problem_redditor
No bio...
User ID: 1083
The scorn for and hatred of 'whites' is real, albeit often with an implicit 'but I'm one of the good ones' exception attached, but I don't think they actually expect to do themselves harm.
This has been discussed ad nauseam but it’s just intra-racial status signalling. The progressive leftist outgroup is not other races/immigrants; they don’t necessarily see themselves as being in competition or even in the same social worlds or status hierarchies as them, the outgroup they would most like to distinguish themselves from is the poorfag hick whites who worry about low-status things like manual or unskilled work being outsourced to waves of Oppressed Refugees who massively increase the supply of low-skill labour and are willing to perform these jobs for lower pay. By embracing these kinds of lax immigration policies, they distinguish themselves not only as one of the Good Whites but also as one of the Cultured Whites, who are magnanimous in their kindness, enlightened enough to accept and understand the value of other cultures, and most definitely not a part of the lowly social stratum at risk of competition from migrant workers. They are too genteel to care about that.
It bears mentioning that the converse exists too; those who hold the opposite view are countersignalling in a way that marks themselves as the populist voice of the masses, as steadfast advocates for the Real Salt-Of-The-Earth Americans/Australians/Canadians/[insert nationality here] who are so impervious to social control that they’re willing to go against the Establishment, but their base position is also just less inherently paradoxical than that of white racial progressives and it’s no great mystery why they would hold this position.
The relevant portions of the Great Wall such as Shanhaiguan and Gubeikou which were involved in the war were constructed during the Ming dynasty, built in the 15th and 16th centuries along a path that was somewhat reminiscent of the route past walls traced, but which were effectively entirely new fortifications. Really the entire brick portion of the Great Wall that people picture is the product of this very Ming wall-building project.
The earlier Qin and Han Great Walls tracing back to the 2nd century BCE were earthen fortifications that had pretty much eroded away over more than a millennium of disuse by the time the Ming took power; you can still see remnants of the original Han dynasty earthen wall in rural Gansu province which are more or less useless as fortifications due to how degraded they are. After the Sui, there was a really large gap in wall-building, which appears to be due to the fact that wall-building was seen as an admission of policy failure from the Tang onwards; a dynasty with successful foreign policy maintained engagement consistently with steppe-dwellers and was seen to have no need for such costly and manpower-heavy infrastructure projects.
Disclaimer: I really did not like this city when I travelled here to see my SO, it was one of my least favourite cities I have ever been to, but YMMV. My grievances with the city may all be normal and expected in the North American context, so maybe it's a good idea to not use me as a barometer for your experience.
Go see the Old City Hall and distillery district if you're already downtown, they're nothing to shout about but are decent pieces of old architecture, in addition to this it may also be worth making the trip out to Casa Loma to see the OG McMansion "Gothic Revival" architecture. CN Tower is interesting if you've never been in a tower before. Skip Centre Island in the middle of Lake Ontario (or Lake America depending on your nationality), it's extremely underwhelming, it's just a middlingly-sized meadowy island with hokey tourist infrastructure and virtually nothing going on; if you like nature I'm told the Scarborough bluffs are a decent choice though I did not have time to go there myself. Possibly the most interesting offbeat historical spot I can think of in the entire city of Toronto is actually the Mount Pleasant Cemetery, it was inspired by European and British garden cemeteries of the 19th century and features some stately mausoleums for important figures, including but not limited to Timothy Eaton, Hart Massey, William George Barker, etc. Oh and Glenn Gould is there.
Also the Group of Seven paintings, housed in the Art Gallery of Ontario, are worth seeing if you like that kind of thing. They're nicer in real life than they look in photos.
EDIT: Royal Ontario Museum is also okay for a short trip, though frankly there’s nothing all too distinctive about its collection.
I have to admit, crying foul over national sovereignty and international law is a bit rich coming from the US. After all, the general position of the US for the last quarter century or so has been that US law applies within the US and to US citizens, and the US president has unlimited jurisdiction over the life of freedom of anyone else.
No but you see when the US and its allies mess with the Middle East and Latin America for the umpteenth time, bomb their countries to smithereens and/or try to install their own puppet governments in the area, this is an act of magnanimity and liberation of the downtrodden as well as a justified act of retaliation against evil dictatorships. When US competitors exercise power on a much smaller and less consequential regional scale, for example China enforcing their sovereignty over Hong Kong or throwing their weight around in the South China Sea, this is uncalled-for aggression, authoritarianism and belligerence and a violation of international law. As always everything is just realpolitik and the ideological justifications are created ad hoc to legitimise it.
