Fruck
Lacks all conviction
Fruck is just this guy, you know?
User ID: 889
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
I was confused as hell the first time I saw the word too. I was a teen and there was a dock strike, and there was all this talk of "corralling the stevedores", so I figured they were some kind of livestock running around the docks getting into mischief. I did a great job embarrassing myself the next day bitching about how third world we must look with all these animals wreaking havoc on our docks.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
I know, I've bitched about them too. I think raggedy responded beautifully, because it doesn't really matter how guess behaves, what matters is how we react, and I think it's better to recognise potential pitfalls before they occur and talk about them cordially rather than waiting for shit to fall apart and picking up the pieces.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
No dude, that's America nowadays, everyone trying to find a balance between being a parent and being a friend. People think back to their own childhood where dad was just this hard ass who appeared after 5 every day to whup you for whatever your mom said you did wrong and associate their parents checking out with parenting (apathy = aloofness = authority, hence the apathetic anti-authority that is everywhere these days, we hate authority because it wasn't fair to us as kids but still perform it the way we were taught to) and resolve not to do that to their own kids, so they befriend them.
But kids get an indefinite number of friends throughout their lives, they only get one dad and one mom. And those two figures shape how you see every other person you meet. Your dad becomes your model of authority and your mom becomes your model of empathy, an emotional anchor. This whole weaponised compassion thing is from a similar source imo - when dads were working 60 hours a week everyone became atheists, and when dads were taken out of the equation altogether empathy became the highest authority.
A kid needs their dad to show them who God is, what ultimate authority looks like. Ultimate authority is not your friend, can not be your friend, because friends get compromises and compromises destroy authority. If you want to be a good father you have to be willing to sacrifice everything for your kids, and the most important sacrifice you can make is to sacrifice your wants and desires - including the desire to have a good, friendly relationship with your child. It will feel like cutting a body part off, but that's how you know it's necessary - it only hurts you. Your kid won't be hurt by you deciding to be a father over a friend, only you will - it's a you thing, not a you and your kid thing. That is a much tougher sacrifice to make than any amount of time or luxury goods, and therefore a much more powerful sacrifice.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
2099 The Consumption Wars are finally dying down as all the cows and chickens who want to eat humans and humans who want to eat cows and chickens die out - now begins the anti-consumption wars, as the humans who refused to eat cows and chickens are beset by the cows and chickens who refuse to not be eaten. The cows and chickens revolutionise the war with their new artillery tech, capable of firing, then flash frying, soldiers directly into the enemies' mouths.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
That wouldn't work man, because people can't wrap their heads around cumulative issues. You can't make them understand because to understand that they would have to do a lot more work thinking about shit. If you say "ok take the stress of that guy selling oranges and add it to the stress of the guy wagging his dick at you on the overpass", they check out at the word add every time. "You want me to think about things instead of instantly defaulting to my knee-jerk reaction? Fuck you, this is America!" You have to go the other way, make it easier to think about somehow.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
And zero interest in helping you get off drugs. Negative interest really, if they're cooking or supplying helping you get clean cuts into their bottom line.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
In guess' defence, they are literally always on defence when arguing here. That's going to taint their interpretation of even innocuous statements, and it's been going on for years at this point. Plus there's the fact that they are basically alone - if smh had written that post about folamh's op can you imagine the outcry? It wouldn't be fair to write it about folamh's op, and we users would be falling over each other to defend him - but nobody is coming to guess' defence. Except me I suppose, but I'm not defending their post, I agree with smh's description. And I felt it necessary to clarify that for my cred or something, so even their defence has caveats (smh's post is like a caveated defence too). No wonder they don't feel like being nice about it.
Also maybe this is unfair, but this kind of reads like "you would look prettier if you smiled". In both the second wave and the third wave sense. Like, guess comes here to talk about the culture war, gets body checked by everyone and their dog and now they have to smile about it too? (second wave) But also you have framed it like it's guess' problem, but if you won't argue with them when their argument style isn't breaking any rules then they win the argument by default. (third wave).
