Excrubulent
@Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
- Comment on Some reasons, not all reasons. 9 hours ago:
Yeah, this seems like a case of “it’s not my job to interperet my boss’s incomprehensible behaviour on their behalf”.
- Comment on EU says it will continue rolling out AI legislation on schedule 5 days ago:
“We’ll take our ball and go home, and you’ll all miss out on our fabulous AI products!”
“No. Wait. Don’t.”
- Comment on Srsly 1 week ago:
Yeah, that scans for me. It breaks up “getting ready…for a night out”, but I think it works.
I think honestly it’s just a reality that, if brevity is the soul of wit, then a punchy sentence needs to be compact and that means you need to get a bit funky with the grammar, so maybe the audience has to do a little work.
Maybe also “at which” is fine too, and I was just overthinking it.
One thing I won’t bend on is that “to be starting to get ready” is objectively worse in every respect and is the main thing that throws people about the sentence.
- Comment on Srsly 1 week ago:
This is a slightly wacky sentence. It’s not wrong - it does make sense and communicates the idea, it just forces you to do a bit of work to straighten it out in your head.
I think the biggest issue is the way they unnecessarily used present continuous tense with “be starting to get”.
It’s convoluted and adds syllables. You could eliminate the “be” and “to” entirely and change it to “start getting”. That starts with an active verb which feels stronger and more natural.
So then it would be:
“This can’t possibly be the same 9pm I used to start getting ready for a night out at”
That preserves the flow & punch of the delivery but shortens & simplifies it a lot without losing anything imo.
Also ending a sentence with a preposition can be awkward. You read “at” and you need to refer it back to 9pm near the start of the sentence. Plus it comes after another preposition, which itself is not acting as a preposition but as part of the nouned phrase “night out”, so you end up with “out at”. Again, not wrong, but it can be awkward. I think using “at which” can move it closer to the noun but it’s not necessarily better that way.
Make that change and it’s “This can’t possibly be the same 9pm at which I used to start getting ready for a night out”
It’s a little easier to parse, but honestly I think it loses something, because it doesn’t have a casual delivery. “At which” is evidence that the sentence was very deliberately constructed. It adds a syllable and loses some punch. I’d stick with just the first change personally.
- Comment on Socialist megacorps 1 week ago:
I didn’t say you should try or expect to convince them of anything. Just pointing out the error is enough to let anyone curious enough follow up for themselves. I say that about this post because the person seems to have a genuine intuition about the vague idea of collective ownership.
You can’t expect to convince someone in a single argument.
For myself, when I was still in a liberal mindset, I had someone on reddit say “down with democracy!”, and I called them a fascist, because that sounded pretty fashy to me and it was during trump term 1 when those guys were really stretching their assholes and letting the shit flow.
They said actually no, they were a communist, so I just dropped it. I could tell they were being sincere but also I didn’t really want to take the time to unpack their point.
It did flip a switch for me though, that someone was openly declaring to be a communist. It was definitely part of my walk away from vaguely status quo liberalism towards full anarcho communism.
I still think the way they said “down with democracy!” was bad rhetoric, and I understand they probably meant “down with liberal democracy”, or maybe “down with representative democracy”, or maybe they were some sort of weird nazbol and they really did think democracy as a concept was bad. Doesn’t matter, it moved the needle for me.
Anyway, point being a sincere answer whether it’s exaclty right or even very well articulated or correct, is usually better than making up some bullshit in some misguided machiavelian manipulation.
- Comment on Socialist megacorps 1 week ago:
They let fascist propaganda trick them into believing that corporations are socialist because they flew the wrong flags. They would let those same fascists tell them the corporations are their friends now because they fly the right flags. That’s what they’re paying attention to.
The correct response is, “You are describing worker ownership, which is socialist.” They have to learn they’re on the wrong side before they’ll stop listening to the fascists. They have to be educated, and agree to change the flag in their head, because the right is fundamentally domineering. They won’t accidentally make socialism happen, they’ll just smash our shit because they hate our flags.
Sorry for the rant but I see this “joke” take people are making in this thread all the time and there’s a reason it’s a joke.
- Comment on It's a tragedeigh 1 week ago:
Maxwell immediately adopting an unexplained and unflappable admiration for Wealwell is such a Murph thing to do and I love it.
- Comment on It's a tragedeigh 1 week ago:
“Samwell, Blanewell, Roywell, Hatwell, Wealwell, Johnwell”
- Comment on You're not alone: This email from Google's Gemini team is concerning 1 week ago:
Thanks, I’ve wanted to gmdo this ages, but I got this current phone before I knew about grapheneos and this issue. Now all I need is to fully switch my main email and I’ll be sigjificantly de-googled.
- Comment on You're not alone: This email from Google's Gemini team is concerning 1 week ago:
I was writing a comment that my device is unsupported and all the supported pixel phones are flagship priced. Then I decided to check my work and look it up.
Long story short I have a refurbished pixel 6 on the way, it was cheaper than my current phone was.
- Comment on Finally paid off my Costco hotdog 🙏 1 week ago:
Also my mum brought me some costco hotdogs the other day. It’s hard to get good American food in grocery stores here in Australia but those smokey delicious franks have me considering a membership. So good.
- Comment on Finally paid off my Costco hotdog 🙏 1 week ago:
This has a similar energy to, “Lend me a dollar, but give me fifty cents. Then I’ll owe you fifty cents, and you’ll owe me fifty cents, and we’ll be even.”
- Comment on Historically love sugar 2 weeks ago:
Do you have a sauce for that claim?
- Comment on Hytale, once touted as the Minecraft killer, is ceasing development 2 weeks ago:
“We are legion.”
- Comment on So um, america just started another war in the middle east. We're going to need a shit ton more memes to americans from the nightmare they are enduring. Thanks in advance... 2 weeks ago:
Iran getting nuclear weapons would be an immense boon to peace and stability in the Middle East.
I think you just put your finger on exactly why the US doesn’t want that to ever happen.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 2 weeks ago:
That was me, actually, and I didn’t run out, it is still valid. You are denying that we should criticise the dems for their genocide, and you haven’t gone back on that. That is a kind of genocide denial.
Your entire point in calling me a pedophile was that you literally could not substantiate it. You were talking out of your ass. You were done with any sort of argument.
It’s amazing that you don’t see what that says about you, just like you don’t seem to see what an absolute repudiation of the democrats it is to say that it is useless to accuse them of genocide because the choices in your “democracy” cannot exclude genocide.
And you wonder why so many people stayed home.
It was already turbo genocide, and the idea that what’s happening now is somehow worse is just your fantasy.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 2 weeks ago:
I just want to point out that you’ve given up trying to make an argument and are now simply calling the other person a pedophile. That’s about the biggest admission you can make that you have nothing to say.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 2 weeks ago:
At least you didn’t spend that comment on genocide denial, so let’s call it an improvement.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 2 weeks ago:
That’s weak, doesn’t explain anything, and I think I’m done giving oxygen to a genocide denier.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 2 weeks ago:
I think you think the electorate likes genocide, or at least you said so, so I don’t understand why you think accusing Joe of genocide would have lost an election.
This isn’t hard to figure out, but I guess my brain isn’t broken by genocide apologia so I maybe I can’t understand.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 2 weeks ago:
But every time we said the dems were doing a genocide we were supposed to say that Trump would somehow be worse, but when complain about us talking about the dems’ complicity in genocide, somehow you don’t have to mention that it’s a genocide? Because you didn’t do that.
And despite the fact that you acknowledge the dems are complicit in genocide, you have no criticism of that becuase… something about democracy?
Also if the elctorate wants genocide that badly, then why is it bad if we put the genocide at their feet? Aren’t we helping them in that case? What are you upset about then?
If the American people really didn’t want genocide they would elect candidates in primaries that were anti genocide (they didn’t) or they would vote for the candidate who wanted to just maintain the genocide as it is instead of accelerating it (they didn’t).
You should say, “Yes, that’s my favourite genocider! A vote for Joe is a vote for genocide!” Waves tiny US flag.
Your genocide apologia is breaking your brain.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 2 weeks ago:
So are you mad at the dems for making the genocide even worse by doing a genocide which helped them lose an election thus making the genocide worse?
Why is it leftsts’ fault for telling the truth and not dems’ fault for making it true?
Why do we have to be fair to the dems to agree that Trump’s genocide would be worse when the dems worked so hard to make “worse” virtually unimaginable?
Why do we have to be fair to you by always saying Trump is worse but you don’t have to be fair to us by acknowledging that there is an actual genocide?
Just because you have some mental gymnastics to explain why the dems’ genocide is somehow something we shouldn’t talk about doesn’t mean you’re not denying it.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 2 weeks ago:
If mentioning a genocide helped elect Trump, then doing the genocide helped Trump far more, so I don’t know why you’re not attacking the dems for that.
The genocide charge wouldn’t carry any weight if it wasn’t true.
You’re a genocide denier. You’re not denying it’s happening, you’re just denying it’s worth talking about, which is maybe worse.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 2 weeks ago:
Also apparently leftists have to temper our criticism of a genocide by mentioning that Trump is always somehow worse despite there being no evidence that it is materially any worse under him - that’s literally a counterfactual - but somehow this person gets to criticise us for mentioning a genocide without acknowledging that it is actually a genocide.
It’s genocide denial, but they’re not denying it’s happening, they’re just denying that it’s worth talking about, which is maybe worse?
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 2 weeks ago:
You’re angrier at leftists for correctly calling out the dems’ genocide than you are at the dems for their genocide.
- Comment on I'm gonna mute this one 2 weeks ago:
Calling a genocide a genocide is not a partisan issue, and if you think we need to temper our discussion of genocide so that your preferred genocider can win a fucking election then you are a genocide denier.
The way for the dems to dfferentiate themselves was to stop doing a genocide. They couldn’t do that, and so they enabled the worse option because they were just too horny for killing brown kids.
- Comment on YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed 2 weeks ago:
Asking for a historical example is not inciting violence, telling people to start shooting and put their money where their mouth is, is inciting violence, even if you’re being sarcastic.
I wonder what you would consider as not “all talk”? Someone posting evidence? Gee, I wonder why people don’t do that. I wonder if that’s exactly what people engaging in direct action should never do.
I wonder how I can tell the difference between what you’re doing now and how a fed would talk.
- Comment on YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed 2 weeks ago:
You want receipts?
- Comment on YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed 3 weeks ago:
And it’s you, not the person you’re accusing.
- Comment on YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed 3 weeks ago:
There’s only one person here who’s actually telling other people to get violent.