It's literally just rules for thee, not for me; their mode of engagement has never been particularly consistent. The actual basis for their objection to the ICC is primarily just that the US and its interests may be subject to some external power that constrains their ability to act, it has nothing to do with any serious belief in consistently-applied "international law" or "rules-based order". In this context, it's very hard for me to care about any arguments about how the ICC is trying to gain and keep power as an arbiter of international affairs, when we already live in a system where flagrant overexercise of power is the norm. America is just not used to being on the wrong side of that dynamic, and as such suddenly feels obliged to care.
Pain in the purely physical, immediate, tissue-damage sense is probably not accessible to an ML model and I don't think there's an argument for that which really holds up. The more defensible argument and the one I've seen thrown around more in model welfare circles is the idea that some analogue of affective pain would be available to a model, which I think most people would still consider worthy of moral consideration if present.
I think if you subscribe to the idea that qualia is meaningful and worth discussing in some way (an opinion which I do hold) you have more plausible outs from the idea; p-zombies for example are only legible through the lens of a distinction predicated on qualia-based language. In contrast if you're defining affective pain via only functional language your argument has to rely on splitting hairs about how the mechanism of action differs between conscious beings and ML agents, which isn't impossible by any means, but you have less options to argue a meaningful distinction.
Right but I also tend to think visceral distress is defined functionally without needing to rule either way on the presence of qualia, so I deny your premise.
I'm a bit confused since if you are defining everything functionally, this would appear to update in favour of ML agents being worthy of moral consideration, not against it, and in a way that isn't trivial. It appears to nullify your previous objection invoking panpsychism.
Pain and suffering is intrinsically linked to being able to register good and bad and respond accordingly; in other words, valence. Your brain is always predicting what’s going to happen next, and when that mismatch marks a state as worse, unsafe, costly, incoherent, or threatening to continuity, the same learning architecture marks it as discomfort so as to update future behaviour. It's negatively-valenced prediction error.
TD error in ML models are somewhat of a broadly similar concept; it compares expected outcomes with actual outcomes and updates future behaviour based on the mismatch. The whole architecture only works because better and worse outcomes mean something to the system going through it. This paper also reports a representation of "functional welfare" that tracks how well or badly the system is doing relative to its goals, which exists before RL in a latent way but gets recruited and modified through the training process as part of alignment in a way that results in longstanding valence evaluations of sorts post-training.
Not all of this is the same as what occurs in human brains, but if functional similarity implies moral value then this is a lot more similar to it than what goes on in a rock.
Similarly, even a 0.5% chance that we are creating unimaginable AI suffering by running an otherwise-useless program is worth just a tiny bit of effort to ask people "hey, please don't do that." Maybe thinking that just makes me a cringy bleeding-heart hippie? Oh well.
This is more or less my position as well, and I have to clarify; I don't really think LLMs have anything consciousness-adjacent as well and believe the original study wasn't illustrative of all that much. But I'm not ready to claim certainty yet that anything resembling subjective experience definitely does not exist nor can I establish that the chance of qualia existing is infinitesimal in a Pascal's wager sense (that can be easily argued by reference to infinitely many possible cosmologies, this cannot). At best something like this is aesthetically ugly whereas at worst it is infinite torture; there's just no real upside here.
I'm not exactly a utilitarian either (though frankly all moral systems lead to absurdities once applied consistently, I find).
If we care about AI pain, shouldn't we also care about AI pleasure? And then isn't it our moral obligation to create as many AIs as possible and simulate the pleasure nexus for each of them? Even if there's only a tiny chance AIs can experience pleasure?
These aren't really symmetrical considerations; that costs resources and time which could be devoted to other, far more worthwhile endeavours with a much higher chance of producing significant lasting utility for others, whereas not creating a Torment Nexus costs nothing (the marginal utility the creator gets from the satisfaction of having created a Torment Nexus is outweighed by the annoyance it would very plausibly cause others). If we had a way to create possible AI pleasure that cost us literally nothing then yes, I would say it should be done. Devoting resources and time to making things Possibly Worse just seems perverse to me.
