Lath

You know that scene with the guy on the castle wall in Monty Python and the Holy Grail that farts in your general direction?
Yeah, I giggled.

That I exist. And that we’re in a relationship.

It’s a love-hate thing. You wouldn’t get it…

Symbolically, that’s part of the point.

Spoilers are the worst.

Note to self: Find little joys in life that can’t be spoiled.

Isn’t that just PTSD?

I understand that, I really do. However, what if you change nazi memorabilia with LGBT+ stuff? Is the bartender still correct in doing so?

Or change the LGBT+ stuff to any kind of recognizable symbols of a certain group. Is it still the paradox of tolerance or is it now the paradox of intolerance? Note that this isn’t something leading. I am asking as a question that I don’t know the answer to.

I know that some groups shouldn’t be tolerated in a society they want to destroy. But here’s the thing, we can’t not live with them. If we as a society, destroy or segregate groups of a defining nature, don’t we become exactly that which we claim to prevent? And once this type of action starts, can we be sure it will stop there? Who will be the judge, how will they enforce it and for whom?

Anyway, I understand the tale and it’s the bartender’s right to do so.

Most people do stop doing that as well. However, a tiny bit of resentment from being disallowed also takes root. More so when they believe it’s unjust. And if they encounter more and more of “can’t do this, can’t do that”, that resentment grows into something ugly. That ugliness doesn’t care if it’s right or wrong, it only sees oppression and develops into hatred. Which eventually turns into violence.

It ain’t right, but it’s how we’re built. We usually see in 1st person and can’t fathom what it’s like to be on the other side.

People just don’t understand. Because society prohibits exhibitions of hatred, those are most likely to seek out places that do allow it. The desired “freedom” aspect of society-free judgement is why you encounter them more often in these type of forums. And when you got there to “repress” them, it’s seen as the claws of society invading one of the few avenues that allow venting their frustrations.

Think of it like this, everywhere you go there’s rules, rules, rules! You’re stuck doing a job you don’t like to pay bills that keep growing, having to play nice with people you barely get along with 5 to 7 days a week and only an online forum to let you vent off your stress. But then some bozo shows up and yells “no, you can’t do that!”. Wouldn’t that just make you angry?

This isn’t about the correct thing to vent about, it’s about being allowed to vent. When you tell someone they’re not allowed to do something because it’s bad, it usually comes off as taking away their sense of agency, and that just makes them more hateful.

Written by Wolves - Goddess Bad omens - death of peace of mind Nothing more

Edit: CHVRCHES

Bookmark and forget. Thanks

No risk of scurvy at least.

I know in some cases, login fail is intentional to prevent bots from randomly gaining access to accounts.

Source: some random internet person who said they did as such.

As a side note, apparently eating too much fruit of the type that can ferment may act the same as alcohol and fuck up your liver.

Local is for regular apps, LocalLow is for depressed apps and Roaming is for high apps looking for munchies.

What do you mean? Sun is blocked = no sun rays = not blinded when staring directly. The logic is sound! Just like in programming.

I knew. Then I forgot. Now I know again.

When I was poor, I pirated a lot of games, played them and then spread the word.
I can say and do believe I helped sales and increasing popularity.

It’s not just a pat on the back. My recommendations had others play games they’d never even heard of and in turn recommended them to others.

Of course, now that I can afford some games and no longer play them at launch, I just stick to “Grab them on a sale! It’s worth it at a smaller price!”

Well yes, but Americans have that unpleasant thing called ACAB that likely prevents them from accepting any attempt at removing their perceived self-defense against the abuse committed by authorities.

Because you can’t get rid of guns completely. For one, the security forces of those in power will have them and second, those who intend to do bad things to people will have them.

Once the technology exists and is available to the public, one can no longer stop its proliferation.

Probably because they’re basically poison that has to be filtered out and fucks up your liver and kidneys.