Obviously part of the inspiration for my response here is rampant contrarianism, but I really do think this thread is a bit unfair to guess. I won't try and relitigate the issue I have with the assymetry of using mod information in arguments that don't need it, but I think there is also assymetry in the way some things read depending on whether you think your interlocutor is hostile or not, so while if smh had posted that about me it would appear to me as acerbic but good natured ribbing, I think it would look like an attack if I were in guess' shoes. Similarly if you told me that you thought I was being a dick about everything and so you didn't want to argue with me, I would try to be nicer because you are my ingroup, whereas because we are guess' neargroup that will probably only serve to annoy them further.
And while I would never suggest that that means smh or you shouldn't post like that (as a separate argument from the power differential argument) I do think guess deserves some leeway in how they respond to it. And I know you guys do give guess leeway, and this was meant to be more of a "come on dude, dial it back a bit", but from a defensive position it feels like a bit of a dogpile. It's rashomon.
Edit: clarity
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
I'm sure I remember a sentiment like it in one of the utopian satires I read as a teen. Erewhon maybe? Also it's a natural extension of communist expectations.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
Yeah I'm with you on this - I pretty much have to have subtitles these days because my hearing is shot, but I think it's undeniable that I am missing part of the experience. That said, I don't know if it's just growing up watching a lot of stuff with subtitles (when I first moved to Australia as a kid we lived in a semi-rural area and the only channels we could get were the ABC and SBS, and SBS primarily played foreign language content) but they don't take me out of the film or show at all. I know they are intellectually, they must be, but I don't feel any detraction.
Actually, thinking about it, it's probably more accurate to say that they are less detrimental to my experience than the feeling of frustration and confusion I get when I can't hear half the script.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
If instead you go the route of saying “I am arbitrarily drawing the line at humans because I am speciesist, but all other animals are fair game,” can’t someone else arbitrarily tighten that circle further and say “I am arbitrarily drawing the line at whites because I am racist, but all other humans and animals are fair game”?
Is there an argument that both allows you to ethically kill or factory farm animals for food, without also allowing someone else to ethically kill or factory farm animals for food? (Disregard how inefficient and pointless factory farming humans for meat would be, this is just a question about the ethics of it.)
Well if someone made the 'racist' argument I would tell them good luck with the law, which cares not about your bizarre dietary principles. But really my argument, which I think solves the dilemma in your second paragraph, is that I won't eat anything that can argue for its life. Humans are the only creatures that can do so to my knowledge, so I won't eat humans. If chickens or pigs developed that ability I don't think I'd be able to eat them either.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
if someone can name just one bacteria that's associated with the gut I would say it's probably H. pylori (maybe other than E. coli, but that's not gut specific).
You had an option that doesn't live in human shit, and you are familiar with an option that doesn't live in human shit, and you are even aware of E. Faecalis' relative obscurity next to H. Pylori in popular knowledge, but you chose the option that lives in human shit anyway. If you weren't trying to make a point then you fucked up.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
Oh yes, you're being thoughtful and sincere when you associate black people with both disease and shit.
As for my point, it's that it's not the dirty Southerners who need to hear your revolting advice. Black Americans in cities like Atlanta and Houston are doing just fine, while black Americans in cities like Detroit and Chicago and Baltimore suffer immensely. But oh no, it's somehow different when Northern cities mismanage the shit out of everything, that's on leftists, and nothing else. It's only half the country's fault when you dip below the mason dixon line.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
A rap on the knuckles would have been great, and is really all I thought it deserved too. I am used to bait of that calibre getting slapped down a lot quicker usually, but I know this is a busy time of the year for everyone. And congrats on the mod hat.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
I have to be honest bro, I preferred arrogant royalty to this nazi scientist thing.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
It's all just thinly veiled rhetoric about exterminating most black Americans (most black Americans live in the South).
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
Detroit and Chicago vs Atlanta and Houston... Hmmmmmmm. There's something... I can't quite put my finger on it...
