that absurd and embarrassing Guardian article has reminded me of the adage known as Betteridge's Law: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'".
This isn't the most important thing in any of the slop, but i fucking hate that it's accepted wisdom that any and all dogs belonging to a particular breed have all the same tendencies and proclivities, and not bc they've been raised, abused, neglected, abandoned and that's what teaches them to be dangerous - that's just eugenics done with dogs, and the conversation never gets to be about banning breeding all together as a cruel, creepy, abusive, controlling practice that forces inbreeding and all its painful health consequences on non-human animals, or about not treating other species like property, but instead it's about getting rid of "dangerous," "undesirable" breeds. And what is that supposed to mean for the dogs that exist already through no fault of their own? Should they just be executed? It's fucking vile. I say this as someone scared of a lot of big dogs bc of traumatic events involving dogs, but humans can't just fundamentally change species and ecosystems, treat them as less than alive and unleash them on the local habitat, and then fucking blame those living beings for the extremely predictable damage. Edit to clarify the beginning
I actually think this is an incredibly telling portion of the slop. The idea that we can just get rid of these dogs that "somehow" become dangerous without addressing their material conditions is very on brand for these ghouls; they think about humans in much the same terms but they feel like they can let the mask slip when talking about our doggo comrades. ETA: I say this as someone who lives with a ~130 lb doggo that is a sweetheart, but is of a breed that has been unfairly maligned in decades past.
Is Jonathan Jones in fandom?? He talks about that old pic of Sir Kid Starver like it's a tumblr gifset of his favorite anime character. "Look at the SYMBOLISM in these few seconds from episode 10, you guys!! Look at my favorite boy, he put in so much effort!!! #babykieth #ilovehimsomuch #husbando #britpol"
Okay doing my mind dojo exercises: part of the purpose of this slop seems to be reinforcing the idea that politics is a popularity/optics game? Why the fuck else would a publicity photo make a difference? Indeed, why else would an ART CRITIC be asked to analyze this? And also like... how fucking stupid do they think voters are, that they'd do their civic participation based on a single photo of one dude as a kid???? Okay, as I type this out, perhaps the purpose was just to waste time. It fills up air space talking about politics, so Esquire can act like a very serious publication for making it (usually they just do actors and stuff, right?) and the reader can feel like they're participating in democracy by consuming it. Even though we all know it is nothing, still they do it.
Okay now I'm at the debate part and I have to rant because it's boiling my piss!!!!! Once when I was in college, we had a little debate to practice debating, and we used a hotly disputed political issue of the time: gay marriage, yes or no? The debate wasn't super formal or structured (because it was a bad class), but we were *assigned by the prof* to Team Yes or Team No (again, terrible class), with two exceptions: me, the only gay person (probably) (no one was out), and for Team No, the only republican. I was the only one of us who did any real research or prep but the fact that the whole thing was treated like a legitimate question with two equal sides is boiling my piss all over again. I didn't think the whole thing could get worse, but now I'm imagining if the fucking leader of the democrats was there to play referee after publicly supporting the right wing position. FUCK this whole thing. (Anyway I hope my liveblogging the vod watch in the comments isn't too annoying! I sent in a tip to atone, good luck again with the teeth ♥)
"I think the crumbling building are a metaphor" I am screaming. They are NOT A METAPHOR. Why do we live in a world where fiction is taken as literal facts being revealed by Hollywood elites or whatever but literal EVENTS are metaphors? What is happening?
Inverted Y and X axis makes sense if you imagine that the control stick is sticking out of your characters back. Pushing forward on the stick bends your character forward looking down. Pushing the stick to the left makes your character look to the right. Personally I don't like it, but I can see how some people might prefer inverted X and Y axis, particularly in a game with a 3rd person view.
It’s funny how the guardian article openly fawns over Starmer’s managerial outlook, given that managers are generally an unelected class of callous suits whose sole purpose is to serve the higher ups and capital at the cost of the employees and increasingly too at the cost of the actual quality of their product.
Politics is a highly skilled job requiring special knowledge and training, and those of us who don't run in those circles could never understand what goes into it. It's best for us to just stay on the sidelines, root for our team, display good sportsmanship and never be sore losers.
Inverting Y axis makes it so when you push forward, the character looks down, the same way your neck works. Inverted X axis is, I guess, a speed run challenge?
I'm sorry what!? Starmer is interrupted by a fire alarm and he just ignores it? Do ... do you just test if the alarm works, but not teach kids how to react in the case of a real emergency over there?
stream starts at 16:00
that absurd and embarrassing Guardian article has reminded me of the adage known as Betteridge's Law: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'".
