gbzm

At the risk of sounding like I’ve been living under a rock, how do we know it’s coming, exactly?

I’m not very big on life myself, but to me that’s only superficially what this is about. To me it seems the negative reaction you get is because “life is boring” is an expression of personal suffering first, and a judgment about an objective, intrinsic quality of the very concept of existence second. So you have to be careful when you want to argue that boredom is not an intrinsic quality of existence because you end up invalidating an expression of personal suffering, which is generally considered gauche.

Second, your arguments in favour of life not being boring generalizes conditions that may not be everyone’s. The ability to change jobs, move, find new friends, etc. is not necessarily universal. People who struggle with depression, in particular, may feel that your argument boils down to “pull yourself by your bootstraps”. People who are in situations of economic or social servitude will feel it comes from a situation of personal privilege.

I wouldn’t want to convince you that life is boring, it’s a good thing that you enjoy your existence, and the very fact that you enjoy it is a proof by example. That said, I think your approach to trying to make people find good in their own lives by convincing them sight unseen that their bad experience with it is their own fault is misguided.

Really? Again? I already disproved that take of yours in another thread, and you’re still on about that bullshit even though your own source disproves your claim literally in its first sentence?

The citation you’re contradicting is from an actual real-life, respected biologist who wrote peer-reviewed scientific articles. Who are you? Where are you getting these facts from, since they’re nowhere to be found in your source? Are you really that deep in the Dunning-Kruger valley? or are you trying to hide some sort of message in ignorance too solid to be genuine?

Please, being mistaken isn’t a crime but at least try to learn

Edit because I can’t reply to a comment that was moderated out: Saying “again” when you’re spouting the same nonsense again is not a tactic, it’s just frustration. What is a tactic is cherry picking the parts of an article to present only one side of a debate, in order to refute another argument than the one put to you.

I didn’t speak about the offensiveness or not of the term DSD here. I can at most think I would be or not, but I’m not qualified to know whether I would be offended. What I am talking about is reading, which I am qualified to do. There are three definitions of biological sex mentioned in the very first sentence of the article, none of which refer to gamete size which is a fourth one. I could also add the part where not all the DSD listed can be said to be male or female, and the ones who can actually use the chromosomal definition.

But I guess consistency is only for true believers, actual truth seekers like you neglect all that and keep repeating bad approximations as if they were facts because it feels good when the world is simple.

It’s ok: you only get this value every two years. That way, even though it’s a decrease from the previous year you have actually no idea whether the figure is higher than two years before

It is. It could be construed as a form of constitutional brutalism: in theory the president is free to name whomever he chooses, however he is expected to choose someone from the parliamentary majority.

But this is the first time in the history of the current constitution that the parliamentary majority isn’t an absolute majority or cannot form an absolute majority coalition. The consequence is that they can’t systematically no-confidence-vote out any head of government they don’t approve of, and basically enforce this expectation directly.

So Macron can just name someone from his minority (3rd biggest group even) and wait for the parliament to (more or less slowly) disagree enough with it that they’ll agree to no-confidence-vote it out (usually when the government proposes a budget). Then, every time a prime minister is ousted, he can pretend he’s not violating the constitution – in spirit if not in letter – when he starts again. He can frame it as defending the republic against “extremes” even though the relative parliamentary majority he’s “defending against” is just a loose leftist alliance between parties that span from barely liberal to a bit more angry, but not extreme even by the state council’s own definition. The second biggest group, however, is actually the far-right authoritarian racist party founded by literal ex-SS that’s going to win a presidential election at some point if he keeps trying to out-authoritarian them.

Lecornu quit first thing this morning

Seven over his two terms. Three since his party lost its relative majority last July

“New” in this case means almost literally a permutation of the same people, with two ‘additions’ from previous failed governments.

I was also under the same impression, but it seems to have grown less clear?
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2025/09/15/tyler-robinsons-groyper-connection-truth-or-conspiracy-theory/

In any case, Kirk enjoyers have never been known to let facts get in the way of their hate

Another way to look at it is “one can’t fuck children, because fucking implies consent so you should use the appropriate term which is rape”, which is what I believe they meant.

The tweet is a lie, the photo is from a novelty shop (thx falcunculus@jlai.lu)

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-knife-concealed-in-baguette-is-from-french-novelty-shop-not-weapon-c-idUSKBN2781KE/

At a glance it even looks like an AI wrote the whole thing, doesn’t it?

EDIT: 3 posts in history, all with the same hollow Green LinkedIn vibe…

“Une graine dans le bocal piment” ?

Unfortunately not. Quantum teleportation is an awful name: it’s called that way because it implies “destroying” a quantum state somewhere, and “recreating” it identically somewhere else, effectively transmitting information. However, the process also requires a classical information transfer at some point, and is absolutely not instantaneous . It’s only useful for cryptography because it’s mathematically impossible to listen in on this information being transferred without disturbing it.

It’s one of the most unfavorable coolness-of-name vs. coolness-of-actual-thing ratio in physics.

I don’t know about this Milhouse business, but he did have some very salient points: that time he gushed blood uncontrollably from his neck and died has raised serious doubt in my previously staunch anti-gun disposition. Now I have to manually remind myself that most gun violence victims are unfortunately not Charlie Kirk.

Maybe one of them performed their spell over the dark web, with bitcoin as sacrifice.

My sibling in Christ, this is what these words were specifically built to mean.

The U in Utopia is both the privative “u” and a form of the meliorative “eu”. The word was coined by Thomas More in 1516 to literally to mean “a place that is so perfect it cannot exist”, and the hope was that the fiction would serve as an unattainable model to aim for, to motivate and direct the progress of real-life society Though the word “dystopia” was later coined as an inverse mirror of utopia, it doesn’t use nor does it require a mirrored etymological wordplay: “dys” just means “bad”, basically, no implication of inexistence there. And for good reason: the dystopia is a trope that is used mainly in anticipatory fiction as a warning for where real-life society could be headed, as such it would make no sense for it to be depicted as impossible, on the contrary it must have a ring of truth to be an effective warning.

Tolerance is not an absolute principle, it’s just a social contract. People who breach it aren’t protected by it; end of paradox.

That and making, in what should be seen as the sole crowning jewel upon a veritable turdwagon of a life as a professional waste of carbon, the best argument in favor of gun violence since Brian Thompson

At least he died doing what he loved