I'm going to go ahead and post my hot take: I hate that these people are facing eviction and that they're faced with crippling medical debt caused by chronic illness and frequent hospitalization. I don't like these people. I don't agree with their beliefs. I think Kyle Rittenhouse did something unforgivably terrible and that his family likely enabled him and his actions. But I also don't want them to be homeless or to have to deal with medical debt, because those are things that I believe our society should guarantee, as inalienable rights, that no one, regardless of how odious they or their family might be, should have to endure. And I don't care that they (probably) believe differently.

Cute. I don't believe any part of this, but it's cute.

As a huge Star Wars fan I can confirm that I absolutely loathe Star Wars. Not for being "woke," mind you, but for just being generally creatively bankrupt, poorly executed, and with new media for it effectively held hostage by the existing media for it. Which is why I don't watch any of the t.v. shows or movies anymore. In my opinion this is a superior alternative to getting online and filling my diaper in the "user reviews" section of Rotten Tomatoes.

I had a problem and then I tried to solve it by installing a snap package. Now I have two problems.

Looked up the article. They're mad that Dolly Parton, who is a very outspoken Christian, is specifically the kind who embraces the "God loves everyone and that means we should love everyone, too" ethos of Christianity. In other words, the author of the article is pissed that Dolly doesn't gaybash. What a fucking piece of shit you have to be to sit down and be like "you know what's wrong with this person? They aren't cruel enough."

You don't have to censor the word "Fuck." This isn't, like, a Christian minecraft server.

Article is a bit click-baity. Many of the survivors who saw the film were okay with its depiction and understood why the film presented the atomic bombings the way that it did. The film is ultimately about J. Robert Oppenheimer, and showing the physical outcome of the bombings would have itself been a potentially crass and shocking inclusion in a relatively subdued character study of a complex and tortured individual. Everyone knows that the physical outcome of the bombings on Hiroshima are shocking and terrible and left a lasting scar on the nation, coming to define the national identity of the Japanese, and especially Hiroshima natives that survived the blast, throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. But it's sort of like The Wind Rises. Oppenheimer was a physicist, and a very talented one. That his work contributed to the horrors of war is part of the tragedy of the individual and their story, just like it was for Jiro Horikoshi, the designer of the Zero.

The party of states' rights and "keeping the government out of your private life" really like telling cities what they can and can't do in order to reduce the intrusion of the government into their private lives. I mean, let's be honest. This is basically being targeted because this is going to significantly reduce the number of non-violent offenders (almost all of whom are gonna be people of color, because damn if the cops don't love pulling over black people to try and find weed in their car) ingested into the prison industrial complex and the GOP has a fuckload of skin in that game.

I like how these look futuristic, but also ugly and not at all cool. Like something out of a 1990s movie about a cop who was cryogenically frozen and then awoken decades later to stop Wesley Snipes from Wesley Sniping all over the place.

In this thread: People who are incapable of understanding the most transparently obvious satire ever written.

Full self-driving without driver monitoring.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/20/23767041/tesla-hacker-elon-mode-hands-free-full-self-driving-autopilot

Which is just fantastically dangerous and poorly advised. Very appropriate for it to be called "Elon mode," if nothing else.

Crazy that you're the only person I've found in the thread that realizes this. Generational theory largely accepts that the concept of monolithic generations is reductive. Yes, people born in and around the same time can have shared cultural experiences, but the idea that those are what purely shape you ideologically or that you behave as a component of a monolith are ludicrous. And then there's subgenerations, microgenerations, etc. Just look at the sociological research of Karl Mannheim for a very complex discussion on the topic.