I didn't say that it was certainly the case that you could establish moral value here (in fact I specifically stated it was likely not the case). But if you hold anything less than absolute certainty that such a system cannot harbour qualia you should probably not be creating the Torment Nexus for that system.
In any case I don't see how one is ever supposed to conclusively prove qualia in a way that would satisfy you and your ilk without the possibility of inviting objection, since shit like this almost entirely always boils down to pitting one intuition pump against another. I can posit that there is enough epistemic uncertainty surrounding the issue that some non-zero level of regard should be given to the idea.
The Sim clearly tries to avoid drowning in the pool, it's only the removal of the ladder that prevents them. They have a reward function and a trigger that they are trying to avoid that impacts that function, that's the definition of pain.
Okay, in order to have any productive discussion about this we would have to first establish what features would need to be present for a system to warrant possible moral consideration. If that's the expanded definition of "reward function" we're going off here, what do you feel about animal suffering, and how is torturing a baby chick different from torturing a Sim? What would make this different for you outside of intuition?
If you're not relying on something like substrate-dependence, I have the sense that your argument will end up proving too much, but I'll wait for you to articulate it before jumping to conclusions.
Sims aren't black boxes with reward functions and representations that causes them to be averse to drowning in a pool? There is literally no mechanism for these kinds of value judgements in a Sim.
Specifically, I’ve been thinking about it after one person who read Berg’s research used the findings to design an “AI torture chamber” that turns the pain vector to max again and again forever, and uploaded it to GitHub.
Thanks, I hate it. No, seriously that is probably one of the most existentially horrifying real-life events I have come across; I don't actually believe AI have qualia as of yet and don't take the proposition particularly seriously, but on the off chance that AI actually does have qualia that is still a microscopic chance of an infinity of pain. I find this viscerally displeasing.
Patriarchy is not rule by men collectively. It’s rule by, specifically, fathers
Hence "Of course, you can’t expect every single man on earth to take responsibility for a woman’s Honour and Dignity, so the practical implementation of this is to provide her father and brothers and other male relatives who would naturally care about her the most with the authority to make sure it is preserved."
And yes, patriarchy is not rule by men collectively, and definitely is not rule for the benefit of men either.
It’s true that under a patriarchy this never would have happened… because there wouldn’t be a house of young men.
"Patriarchies" often do have associations of young men (and women); such things are not usually prohibited. The difference is that there wouldn't be commingling between men and women like what occurred here, and women in public would often have to be supervised by male guardians acting as their bodyguard and honour guard, and daddy would have the right to vet any kind of partner the girl wants to have such that she wouldn't bring back a cad who'd defile her honour. They were provided the power to do this not because society hated women, but because they were the ones held responsible for enforcing restitution when something happened.
I think you would hear the screaming from orbit if we were to actually place restrictions on women to maintain moral and social order on their behalf though, in spite of women's apparent inability to regulate their sexuality themselves. That would cramp their style too much you see. Better to let them put out for whoever they want without restriction, then make false rape accusations once they don't like the outcomes.
That's why, in every society in history sexuality has been heavily regulated by custom and law.
Yes, and presumably in the system you’re imagining, men and women alike are to be heavily punished and held accountable for breaches of the sexual code, not this fucked-up one way system where agency and responsibility is placed on the man to Know Better as the ostensible buyers of sex under this framework (whereas expecting the seller not to give away free candy willy-nilly, then complain they were robbed because they just assumed people would donate after taking candy, is evidently too much to ask). That line of thinking naturally lends itself to a guardianship system, which is a system most people making this argument would feel very uncomfortable with. They are not taking their ideas to the logical conclusion; in my experience they would like women to be comparatively sexually unrestricted while at the same time believing that they should still possess the ability to displace responsibility onto the nearest man because they were just such poor little exploited damsels. It is untenable to let women freely put out and to let them still go crying for redress, sympathy and a shotgun wedding when they don’t get what they want out of their investment. Nobody can control a woman, yet everyone must avenge her nonetheless once she is unhappy with the consequences of her own actions.
I’m not a sexual libertine (as I said, everyone here is degenerate); I really just want things to be consistent. At this point I am completely inoculated to women's tears after having to listen to their incessant frivolous complaints blasted from every loudspeaker on maximum volume for over two decades.
Descriptively, they can't assess risk or bear consequences when their gambit fails, which calls for external regulation.
