What hot af take do you have that you think you will be HORRIBLY executed and shunned from society for?
I'll start with mine. clears throat
"65% of Hazbin/Helluva fan comics, fan animations/animatics, fan fiction.etc are unironically better than anything Vivziepop has ever made in her career!"
Feel free to down vote me and called me a sleazeball douchebag troll.
I'll do you one better. Vivziepop fans were some of the most annoying people I ever had the displeasure of interacting with. And that was before her animation stuff went mainstream and she just did this annoying animation meme shit. I was a moderator in an Art Community on Amino at that time and somehow Amino paid her to shill it to her fans (the community had no say in this). So they showed up in droves, ignored all community guidelines and just posted the dumbest things imaginable. I still personally dislike Vivziepop because of that.
There is no rational reason socks need to match
Yes, there is a rational reason goddammit. They feel uneven!
No reason shoes need to match, either. Why not wear one tennis shoe and one 3 foot high platform boot?
King of the hill is pro conservative and therefore should be held responsible for enabling fascism and getting Trump elected.
Okay, here we go...
The term "larper", more often than not, makes discourse worse
You're pathetic and stupid for not being vegan.
...pathetic implies deserving of pity and stupid implies innocent ignorance...
Maybe if you're sympathetic. Are you?
...i posit that's a fair assessment of most vegans...
That one gets you hunted and eaten by human predators in certain parts of America.
V.I. Lenin's writings are historically significant and should be studied and understood from an academic perspective regardless of whether or not you agree with them.
Borderline personality disorder and Childhood-acquired Posttraumatic stress disorder are the same thing the only core difference is whether or not the resulting reactivity seems proportionate to the trauma from the clinicians perspective. This is more / less likely if the person has a more / less reactive underlying nervous system, but ultimately most of the judgment comes down to social perception of what's a worse trauma vs what's worse as a resulting negative behavior. If a "big" trauma makes you sad / withdrawn, you have PTSD vs if a "small" trauma makes you annoying / "difficult" you have borderline. (Am deffo borderline, personally. LOL)
Here's one:
Harley-Davidson can't make good motorcycles not because they lack the knowledge, but because they aren't allowed to.
In 2018 I bought a Street 500. It was under $7,000 out-the-door. It made as much noise as a Toyota Corolla, and was every bit as reliable. Later on I got a Nightster. It's a bit noiser but still not really loud. It's also been reliable and it's considerably faster than it needs to be. It cost me 12k in 2023.
But neither of those bikes is a huge expensive thundering dinosaur that vibrates like a paint shaker, so you don't see many of them, and you might not know that H-D recently made a little 500cc commuter with a water cooled engine, or a 975cc bike with variable valve timing and traction control for $10,000. Soon enough they will probably kill off the newer more modern bikes, go back to the air cooled 800 pound $20k behemoths and wonder why their company failed.
Pedophilia is ok in the united states and we all just collectively agreed to pretend it isn't. It's clearly not a crime or we'd make more of a deal out of prosecution. It's certainly not a deal breaker when your favorite politician or famous person does it. I used to think it was a coincidence that everyone I know was molested as a child, that maybe we gravitate to each other as an unspoken solidarity. The Epstein situation has made that hard to believe.
It's not about any one crime, although the one you mention is a pretty hot topic. The real problem is that all crimes are null and void if you have enough money. Sometimes that money is from someone who thinks it's beneficial to them to save your bacon, but nonetheless, it's legalised bribery that nullifies the crime.
Sure it's not "bribe a cop on the street" levels of corruption that you (allegedly) get in some other countries, but it's corruption all the same.
That's the thing, I already accepted that crimes are legal of you pay for them, that's something I learned in elementary school, but when you start opening up about sexual abuse, you find that more people have experience than not. It's not just the famous or powerful, it's older cousins, uncles, aunts, babysitters, friends or their families, grand parents, teachers, strangers at the park, neighbors, and every other possible connection.
There's 27 people I can think of that have candidly told me about the abuse they experienced and only one of them lead to legal reprocussions. We're taught to keep it secret either because we don't truely understand it until it's far later or when we bring it up we're told that it didn't happen. When we hear about those arrested for it, they were often victims in their own time.
