I’ve been awake for too many hours and probably nothing I post right now should be considered a reasonable take

  • 1 Post
  • 365 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle



  • So like, one day we found this Korean channel over broadcast (I love the sf bay area) and this program was all about this lady finding this horrid green with sprinkles and warts and probably a super fund grant poop was on a plate on her kitchen table. Like, it was really diseased like someone who has a very damaged gastrointestinal tract and eats a lot of candy with a lot of neon food dye got really backed up then shat out a bear that then shat out this shit. And she really wanted to know which of her friends or neighbors or landlords maybe left the shit. I couldn’t really follow all the people but I could follow the shit panic.

    Anyways, it was one of the realest things I’ve ever watched and the turd looked hilarious and to this day I have no idea what it was. I promise 5 hatsune miku forehead kisses redeemable whenever the fuck you can get hatsune miku to redeem forehead kiss coupons issued by someone else to whoever can figure out what the fuck I watched





  • slightly off topic, but have you noticed how some of the Japanese entertainment that makes its way internationally has a certain element of What The Fuck? It seems to me like a Lack of Inhibition, which in my culture very often tends to be a response to living in overly restrictive environments. In my experience there’s a real strong correlation. So is what I see in the entertainment (the general What The Fuck) a yearning for less restriction, less inhibition? Is it a cultural response to previously living under strict authoritarian rule? I don’t know. It’s just what I see in some art I enjoy, and then we see some FloridaMan type crimes like Dude Emerges From Ceiling And Throws Log and we Really Wonder.






  • i haven’t even taken a position dude, i was just trying to see where you were.

    one side of my family, they practice law. my opinion is nuanced. there are definite positives from citizen review of judges but most judicial decisions are opaque, most citizens know so little about law as to not understand what judges do, honestly if we could properly address the issue of regulatory capture first (which would solve a hell of a lot of problems in government, but that’s another can of worms and it’s one i’m legitimately not sure how to solve) i would have very little problem leaving it to appropriate government appointees. because if regulatory capture is addressed, (and that’s a huge, glaring red flag assumption) then nonpartisan legal experts would be doing the judicial appointments and review.

    judge elections are where the citizens get to step in and say, as a random example out of nowhere “hey, judge who gave rapist brock allen turner no sentence? you don’t get to be a judge anymore” so like, that’s their only legal recourse. Remember, “There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge. Please use in that order.” We absolutely do not want to be shooting judges (that’s a complete failure of society), and we really don’t want to be putting them on trial for making stupid decisions (they have what is called sovereign immunity for their decisions made legally from the bench, specifically judicial immunity if the AI summary on the search i just ran didn’t lie to me. sounds right and i think that’s what my lawyer siblings taught me i don’t know years ago) so what we have left are soap box and ballot box. Soap box isn’t great, because turning the populace against the justice/criminal-punishment/whatever-euphemism-you-want-to-use/legal system such that they lose faith in the ability to obtain justice is not good for society altogether. So the ballot box theoretically remains as a viable outlet/pressure valve for the public to be able to get a small measure of justice it is unable to get in the jury box. Even when actual justice remains out of reach, allowing the public to vote against the judges who presided over the courts that denied them justice lets the public feel they have recourse.

    Do you see the theory?