bsbbtnh
2yr ago
Other options;
-
purchase a gun and a bullet
-
purchase a small tank of helium from Walmart or Amazon
-
try and meet a serial killer online
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
I was being a bit hyperbolic. I simply mean we use the full power of the state to punish them, and that could of course include shooting them if the circumstances required it.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
One thing I've noticed is that if you hire someone to do a job (like pick up litter), many people feel more justified in littering, since they can say it keeps someone employed.
I think this, in general, leads to neighbourhoods getting worse overtime.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
Removing the dumbest and most impulsive criminals from society as fast as possible seems like a net boon.
If they were actually removed. And I'd argue that we could do it faster by actually having cops go after criminals, rather than sifting through traffic stops to find them.
Doesn't this contradict the first point? If you're going to need to arrest these imbeciles at some point, you might as well get it over with.
Completely agree. So let's shift police work towards finding and investigating criminals, rather than ignoring burglaries and property crime in favour of traffic stops and such.
Wait, I thought you were just saying that arresting the low-level criminals was a problem because it's not politically tenable...
I'm not saying we shouldn't arrest low-level criminals. I'm saying that we shouldn't use minor crimes and traffic violations as a pretext to finding them.
The IRS investigates tax crimes, not local police. The USPS has officers that investigate mail crime. Many cities have traffic cops that don't carry weapons, who don't arrest (many) people, who simply issue tickets for parking violations and such. Why not have the average officer focused on 'real' crime, and get parking enforcers to also deal with traffic stops, littering, fare evasion, and quality-of-life crimes?
But if some criminal scum decides to use violence against some lowly, 'underpaid', unarmed citation officer, then we use the force of the state to crush the violent individual.
Well, not everybody. Pretty much all decent people just don't litter or jump turnstiles.
Sure, but it extends to traffic stops and basically any pretext cops can use to investigate you because they have some 'gut' feeling. There's a not so insignificant amount of cops (and people in general) who think they are smarter than they are. They think they are Will Smith in MIB, shooting the 10 year old girl with an advanced physics textbook. Some cop thinks they see something suspicious in you, and they start looking for a reason to stop you. And many of those reasons are things regular people do multiple times a day.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
In an ideal world, the police would be focusing their resources on catching those criminals, rather than hoping a random broken tail light will lead to a major bust. And major criminals wouldn't feel the need to run (or kill) in order to evade a minor ticket.
If we are simply using minor laws to capture criminals, then why not make more minor laws to catch criminals? I'd prefer to live in a society where laws are meant to keep people on track, rather than to undermine people in order for cops to hold broader investigations. So having wider enforcement, but smaller punishments, for minor crimes and civil violations seems more important, overall.
Police have no incentive in actually reducing minor crime if their purpose is to simply use minor crime as a pretext to find people with warrants, guns, drugs, etc.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
I think expediting the capture of criminals is a good thing
But randomly catching them by targeting people breaking minor laws isn't expediting it. Having police go and find someone when a warrant is issued would be the quickest. Instead, we've turned routine stops into inquisitions.
We could drop the pretext, and just empower police to stop and search/investigate anybody. That would catch even more criminals. At the end of the day, we are giving up more freedom for the masses in order to gain a tiny bit of security. COVID showed us just how far the government can push that, and the masses largely complied (or at least didn't publicly disagree). I doubt the government will reign in their powers; now every institution is going to want to leverage many of those things to apply to their area of expertise. If we can lockdown an entire nation, demand COVID testing and vaccinations to go out in public, why could we not do the same if a serial killer is on the loose? Lockdown a community, require DNA testing and an alibi to go to work.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
I don't think back-to-work legislation would be constitutional anymore. In 2015, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that striking is a constitutional right, a component of collective bargaining which is protected in the charter under the freedom to associate. And Ontario courts struck down the 2012 back-to-work legislation as infringing on the collective bargaining rights of school employees.
So using the notwithstanding clause seems like the only way to actually do this, since I doubt the courts will see janitors as essential as police or w/e (and I never read the full Supreme Court case, so who knows, maybe police and doctors are allowed to strike?).
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
But this union's raises in the past decade combined were less than inflation last year.