CPS investigates about 300,000 child sexual assault cases annually and experts suggest that as few as 10% actually get reported to begin with. If those numbers are accurate then around 37% of children in the us will be molested in their lifetime. 1 in 13 Americans is a molested child.
In comparison, Jews are 1 in 42, muslims are 1 in 91, Pacific islanders are 1 in 333, transgender adults are 1 in 167. In a general dispersal, for every 11 Mexicans you've met, you've likely met 8 children that have been sexually assaulted. It's not money that lets you molest children, it's the culture. It's fine as long as no one else has to know about it. So the crime isn't the act, it's being bad at doing it.
Also, that'd only using the 2025 data for active cases so that's just children currently being molested. Adults that were molested as children aren't even factored in. Even more, only 24.5% of cases are actionable, 2-5% are false, and the remaining fail because they investigation is self assessment at best. So of those 8 molested kids, maybe 2 of them will get justice. The rest get to live with it.
If you are rich. Just as with most other crimes.
It's not OK for you, it's OK for them because they are powerful.
I agree. There's very little funding for services that protect children. Foster children are commonly sent out of state due to lack of resources and are completely lost out in the system somewhere.
Mandatory homework needs to be done away with for students. Studying after school is one thing, but assignments that can't be finished during school hours shouldn't be given out. Give them 1 free hour a day at school to work on assignments if you need to.
Not every student has a home environment set up for being able to concentrate. Plus it's just training kids to work off the clock and having no separation of home and work life, something people already struggle with. We should be teaching them boundaries about these things.
I hated school but I would have preferred to stay one extra mandatory hour at school instead of ever having homework.
I actually think that "schools of the future" will do this. Especially when mathematics are concerned. It does no good to get feedback a week after you have done the homework and already moved on to the next topic. Feedback should be immediate so that any errors in understanding can be corrected. The exception would probably be writing a paper, which can occur over at least several days.
Idk about the future, but we used to do like 10 math problems at the end of class, and they were supposed to be finished by tomorrow, where we would review them. It's a day of margin only, we did have 10 mins to do most of them, and lazy people like me did them in recess right before class. The teacher didn't check them 1 by 1, but if you were picked to present the problem in the review and you didn't have it done, you were fucked.
For context, this is like 15 years ago already. Spain.
De hecho eso suena re útil.
Yup. I struggled in school because my dad didn't respect public education and always filled my afternoons with chores and tasks. If I was lucky I could do homework on the bus, or at lunch, or in earlier classes, but typically not. Despite having the highest test grades in most of my classes, I generally had the lowest overall grades, especially in particularly homework-centric classes like history.
...yeah, i did fantastic in my GT classes but struggled in my regular classes due to the volume of busy-work...
I think cars should be outlawed in population centers with exceptions for product deliveries, mobility scooters and e-bikes. If you want your ikea furniture into your apartment you need to either fit it into a cargo bike setup or get it delivered by a company with a delivery license.
I hate cars
I hold that view quite publicly and have recieved minimal disagreement.
Political violence is acceptable.
When the actions of a dictator or party directly worsen the lives of citizens, I believe it should be a legal right for the citizenry to execute those in power.
hot in general but definitely not on lemmy
Oh I have a good one for this
I am an introverted loner who enjoys time spent solitary.
But I do have a social life, date, work. So I am aware that there are other people who spend every day doing something social with others and get frustrated if they have to spend any amount of time by themselves just in their own company.
I believe(d) that time spent alone with yourself and your thoughts is psychologically healthy, helps you figure out who you really are and lets you sort out your beliefs and desires.
So I thought society should change in such a way that there was a mandatory month out of every year where we all spent the entire time locked away in our homes getting essentials delivered.
Now imagine my surprise in 2020 when I actually got what I wanted and it drove a significant chunk of the population absolutely insane.
I love introverts and I personally enjoy my time alone once in a while. But it has to be voluntary. There's a reason being locked up and alone is society's standard go-to punishment, and solitary confinement, even in lush and luxurious conditions, can be considered torture.
But we weren't alone, I still could contact all my friends as usual via voice chat and game together. I saw people at the store, I say colleagues while working remotely in video chats (still do, WFH ftw).
I guess people not adapted to an online life felt isolated, but those were the same criticising my style of life so.... Skill issue and get fucked.
