pimento64

Easy, just use your mouth.

/thread

Also I demand that everyone who calls it AI instead of procedural generation gets tazed on the butthole

I can only assume the lede you buried in "many of my peers" was that it didn't include a lot of the women.

Diet Caffeine-Free Alex Jones

Technically, sure, but Howard Stern was only subversive in the sense that you can Subvert Societal Norms by deliberately shitting yourself on the bus. It's not a good idea to say he's part of the left when the only defining through line on his ideology is that he bucks all forms of authority and rejects the concept of propriety regardless of its alignment. I like that he hates Donald Trump, I get that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that, but in this case, the enemy of my enemy is a genuinely mean-spirited degenerate who never misses an opportunity to punch down at his subordinates nor at literally every woman he sees, speaks to, or knows about. Far from being on the left, I find it hard to say he's really all that much more than just a lazier, radio-focused version of Morton Downey Jr.

Sorry you got impassioned soapboxing instead of anybody getting your joke.

Canceling people who pretend to be nice but have racist tweets from 2007 is all very fine, we have fun with that in our culture. However, the real action is in finding people who call Zoomer culture cringe, and then digging up their old forum posts where they called a lolcat "epic winrar for great justice"

It's genuinely disturbing that modern discourse has been changed because moot thought it was funny to randomly add word filters to 4chan.

I admire Rome in the sense of holding it in wonder and esteem, but I don't think it was good, and if you'll indulge me I'd like to explain more.

tl;dr

I'd say I admire Rome for having such a sophisticated apparatus of state that was, at the time, found in only a couple other places in the world; and for having a really fascinating culture and absurdly robust cultural identity. It's almost unique in that period for having its cultural identity repeatedly survive truly horrific amounts of senseless bloodshed and turmoil (though I'd personally argue Rome's real fall began at the end of the Republic). The First Punic War, for example, saw Rome throwing away its entire treasury and 17% of its adult male population in an effort to crush Carthage, and the state didn't collapse. Romans waged endless civil wars and insurrections, and yet Rome remained Rome through centuries of that.

However, as fascinating as that is, I don't understand the mind of any person who can come away from Roman history without being appalled by it. Rome was dissolute, degenerate, and disgusting. Everything it accomplished actually fell far short of what could have been, because Rome was repeatedly mired in prioritizing shameless greed and sadistic cruelty above effective governance—like when the reformer Pertinax was executed by his own men, who then sold the title of Imperator at auction. But even though this obliterated any remaining illusions among the populace about the due processes of the Roman state, Rome still held together for centuries, and its dissolution was stubborn and slow. I think if you were to sum up everything about Rome in one word, it'd have to be Proud. I guess there's just something darkly admirable about that.

"I just want to know why you have such an objection to sea lions"