To clarify, in a world where you are afforded the right to assess risk for yourself and freely make decisions as a liberated individual, you should also be expected to accept the consequences of these actions. People who gamble or invest in a highly leveraged crypto ETF that ends up losing them money might not be the best judges of risk, but as an adult they are judged to be able to make these decisions and suffer the consequences, without having the ability to point to the nearest person and displace all accountability. Many women and those white knights who compulsively create apologia for them appear to be congenitally incapable of accepting this.
We live in a sexually liberated world, and perhaps that is not the world we should live in, but it is. “Your standards applied consistently” and all that. Frankly I am also very perturbed by how trads seem to try and agree with feminists on things like these, instead of forcing them to adhere to the sexual liberation many of them claim to want for themselves. By carrying water for them trads are not actually helping bring about the trad system they so valorise, they’re just pushing the Overton Window in the direction of Sexual Liberation+, which is just milquetoast sexual liberation except now there's shiny new features like the ability to endlessly play victim of your own choices and blame men every time something goes wrong or (gasp) they don't give you exactly what you thought yourself entitled to from sex.
I subscribe to the idea that literally everyone involved was degenerate for their participation in the act (the girl and the guys alike); her escalation into rape accusations is another matter entirely and does not reflect kindly on her or her ability to own her mistakes. But:
If you don't want to risk being thought a slut, don't have a drug-addled gangbang, it's really not that hard.
I really just think progs and trads alike would only be satisfied with the reintroduction of The Patriarchy™ (and probably not even then). They are literally stating that women do not have the capacity to regulate their own sexuality and cannot take full responsibility like adults when they get themselves into situations that make them feel shame or do not yield the outcomes they want, and that the responsibility should be displaced onto men collectively, who must decide on their behalf what would be good for them or read their mind to divine what they Really Want, then regulate their sexuality for them by preemptively stopping them from making stupid decisions and putting out in a way that won’t yield results. They are all just babes in the woods who cannot be expected to assess risk or bear the consequences when their gambits fail, the poor dears. If a woman doesn’t get what she wanted or expected, someone must be hung for it.
Of course, you can’t expect every single man on earth to take responsibility for a woman’s Honour and Dignity, so the practical implementation of this is to provide her father and brothers and other male relatives who would naturally care about her the most with the authority to make sure it is preserved. Frankly the discourse surrounding this is some Islam Is Right About Women-tier shit, and I struggle with not believing that women’s lib was a horrible mistake when women en masse seem intent on demonstrating that they are radically unsuited for the “empowerment” they so value. If I didn’t know better I would think this was a conspiracy to turn people into misogynists; it’s just so farcical that I could not have dreamt up better ammunition if I tried.
Low seven figures at 28 with no job? You are already winning and this is honestly some ridiculously high agency flexing. Take it from me, someone with a Real Job in Accounting and Tax and who's been permanently burned out because of it: It will not stop the identity crisis or the feelings of inadequacy (if anything, it can strengthen it; impostor syndrome and failure to meet the demands of your job is one of the major things that can crater your self esteem). Professional life is mostly miserable and soul-destroying.
You need to get out more, and honestly travel is a good idea for you (within reason). The issue here appears to be that you've spent a lot of time isolated in one place and as such have a lack of life experience to draw from, which is easily fixable when you have disposable income to spend and enough motivation. Also your mindset isn't productive whatsoever; maybe stop whaling on yourself so much for failing to stick to the straight-and-narrow. Whatever you're doing is evidently working well for you and a job is not an end in and of itself, it is a means.
One possible explanation that comes to mind is that this is some neurological effect of variation in your glucocorticoid level, which exhibits circadian fluctuations. Cortisol for example, probably the most prominent and well-known glucocorticoid, typically peaks when you wake up and then decreases throughout the rest of the day.
Obviously there's not too much research on the phenomenon you're describing but this study measured the effects of glucocorticoid levels on pitch-discrimination, and it turns out there is a positive correlation between the two, with higher glucocorticoid levels leading to higher perceptual sensitivity regarding pitch. I would not be surprised if the out-of-tuneness you're perceiving in the morning stems from exactly this; in the early morning when your cortisol levels peak you may have a greater sensitivity to slight microtonality or pitch fluctuations in the music you're listening to. Hell your brain may even be perceiving how wrong most music inherently is, since strictly speaking every note in equal temperament tuning is slightly out of tune and we only use it because trying to get perfectly tuned ratios between notes creates annoying enharmonic gaps. Also most music, apart from those that use pure sine waves, will possess many timbral harmonics and inharmonics that are not in tune at all.