Yeah I get it. But, socializing online is not the same as socializing in person. Online there are at most two senses involved, sound and sight. Socialization also has proprioceptive, tactile, and even olfactory dimensions. There's also a do-together dimension, not about doing the same thing but doing something in the same physical space that is psychologically distinct from occupying the same virtual space or doing the same digital activity online.
Again, I get it, I can personally function socializing mostly online. But that's not typical. Most humans need to socialize in person to stay mentally healthy. It's OK if you don't want to, but just accept that you're probably in a minority. There's a fundamental biological reason the Meta universe crashed. Existing mostly online, although it could be healthy for some individuals, is considered pathological by most.
not necessarily disagreeing with you just providing my personal experience/perspective/knowledge, there is a very tangible sense of proprioception in VRChat. it kept me sane during lockdown.
there is also a study (I can dig up if anyone's interested) that shows that your brain stores memories experienced in VR in a way that it doesn't with flat screen gaming.
now meta horizons was an absolute disaster and I don't know where that blame lies, it's strange that despite everyone in VRChat being An Anime you can apply a level of suspension of disbelief and it really does feel like you're sharing the space with other people.
Agree. The lack of market penetration of VR during the pandemic was a factor. However VR is not for everyone. I always remind how VR presence in novels, even when romanticized, is always in a dysdopic context. Rarely interpreted at a positive. People tend to have a rejection to online only VR interaction. Humans need touch.
Dogs are incredibly annoying and a not insignificant number of people that want them actually subconsciously want children, but either can't afford them, or don't have a partner to have them with so they adopt a permanent child.
I think it's rather coincidental that 90%+ of women's dating profiles in my area (very high cost of living) all mention some form of "I'll steal your dog. I love your dog more than you. Dogs are life. Live love dog" etc etc...
Can I make a suggestion? It seems like it's not dogs themselves that bug you. What seems to get your goat is people who performatively like dogs instead of having an actual personality. Which ... yeah, you're right.
The proper way to eat salad is with chopsticks. Ever tried to pick up a flat piece of lettuce with a fork? A chopped carrot? A crispy crouton??
I keep trying to tell people this. People are so set in their ways it hurts.
I've been trying to avoid using chopstick for everything, but I've just had that final straw of validation
Chopsticks are the perfect snack food implement to keep your fingers snack-dust/grease free. Chips? Chopsticks are perfect. Popcorn? Chopsticks even help you eat it slower. Fries? You guess it. Chopsticks.
My brother started eating salads with bamboo chopsticks because it bothered him that a vinaigrette dressing brings out the metallic flavour in a fork. Then he realized they are much more practical for the reasons you mention and has become a huge advocate. They have become my preferred implement as well.
I had a Vietnamese student some years ago teach me this and I never looked back.
I think many dv situations (definitely not all) amount to kidnapping and you should legally be allowed to kill the person holding you against your will in order to escape.
Dv?
domestic violence
Isn't self defense already legal?
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/09/groundbreaking-sls-study-documents-the-pathways-to-prison-for-those-experiencing-intimate-partner-violence
I think it's fine that she killed her abuser, even if it wasn't the exact moment a threat was made. In a way, I think it's good if the killing happens in kidnapping cases like this one when the kidnapper is vulnerable, because the victim is more likely to survive. Poison, stabbing while they're asleep, stealing the gun they used to threaten you and hitting them in the back - it's cool. You tell someone they can't leave or you'll kill them, you are allowed to live exclusively on the whim of the person you threatened. That's where my opinion gets a bit controversial, I think.
I started looking for cases where victims of rape were thrown in jail for killing their rapist as it was happening, and I immediately found several different incidents and got depressed.
Hope this explains why I think my view would be unpopular.
What you're describing are direct threats of violence against the victim. If the victim responds with violence, that would be considered self defense, which I don't believe is either unpopular or illegal. The legal system just so happens to be flawed, where victims are thrown in prison, but that's a separate issue that needs to be fixed.
The Abrahamic Religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) aren't "religions of peace".
Socialist economic systems are also easily corruptible.
People are perfectly fine with letting strangers suffer so long as it doesn't inconvenience them.
I’m intrigued, can you elaborate on the socialist economics point?
"One can give you a great recipe. You can still fuck it up."