Though the union seems to be asking for annual wage increases of 11.7%. I'd imagine this is a 5-year contract. So the average will go from $48k to $80k. And this would be what every other union asks for. Basically doubling Ontario's expenditures.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
Hopefully the province enforces all the fines, especially the ones against the union. It'd set a very bad precedent if people who aren't legally allowed to strike receive no punishment if they do.
Anyways, it's my personal opinion that public sector unions should not be able to strike. They have too much power.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
I think it's just generally bad policy to use minor crimes like that as a pretext for finding people with active warrants. It is detrimental to society as a whole.
First, you're mostly just going to catch the stupidest criminals this way. The smarter criminals will be able to evade capture for much longer. So we're only catching people who would have eventually been caught, anyways.
Second, stupid criminals will make stupid choices. They'll make the decision to run/fight more often than not. This means cops could get injured, or some dumb criminal (and many criminals are legitimately mentally retarded) will get hurt/killed. And today that could lead to city-wide protests that cause hundreds of millions in damages (from looting, vandalism, and just lost economic opportunity from businesses being closed and consumers staying away).
Third, as a political consequence, we end up with police pulling back, and stupid policies saying not to enforce quality of life crimes, and even some non-violent crimes (primarily drug and property crimes). And that's just going to make life worse for everyone.
Here's what a better system would be. We get a bunch of lowly paid people who issue small tickets to people who violate simple laws. Traffic and parking violations, fare evasion, jay walking, littering, etc. We put these people in stupid, non-threatening uniforms. They are instructed not to chase people, not to look for warrants, not to arrest people. If something goes wrong, they run. If a citizen ever lays hands on these individuals, we send in the real police to do a summary execution. Otherwise cops aren't involved in anything to do with those stops or enforcement of those laws.
We take cops, and instead of paying them $100k+/year to hopefully catch people with warrants and guns while enforcing petty crimes and civil violations, we send them to catch people with warrants by actually looking for the people who have warrants. And they can do things like respond to burglaries, stolen property complaints, things like that.
And this way, if cops end up killing someone, it likely won't be over some petty shit. And if riots do break out over that, politicians and citizens won't be targeting the quality of life enforcers. They can still operate and continue a constant level of enforcement, so that cities don't fall to shit.
It's absurd to pay police officers to be stopping people for broken traffic lights, or for littering, or for evading fares. Because then everybody becomes guarded in their interactions with police. You'll always worry that a stop is about something more. It's unhealthy to have a populace that is constantly worried when police are around, especially if crime is high and you want police around more.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
I think making verification a single payment would be far better than monthly. For monthly, they should just make it a premium thing, and attach various benefits to it. Like your tweets are more likely to be promoted to the top. Maybe allow people who are verified AND have premium accounts have the ability to have paid subscribers, and those paid subs can see pallwalled tweets. Maybe even a feature to 'tip' people. If Twitter takes a few percent, then they'll be rolling in dough.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
Gab has some rules, most notably, no pornography.
This is why right-wing 'free speech' platforms never take-off. Reddit wouldn't have been very popular without porn. Neither would 4chan. Or twitter. Or tumblr. Etc, etc.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
Some questioned whether marketing the movie as an important milestone in gay cinema made it less enticing than marketing it as a funny comedy.
When I was watching the trailer, I was really enjoying it. I got a really 90s/early 00s feeling from the dialogue. But then it got to the blowjob scene, and that was extremely off-putting.
Anyways, I wouldn't describe this as a RomCom, but instead as a SexCom. It's produced by Judd Apatow, and most of Judd's work is SexComs labelled as RomComs. SexComs are raunchy, typically aimed at younger dudes, usually peppered with attractive women, lots of sex jokes and innuendo. You're getting horny guys to come out and see hot chicks and comedy. Judd Apatow has slowly blended more romance into his sexcoms, and let off the gas a bit on the sex, too, making them a bit more palatable for general audiences. But there's a reason we're seeing Megan Fox get her tits massaged by another woman, and it isn't 'romance'.
With Bros, this formula isn't going to work. You're not going to draw in horny straight guys. Your average woman isn't going to be sexually attracted to the idea of this. Horny gay guys don't need to see a movie, they can just go and get a blowjob. So there's no real audience here.
