I was thinking about it recently, another reason [beyond the other 10973 ones] I have job searching is that the stakes on each side are so different. HR person makes a mistake (assuming it's not illegal and is blatant enough that you can actually sue) it's "oopsie, bit of a mess up on my part" cause the stakes are that they might be mildly reprimanded at most. But if the applicant messes up (both in ways that are actual mistakes and ways that are "I said one word wrong and this neurotypical-maxxer thinks I'm a basement dweller now") it's "sorry, we don't think you'll be good for this position" and the consequences are you get to stress more about finding a job and not having an income

Ugh, my statistics professor sucks

I mean i want to like him, but he has such a goddamn ego about him. Our first and second classes were basically about the goddamn 13 page long syllabus, and we forgot literally 1 inconsequential thing in it and he's like "I'm so disappointed i told you guys to read the syllabus." And i know we don't hate ai a ton here but he has such a goddamn insistence about using it that it bugs me.

But whatever, he's the only professor for this class so there's no use in crying about it

Any other USians have that "growth mindset vs fixed mindset" thing really pushed on them in elementary school?

I feel like it was in a literal sense true but I always felt really infantilized by it. Although tbh I always felt infantilized at school in general anyway.

To be fair, I don't think fundamental change is what Sorkin thought the goals ought to have been. Not that this is a defense or anything.

In fact Sorkin seems to very much love the status quo. Take his defacement of Sacha Baron Cohen's charecter in "Trial of the Chicago 7." In it the radical hippie Abbie Hoffman is questioned by the prosecution, who ask "are you intending to overthrow the government." (Or something to that affect) and Sacha Baron Cohen [not Hoffman, as this exchange is ahistorical] replies "we overthrow our government every 4 years."

Arguably the West Wing is the liberal call of duty. In that, the main charecters are often "forced to make hard decisions." In call of duty this is used to have the main charecters torture people or extrajudicially kill people. In the west wing it's used to justify the IMF and extra judiciary killing people. In the end neither if these properties argue that anything is wrong with the status quo, and said status quo needs to be protected despite its flaws.

I love how every few years it's like "the German army fucking loves the nazis so much if they could get any attempt to coup the government and restore the Hollenzelerns at best and the nazis at worst they would do it" and then we move on like that isn't a terrifying thing to be rearming rn

Alright, well I'll keep this comment short then. Just personally I have it as a hobby and its helped me work through a lot of stuff, and it's something I'll cherish for letting me make people happy. Being powerless or powerful is often the fantasy, and I find that it's actually helped make happier relationships when properly explored.

A better reference point for your argument would probably be pornography. As much as I've worked there, it's insanely disgusting and exploitative in many ways, not to mention obviously objectifying. I do think there maybe should be room for exploring sexuality and it shouldn't be forced to be a taboo, but pornography in general is one of the sharpest point of capitalist decay and "horribleness" for lack of a better word. So that's better to use than BDSM.

Lastly, my general view on the topic is very similar to Dan Olsen's discussion [unfortunately a liberal] in his 50 shades of Grey series.

Edit: although...idk, I'm trying to not be angry here. It's just as someone who went through genuine abuse, having the thing that gave me a lot of comfort in my relationships afterwards be the thing being called "abuse" by anyone kinda incenses me. But I'll try to understand where people are coming from

Prostitution yes, but I'm...politely, I will say I'm unsure how you could classify bdsm as "rape and abuse." What even is bdsm in this context? If I wear some fuzzy handcuffs, am I being raped and abused? Or is it only for "extreme kinks"

What does pro-hedonism mean to you?

Oh...i didn't think it was that bad down there. I mean, Argentina sure, but the rest?

I don't mind "death to amerikkka." I have no love for the country. Its just...the people? I mean I get it. I deal with it every week. I see it with my own eyes. And yet, I still believe, because it's all the same structure. It's all the same problems we've been dealing with for hundreds of years. It's not really all that different.

And then the other part is just acting like we don't have problems here. Like ICE is literally abducting people off the street, I'm afraid for my family's safety and actively trying to find ways to get them out and trying to convince them to get out, and over half the country lives below the poverty line. It's not *the worst," and I'll never claim that, but not everyone is a TikTok girly living in a New York apartment drinking Starbucks every day.

An org in my city was just recently talking about how theyve gotten hundreds of new visitors, and they literally just started last year. They're not DSA, they're a genuine marxist org. I want to try, that's all

Sorry, I naturally cope with humor

I know the SC seat was important for the USSR for vetoing a lot of bad resolutions, but the entire "permanent seat" thing is stupid. Especially considering that nowadays Britain and France can barely influence anything out of its own backyard. Britain especially. Why isn't Japan given a permanent SC seat? Why not Iran or Turkiye or Egypt or any other African or Middle Eastern country? Shouldn't South American interests also be accounted for? Why not give Brazil one? The entire system at that level is completely bygon, and there really needs some way to prevent one country from vetoing every resolution