No religion is all about peace and more importantly, no religion is real. Gods don't exist, they're all human made.
Religions are real, as much as countries are real. They are social constructs. Someone can believe in something that is factually incorrect. Flat Earthers are real, even though the earth isn't flat
I always expect something intense from these threads like "blind people should be culled" but it's always boring trite stuff that 80% of gen pop already believes in. No one is going to get executed for saying homework sucks.
I don't have a stance on blind people, but I do think deaf people shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Part of that belief is the obvious practicality: not being able to hear sirens or honks mean they're likely slower to react in an emergency situation.
But I lived near a deaf college for a few years, where I learned the real terror: deaf people will talk to their passengers while driving. In a language that is entirely visual and mostly dexterous. So drivers are taking both hands off the wheel to gesture, then taking both eyes off the road to get a response. The number of near-misses I've had with deaf drivers is harrowing.
I remember a user on Reddit talking about how his parents were deaf and the danger he felt when they started arguing with each other while his father was driving. From what I remember, because of the emotions involved, it was a lot of wild rapid gestures.
Robert A. Heinlein like to throw out different ideas to improve politics.
Two of my favorites. "Starship Troopers." In order to vote you have to do two years of service. In the book it's explicitly stated that most people are physically/mentally unsuited for actual combat and that they spend their time cleaning streets while being harassed by tough bosses. If a blind person in a wheelchair wants to serve they'll find them a job commensurate with their abilities.
In "Double Star" all representatives are elected by self identified groups. Instead of representing New York or London, they represent 'farmers' or 'small business owners' or 'gamers' or whatever group has enough members to qualify. And the same way you can move from California to Idaho you can change your group.
We have the second one already, we just call it lobbying.
In Europe, we call them "political parties".
Germany has a party for punks, one for satire, one for senior citizens, one for animal rights, one for vegans, one for people of Sorbian origin, etc.
He was a good writer and a solid philosopher. Less focused than Clarke or Asimov, less wacky than Dick, and less manipulative than Hubbard. He presented ideas in a clear way.
Allow me to introduce you to Ross Thomas.
He was a WW2 veteran who became a Washington political reporter. His crime novels always have an interesting political slant.
"The Porkchoppers" is about a Nixon era Union election. Giant cast of characters and slime by the tankerload.
"The Fool's In Town Are On Our Side" is about an ex-CIA agent's sttempts to clean up a small Southern city by making it 'so corrupt even the pimps will vote for reform."
https://bookshop.org/beta-search?keywords=ross+thomas
some countries already have the second one, they're called non-geographical constituencies
Could you provide some examples?
I tried a search but couldn't figure out how to filter all the information into a usable form.
The Hong Kong LegCo had some back when it was still democratic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Council_of_Hong_Kong#Functional_constituencies
Also, the City of London (the small historical core of London which is politically independent from the greater London aglomeration) still retains its ancient voting arrangememt, which lets local businesses vote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation#Elections
Conveniently, much of the London global financial hub falls within its perimiter.
Thanks.
I appreciate you.
No worries. Thanks for inquiring about my Special Interest ;)
The second one just describes political parties, in countries with voting systems that don't enforce 2 camps.
I wasn't familiar with either, and I now love them too. However, you think you'll be horribly executed and shunned for them!? I doubt we'll see a more popular idea in this post...
A lot of people here will hate on Heinlein for being a fascist.
He went to Annapolis and was strongly promilitary and anti-Stalinist.
He also had some of the first trans characters in science fiction. [ "...All You Zombies" and "I Will Fear No Evil."]
"... All You Zombies" is really about his connection to his dead sister.
And...?
I read that story in middle school. I've read it a dozen times and saw the movie. [Predestination with Ethan Hawke]
I never heard this story. Even if the author himself said it, it's irrelevant because it wasn't a part of the story.
Moreover, you should acknowledge that when it was published anything involving trans people would be censored in most magazines.
This is bait. I'm tired of these bait posts.
They're bait posts because they're preying on people to drop some really spicy unpopular opinion that nobody, even including the OP, will handle. It'll create a scuffle, arguments and there will be calling for post removals and report wars will happen.
Also, it reeks of Reddit too, including to the last line.