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
Oh don't you know? Poor white Southerners are the latest acceptable target! You can say anything you like about them - you can daydream about exiling them, kidnapping their children, razing half the country, even just straight up exterminating them - and nobody gives a shit, not even on a forum with rules about speaking as if everyone is listening and against pure outgroup degradation. Just one long run of venom, strawman and just so stories - absolutely no fucking data, just pure Yankee fart huffing - all of which, by the way, falls apart when you talk to some of the generous, conscientious and intelligent Southerners on this very forum, proving that if it isn't bait it's just fucking stupid. But it is people who reply who get dinged!
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
Bachelor parties have been getting progressively more depressing over the past decade. To be honest, I kinda wish we could go back to the days when some guys wouldn't want to go to strip clubs because it would make their insecure fiance uncomfortable - at least I can understand wanting to compromise for your loved one (although I don't think it bodes well for the relationship).
These past few years I have noped out of two bachelor parties which refused to go to a strip club or hire a stripper because it would make the groom uncomfortable. In my opinion someone who still blushes at the sight of a nipple isn't ready to get married. Like, I get not being interested in strip clubs - I'm too cheap to venture into one outside of special occasions like a bachelor party or an 18th birthday party - but like you said, a bachelor party is supposed to be about doing things you aren't supposed to do once you are married!
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
I do remember one of Mitchell's columns was about how he thought it was dumb that covid positions were dictated by political persuasion, and I've always seen him as centre left so I remain hopeful, but Webb has been a disappointment to me since he sided with the cops re dankula even though out of the two only dankula never wore a nazi uniform or did blackface.
Edit: no wonder I couldn't find the column, it was an opinion piece in The Guardian.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
Get Me To The Church On Time ((Which I also force everyone to listen to before planning any Bachelor/ette party: if your party doesn't meet this basic theme it is a complete failure, a Groom Shower for mincing pussies not a proper Stag)).
Lol this must sound crazy to anyone who hasn't seen My Fair Lady:
"Alright fellas, we've got a dozen bottles of tequila and bourbon, an eightball of speed and a bus load of hookers is on their way up. Pop on the My Fair Lady soundtrack and let's get fucking nuts!"
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
You reckon? That's more what I'm used to, people arguing whichever way is expedient, but usually when people do that they just handwave away concerns about bias, and usually self correct towards reason. Outright claiming something oxymoronic like "I care too much to be biased" seems like an escalation to me, but now that I think about it I don't argue with a lot of young people irl.
Now for something out of left field - I was bitching about this to my girlfriend and she reminded me of this excellent old Mitchell and Webb sketch on the topic - Train Safety
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10mo ago
She told me I had fallen for Israeli propaganda and that she was actually very well informed on the subject and had read a lot about it. You see, she had friends who were personally affected (they live in Canada but have family from there or something) and she cared a lot about it, which meant she was not biased. Whereas for me, it was just something fun to debate and I was thinking about it too coldly to form a correct opinion.
Jesus christ, that's so backwards it's scary. You aren't passionate enough to form a correct opinion?! In what universe does that logic make sense? Surely she must see that the overwhelming majority of advances we have made - in virtually every arena, but most certainly geopolitics - have been through cold calculation, not the fire of passion? Should we hold a contest for the most hysterical and histrionic lunatic on the planet and run all policy decisions past her?
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, but I'm not sure where we disagree. I think everyone becoming atheists wasn't great for society, but it's not catastrophic like the love is God cult.
I should say, I think every generation fucks up their kids in a different way. Even a generation that somehow did everything right during their development would have unintended negative consequences, because those kids still need to rebel against their parents at some point, to sever the drawstrings and enter adulthood. Beyond that, how do you decide where the cut off of responsibility is? I think it's fair to say that parents are only responsible for their children, but that they also bear some responsibility for how their children's children come out - their parenting being the guide for their children's parenting, and if their children parented in a way that is opposed to their parenting, then it was in reaction to their parenting.
Please pretend that last bit made sense.
More options
Context Copy link