This isn't the most important thing in any of the slop, but i fucking hate that it's accepted wisdom that any and all dogs belonging to a particular breed have all the same tendencies and proclivities, and not bc they've been raised, abused, neglected, abandoned and that's what teaches them to be dangerous - that's just eugenics done with dogs, and the conversation never gets to be about banning breeding all together as a cruel, creepy, abusive, controlling practice that forces inbreeding and all its painful health consequences on non-human animals, or about not treating other species like property, but instead it's about getting rid of "dangerous," "undesirable" breeds. And what is that supposed to mean for the dogs that exist already through no fault of their own? Should they just be executed? It's fucking vile. I say this as someone scared of a lot of big dogs bc of traumatic events involving dogs, but humans can't just fundamentally change species and ecosystems, treat them as less than alive and unleash them on the local habitat, and then fucking blame those living beings for the extremely predictable damage.
Edit to clarify the beginning
I actually think this is an incredibly telling portion of the slop. The idea that we can just get rid of these dogs that "somehow" become dangerous without addressing their material conditions is very on brand for these ghouls; they think about humans in much the same terms but they feel like they can let the mask slip when talking about our doggo comrades.
ETA: I say this as someone who lives with a ~130 lb doggo that is a sweetheart, but is of a breed that has been unfairly maligned in decades past.
Is Jonathan Jones in fandom?? He talks about that old pic of Sir Kid Starver like it's a tumblr gifset of his favorite anime character. "Look at the SYMBOLISM in these few seconds from episode 10, you guys!! Look at my favorite boy, he put in so much effort!!! #babykieth #ilovehimsomuch #husbando #britpol"
Okay doing my mind dojo exercises: part of the purpose of this slop seems to be reinforcing the idea that politics is a popularity/optics game? Why the fuck else would a publicity photo make a difference? Indeed, why else would an ART CRITIC be asked to analyze this? And also like... how fucking stupid do they think voters are, that they'd do their civic participation based on a single photo of one dude as a kid????
Okay, as I type this out, perhaps the purpose was just to waste time. It fills up air space talking about politics, so Esquire can act like a very serious publication for making it (usually they just do actors and stuff, right?) and the reader can feel like they're participating in democracy by consuming it. Even though we all know it is nothing, still they do it.
Okay now I'm at the debate part and I have to rant because it's boiling my piss!!!!! Once when I was in college, we had a little debate to practice debating, and we used a hotly disputed political issue of the time: gay marriage, yes or no?
The debate wasn't super formal or structured (because it was a bad class), but we were *assigned by the prof* to Team Yes or Team No (again, terrible class), with two exceptions: me, the only gay person (probably) (no one was out), and for Team No, the only republican. I was the only one of us who did any real research or prep but the fact that the whole thing was treated like a legitimate question with two equal sides is boiling my piss all over again.
I didn't think the whole thing could get worse, but now I'm imagining if the fucking leader of the democrats was there to play referee after publicly supporting the right wing position. FUCK this whole thing.
(Anyway I hope my liveblogging the vod watch in the comments isn't too annoying! I sent in a tip to atone, good luck again with the teeth ♥)
How can someone be so down bad for the most mild man in Britain.
by day, meek and mild-mannered Keir Starmer! but by night, the uncredible Kid Starver, protector of the British Way!
"I think the crumbling building are a metaphor" I am screaming. They are NOT A METAPHOR. Why do we live in a world where fiction is taken as literal facts being revealed by Hollywood elites or whatever but literal EVENTS are metaphors? What is happening?
Inverted Y and X axis makes sense if you imagine that the control stick is sticking out of your characters back. Pushing forward on the stick bends your character forward looking down. Pushing the stick to the left makes your character look to the right.
Personally I don't like it, but I can see how some people might prefer inverted X and Y axis, particularly in a game with a 3rd person view.
It’s funny how the guardian article openly fawns over Starmer’s managerial outlook, given that managers are generally an unelected class of callous suits whose sole purpose is to serve the higher ups and capital at the cost of the employees and increasingly too at the cost of the actual quality of their product.
1:01:33 sophie.exe has stopped working
Speed for the speed god! Running for the running throne!
Politics is a highly skilled job requiring special knowledge and training, and those of us who don't run in those circles could never understand what goes into it. It's best for us to just stay on the sidelines, root for our team, display good sportsmanship and never be sore losers.
so many moments in the articles calling him working class. like, since when???????
Inverting Y axis makes it so when you push forward, the character looks down, the same way your neck works. Inverted X axis is, I guess, a speed run challenge?
One of these days I will catch one of your livestreams D:
I'm sorry what!? Starmer is interrupted by a fire alarm and he just ignores it? Do ... do you just test if the alarm works, but not teach kids how to react in the case of a real emergency over there?
So Starmer was always a poser?