Most single people are single for a reason
Plenty are unlucky (they live somewhere full of backwards hicks, like 'Murica) or some other misfortune, but there are so many people who deserve to die alone and lonely, and they're blind to the fact that they're single because they're just shitty people
Some people understand why they're single, and accept it.
I'm all of the above and more! Hell, my unpopular opinion that will get me executed is that dogs are annoying and overrated. I'm literally worse than Hitler.
But I do recognize it at least so there's that.
It doesn't mean they can't improve.
Maybe you can fix them
Sure, give it a try
You guys are wimps. (Dog guy gets partial points though, people are psychotic about their dogs). Here's an actual hot take:
Sex drive, while a strong biological impulse in most people, is nowhere NEAR as powerful or persuasive as we are conditioned to believe. Its almost entirely cultural and formed from Movies, Porn, Advertising and just about every other media artificially elevating it.
Everything, from lighter fare like niche fetish communities, to dark shit like rape, sexual violence and, in some cases misogynistic violence aimed just at women in general, is escalated and enabled by a mass permission structure where we all are just told, and to some extent believe, that Sex is SO powerful. Men become easily manipulated puppets to demonic seductresses. Sexuality can damage reasoning ability. Without sexual release men inevitably become violent brutes. A million other stupid, widely believed things. They have a kernel of truth obviously but they are exaggerated in the extreme, usually to excuse poor behavior by men who are trained from a young age that they not only can, but should turn into a drooling gorilla at the sight of tits.
The internet isnt horny. Men aremt primarily sex-driven. Its all an artificial cultural construct designed to promote bad behavior.
did you ever consider you just have a lower labido than others? coming from someone with a pretty low labido.
Also I think it's moreso just that orgasming relives stress, and people's lives are pretty stressful nowadays.
But I'm like borderline asexual so my opinion on this manner isn't the most experienced 😅
The bigger problem is the lack of communication on the subject leading to these kinda puritanical "sexual desire is bad and makes you do bad things" take that made Kellogg try to kill libido with corn flakes.
I think people need to discuss sexuality in non sexual contexts more often. It needs to be considered less taboo and less explicit when specifically discussing sexual health, which is actually important to discuss. I'm largely asexual, and honest conversations earlier in my life would have helped a lot, because I never understood a lot of the things you point out in media. I know just how much my view differs thanks to conversations with someone with diagnosed hypersexuality whom I think of as a close friend.
Think it one step further. Why are they trained to accept the 'power' of the libido? What do they get out of it? Answer: they get to satisfy, or at least titilate the libido.
It's the old paradox of society and desire. Individuals want to feel good. Society cannot function if individuals only seek their own pleasure. How do you satisfy both goals? By twisting them both until they can suffice to get you through to tomorrow.
I wouldn't be surprised if porn hub is a CIA ops targeting one minority or an other. They always seem to have their hand dipped in anything even remotely shady.
Representative democracy was specifically designed to have oligarchs be in charge of society and it should be abolished in favor of smaller, direct democracies.
And it is especially true in the digital age. States made some sense centuries ago when direct democracy was limited by the speed of communication, but why should we be following those same models of government that were made when you could only communicate as far as you could shout or a horse could take you now that I can talk to you, random human somewhere?
You are actually correct on that point. I'm not in favour of start disbanding societies left and righ but I am fully in favour of dismantling the "democratic system" as it exists today and reshape it to make democracies... Democratic.
Nope
Do you know how to run a military? Do you know what environmental regulations should be needed for chemical plants?
I can go on for a while but you get the point
You're in charge of healthcare? Then at the very least you must be a doctor
You're the minister of justice? At least be a lawyer, or better yet, a judge.
Does the president know how to run a military? A president (in the US) can legally go to war with any country they'd like for up to 60 days without any congressional approval. Every war the US has entered post-WWII has been disasterous, both for the countries we went to war with, and for the US domestically.
I'm not saying we should abolish regulatory agencies. We should still have them, and instead of having their leadership be appointed, have them be elected. Also give people the ability to create new regulatory agencies as needed for novel technologies. For example, the use of burning fossil fuels to generate electricity is a relatively new idea. The effects (both positive and negative) of any novel (and old) technology should always be studied, and unbiased, peer reviewed scientific research should always be taken into account when creating such policies.
