![](https://pawb.social/pictrs/image/07869e9a-9a34-46df-827e-098ee1104b3d.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/44bf11eb-4336-40eb-9778-e96fc5223124.png)
I had no idea what ‘OPP’ stood for as a kid, which is funny, because it’s right in the lyrics, but I was too young to understand what that meant. So I, too, would just belt that song out whenever it came on. Nobody stopped me, either.
Kobolds with a keyboard.
I had no idea what ‘OPP’ stood for as a kid, which is funny, because it’s right in the lyrics, but I was too young to understand what that meant. So I, too, would just belt that song out whenever it came on. Nobody stopped me, either.
Alternately, maybe it’s the case that doing something bad to bring attention to another bad thing isn’t okay just because the thing you’re trying to bring attention to is worse.
I actually support the protests where they’re throwing soup on paintings or whatever. Those paintings don’t really matter, but some people sure think they do, and it’s effective to get a dialog going. Libraries are a public good, one of the few we really have left. It’s like ransacking a food bank to draw attention to starving people in Gaza; it’s not helping the cause they ostensibly care about, but it is hurting others.
I’m responding to your implication that actions in protest that get people talking about the issue are inherently valuable and worth taking. To make the point that that is not the case, I am using an extreme example to demonstrate a scenario where your statement is (I hope) objectively false.
I think I clearly stated my counter-point, which is that just because we’re talking about it doesn’t mean it is an effective or worthwhile form of protest to be engaged in.
I’m not really sure where you’re confused here.
If I went and shot someone in the name of Gaza awareness, and painted these messages on the sidewalk using their blood, that would be getting talked about, too. Point being, there’s effective forms of protest that we still shouldn’t be using.
I can’t help but feel that Dwight would be a much better friend to have than Jim.
Can’t see it on desktop web.
If $70 got you the full game, I wouldn’t even be as opposed to it, but it’s always $70 for the standard edition and oh, also, there’s $200+ worth of DLC and microtransactions to buy, as well. Back in the 90s, you got everything for that price.
Do you not? I really don’t know, I don’t use texts much and we’ve had unlimited texts for like, 15+ years. I always see ‘normal carrier fees apply’ on OTP notifications, so I just assumed they counted against limited plans.
It was easier before every random website wanted to send you a text with an OTP just to log in and order a pizza or whatever.
That said, if it was $10 / mo for unlimited, or $0.02 per text, I’d take the per-text charge. I don’t use texts much and I’d probably save $8 / mo or more.
This seems to vary by state. For example, a quick google search revealed the following regulation for Texas:
Seriously, this has to violate fire codes if nothing else. There’s only one point of egress, from the sound of it.
As long as the advertisers and corporate bullshit stays on the for-profit solutions and doesn’t start bleeding into everything else, this is fine. Hopefully they’ll act as a wick and draw the corporate interests to themselves.
Every time I rewatch Primer, I go in thinking, “This is going to be the time I fully understand this movie!” Then, half way through, I’m thinking “What was so complicated about this? This isn’t bad at all.” Then I get to the last 20 minutes and I remember.
Then I go watch a ‘Primer Explained’ video that’s almost as long as the movie itself, am satisfied for a while, and then some time in the future the cycle repeats itself.
We are a small clique of kobolds who share a Lemmy account in real life. It seemed appropriate.
If you have to add an out-of-place question mark to “comply with a rule”, chances are you are not complying with the spirit of that rule.
The lyrics aren’t too ambiguous, I don’t think…
[…]