I bring this up over and over again but the Paris Communards burned the guillotines in effigy understanding they represented not class struggle but tyranny
There is also a widespread tendency to attribute any pro-social traits or behaviors any given man (defined broadly and inclusively) exhibits to him as an individual while attributing anti-social (or just annoying) things he does to his identity as a man/masculinity and like. What a fucking trap. 2/?
Prime Day, Schmime Day. Hey, listen, indie bookstores are out there being awesome every day. And they tend to ship directly to you, even if you're not local to the store. They're where the books live! And booksellers are book wizards! Bonafide bibliomancers fast with the recommendations.
The idea of “spoilers” was popularized by studios to combat the rise of sites like Ain’t It Cool News, and prior to the late 1990s, the idea of “spoiling” a movie largely didn’t exist outside of obvious twists (“I am your father”; the identity of Mother, etc.).
okay it's time for a prompt post: respond to this post with a correction to a common misconception about something you know a lot about. if you feel like it, boost your response. (please use a kindly tone about it, otherwise i, your prompt curator, will get anxious.)
Some things that are socially awkward are not morally bad. The appropriate and natural reaction to this category of things is irritation, not condemnation. There’s something weird where ppl don’t feel entitled to their annoyance and have to upgrade it to righteousness.
Copyright has traditionally been negotiated between various factions within the creative industries, with ordinary users and small creators a distant afterthought. Much of what's going on now on the AI litigation front is an extension of that.
The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
Money quote:
Somewhere, Ernst Thälmann is nodding ruefully, in his eternal afterlife of regret. (An afterlife that exists only in those who remember his name and fate.)