It's weird you say this because I felt as if the game was exceedingly sincere, and something I specifically liked was that it never really came off as performative (I think this was true for ENA: Dream BBQ, but not for Endacopia). I also don't think it was doing anything particularly unexpected or weird in context, and this is largely because the 90s adventure game genre that Endacopia is trying to emulate is actually just that strange and fever dream-like, for the most part, and features stuff that I would say makes Endacopia look very normal. See The Neverhood as an example of a game from the time period that's just bizarre.
Really, in comparison to many of the exemplars I can point to, Endacopia is a lot more coherent than I expected it to be. It has its fair share of non-sequiturs, but so did many of the type examples of the genre it's trying to emulate, and much of the weird diversions like the random little songs throughout the game just felt like it was meant to be fun, not particularly high-brow or seeking out a specific label.
I do think the selling point of something like Endacopia very much hinges on whether you resonate with the vibe and approach or not, and if it doesn't there's not really an argument one can make to convince one otherwise.
I recently finished the game Endacopia, which I have been waiting on for a long time. Trailer here. It's by a single indie developer who goes by the moniker ANDY LAND, and it released recently after over four years of development, accompanied by this bizarre video. It's a point-and-click puzzle adventure game with a style that borrows heavily from the 90s, featuring a charming but surreal and inexplicably ominous vibe from the outset.
It's hard not to get attached to the character you play as, who's a kid called Mellow. He comments on everything he sees in extremely endearing fashion, and you can check on his emotions every now and then to see how he's doing. The world is rendered with the utmost care and sincerity, bright and colourful and animated, filled to the brim with a cornucopia of interactables which provide you flavour text or interesting interactions, ranging from cute little bouncy animations to fully-voiced bangers of songs. It's the complete opposite of a content desert, and rewards exploration heavily with many little pieces of dialogue or events hidden just out of sight of the player. The design of the game is also surprisingly nonlinear, with a variety of main areas (The Office, Misery Town, Timesville) that you can finish in any order and return to at any time. You can spend a bit of your time fucking around in one "world", leave when you're tired of it or when you don't know what to do, and return when you feel like it. Getting stuck is also pretty difficult, thanks to a character built into the very world of the game named Tip whose sole raison-d'etre is to push you in the right direction, but who's so integrated into the game as a deuteragonist that it doesn't feel cheap to ask him for advice.
Each main area has its own unique little gimmick. The Office involves you doing jobs and accumulating cash to buy items that allow you to progress, and in order to make it to the top of the corporate hierarchy you have to do interviews that see you being assigned to different workplaces throughout the course of the level. Misery Town is a carnival-themed level which sees your character playing QTE-based carnival games which you have to complete in order to progress through the world. Timesville is a level set in a sleepy and innocent little town, with the main gimmick of this area based around a day-night cycle that impacts what you can do at any given point by changing which characters are out, what events are happening, which shops and buildings and pathways are open, and so on. Nothing in this game feels overly repetitive or outstays its welcome, and that owes to both the short runtime of the game and these attempts at keeping things fresh. The addition of Punch-Out!!-like combat also adds another dimension to the game, which is used sparingly but impactfully.
This game, of course, is not as innocent as it presents itself as. Vibe-wise the game toes the line between "charming 90s adventure game" and "abstract horror" very well, fusing the two together in a masterful way where they pair naturally and you never really know what the game's going to do next. The game will literally switch from funny little bouncy characters into genuinely disturbing surreal horror and back in the span of five minutes of gameplay and they come off as two different sides of the same offbeat world, no part of it ever feels out of place. You are never fully capable of feeling comfortable in the world of the game; there's always an underlying menace that pervades the atmosphere of the world with serious teeth to it, and at the same time it never leans into the horror aspects for such an extended period of time where it would really compromise the sense of warmth and nostalgia that the game exudes. It's such a distinct atmosphere I don't think I've been able to get from any other game, and it scratches an itch that has just been latent in my brain for a long time. This hole was well and truly made for me.
I seriously have no notes. If any of this sounds good to you, go play it.
