept their fate, they demand yet more peons endanger themselves to rescue them. It's like a microcosm of the whole world. Fuck these people. You sign up to summit Mount Everest - you're signing up to maybe die. Isn't that what you wanted? Real risk? Real adventure? Or did you just want an appearance of it that you could repost to others in your life, like everything else? Fuck
Yeah I swear every time religion appears innocuous it's actually just incubating its next wave of evil. At some point people need to say enough is enough. No more being tolerant of religion or polite about it. They should be treated with the same two-faced smiling disgust they treat us with.
This is actually kinda crazy. It just goes to show how a lot of infrastructure we take for granted is a lot more fragile than one would believe. Kinda concerning. At least this isn't technically critical infrastructure, I guess?
"Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice."
This is one of the most flagrant and reprehensible environmental crimes in quite awhile. What will come of it? And because it's not in my state, there's not much I can do to make it worse for them. I expect a small fine and business as usual.
I’m not sure why you’re getting angry about this. If you’re correct, then my disagreement comes from a misunderstanding of what you’re saying. I’m not trying to be an asshole, in fact I hope I’ve come off respectfully to you. I know it’s upsetting that I seem to hold a belief that you believe is harmful, but I am at least trying to be respectful and come to a consensus. I like to talk to people with different opinions, not so that I can prove my correctness over them (I already intrinsically believe my own correctness by virtue of believing it), but so that I can change my opinion if I am wrong. I really don't want to be upsetting or antagonistic to you. I want to learn, understand, and grow. I am not trying to rephrase things and receive headpats, but it's up to you to decide if you want to believe I'm commenting in good faith or not.
With that out of the way, I do not believe I am expressing the mindset the standup is ridiculing. I believe the comedian is ridiculing someone who gets mad or threatened over their partner orgasming with a vibrator. I also dislike and condemn this behavior. I am only trying to provide a shade of subtlety to the ongoing social discussion on this issue by saying that the sexual desire in itself to bring one's partner to orgasm without a vibrator is not a shameful or condemnable belief to hold. I had thought you and I were in total agreement, in fact, until you said that the desire itself should be condemned. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "the wishing itself". But if not, then there's a much more interesting discussion to have that could touch on a lot of cool subtleties about the issue, and we might both enjoy thinking about it.
Once again I'm sorry for having been frustrating. At the very least let me reaffirm as plainly as possible: someone being angry, bitter, jealous, or hurt by their partner not orgasming in the way they want, is exhibiting a harmful sexual mentality that should be changed. I hope our agreement on that front allows you to mark me off your "one of those assholes who is mad about the vibrator" list. ┐(´ー｀)┌
You said the wishing in itself should be condemned - the wishing, in this case, referring to the 4th item on my list. It seemed like your reasoning was that the wishing is a bad mindset, so I was trying to illustrate how the wishing is not the same as having a bad mindset. If you agree I've done that, then mustn't it be the case that the wishing itself should not be condemned?
I agree none of that is getting frustrated. That was exactly my point, that the wishing itself is not necessarily always coinciding with frustration, therefore the wishing itself is not what needs condemnation, the frustration is.
You are still conflating "I would like it if I could make my partner orgasm with my bare hands" and "why won't my partner orgasm the way I want to" as beliefs that must always go together. But it is totally possible to simultaneously believe and act on all the following:
- How can I pleasure my partner more?
- I love making my partner cum with the vibrator
- I don't expect my partner to cum the way I want them to
- I would like it if I could make my partner orgasm in more ways than they currently do (i.e with my bare hands rather than a vibrator)
Isn't it? At least, I see no reason for mutual exclusivity of these
For sure for sure. I hope that my agreement with this sentiment was clear in my post. But there's nothing about that sentiment that precludes someone from also reasonably wishing that they could bring their partner to orgasm without non-organic, non-self implements.
I'm saying, people shouldn't be averse to using the vibrator - but just because they shouldn't be averse to it doesn't mean that it's bad, dumb, or unreasonable to also wish to not always use the vibrator to orgasm or to have your partner orgasm.
The fact that its impractical doesn't make it a shameful desire that should be eradicated. Some people wish their partner would fill them up with like, 4 cups of semen. That's unrealistic (impossible). If they say "I don't want to fuck you because you never produce 4 cups of semen like how I'd prefer", then that is stupid and bad behavior, just like not making your partner orgasm with a vibrator just because you wish they didn't need it is stupid and bad. But the wishing in itself should not be condemned.
