Ook the Librarian @ ook_the_librarian @lemmy.world

My namesake is a human librarian that was turned into an orangutan. All he

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

521

Joined

2 yr. ago

before

Nope, the blood pattern clearly shows he shot himself after he hit the ground. Clearly, this man went above and beyond to kill himself. A Russian patriot.

And honestly, don't knock it til you rock it. Not saying I routinely pour a highball of the stuff, but a small amount is surprisingly smooth. It's no grosser than a white russian imo.

This puts it in his jurisdiction to do something. He really can't do much. But he is fighting with what he has.

I never said I was offended. I said the language vilifies people will mental illnesses.

I don't know why it is inappropriate to try to prove a point. And no, I don't know they had no ill intentions. I was hoping that the language was inadvertently hurtful. After the discussion, I honestly feel that the other party does in fact harbor some toxic views of people who are mentally ill. I was hurt in disappointment, not confusion. I was confused why one couldn't disavow something so simple. I don't know if I'd rather have the confusion or disappointment.

I'm not choosing an interpretation either. Do you know what was said?

Then, I would use their name. Is this a gotcha?

I am discussing the comment:

Use her full name.

Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley

I took your comment as a defense of that comment. Are you defending it as a joke or as a call to action?

Yeah, yewb. Let's not let people forget who she really is, an Indian! I'm sorry lady, did you want to get ahead in conservative politics? Well, you should have thought of that before you became an Indian.

Do you not hear yourselves?

If she feels that immigrants should take pains to assimilate, I will disagree with her points, but not her identity.

Does pointing out that Trump has no idea about Christianity bothered these people? At least when you do that, it’s not some attack via a racism Trojan horse.

Hypocrisy does not matter to the right. It does matter to my reflection. Using her “real name” is using racism as a weapon. I don’t care if it is indirect or that it only hurts racist.

(This post is self-plagiarized from elsewhere in this thread.)

I know who she is. I want to know if I am responding to a serious proposal or a joke. Because the thing is, the "joke" is hard to distinguish from a call to action. And therein lies the problem.

Are you saying that the paper should seriously call her by that name or that it is a joke about her name?

Does pointing out that Trump has no idea about Christianity bothered these people? At least when you do that, it's not some attack via a racism Trojan horse.

Hypocrisy does not matter to the right. It does matter to my reflection. Using her "real name" is using racism as a weapon. I don't care if it is indirect or that it only hurts racists.

Are you seriously in favor of the bills? Why are you trying to enforce them? I vote against racist proposals whenever I can. I certainly don't try to enforce ones that are not even effect.

I don't see how dead naming is cool simply because it will hurt her polling with racists.

Edit: Ok, explain the joke. Why is the birtherism of saying "Barrack HUSSEIN Obama" funny on our side? Why should we respect Caitlin Jenner's chosen name but not Nikki's? If it's not a joke, that is, you think it's a genuinely good idea for news outlets to refer to her this way, why?

So from personal experience, I learned Obama's middle name from the mouths' of racists, I learned Biden's middle name from the mouths' toxic masculine chauvinists, and I only hear Jenner's deadname from bigots. I don't like playing the "true name" game.

Edit 2: Ok downvoters, you've convinced me that it is ok to stress politicians' birth names in order to show disagreement. Can you now please provide a list of white politicians whose birth names we should use in order to show we do not support them? I guess we can just put their names in parentheses or something if that is easier.

I dig it

It seems that the paper is making theoretical strides in the limitations of producing a positron beam via the Breit-Wheeler process. From Wikipedia

This mechanism is theoretically characterized by a very weak probability, so producing a significant number of pairs requires two extremely bright, collimated sources of photons having photon energy close to or above the electron and positron rest mass energy. Manufacturing such a source, for instance, a gamma-ray laser, is still a technological challenge.

I'm not claiming I know this stuff. I was just trying to figure out what was new here since I didn't find the headline very surprising.

instantly hits a nerve in my head

Agreed. But, it is supposed to. We are wired for it.

[Facetious content warning: cheesy "as a parent" talk] Having a kid completely changed how the wires hit your empathy-center. The fact something you love inexplicably more than anything makes that sound, is looking at you for relief, and then you provide it (sometimes), it changes you. And other people's babies don't really bother you anymore. It fires up a different nerve center.

When I hear parents apologize to strangers about their baby and they get the response "it's ok, I'm a parent, too.", I take it as shorthand that they mean "our brains have been rewired too. We get it. So if your baby cries, we'll just frown with our bottom lip way down. We don't know why. There is no control anymore. The wires, they're all fucked up. Oh god why? Will I ever be normal again?". Then they catch themselves, and hide that instant of self-awareness by cooing at the baby. Tale as old as time.

Edit: Getting a few downvotes. Nbd. But I want to stress that this is not a top-level comment, and therefore should in no way be interpreted as an answer to OP's question. In no way do I advocate having kids to fix any kind of problem, especially one of the type OP is asking about. I will sing the praises of vasectomies from personal experience.

Oh no, you were double-booked!

What do you actually want?

I want conversation. Bare links are not that. Looking at the link led me to believe you providing evidence for the quack who was professing absolute safety.

Scientifically, I agree with you. I was asking the "absolute safety" commentor to provide context to studies to lead one to that conclusion. I would have been happy to read the same from you.

You have a lot to say for someone who is happy to slap a url down and move along. :)

[Project Veritas] has said its activities were newsgathering and were ethical and legal.

Plus prosecutors don't want to hold a separate trial (because that is what is required to charge perjury) if they already proved what they wanted to.

They will (likely) only charge perjury if you fuck up a third party's trial or if your lies are provable and got you off the hook otherwise.