ring ring, I’m a bicycle boy now

Toaster body, bimbo mind

turns out, I was a cylon all along. wtf?

Cleaning my apartment. Testing for appropriate emojis:

Yesterday I called my mother and she started talking about the “world situation”. What confuses and worries me is that every time I corrected a point she made, she acted as if this was her position from the beginning. For example: She started by saying that she feared that Putin and the leaders in the west will start throwing nukes because they are mad and are just stupid people. When I tried to explain that the current situation in Ukraine is the result of a very specific strategical thinking and a reaction to economic demands, and that they are not just going to throw nukes out of spite, she said that she completely agrees and that she’s glad that we are both so like-minded. Another example is when she later said that it’s important to look at statistics to keep yourself informed about the world in an objective way. When I told her that this might not be a good idea and explained the flaws of statistics to her, she said that she of course knows that they are not objective and shouldn’t be used in that way as if she knew all along.

To me it appears that she definitely understands the differences between our positions and then immediately tries to correct them by drastically changing hers (basically gaslighting me into thinking my response was wrong). But why does she do this? It’s so irritating and when I try to point out that she changed her position, she just says that that’s not true or she just quickly changes the subject.

deleted by creator

I once was asked by some teenagers where they can find something “sweet” and I pointed them towards a bakery, thinking they wanted pastry or something. So unless you tell what city you live in, I can’t tell you where the nearest casino is.

For some context: This protest took place in the context of the Rosa Luxemburg conference, which is a yearly event organized by the newspaper “junge Welt”. As they reported, multiple participants of the protest were heavily injured, including broken bones and a life threatening injury of an elderly man (German interview with a paramedic). As far as I can tell, the injured policemen are, unfortunately, not in a life threatening situation. The headline that they are injured is probably only right wing propaganda.

I can’t believe I just spilled a whole cup of coffee on the wall behind my desk. Now the wall looks like shit and I will have to paint it eventually. What an annoying way to start the new year.

Removed by mod

Like you said, it’s space magic and it was the master, who was working for the Nazis at that pont, so he probably just teleported away after getting captured. Also it wasn’t just for laughs but the Doctors only out, as I remember it.

I mean, the amazon episode was pretty dumb, but the rest of Chibnall’s episodes were pretty good imo. “Partition of India” and “It takes you away” were pretty memorable episodes among many other good ones and I also really liked “Flux” and the idea of the timeless child finally brought something new to the table. Chibnall managed to overcome Moffat’s unnecessary labyrinths of plots as well as his misogyny while not abandoning big ideas in general.

I would’ve liked to have him continue running the show, especially after the last special by Davies, which I didn’t find that convincing.

stuck in a train > stuck in a traffic jam

I felt bad because I just wasn’t there or friendly, but man I can’t stand how unfair this music is and just life in general. I also hate how I’m the crazy/immature one for feeling this way.

It seems that you had good reason to dislike the concert and your critique, that I really enjoyed reading btw., reads as the opposite of being crazy or immature. I sadly don’t know much about jazz, but I think to point out how bourgeois education and its surroundings translate into musical shortcommings is an important thing to do in general.

This is not accurate. It is possible to say that Adorno and Horkheimer could have done more to get Benjamin into the US (Horkheimer did get Benjamin a visa at some point), but they didn’t leave him to die because he was friends witch Brecht (?). I also don’t really know how easy it was to get someone out of Europe during that time. Also Benjamin stayed far too long in France due to his depression and his suicide in Spain was a result of a very unfortunate miscommunication.

Yes. I don’t really know where to start criticizing it and I’m also not really interested in doing so. But for one, having read some works of most of the philosophers the author names, I don’t see the big difference between the historical view he solely assigns to Lukács and that of other philosophers like Adorno or Derrida, who repeatedly argued for recognizing the continuity of fascism in human societies. Also, the connection between the so called post-structuralists tradition and Nietzsche or Heidegger is a critical one. When Derrida draws on Heidegger or Nietzsche, this is to be understood as an engagement with the negative at work in the tradition of Western philosophy. What seems kind of strange here is that the author dismisses any dialectic at work in the philosophy he’s out to criticize, especially when he is drawing so heavily on Lukács and Hegel.

This comes off as needlessly insulting. Declaring a bunch of philosophers as Hitlerites (Adorno had to flee from the Nazis, you know, and psychoanalysis didn’t have such a good standing with them either) without elaborating and then saying someone is seething with Hitler particles (whatever that means) because they expressed a genuine interest in discussing philosophy is some weak ass shit.

I’m also confused about how they blew it up. I assumed they bombed it when I read about it but it looks like they used controlled explosives to collapse the building, or am I wrong? The fact that they filmed it in this way seems to affirm that they did it with controlled explosives (at least I haven’t seen them film a bombing in this way).

I don’t know yet. Many people seem to like the game but I also heard that it somehow misunderstands the core themes of its predecessors. Mainly because of its depiction of religion and use of certain characters, so I was told. Have you played it and would you recommend it?

I played Baldur’s Gate 1 and started playing 2 a few days ago. It took me some time to get used to how things work in the games (I have no experience with d&d so some things where quite hard to understand in the beginning), but I really love the games. The themes and story are great and I am really amazed at the amount of interactions that are possible and what kind things you are allowed to say. Like, you can criticize Baldurans colonialism in 1 in a random dialogue that is not really important for making progress in the game, for example. Or you can rescue the drow Viconia who is basically only prosecuted for her skin color in both games. Also class difference is a major theme in 2 and I like how it is even present in your own party. I’m also really looking forward to kill some slavers when I’m powerful enough.