I think the assumption that just because the wish exists, anger also exists is part of the problem that leads to condemnation of the wish. "And if you feel that not being able to make your partner cum the way you want to is a problem? Grow the fuck up." - absolutely true, but just because someone wants their partner to cum in a different way than they actually do, doesn't mean they see it as a problem. It may just be a desire or fantasy. Additionally, if that desire is central to their own sexual satisfaction, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to say that that's not wrong of them but rather an irreconcilable sexual difference. If someone really likes fingerbanging girls, but their girl hates it, that's not a situation where either of them is in the wrong or needs to change what they're attracted to - it's just an incompatibility.
While I agree that feeling EMASCULATED by a vibrator is ridiculous, as men are not meant to have vibrating functionality, I think just as many women would feel just as bummed out by it if men did a similar thing. Imagine if a man only got like half of the way there fucking you, then pulled out and was like "oh quick get that super tight fleshlight out so I can cum". Is it really so hard to understand why that might feel bad? Like sure, this fleshlight thing may be tighter than any biological vagina ever could be, but does that really make it not bother you? And even if it doesn't bother you, wouldn't it be nice if that wasn't always necessary?
Because although penises aren't meant to vibrate, and vaginas aren't meant to squeeze like a tight fist, penises ARE "supposed" to please vaginas and vice versa, and if the literal climax of pleasure is not attainable by those means, why are we acting like that's a silly thing to wish was different?
Don't all people, regardless of their own sex or gender, or the gender of their partner, enjoy the idea of bringing their partner to orgasm using their own body and not a device? I have made my girlfriend orgasm manually, orally, penetratively, and with vibrators. They're all fun ways to do it! But if we could only do it with a vibrator, I'd certainly be wishing we could get there other ways too. Is that really so silly? Each method has its own charms. So it seems very insensitive to put down these feelings, and it's also gross to do it with a sports metaphor.
Ahhh I see, I was confused about what you were getting at. My mistake. And yes that's very true...hmm. More dire than I was even thinking then..
Honestly this is exactly the kind of thing that taxes and governments are supposed to be good for handling. Failures within failures I suppose!
Yes, it does apply to every operating system - hence, the differentiator becomes whether the operating system has hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on dedicated security development. This is why a lot of companies now don't even let you use Android devices for BYOD aside from Google or Samsung, because they're the only companies with the resources to keep their security really up to date.
Yeah basically I think the closer to 50% renewal the better. That sends a nice message of " it was worth it to go back on the decision, but we also need to not do more things like this". This is generally the good strategy for forgiveness in between individual humans too. Forgive 50% right off the bat. If you forgive 0% then there's no point in them changing their behavior, if you forgive 100%, there's also no point in them changing their behavior, because they can just do whatever they want and then collect 100% forgiveness afterwards. So you gave around 50% depending on the severity of the wrongdoing, and then incrementally build that back up with continued good behavior.
Yeah honestly, while I do think that part of the issue with Linux popularity is that it doesn't have some big corporate marketing sponsor, I truly believe that the bigger part of it is just the absolute roughness of the user experience and the still dominant mentality of wanting it to be some kind of prestige flex club. Linux needs to become as brain dead simple and out of the box usable as iOS or Windows. Linux folks love to say that it already is. It isn't. I use Linux, and I really like it. But if you think it's as straightforward as the big two, you're lost in the sauce. You're like the math professor who says "Come on guys double integrals are NOT that complicated, it's basically just addition and multiplication. Don't you know how to add and multiply?"
The big problem is that the intersection of people who are not lost in the sauce and who want to and are capable of actively making contributions to Linux, is very very small.
I respect where you're coming from, But the mentality of Linux users to say "skill issue" in these situations is the #1 reason why Linux isn't more adopted. Is it a skill issue on the user's end or is it a skill issue on the Linux developers' end? Maybe they should make more automatically functional out of the box software. Doesn't feel too nice to be told that does it?
Not everyone has time to become skilled in computing. Additionally, Linux users are so deep in the computing rabbit hole that they don't even appreciate how deep in it they really are. What strikes them as basic or fundamental is really confusing for a lot of people.
It is not acceptable to just blame the user and say that the problem is that the user is a fool. That could maybe be a reasonable standpoint if 99% of people were using the software without issue, but we all know that isn't the case with Linux.
Someone wants to boot up their computer and get on Wi-Fi and play games with their updated drivers. Windows provides that out of the box, without them needing to do anything. That is factually a better experience than needing to screw around reading a bunch of guides and forums and running commands that you don't understand for potentially multiple hours. Blaming that on the user just means that the users continue to have a bad experience. If that's the view the community wants to take, fine - But then don't complain when the majority of people don't want to use your thing.
What is it that you go to Reddit for that you don't get from Lemmy? To me, the only reason someone might look at Reddit instead is if Lemmy lacks the content they seek - do you think that's the case for you? Or maybe it's something else?