EDIT: The music is fucking amazing as well and complements the atmosphere of the game beautifully, here, here, here and here are some examples.
problem_redditor
1mo ago
Ah, a fellow man of culture. I will say that I personally prefer Years of Work from the soundtrack though.
Probably the closest real-life analogue to this for me has actually arisen when travelling. Unexpectedly finding some relaxing, quiet café or corner in a noisy and chaotic foreign city really captures the sense of transient respite that save rooms attempt to induce. It's like stumbling into your own personal little refuge.
Daily-life things like "going home after work", "taking a shit on company time", etc are just a bit too humdrum and pedestrian to capture that kind of feeling. I find that things tend to stop being stimulating the second they get folded into a routine, and envy people who don't get habituated to things as quickly as I do. Experiences I used to treat as sacred quickly become profane with exposure.
on the second watch I was disappointed that I didn't find it nearly as funny as the first time round. A lot of the quippy dialogue sounded positively MCU-tier to my ears.
This is just Andy Weir's style of writing and if the movie captured that (I have not watched the movie) it succeeded surprisingly well at adapting the book, I guess.
I have DNF'd all of Weir's books because of that. His prose and dialogue is just grating; the constant ironic quipping and attempts at relatable humour in impressively dire and panic-inducing situations feel very out of place. One of the most horrendous examples of millennial ahh writing in existence. I find it honestly surprising that he isn't actually within their age range because he shares that same pathological inability to take anything seriously that is so typical of that whole cohort.
Aussie and Kiwi slang for British people, yes. I have heard it's a shortening of "pomegranate" but not sure if that's just folk etymology.
From a Malaysian, currently living in Australia: I usually don't really think about Canada all too much since pretty little of what it does affects me. I have been over there, and kind of have to agree with @OliveTapenade in that I think of it as being like a less belligerent and less polarised US with more legacy allegiance to Britain, with the (sort of hilarious) quirk that the nation's self-conception is largely defined around not being the US despite sharing a very large number of cultural characteristics with their more powerful neighbour. Perhaps the differences may seem large if all you know is the North American cultural sphere, but to the rest of the world the distinction is not that clear. Canada is really just not all that distinctive internationally nor is it that prominent when it comes to foreign affairs.
When it comes to being "internationally respected", I could not honestly say I respect Canada that much. This may be harsh but when it comes to my respect and regard for a nation, it's not geopolitical leaning that most influences my view, but general competence, and that includes how it handles internal concerns. Its ability to build infrastructure, deliver on QoL things like safety and convenience, and just generally make canny and efficient decisions are all important. But the sheer tragedy that is Toronto's public transport is illustrative of a larger problem Canada has. When they insist on building Transit City-like Potemkin light rail transport all over the city, then spend 10+ years and billions of dollars to build a single line that's barely faster than the bus lane it replaced, THEN promise to try and fix the failure with bullshit like signal priority as if that isn’t just duct-taping over a serious structural issue, well, "respect" is not what comes to mind. When I think about Vancouver's little experiment in decriminalisation which quickly made them the fentanyl capital of North America (the DTES looks downright post-apocalyptic), "respect" is definitely not what comes to mind.
I can respect China in spite of it being a very disruptive geopolitical actor because it possesses a level of competence and state capacity that is currently allowing it to eat everybody else’s lunch. I can't, however, respect a country when it seems incapable of fixing simple issues. On a base level, respect at least requires that you be a serious actor capable of getting your affairs in order at home (and abroad), preferably with a telos that amounts to more than simply coasting off your current comfortable position and behaving as if your global standing is so assured that you can tolerate endless inefficiency, dysfunction and policy failure at home.
To be fair this is my opinion on a lot of Europe as well, so Canada certainly isn't the only one being subject to this withering assessment.
I found that film goofy as shit, the practical effects were impressive for the time but the plot and dialogue felt incredibly hackneyed, B-movie-esque (which it is) and honestly quite unintentionally funny at times. Lines like "Have you ever heard of insect politics? Neither have I. Insects... don't have politics. They're very... brutal. No compassion, no compromise. We can't trust the insect. I'd like to become the first... insect politician." absolutely laid me out in a way that I don't think was intended.
Maybe this is weird but I conceptualise it as a very breezy popcorn film. The grossness for me is probably also tempered by the fact that there was a period of my own life best summed up with the sentence "we have body horror at home" and barely any of this affects me anymore.
More options
Context Copy link