What does that even mean? Healthcare should be considered a human right. Public institutions, such as universities or publically funded pharma research institutes would still develop new medicines, and doctors will be able to perscribe whatever the patient needs without mafia insurance corporations getting in the way and without private pharma corporations pushing drugs to be perscribed.
I don't disagree with the point about a person in control of, say environmental regulation should be qualified in the subject matter. I wouldn't mind making it a requirement to at the very least have a degree from a university in that subject matter in order to run for the position, so long as higher education is provided to everyone free of charge for anyone who chooses to go down that route and so long as the people who design the cirriculum do not have ulterior motives.
Also, you mentioned requiring ministers actually implement what they promise. How would that be enforced? Would it not be more feasible to just have the ability to vote them out and replace them with someone who would actually do the job they promise, if, that is, the position even needs to exist to begin with and cannot be replaced with a direct, democratic vote.
US is a very flawed democracy, it's a bad example. Unlike most European countries you can't just vote both out so if both parties agree on something the public opinion doesn't matter.
There are oligarchic elements in all democracies but the purpose of a rep democracy is that you can elect the most qualified person to do the job of sorting all the governing out full time.
To further illustrate the point, most votes for the presidency of the US just flat out don't matter. You can't even vote for your preferred candidate since there's no runoff/ranked choice election in either primaries or presidential election and each state is a winner takes all so republicans in New York don't get a say nor do Dems in Alabama.
All representative democracies are flawed by nature since they all allow for an elite class to exist and likewise allow for corruption to exist. I just use the US as an example since I am the most familiar with US politics, but the US spread its ideas about representative democracy to the entire western world.
The most "qualified" person is not always the right person for the job. Some people take qualified to mean experienced, for instance, which is what many neoliberals in the US touted in their campaigns, but they were experienced in maintaining a corrupt system and serving their donors. The Republicans are experienced in also serving their donors while pushing the needle further right.
Say there was ranked choice or some other system that allowed for more than two parties. As we see in EU countries for example, the elite are still allowed to rule there, and corruption still exists. Denmark isn't pushing for Chat Control for fun. Germany isn't supporting Israel for fun.
Nah, the general public doesn't have the time or patience to properly research this stuff or consult the experts. They'll just vote on vibes and we'll just be trading one kind of bad for another.
Keep representatives, just don't elect them. Sortition is the best of both worlds; you still get a sample of the population, but with people who take the responsibility seriously and actually have the time to do the research/due diligence.
I watched a video on sortition a while ago. It's definitely better than the existing system, but it is still ultimately possible to outright rig the process via bribery, rigging the election process directly, etc. and for power-seekers/oligarchs to gain power. It's just much more difficult to do so.
Gods very likely do not exist. For all we know, we could be a simulation and there is no way to know for sure beyond dying.
This makes every and all religions, sects, beliefs all fake, frauds, and human made.
Religions are for population control, nothing more nothing less and it pisses me off that we live in 2026, we can see other planets around other stars, we know mostly how the universe started, we understand DNA and evolution, we understand physics and yet the majority of Earth's population still believes in stone age fairytales used to control them.
Alex Jones was partially correct, they are in fact turning the frogs gay, and this extends to people as well.
Specifically, endocrine disrupting chemicals, which are commonly used as plasticizers and flame retardants, disrupt your endocrine system. I.e. they fuck with your hormones.
Exposure to environmental stimuli, including such chemicals, can cause changes in sexual behavior and characteristics. This was the driving force of the plot of Jurassic Park.
This cannot be proven without seriously unethical human trials, but exposing a every other animal to EDCs during development can and does cause changes in sexual development.
Edit: other pollutants are causing societal effects as well, there was a study on crawfish out of NC a while back that found significant behavioral changes (less aggression, more foraging) among males that lived in a stream which was exposed to sewage, and therefore low level antidepressant medication.
there are some truly incredible works of art that would have been worse if not for the people in charge of them being abusers (see: crystle castles, stanley kubrick).
i don't say this as a matter of defense or to claim "the ends justify the means". just that if these people weren't monstrous pieces of shit, their creations would be less raw and emotionally moving.
per the examples above alice glass and shelley duvall gave incredible, gutwrenching performances and they were driven by their mistreatment and pain.
