that’s what i meant, thanks for formulating it so clearly

hey i remember you from an earlier discussion that we had :) good to see you again.

yeah, i guess that “and you gotta roll at least a 4” kinda makes sense.

Part of the point of a compliment is to make someone feel like they are indeed better than most others.

I guess that is the point where my personal emotions just differ from the people around me. To me, it is ok to be average, and to be one of many. I don’t want to be special, so i project that feeling onto others. That is why “you look nice” is an acceptable thing to me, but apparently not so much to others.

btw, why is “You look stunning!” acceptable, but “You look nice” is not?

Is it because “you look stunning” is euphoric, sales-like, energizing, while “you look nice” is … flat?

why do we have to live in a society that dictates that everything must constantly seem better than it is, instead of just keeping things nice and honest?

well tbf the situation is complicated and i can easily see how somebody who has autism can easily run into difficult situations here.

part of the phenomenon is that the societal rules are never really laid out clearly, it seems to me. consider: women dress prettily because they like to. if you notice it, though, you are an asshole. compare that to a different situation: somebody plays violin, and you notice their violin, and ask them “hey, nice violin you got there. do you practice a lot?” and it would be considered normal interaction, if you’re meeting them at a bus station or sth (at least in the country that i live in; that, too, differs from place to place). so, where is the difference?

the difference is that our society has a weird relationship to human bodies. on the one hand, people cannot live without one. on the other hand, society seems to have an outright schizophrenic relationship to the human body. talk about it and you’re a weirdo, no matter what you say. it’s called “objectifying”, even though people seem to have no problem talking about how good somebody did in a sports competition, even though that is completely objectifying as well (after all, your muscles are objects, aren’t they?). so, where’s the difference?

well i’ve made the experience that people who could be considered “pretty” by social beauty standards are more likely to be mean.

the way i explain it is through the “ideal bonding distance” theory. in chemistry, if you have two atoms forming a molecule, they typically keep a certain distance from one another. In society, something similar is happening. People like to have a certain distance from one another. If it’s too big, they’ll try to get closer to other people. If it’s too close, they try to push other people away. Since “pretty” people make the experience a lot that other people try to come way to close to them (for their own liking), they develop a habit of, in general, pushing people away, thus the mean appearance. People who don’t build that habit (because they don’t need it), are nicer in general, i would say.

hey that’s ableist!

apart from that, yeah i agree with you. in general, if you compare Trump’s and Hitler’s speeches, you can see how extremely complicated some sentences that Hitler said were. Watch some (AI english dubbed, starting around 30 seconds in). Compare that to Trump’s speeches, whose vocabulary seems to consist of 5 words.

Yeah, quality has gone down, it seems. I just talked to my aunt and grandma about this exact same thing yesterday. Everything seems to gradually loose quality, or in other words, enshittify.

(btw, i do not mean to say that Hitler’s speeches were “good”; i was merely pointing out that the clarity of expression has gone down. The same can be seen with automobiles, houses, and many other things.)

Btw, I remember reading an article that said, after 2000, universities in the USA specifically tried to erode clarity in speech, because they found it proper. It’s called post-structuralism; structuralism referring to “clarity”. I hoped i summarized that well.

It might have something to do, or not, but it definitely is a coincidence.

yeah, i don’t have SSL yet. just click “advanced > continue anyways” in most browsers.

Thank you for your well-formulated argument.

However, i’m worried that it does not actually work that way. It is short-sighted and ignores second-round consequences.

For example, first of all, where do all these savings go to? They go to the rich, making the poor poorer. As such, if the government goes into debt instead of taxing the rich, it actually contributed through its inaction to make the poor poorer. The government should tax the rich instead of printing more money.

Secondly, if the government does print more money to rid itself of its debt (as you have rightfully suggested), that leads to hyperinflation, which mostly tolls the poor, because they have more difficulty stabilizing in a shaking environment that the big companies.

Thirdly, probably the government can print lots of money once to rid itself of the debt, but it can only do so once. Because once it has done so, people will assume “money has no value anyway, if it can just lose all its meaning overnight”, and stop considering that money as valuable in the first place. Therefore, that is the end of paper money. What do you do then?

“money” comes from the people’s belief that it has value.

Win2Linux project that i’m working on. It should be an official part of KDE Eco initiative soon, if there’s no unexpected problems coming up. I’m running it on my private server for testing. It does not collect any information. Give me feedback on the design…

I already got that the font size is a little bit too large. Oh and some links don’t work yet.

are we still in the “the state should just go further into debt to pay for infrastructure” or already in the “fuck, that was a big mistake, what do we do with all that debt now?” stage? i can’t tell anymore.

What you’re describing is to abolish “intellectual property” rights. I’m all for it.

at one point, microsoft will put all of their software into a VM and ship that on a linux platform. that will do.