I eat it as I cut up the rest of the pineapple.

Same wih mango peels.

But they continue to suck his dick regardless.

Translators - ehh. I don’t speak any other languages so I have no basis for comparison.

But closed-caption writers for TV shows… all of the fucking rage.

I have some audio-processing issues meaning that closed-captions make life vastly easier, but I’m not actually hard of hearing per se.

Why do they always dumb down the dialogue? I can understand abridging rapid-fire chatter if there’s just too much to fit on screen, or not enough time to read it, but they’ll dumb down a six-word sentence with ten seconds of on-screen time.

You know hard of hearing people aren’t fucking stupid, right? If I did lose my hearing and I were denied the actual writing as written by real writers, in favour of the rough gist supplied by some glorified typist, I would be absolutely goddamn livid. How dare they assume I’m semi-literate just becasue my hearing is crap?

If someone came into my home and started making derogatory racist remarks about me, I’d say that response would be entirely appropriate.

deleted by creator

There is no planet B.

Earth is the only place that could sustain human life.

We have not found any other bodies with the basic composition, atmosphere or temperature to have even the remote potential for sustaining life, even with the most extravagantly optimistic technology and unlimited resources to apply it.

Nix, nada, no dice.

We are not getting off this rock - and if we fuck it up, we’re done.

Entirely context dependent.

Who’s cooking tonight? Me, and if it’s sandwiches, salad, etc - still counts.

No cooking in the room. Combining sliced bread with sliced cheese out of the bag - doesn’t count.

Nonsense. Where do you think lawyers come from?

Why do you only frame the issue in terms of the voters’ responsibilities, and never in terms of the candidate’s responsibilities?

Why aren’t the politicians the ones who need to make hard choices? Why can’t they get wedged on the issues for once?

That’s not the question.

The question should be what choice does Harris have, except to stop Israel?

If (as I strongly agree) trump is the worst human on the planet who will cause irreparable damage to :gestures wildly: fucking everything, then why doesn’t his opponent have the responsibility to do whatever the hell it takes, within the law to keep him out of power?

Especially as in this instance his opponent is currently sworn to be responsible for the ongoing welfare of the nation.

Imagine being so fucking intent on enabling genocide half a planet away that you’d rather let your own country fall into the hands of Camacho Harkonnen rather than attract progressive voters.

Why is it always ‘voters need to lower their standards’, and never ‘candidates need to be decent human beings’?

Paging Dr. Streetmentioner

Two things I need to ask:

• What inspired this question, exactly, and
• Can I have some, please?

Congratulations you just invented magenta

Have they tried fucking off?

Lack of spez

If you actually fill the drive with zeroes, the chances of anyone getting anything back are somewhere between fuck and all.

Old MFM drives (tech likely as old as your parents) had a theoretical exploit for recovering erased data.

With modern tech, that loophole was firmly closed; even state-level actors would be shit outta luck.

A file comes in two parts: the actual blocks of data that hold the file itself, and a directory entry with the name of the file, and the location of the first block.

When you delete a file, it only scrubs out the directory entry, and re-lists the data blocks as available for use.

What do you get when you cross Kim Jong Un and Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg?

It’s true that the centre-right (the dems in the US, the labor party in Australia, etc) do use that tactic as a way of shutting down criticism.

Candidate: If elected, I will fully fund children’s cancer research, and also promote puppy-stomping as a national sport.

Progressives: We’re not voting for puppy-stomping, you sick bastard.

Centrists: Oh, so you want children to die of cancer, we see how it is; all this virtue-signalling about puppies is just a smokescreen so you can get your jollies over tiny child coffins.

But while that’s absolutely something that needs to be addressed - I’ve been around forums since the freaking 90s, and callout threads have never, ever ended well, either for themselves or for the place they’re posted in. They never have the effect you want, and borrowing far-right terms like ‘derangement syndrome’ doesn’t help either.

If you come out swinging with a subject like ‘c/politics is a lost cause’ and a buch of hyperbolic-sounding statements - then whether or not they’re true or justified, the whole thing ends up with big handwritten-sign energy, the province of karen neighbours and paranoid nutjobs.

And a community that rewards that kind of thing with attention rapidly turns into a toxic shithole of interpersonal drama and weird little cliques forming with their own little catch-phrases, and six months down the line it may as well be r/the_donald.

Perhaps it shouldn’t happen, but I guarantee it always will.

If you want to talk about shitty wedge politics, your best hope is a top-down approach: start with broad principles, and let the discussion filter down to specifics naturally.