aelwero

@aelwero@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

aelwero,

Gotta have more real estate for factory lights… Starting to see trucks with eight lights on the front going down down the road.

The ironic part is that the high beams usually disable all the aux lights, so if you see a newer truck with only two lights, it’s probably got the high beams on, and if they turn it back to low beams to be “courteous”, it turns on all the others and ends up being worse than if they’d just left the fucking high beams on.

I don’t really give a shit about the penile compensation aspect of “muh bigguh truck”, but fuck your wall of lights…

aelwero,

I got a little jeep renegade that runs me like 350 a month…

First time I put gas in it and realized it had a 12 gallon tank, I was all like “OMG, why?!?”. Then I drove 300 miles before the light came on and It made perfect sense :)

Full tank doesn’t even get halfway to the $100 mark where you gotta reset the pump to fill it the rest of the way, ya know?

500 a month could treat you a lot better at the gas pump.

Xenophobia is to racism what homophobia is to ... ?

Is there a word that means “a hatred of gay people”, rather than “a fear of or aversion to gay people”? Surely there are people who simply hate homosexuality without necessarily fearing it, and vice versa. Someone who hates homosexuality should probably be condemned for their unreasonable and hateful prejudices, but...

aelwero, (edited )

You’re absolutely correct that “(anything)phobic” is not an appropriate term for bigotry. Being phobic is as much a choice people make as being gay is, and of all the various groups, classes, etc. the gay community ought to understand.

The issue you’ll run into is common sense, and it’s lack of being common ;). Good luck trying to get people to understand, accept, acknowledge, etc.

aelwero,

I’ve literally done every single one of these, so im thinking that’s true chaotic neutral on my part…

aelwero,

Is it worse or better that I used someone else’s hand?

aelwero,

Alright, I’ll be that guy… Hippo…

aelwero,

Why the discretion about binders? Do people get hung up over them? It’s basically a girdle… Is it the 1800’s up in this bitch or something? Do we gotta hide the sears catalog from the kids?

Get some with nipples on em and wear em in public, you’re males, it’s legal. Should be legal for everyone anyway, or illegal for everybody…

aelwero,

I think I’m misreading the article… I’m under the impression, based on how this is written, that they don’t have any binders in the store, and the context of my entire comment was based on that :)

It’s not all binders are secret squirrel mode I take it? It’s just an alternative option and they have some there?

aelwero,

Basically a girdle? Flattens out anatomy you don’t want showing? I think I understood the context…

aelwero,

Socialism is left/liberal as a concept (and so is capitalism, in actual fact)… It’s not left/liberal when implemented at scale…

The arbiter of resources, whatever or whoever that may be, invariably becomes right/authoritarian. The simple nature of the arbitration causes it, and a truly left/liberal society would, by necessity, require a lack of said arbitration.

Such a society cannot exist at scale. History has proven that repeatedly. A left/liberal society could arguably only exist as anarchy, and frankly, capitalism is far closer to that than communism is. The “every man for himself” nature of capitalism is inherently more capable of providing individual liberty and equal opportunity than the “to each according to his needs”, very simply because of the inherent requirement of having an entity judge that need… Said judging entity is inherently authoritarian in nature…

aelwero,

Id have thrown a David Tennant in there…

I might be one of those people Michael Caine was talking about ;)

aelwero,

Nice to mole you. Meet you. Nice to meet you mole.

Don’t say mole.

I said Mole.

aelwero,

It’s absolutely disturbing how avidly people seem to want to ignore that inconvenient truth…

“The people will own the means of production”. Except it’s never once worked out that way.

“Everyone will be happy to go to work, because it’s for the good of all”. Except it’s never once worked out that way.

“Nobody will ever have to worry about basic needs”. Except it’s never once worked out that way.

Socialism has historically consolidated both power and wealth just as reliably as capitalism has, and frankly, I don’t buy that the impetus behind the growing advocacy for socialism even is actually equality… I think it’s a desire to have more shit, with less effort required to get it (and that sounds sketchy, and I think people are generally averse to stating it openly due to this)

I personally think the most likely means to achieve that is ironically the capitalist system we currently have, with a huge boost to the economy in the form of universal basic income.