And it's not really a romcom. Not for a general audience. You could swap the sex of the leading person in most romcoms and have to do almost no rewrites to the plot or dialogue. Maybe the odd joke won't make sense. But for the most part RomComs are completely neutral on sexuality. But you can't even do this with Bros. The film would not make sense if the lead was a woman. The story is so tied to sexuality that it cannot be romantic for the majority of the population.
I can imagine why Eichner is so pissed about this. He's seen woke/gay shit getting pumped up and celebrated for the past few years, and he saw this as his ticket. Bet he had a piece of the pie on this and was expecting it to do $60+ million, and he'd be getting a chunk of that. Probably thought he'd be collecting awards, the media would be fawning over him, and he'd be the gay Apatow. And in one weekend that was blown out. Like getting 6 out of 7 numbers in the lottery, and then finding out a dozen other people did, as well. Birthday numbers. lol
As for the incest thing, I don't know how many would think that. I find the title a bit weird, but presumably it's based more on 'bros before hoes'. But even then I think many would be put off by it, as usually people see their 'bros' as being in the friend zone. Maybe Eichner, being a YouTuber, spent too much time online, and sees 'bros' in the context of "BROJOB BROJOB! CHOO CHOO"
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
I'm reminded of the Congressional baseball shooting in 2017, where six people were shot, including U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R).
I imagine the response will be very different, though. That story was a blip. This story will be frontpage until the election.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
I remember stores offering curbside pick-up for roughly $5 prior to the pandemic (in Canada). I think Loblaws and Walmart were rolling it out. They took out some handicap parking spots and replaced them with pickup spots, lol.
I'd imagine the cost of an employee picking items is going to be less than that for most orders. The costs of bagging/checking out are already baked in. So I don't think it's uneconomical.
If a chain were to be completely curbside pickup, it would be extremely economical, though. We're talking a much smaller footprint, tiny parking lot. So the costs to set up and maintain the business will be a lot smaller. You can optimize the layout for picking. You get to do first in, first out. You'd be saving a lot on spoilage. You'd be saving a lot from theft.
Right now, in a regular store, it probably takes 5 minutes for a worker to fill a simple order, especially if you have products at opposite ends of the store. Many stores are laid out in a fashion to get the customer to have to go through it, and spend longer, hoping they'll buy more stuff. Items are placed in certain areas to influence what you grab (name brands and new products at eye level).
With a store optimized for picking, you'd have multiple people filling a single order, just different parts of it (frozen/refrigerated/bulk/produce/dry goods/etc). Popular items would be grouped together. You could get the picking time to a total half a minute for a simple order. A half dozen employees should be able to run a high traffic outlet with little issue. The labour cost (in Canada, with a ~$15/hr wage) would be $90/hr, then all the other costs (payroll taxes, benefits, insurance and such). You're looking at a max of $150/hr in labour to have a capacity to fill roughly 500 orders each hour (though it largely depends on the average order size; if all orders are small, you'll be able to do over 700 per hour; if all orders had hundreds of items, you're looking at <100). So maybe an average of 30 cents per order, in labour costs. And you could probably get that down even more with some automation, conveyors, etc. But it's going to get more and more expensive, at least upfront, to get the per order picking time down much further.
Worst case scenario would be taking each employee 1 minute to fill their part of an order, for a total of 6 man-minutes per hour. You're getting 60 orders done an hour. You're coming in at $2.50/order. This is likely close to the cost grocery stores are paying right now for offering curbside pick-up.
Your labour costs in other areas would remain the same or drop. For stocking shelves, you'd just be stocking the picking area. No time wasted on product presentation, rotating product, price labeling, price checking, etc. Nobody in the checkout line holding up other customers. Don't have to worry about a lack of cashiers becoming a bottleneck. No need to train cashiers. Every employee can be trained to pick, and if things get exceptionally busy, you can pull people from one job and toss them on another. If it's Christmas and everyone is buying a turkey, you can throw an extra person in the fridge.
Your labour costs should easily be less than the average grocery store, while having the capacity to serve more people per hour, and those customers not being frustrated by crowds, lines, things being out of stock (since hopefully the system would prevent out-of-stock items from being ordered). You'll save a ton of money on utilities, as you're not battling with keeping food cold and customers warm. You'll save a ton on the cost of the property, as you won't need substantial parking (half your lot will probably be employee parking), and you can have a drive-thru to help get customers through faster (with a couple employees that just load vehicles up? This could be the more expensive part, but likely less than cashiers). Smaller building (easily less than half the size).
With those Amazon cashless store, you're really only eliminating the cashier. And that's coming at the high cost of the system required to monitor a customer's shopping. If some tech has to step foot in that store once a week, that's likely wiping out the savings from not having a cashier. And the stores I've seen (from photos/videos online) are pretty small, more akin to a convenience store, with a small selection of products. High volume isn't going to happen.
With a store that only does curbside, assuming they have enough volume, it may be possible to do free delivery and still be competitive with other stores. Especially if it's scheduled rather than on-demand. It seems most delivery gig jobs are doing 1 delivery per trip, which is horribly inefficient. But I think the delivery side comes with far more headaches; people not answering their door and claiming an order never came, drivers having to deal with long driveways, gates, and other shit that increases their time. Apartment buildings, too, with needing to get buzzed in and take an order up. An order delivered to the top floor of a building would easily wipe out any profit. The points where employees interact with customers are almost always a bottleneck, and reducing those as much as possible will save a ton of money.
We need to bring back milk doors. It would decrease delivery times significantly, making it cheaper for customers and businesses.
New business idea; Mr Venture Capitalist, what we'll do is use billions of your money to begin offering free installation of 'drop boxes' in high and middle income communities. In exchange, we control access to this box (we'll sell it as a safety feature, so people can't shove unwanted shit in there, or steal stuff). We'll make deals with various companies (UberEats, Amazon, FedEx etc) to pay us to access these boxes for delivery. When something is put in it, the homeowner is notified on their phone. Hell, we'll even put some cameras on it so they can see. For companies like Amazon/FedEx, they wouldn't have to charge less for delivery, as the selling point is that the customer's package is safely delivered and can't be stolen; FedEx and Amazon will save money on the time spent delivering (especially FedEx from having far less 'delivery attempts') but also on 'lost/stolen/damaged' packages that they might have to fork out for. For companies like UberEats, they may be able to pass some of the savings to their customers, increasing the frequency of ordering.
And there's big savings in not having their customer service deal with as many complaints (especially from scammers). We can simply share video with Uber/FedEx/Amazon when a claim of lost/stolen/damaged delivery is made.
The next step would be to get into lower/working class neighbourhoods. These won't be as profitable, so we'll need to conjure up a media campaign claiming that it is discriminatory that there aren't boxes like ours in low income BIPOC communities. Then we angle for the government to give us subsidies/grants to fund the roll out of these to low-income BIPOC communities. We won't include all the fancy tech that the middle/upper class gets, though. This is because we're moving away from providing value for other businesses, since our 'drop boxes' are now becoming the norm. They can't not use it.
We're also going to need to do some regulatory capture. We'll push for regulations on our boxes, that just happen to conform with the exact specifications of our boxes. This will make any up-and-coming competitors have to toss out all their shit and start over. We'll also push for increased liability for box providers, and then have a department that will focus solely on finding cases where our competitors have failed to comply with regulations, so they get hit with fines or lawsuits. Feed some stories to the lesser press about babies being killed in 'unsecure' boxes of our competitors or something.
Anyways, once regulatory capture is complete, we're going to need to turn our boxes into a permanent piggy bank. What we'll do is convince the government that our 'drop boxes' are actually a 'public utility', and that every company should have access to them. We'll now just collect a fee that goes to 'maintaining' the box network, while 'retailers' (which are companies we'll start on the side, primarily in upper and middle class areas) sell access to the network. This will further destroy any competition we may have had.
Then we convince Elon Musk to buy the business for $694.20/share. Then get our press buddies to say how that's fascism. Our buddies in government will then nationalize our boxes, paying us a premium to keep it out of the hands of literal Nazis.
This increased efficiency of delivery will allow our curbside grocery outlets to offer free delivery. We'll be able to take this customer facing businesses (and as I said before, interactions with customers are a bottleneck) and turn it into a business that has absolutely no customer interaction (other than our social media team, who will mostly just make fun of customers for being stupid, which will somehow make the average customer feel smarter and want to use our business).
Oh right, and one detail I forgot; our proprietary 'drop boxes' will be the ideal size the fit 'grocery boxes' we use at our store to put groceries in. We'll own the company making these boxes, out of some 'bio-friendly' material, and we'll get politicians to pass a low making these particular boxes the standard for delivery (or boxes that are certain fractions of the size), forcing all companies to buy these boxes for delivery, except in the cases of oversized packaged (which we'll push the government to punitively tax the living shit out of, to encourage more companies to think inside the box). We'll also collect fees for picking up these boxes, cleaning them, maintaining them, replacing them. Maybe a deposit program. Or we can convince people to put recyclables in them, then convince the government to give
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
Whites will decline to 69% of the national population,
I wonder if some whites will have begun identifying as non-white this census, and potentially plunge that number down a bit further, especially among young whites.
Hopefully you'll update with results tomorrow.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
Why would I buy AI-generated imagery from Shutterstock when I could just make it myself?
Isn't a benefit of Shutterstock that if an image you use somehow violates copyright, they'll take on the liability?
With AI art being a potential copyright minefield, most people probably don't want to end up in a situation where they are defending against a relatively novel suit. So having access to AI art that is produced based on Shutterstock's images, and presumably the protection against copyright violations, that's probably a great thing to have for many companies/users, big and small.
its authorship cannot be attributed to an individual person consistent with the original copyright ownership required to license rights.
Isn't that in stark contrast to DALL-E, which says anybody who generates an image is the full legal owner of it, and can do whatever they want? If DALL-E were to spit out two identical images, I wonder who owns it? lol
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
"slavery was a choice"
What he said was basically paraphrasing Bob Marley's Redemption Song (which was basically lifted from a speech by Marcus Garvey).
“We are going to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery because whilst others might free the body, none but ourselves can free the mind.”
-Marcus Garvey
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; None but ourselves can free our minds.
-Bob Marley
Kanye was saying that 400 years of slavery is a choice, not that chattel slavery was. 400 years leads up to today. He's saying that people are mental slaves today, and you can choose to set your mind free.
Recall also that Nick Cannon eventually was forced to apologize not for racist, Scientology-esque pseudoscience about white people, but specifically for annoying Jews.
Nick and Kanye are basically parroting a lot of Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam, Black Hebrew Israelites, and similar black supremacists. Did Malcom X have some controversial statements about the Jews that were in a similar vein?
Anyways, I think the root of this is that black people moving up in society start 'noticing' how many Jews there are at the top. When half of Hollywood and the media are Jewish, half the white people in Ivy league institutions are Jewish, and Jews only make up ~2% of the population, then it seems logical to a black person to wonder if maybe it isn't the 'white man' keeping them down, since whites are under-represented in the media, in Hollywood, in academia, etc.
And with how connected we all are, now black people (and gentile whites) can peer much further than before. Even the poorest, most oppressed black person in the US can pull out their phone (lol) and quickly discover that half the famous white people he's ever heard of are Jewish.
It's only going to get worse. This is an extremely popular and pervasive topic in the black community. Throughout 2020/21 there were a few organizations that ran into turmoil as the black activists tried pushing out Jews. I think the Woman's March was one. I think the attempts to censor Kanye, assuming he doesn't back down, will lead to more support for him in the black community. This could end up like when Morgan Wallen (country singer) got cancelled for dropping an n-bomb, and then became even more popular. I guarantee most black people hearing Kanye talk about Jews will think every institutional action taken against him is proof he's right.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
I'd always assumed Jim Crow laws grew out of the same sentiments held in South Africa around that time; that black and white people would thrive better if separated.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
I may be misremembering, but I believe a lot of ghettos originally grew out of the Contraband Camps set up by the Union. After Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, slaves were 'seized' as contraband and put in camps. This became a humanitarian crisis, as disease ravaged these camps and there were shortages of food. I believe some hundred thousand+ black people died. Many former slaves returned to the south, or travelled north, after the war ended, but many stayed in these camps. It'd be interesting to overlay the historic locations of those camps with various post-war maps and see if any of them are still ghettos and/or predominantly African-American.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
She had a minor career in commercials before the speech, including a shoot for playboy,
Notably Playboy didn't like her photos and decided not to publish them. It was only after the Oscar stunt that they ran a spread.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
I think 20% is conservative. Interest rates are likely going to rise another couple percent, and that alone would be enough to bring prices down 20% without any other factors (as mortgage payments would be the same). Although inflation is working against housing prices coming down.
In Canada, I think it'll be a massacre. Unlike the US, where people can get 30 year fixed mortgages, most Canadians are on 5 year terms that they have to renew. A bunch of people are going to be renewing from ultra-low rates over the next year, and it's going to be unmanageable for many. Further, many Canadians go with adjustable or variable rate mortgages. As interest rates rise, many have seen their mortgage payments increase by 50% (here's a thread on Reddit about it). Also, there are fixed payment mortgages that have become rather popular, where your payment stays the same, but the bank just reduces how much goes to principal if rates go up. Some people are basically paying every dime to interest. And once the next hike comes, it'll 'trigger' an actual increase in their monthly payment. Many of these people aren't aware that their payments are all going to interest, and likely think they've been building equity this past year.
When they go to renew, they'll be faced with the prospect of much higher interest rates, making their payment bigger, and the fact that they basically paid nothing on their mortgage, but 5 years of their term has passed. So we'll likely see people refinance. But refinancing may not be so easy if your mortgage is underwater or have little equity. So that means foreclosures and short sales will put more downward pressure on housing.
I don't know what the US is facing and how it'll affect things. But I'd imagine if mortgage rates climb ~3%, then a 20% drop in prices is basically guaranteed (aside from the government coming in and tossing money around). Though housing prices haven't dropped as much as I'd have thought (especially in Canada) with the increasing interest rates.
bsbbtnh
2yr ago
so if someone identifies as a demigirl in some circles but to you they just say they’re nonbinary or even just “female”, they clocked you as a gender normie lol.
This doesn't seem to happen, though. Instead, it seems like a demigirl is far more likely to demand that gender normies recognize their demigirl status, to address them as such, and that the normies educate themselves on what a demigirl is.
All these multiple genders want their pronouns to be used and for society to accept them just like any other gender. I honestly do not remember the subcultures of my youth demanding that society treat them as 'normal'. That was antithetical to their very existence.
You know what I think happened? The internet made it soooo easy for a kid to rapidly 'specialize' in a subculture. You didn't have to seek out the music, the styles, learn the history. You could just pick it all up within a couple days. Most of these subcultures were extremely gatekeepy. With the internet, the bar became relatively lower for those with access, but it became EXTREMELY high for those who didn't.
But this resulted in people with basically a cliff notes understanding of a subculture forming the majority. There was no deeper understanding. Many might not have even liked the core aspects of a subculture, just certain aesthetics. So you have people who can say all the right things, but are only really in it for the outward appearance. Normies took over the subcultures.
Social media comes along, and the attention span of the average person collapses. Most people no longer have the depth of specialization to even pretend they are part of a subculture (hell, I get that vibe from the Tumblr post you linked). What happens is that people move away from the 'classic' subcultures, and begin turning innate human characteristics into subcultures, because a person is innately knowledgeable about that, and they can't be invalidated by being wrong, because they can just say "that's my experience/that's how I feel."
So no longer do you need to understand anything about the music you're listening to in order to bond with others. Instead, you can just pick apart things like gender and race, and begin to make a culture out of that. "I like to wear ballcaps sometimes" suddenly becomes being 'masc'. If someone says "Women wear ballcaps" they can just respond "well I feel masc when I wear one." Can't invalidate that.
Anyone and everyone can discuss all these things at length. There's nothing special about the shit nonbinary people are talking about. It's not hard to understand. It's just that I wouldn't attach my gender identity to the clothes I wear, how I feel on a particular day, my current emotions, etc.
All these gender 'subcultures' are for the normies. They have absolutely no barrier to entry, you need no knowledge, there's no learning curve. You basically just get to make YOURSELF a piece of the subculture. And you get to pretend you aren't a normie, and demand all the other normies abide by your subculture's rules.
A feeling of success and the ability to claim part of it, without having to actually do the hard work.
More options
Context Copy link