Guy certainly knows about it
Interesting to call this “confiscating” when it’s just making the rich pay their fair share, especially considering all the stolen wealth from the bottom 99% and historic tax evasion.
I really hope that whoever managed to convince Disney that kids fucking LOVE photorealistic animation and will only watch an animated movie about sea creatures if said sea creatures actually look like real fish is laughing their fucking ass off right now
Kids LOVE when the beautiful singing mermaid’s animal sidekicks look like they should be dead with their eyes open at a supermarket deli
sometimes responding to media you like is articulate and sometimes it is microwave noises and static fizz
You know, it occurs to me that the known internet phenomenon of Reddit “am I the asshole?” posts having completely misleading headers is actually a really great example of a far less known but far more common practice of extreme journalistic spin in cases where there are large monetary incentives to diminish the story in question.
Like, if you see a Reddit post titled “Am I the asshole for buying my wife a new dress?”, the post is pretty much always something totally deranged like: “I (48) really dislike the way my wife (20) dresses, because I think it’s too revealing and makes her look slutty, which was fine when we started dating five years ago, but it makes me feel like she’s going to cheat on me now that we’re married. I’ve politely asked her to get new clothes multiple times, and every time she refused because she said she liked her clothes, and didn’t want to waste money buying new ones. Yesterday I couldn’t take it anymore so I threw out a bunch of her old dresses and bought her a new one that was more modest looking. She started crying because one of the dresses I threw out had been left to her by her mom who died when she was a teen, but I couldn’t have known that it had sentimental value. She said that I should have asked, but obviously if I asked she’d have just told me not to throw out any of her clothes, including the ones that weren’t sentimental. Also, the more modest dress I bought was pretty expensive, and she never thanked me for it. Am I the asshole here, or is she being unreasonable?”
Similarly, whenever you see a headline like “Woman Wins Millions From McDonald’s Because Her Hot Coffee Was Too Hot”, if you dig a bit, you’ll almost always quickly find out that what actually happened was: A 79-year-old ordered coffee which, unbeknownst to her, was being served extremely dangerously hot, because McDonald’s was trying to have coffee that stayed warm over a long commute without spending any extra money on cups with better insulation. The coffee spilled on the old woman’s lap, giving her severe third degree burns over a huge portion of her body, including her genitals. She got to a hospital and they managed to save her life with skin grafting, but she became disabled from the accident, and her genitals and thighs were permanently disfigured. She tried to settle with McDonald’s for her medical costs, and McDonald’s refused to cover any portion of her medical expenses at all, and so she sued. At trial, the jury discovered that this same exact thing had happened seven hundred times before, and McDonald’s had still decided not to change their policy because paying out individual suits was cheaper than moderately reducing their coffee profits. As a result, the jury awarded punitive damages designed to penalize McDonald’s two days worth of their coffee profits, in addition to the woman’s medical costs.
I think it’s largely the same phenomenon, but I know a lot of people who are familiar with the first case, but don’t know to look for the second. If you see some totally outrageous “how could a person ever sue over this stupid thing?” case, you should immediately be incredibly suspicious that that’s all that actually happened, because a lot of the time, it absolutely isn’t. The people who have the most incentive to make their opponent look not only wrong, but completely crazy for having any sort of grievance at all, are often the actually unreasonable ones.
Anyway this is all to say that if I see ANY of y’all automatically siding with McDonald’s over the recent case where 4-year-old girl was severely burned by their chicken nuggets because “hurr durr dumb kid didn’t know that chicken nuggets were hot, people sue over anything lol”, I will grab that McBoot you’re licking and shove it all the way up your McFuckingAss.
lawyer fun fact! sometimes you need to sue someone before your insurance will pay for your medical bills (because your insurance would rather the other person pay for your medical bills so they don’t have to)! sometimes you need to sue because what you’d get from insurance isn’t enough to pay for all of your medical bills! sometimes you want to change a specific thing, like a dangerous practice or defective part, and that’s not going to happen if you just ask nicely!
most truly ridiculous lawsuits get screened before they’re even filed (because someone goes to an attorney and that attorney is like “yeah you don’t have a case here”) or very shortly after they’re filed (because judges can toss out cases that have zero merit). 99% of the time, if it sounds ridiculous but somehow it went all the way to someone suing and winning in a jury trial, it probably wasn’t actually as absurd as it sounds.
Someone wanna provide context for the non-SDV people?
Saw this in the notes and figured I'd step in!
So, for non-SDV players, in most farming sims you can get married to certain characters and have children with them, however this is typically a permanent choice that can't be undone, so if you want to marry someone else or not have kids you would have to start over with a fresh save.
But SDV is different. The game has a witch's hut you can eventually unlock that lets you use...black magic, basically, to soft-reset marriage/children choices without starting over. There's a divorce option so you can ditch your spouse, but that's the only normal one. It also adds an option to turn your children into doves to get rid of them, hence OP saying they "birded" their kids. You're not...technically killing them...but only barely.
(It also adds an option to mind-wipe your previous spouse so they don't remember being married to you and thus don't hate you, and you can even remarry them then if you want, but I don't think that was needed for this, just figured it was sinister enough to warrant a mention.)
All that to say, the reddit OP married a character, progressed to the point that they had a child with them, and then used black magic to "kill" the child and divorce their spouse before moving on to the next marriage candidate and doing the same, over and over until they had gone through all twelve marriage candidates, resulting in a collection of twelve "dead" children.
Which, I must agree, is some uniquely unhinged behavior indeed.
Which, I must agree,
is some uniquely unhinged
behavior indeed.
Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.
big fan of characters with abandonment + attachment issues so profound that they leave claw marks in everything they touch but would sooner gnaw off their own leg than admit they just want someone to stay for once. in a totally normal well adjusted and not at all projecting way of course.
its always some fucking day in some fucking month in some fucking year isnt it
it's always funny when someone's like "why can't we have a serial killer that targets awful people like abusive ceos" because like...the thing is serial killers are generally not great people who want to make the world a better place . this can be seen in the killing and torturing.
From what I understand from the article, it’s even rougher than normal content moderation: a lot of these workers were hired to train AIs like ChatGPT away from, well, all the worst that the web could provide, to detoxify it for the end users. They are specifically given the worst stuff that can be dredged up from the depths of the internet, and asked to label it - so that the AI can use that data to identify hatespeech, suicide ideation, racism, CSA, etc etc.
It’s an awful job, and some are paid less than $2 an hour. Workers have PTSD. Are they being offered counselling, support, compensation? Fuck no, they get punished for speaking up.
Good luck to the African Content Moderators Union, I hope they get the protections and compensation that their workers need.
it wasn't "some reason", it was 2D animators being unionized and 3D not being unionized. and the simple truth that capitalism kills art.
I remember when 2D faded out, the reason studios kept giving was "it's because 2D is a lot more expensive to produce". I was a child back then so I didn't think too much about it, assuming it was about the process itself, but as I grew up and learned more about art as an artist, and gained friends who were professional 3D artists themselves, I started to question it. Because 3D is very different from 2D, but it's definitely not easier or faster to make. Also, both European and Asian studios kept producing 2D animated movies
The answer was unions. The answer wasn't "this kind of art is cheaper because it's easier to make", it was "this kind of art is cheaper because these artists can't force us to pay them correctly"
the real life version of being doomed by the narrative is knowing you have work in the morning
the irl version of being stuck in the timeloop is also going to work
Unstoppable force (my desire to ramble) meets unmovable force (my desire to never say a word ever)
the crushing guilt of being unproductive vs the exhaustion of being burned out. fight.
*stamps this as peer-reviewed*



