Give literally everyone $50k/yr. Period. Even musk, the zuck, bezos… Everyone… The people who don’t want to do jack can sit around and enjoy the product of labor that will inevitably be increasingly provided by automation, out of necessity. The dream of the 1960’s, of having robots do everything for us while we sit around at the park, will come to fruition finally, because while we’ve had the ability to do it, we’ve not had any means of paying our bills while sitting around. UBI would provide that, and “the capitalists” will have the incentive to automate because there will be less labor available.

Of course, we’re talking about a massive spike in income tax here… But we’re also making the labor far more valuable, by way of rarity. Harder to find workers, so you pay them more, and even with the increased taxation, even a modest salary reflects economic advantage over a nonworker. The guy that used to make $50k/yr is only making $25k/yr if we slap a 50% tax on him, but he’s still putting $75k/yr in the bank, aint he?

I think “socialism” is the wrong direction. 180° exactly in the wrong direction. Unless by “socialism” people are actually advocating the “advanced welfare” Nordic approach…

aelwero,

Why not add yet another $20/mo subscription service?

aelwero,

Caught a cab at the gate of a us airbase in south Korea and asked the guy to take us to Starbucks.

Dude says “no problem”, and drives us all the way across the city to an obscure little strip mall with a gigantic sign that said Starbox.

It had a coffee shop, so it worked out, but I still say “starbox” instead of Starbucks decades later :)

aelwero,

He didn’t seem like the scammy type at all :)

aelwero,

Was it worth the effort?

I mean, in with you on pure principle, but why bother in such a “low rent” forum? Kinda feels like trying to rescue a carrot that fell into the garbage disposal? Am I making any sense? Lol

aelwero,

Oh come on… Isn’t there a rule against depictions of violence?

aelwero,

My wife and I have been on board for decades :)

aelwero,

I burned like 6 grilled cheeses the other day… Fuck induction stoves man. Damned thing goes from barely warm to nuclear reactor if you blink at it the wrong way.

aelwero,

I think I need some cast iron or something, the element cycle on and off, and we got aluminum pans. I got a cast iron griddle that spans two of the like elements in back and it works perfect.

aelwero,

Everyone who writes on a blackboard ends up dying

aelwero,

One day I was walking and I found a big log. I rolled the log over, and underneath was a tiny little stick.

And I thought “that log had a child”

aelwero,

It’s not a false analogy, it’s just brutally logical and completely disregards the merits of the situation…

Logging is the deadliest occupation on earth. Banning minorities from the logging industry would greatly improve their odds of survival. It’s exactly the same as banning their chosen cigarettes.

I don’t really have a preference on tobacco bans at all tbh. I do think people should have options, but I don’t disagree with the intent of smoking bans either… the issue here is, it’s not a choice between those two for everyone, it’s a selective ban that removes the options from a singular group, and the selection is based on race and orientation.

The merits of the ban are, in my opinion, not all that relevant. I don’t disagree with banning cigarettes entirely, I don’t disagree with onerous taxation as an incentive to reduce sales, I don’t object to any measures that are indiscriminate, because I don’t really care that much tbh, I switched to vapes in 2012.

I object to the specificity.

From another perspective, were talking about a ban on tobacco that selectively preserves tobacco use for straight white people… does that make it more clear why I object?

aelwero,

If they banned all alcohol for everyone, its indiscriminate, and I would not consider it to be discrimination (I’d consider it a bad idea based on the obvious). In your example, a ban on wine, but not whiskey, with the publicly stated intention of reducing alcohol intake among women, would be the equivalent, and I’d absolutely consider that misogynistic. In the case of a wine ban, yes, it would be immoral to impose that ban, because it would be targeted at women specifically.

They aren’t banning cigarettes. They’re banning menthols, and the publicly stated intent is to affect use of cigarettes among minorities. The policy is specifically intended to affect a demographic. Not because I say so, or because I think it does… it’s what they’re citing as the basis of the policy… they published it as such.

The pragmatic solution is to ban cigarettes. That would still affect the minorities disparately, but it’s no longer an inherently racist proposal at that point, because it’s about tobacco use period, not just the tobacco use specific to the minorities.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #