TheTechnician27 @ TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world

"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come t

---

Read more

Posts

171

Comments

1,372

Joined

1 yr. ago

It's not a show. It's from a 2003 movie called The Room, and I've been posting a meme every day for every single line of dialogue from the movie. It's commonly seen as "the Citizen Kane of bad movies". Even though every scene could probably be its own separate lecture on what not to do when making a movie, the film is so fascinatingly multilayered in its terribleness and done so, so earnestly out of a desire to make a serious, dark, generation-defining indie drama that it's wrapped around to, in my opinion, becoming one of the greatest movies of all time.

I can't recommend it enough, but be aware that there are four sex scenes, so it's not something you necessarily sit down to watch with coworkers. Still, though, it is more fun if you watch it with friends. It's gained a cult following where it's still shown in some indie theaters today, and people will crowd the theater to perform rituals like throwing plastic spoons at the screen at certain points.

I don't know why the hell people are downvoting this. AOC is quoted in the article talking about why this exact sort of thing is necessary.

• Washington, D.C. has a 50% higher cost of living compared to the rest of the US. Even just for the rent, you're already down a considerable amount for something that's strictly extraneous and only done for your job.
• Generally speaking, you'll maintain a residence in your home district as well. There are plenty of practical reasons for this. Maybe you have a family which doesn't want to upend their lives to live in DC. Maybe you want to run for re-election, in which case the US Constitution is extremely clear that you must reside in the state at the time you're elected. Maybe you want to be able to go home when Congress isn't in session. Maybe you want something to fall back on if you get voted out. This isn't bourgie; it's pragmatic and makes your job at least somewhat bearable. This sets you back a fair bit as well.
• As a politician in a national legislature, you should at least ideally have attained higher education (looking at you, Boebert and MTG). There isn't technically a requirement for this, but most members do, and furthermore, members should be encouraged to be highly educated. That is, you should seek to attract highly qualified candidates, even if the US right now is backsliding on that. The job of a national politician, done right, is extremely tiring, stressful, complicated, high-profile, and thankless, so you want to at least be competitive in a way that doesn't make taking this job feel like a sacrifice. (Done wrong, of course, and we end up with fascist Republicans and neoliberal dinosaurs pocketing millions. But that's not a problem of the salaries being ineffective; that's the result of things like Citizens United, failing to disallow stock trading, defunding public education, etc.)
• If you have a family that lives back home, you'll have a situation where your spouse is functionally a single parent, and thus costs for childcare etc. will be astronomically higher.
• The job is inherently unstable, thus not giving most members a reliable long-term financial plan unlike what you might have, say, in a highly skilled position at a company.

Ah, I thought they were referring to Pelosi. My bad.

Still not a drag queen.

74? My brother in Quetzalcōātl, she's 84.

Meanwhile, Gym Jordan:

I didn't realize killing pond scum was a crime now. Home improvement stores are about to find themselves in deep shit.

Please don't bring pigs down to their level.

I give him 11 minutes.

Is that the one where he struggles to lift a small glass of water to his lips like he has hypokinesia?

You grasp the subject so much that you're too fucking stupid to understand the most basic facets of supply and demand that a literal 10-year-old could understand. lmao okay

I'll say as someone who mods !vegan@lemmy.world that we're really not a debate community either. It's not like it's disallowed per se (especially within the context of "would two vegans be likely to agree about this?"), but I talk about some of the philosophy behind Rule 5 here and why it's therefore discouraged.

My link shows that you're interested in muddying the waters by either intentionally spreading disinformation or by speaking with absolute confidence about subjects you clearly lack the capacity to understand even the most fundamental principles of.

Unequivocally, yes you are, and at that, you're one of the most agonizingly stubborn and disinformed ones I've ever talked to.

Edit: Sharing this conversation here in the context of them being banned from /c/vegan so users can understand how completely full of shit this user is (yes, their actual argument they started at /c/vegan is that vegans starting from a position of "humans have rights" is a flawed position to start from and thus invalidates their argument for veganism):

Edit 2: Oh, and they have this thing where they like to reply to a single comment with several comments while claiming it's because they "don't want to engage in a Gish gallop" (paraphrased), meanwhile facilitating a Gish gallop by making an unfollowable branching tree of comments.

Therefore, he always is.

Monarchy is a cancer.

It's open access, so name the part of the article you didn't read a single word of before commenting that you take umbrage with.

Wax play.

If something like this happens, I'm setting up a Matrix room as something on the side for if people who work on the same project I do want out of this garbage.