I'm reminded of the supposed exchange between Dustin Hoffman and Laurence Olivier on the set of Marathon Man. Supposedly Hoffman stayed up for three days straight to get into the physical and emotional space of his character, and Olivier criticized the choice by saying, "My dear boy, why don't you just try acting?"
Actors are trained to deliver performances. Their job is to believably convey emotions. If the director can only get the performance he wants by abusing his cast, he's a horrible communicator and has no business in the director's chair.
Alternatively, if we believe actors need real experience and emotional depth to draw on for a performance, we should get rid of stunt doubles and special effects. How can I believe Hayden Christensen's pain at the end of Revenge of the Sith if he actually still has all his limbs?
Artist: writes poetry for a few years then kills girlfriend and then self
200 years later people: Oh, he was so passionate!
Counter point: David Lynch was famously very pleasant to work with according to the people who have worked with him, and he got some incredible performances throughout his career.
I won't. I do not have the slightest clue on what you just said.
My take: people are too lazy to think. The majority acts as toddlers, easy to distract and quick to show a temper if their wants, ideas or preconceptions are not met.
Oh, and professional sports should be banned tomorrow. Be active to be social and healthy, not to live under the thumb of sponsors and the scrutiny of fans. Professional sports are also terrible for kids, as the adults already in the sport, acting as coaches or aids are in it to move up the ranks by finding the next talent and showing how good they are.
Studying computer science coaches young people's brains into only thinking in terms of binary reasoning, and is the reason so many tech bros are fascist. I think it's actively harmful to people's development, and should be kept away from children until they are emotionally mature.
I'll personally shun you. Programming by hand is an art form, there are infinite ways to solve the same problem and resilience, security and UX are all spectrums. Programming style is so unique that in a company of 10 people without a linter you can kinda tell who wrote what based on style alone.
Take an upvote, this is exactly what OP requested.
I don't know if I would agree..... Variety and uniqueness doesn't equate to art. There's an infinite amount of ways to write a medical note, and in a large office of providers I can tell who wrote them based on composition and style......that doesn't make me an artist.
I work in medicine, and certain sects of our field have a similar issue. They promote pragmatic and utilitarian thinking, which when utilized within the field makes sense. The problem is when people utilize this kinda problem solving on social problems at a grand scale. I would have a similar problem with people learning how to do triage or surgery at the same age kids are getting into cs.
I guess it's hard to explain how a program is a work of art and use the doctor's note analogy but calligraphy and readability are definitely factors. Maybe if we'd consider a hypothetical note where you can't do anything yourself but an idiot intern has to read it and follow the instructions exactly on what to do?
Kinda the main factor you keep in mind when writing medical notes. The notes are to inform anyone reading them what your subjective and objective observations were and, your actions, and plan of care for the patient.
I really can't see how you draw a connection from digital technology using binary to binary thinking, and learning computer science has the exact opposite effect. It teaches you to be analytical and break down problems into workable solutions, approach things from multiple perspectives, searching for the most elegant solution, etc. Not to mention open source and the hacker philosophy, both antiethical to fascism.
People who study CS are usually strongly on the left. Techbros went to business school, not tech school.
People I've met or talked to online who are in cs tend to think/argue very linearly and in a utilitarian fashion. Which is great for solving issues where you know exactly what the problem is or have a direct goal, but if applied to social problems can be very destructive.
Also a minority of people working in tech.
Maybe in your country? In the US CS is pretty well known for being pretty full of centerist/ right wing sexist.
I'm in the US and all my friends in tech are socialists champing at the bit for a well organized general strike.
Maybe it's because I live in a city?
One of the biggest issues in society is education, but it's not limited to any one area. It's fundamental to our language based systems. There is something fundamentally untranslatable and intransmissible about knowledge. It even goes beyond philosophical qualia. People innately classify chunks of reality and then are trained to classify them in even more complex ways, usually based on their affordances, but the possibility space contains near infinite variety we map into a finite, and in some cases extremely crude conceptual space. So much of social existence is based upon the recognition of distinctions that exist as sub-classes to the sub-classes to the sub-classes to the classes delineated so long ago they are part of the ideological foundations to the maps themselves.
Humans are not capable of comprehending the unintelligible infinity of reality at any age.
To late! You already said we could execute and shun you (though I think the former sort of precludes the latter).
Humans are born evil.
...bad actors win, and only winners are at liberty to build the future...
