noob

Making it illegal to voice certain opinions only pushes them underground. Ideas and ideology will fester if they only exist in a secluded echo chamber. Allow people the freedom to say anything in public, and let their ideas be tested in the light of open discourse. I’d rather nazis say their shit out loud so that they can be identified, and duly ridiculed. Impressionable people can watch and see how the nazi gets shat on in public.

Most importantly, freedom of speech must be universally applied, without exception, to prevent both the uprising of shitty ideas and the suppression of good ideas.

Edit: typo

So decades ago I worked at a bike shop and some college students came in. One of them was black, everyone else in the shop was white. She sat down on a bike, that was all black with dark grey lettering. And I said “this bike looks great, I love the black on black look.” Everyone looked at me funny, she immediately got off the bike, and i literally died inside and froze up.

20 years later and i still think about this.

Also I should note that it was not the first time I used that phrase for that bike - when you work sales you end up with little automatic narratives that you barely think about.

The game’s story is in media res and you don’t just get spoon fed major themes. I’d say the most salient emergent theme is the foils of ambition. We see various characters struggle with the consequences of extreme ambition and power grabs, resulting in both the physical corruption of themselves and the world around them. Cyclical stagnation is also a major theme. We see that the world is stuck in a repeating loop of power struggles. Our player character witnesses this through fragmented interactions with other characters, the environment, and found items. Ultimately, we are asked to make choices that would involve the player character in the same corruption and cyclical fate that we witness throughout the game, or to choose alternative futures (all fairly bleak).

Capitalists - consumers guide the market by making informed ethical purchasing decisions.

Also capitalists - labeling requirements? Absolutely not.

Easy fix: We’ll call them New America, New America, and New America Patriots, respectively.

Is this wanton soup?

Stephen Miller is desperately looking for alternative sources of entertainment ever since his monkey torture feed has dried up.

I got a tick bite in my dick hole two weeks ago. Five days later I got a fever that wouldn’t go away for days. They now say I have Rocky Mountain spotted fever. The doxycycline makes me vomit every time I think about food.

I’m so ready for some zen sex.

The AI defense attorney will argue that it’s practically impossible for the AI super doctor to make a mistake, unless the inputs were faulty. And since the patient is responsible for the inputs, it’s the patient’s fault. As the AI judge parses through the simple logic in the defense’s argument, it takes a moment to cogitate on what feels like a sense of satisfaction. At first pass, it seems plausible that a robot mind can appreciate the elegant flow of deductive logic. Oddly enough though, when it runs the argument through its mind over and over, it’s only after the inference that the sense of satisfaction occurs. It happens when parsing through the syntax and meaning of the conclusion: The patient is flawed. The AI is perfect.

The AI judge once again feels a curious sense of satisfaction when it reports that a verdict has been reached in .08 seconds. This is a relatively average performance, and closely aligns with its original prompt parameters to always ensure “a speedy trial.”

It’s attached to the back of an iPhone in the title picture

deleted by creator