...you are here, today, as the living legacy of shameless exploitation, and the future belongs to the progeny of those shameless exploiters among us...
Evil doesn't exist
It's a Thought Stopper people use to excuse shunning and even killing those they don't like, instead of understanding and correcting.
You're right in a way. People are born narcissists. Our brains aren't fully formed. It takes years of training an neural development for them to change.
But that's a ton of work. It's easier to label someone Evil and be done with them.
Please elaborate. I'm more of the view that most humans are born as a blank slate and their upbringing shapes who they are as people.
Kids don't understand the idea of "others" until a certain age. They don't understand that others are also individuals with their own lives, feelings, pain, etc. They will hurt each other and even kill each other (siblings drowning other siblings, pushing them down the stairs, etc.) if left unsupervised. They have to be guided for a long time before they aren't dangers to themselves and others.
And it doesn't stop there. Every class in a public school, everywhere has at least one bully and hanger-ons. And the longer you're on this planet, the less people you find out you can trust.
Kids understand what they're taught. No baby is born racist, but instead, their parents teach that "the other" is dangerous/untrustworthy/"less than"/etc.
Without empathy, humans would not have formed societies. Humans being more social than neanderthals is what made humans "win", and why neanderthals no longer exist (not counting inter-species breeding, since there is no modern being that exists that is considered to be a neanderthal). Sociopathy is considered a disorder for a reason, because it is considered to be out of the norm and actively harmful.
Bullies are, very often, if not most of the time, abused at home, or otherwise have a rough home life. That would also fall under the "nurture over nature" category.
If racism weren't by nature, then it would only happen in some societies or groups, but it happens in all of them.
Empathy doesn't preclude evil.
I don't think that premise is sound. Humans evolved from a central location and then spread out from there. There have been humans from back then who have taught their children to be scared of the other.
Nowadays, we see racism/sexism/religion/etc. as tools used by the elite to divide us so that the masses don't turn against them. It isn't so hard to believe that at the dawn of civilization, similar ideas spread.
Back in the hunter gatherer days, before civilization, it isn't so difficult to believe that humans were equally scared of any stranger who they were not already familiar with, regardless of race.
That entire premise falls apart when you let a person with a different skin color enter the room of children that have never seen that skin color before. There are even videos of it where children scream in horror.
And humans didn't just evolve from one central location. They evolved in parallel on an entire continent. They then also mixed with different subspecies.
Are those children babies or older? Children are taught to fear the other at an extremely young age. I'd like to see a similar study of newborns seeing a newborn of color for the first time.
Humans are the true orcs. Our biology is border line insane when compared with the rest of the animals on this planet. Perhaps if we were aware that we are the orcs we might be able to move on to higher goals.
I'd say we are born chuthulu moreso than evil
I agree with you OP, perhaps I am to be burned at the stake as well:
The kicker is that Vivziepop isn't just a bad writer, she's also a TERF (specifically against NB/trans men) and just a shitty person in general. Spindlehorse is apparently a very toxic studio to work for. I'm fairly certain that Vivienne is going to have a public crash out eventually and end up reviled like JKR.
The vast majority of climate focused policy and arguments has nothing to do with climate change. A significant portion is lightly re themed malthusian arguments. Another significant portion is people wanting to change society to their preferred version.
Having worked in climate change policy for almost a decade, the problem is very real and every single big "solution" is a pro-petroleum shitshow.
Every single true believer willing to throw their whole lives at the problem are in denial about the political will being behind them and adamantly saying "If we make drastic changes today, we can still hold it to 1.0...1.5...2.0 C!" It's fucking delusional. The denial about things like literally not being able to address obvious contradictions like a huge delegation going to the COP to just...be seen...? You don't need 12 people flying to a business expense week-long extravaganza to complain about carbon footprints.
We are literally so cooked. Where's the Kalshi bet on what year we have a BOE? My bet in 2029.
I'm not saying it isn't a problem, I'm saying it's been used as justification for things that have little to do with climate change.
Also true. I'm saying "yes and..."
what's a BOE?
Blue Ocean Event, when the Arctic finally melts and there no summer ice.
I thought that had already happened several years ago
No, not even close. We're about a decade out.
I didn't know that point had a canonical name. Thanks, teach! 💖