![](https://pawb.social/pictrs/image/c892c2bd-44e3-45a8-8b95-6d241b4959d7.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d82718c7-5579-4676-8e2e-97b4188f10d3.png)
Iroh, Junk, Fuc… uhhhh… Fucu fish? Fucy, a name like “Lucy” but absolute garbtrash?
… Yeah okay that one’s just “Fuck.” But let’s talk about Iroh anyway! He’s way cool.
Meep :3
They/Them, also “It” when the critter calling me that is being cute ior affectionate :3
Very cute, but also weird and sometimes kinda sharp
Has been rescued…? ominous music plays
bites life for being a butt >:(
Iroh, Junk, Fuc… uhhhh… Fucu fish? Fucy, a name like “Lucy” but absolute garbtrash?
… Yeah okay that one’s just “Fuck.” But let’s talk about Iroh anyway! He’s way cool.
a little closer to reality
Imagining the rest of the enormous pillar of cookies is left to the viewer, I suppose. Hard to show a tower to Mars all in one frame. seethes quietly at wealth hoarders
Wow, you’re fluffing adorable :O 😻
Is that Callisto down there? 🤔
That’s horrifying! I hope you’re okay!
Aaahhh, this is horrifying! You’ve ruined my breakfast 🙀
The article states that Sonny “grooms” Marie to be a housewife but she’s clearly written to want to be. There’s a difference between “look, these games are gross because you the player/player character coerce some poor girl into slaving away at home cooking and cleaning and raising kids for you” and “look, these games are gross because the writers made a character wanna be a tradwife with a job.”
I had other stuff written but apparently didn’t post any of that. Bleh. Tired now, not gonna agree (nor stop getting silently downvoted, gotta love that) anyway. Off I go ö/
Maybe it could’ve been clearer about that, then? I felt like it was really pushing the “Guy’s a fuckin’ cop-lover!” angle really hard to the point of skewing the facts a bit just to stress it.
Specifically, Open Season. Gross game, but not this big scary glowing radioactive thing and probably not the actual most reactionary game of the nineties. Article’s kinda crap, really; the whole point is “a prick hired a prick to be involved in a prickish game.”
[Sarcastic ‘translation’] tl;dr: A lot of people who are relatively well-placed to understand how much technology is involved even in downvoting this post are downvoting this post because they’re afraid of technology!
Just more fad-worshipping foolishness, drooling over a buzzword and upset that others call it what it is. I want it to be over but I’m sure whatever comes next will be just as infuriating. Oh no, now our cursors all have to change according to built-in (to the cursor, somehow, for some reason) software that tracks our sleep patterns! All of our cursors will be obsolete (?!??) unless they can scalably synergize with the business logic core to our something or other 😴
Mew from Pawb, fellow furfriend ö/ :3
Gross! Couldn’t even let schools decide, somehow it’s important to ban them state-wide? Piss off.
Did startup Flow Computing just make CPUs 100x faster?
No.
Versus how many fatal man attacks? Not even gonna look it up 🤷
Dunno how this is conclusiv- ohhhh right, confirmation bias. Forgot about that. grumbles noisily
Did you enjoy humans spouting bullshit faster than humans can debunk it? Well, brace for impact because here comes machine-generated bullshit! Wooooeee’refucked! 🥳
I tried but ended up in some guy’s attic instead :-\ At least there’s free weed 🤷 😅
Idunno where you got the idea that I’m for slurs or against disabled people but it’s kinda insulting, especially when you took “sometimes said as a derogatory word” and ran it like it’s the whole point or the article over the complaint that got its own paragraph (the Pulp Fiction bit) and shared the same sentence the disability bit is in, or the one that got the whole rest of the article (that it’s vaguely unprofessional). In fact I’m getting more irked every time I go look for evidence that I’ve misinterpreted it. Reading through a couple crap anecdotes to one that actually says something, we get a VP smirking at the name, which makes me wonder whether that person’s just a hateful prick smirking at a disability term or one of the many who giggle at any reference to anything associated with sex. The other three are just “some people dislike the name.” I conclude that the article does not take issue primarily with the name being an abusive term and wonder why you’d say that.
I muchly dislike careless use of abusive terms (I’ve probably got an essay or two ranting over the usage (and existence) of “crazy” and “insane,” for example) so I really don’t disagree that abusive terms should be treated much more seriously.
My entire point was that the author seems to be throwing things at the wall hoping something sticks, not seriously worrying some spooky scary BDSM critter (hi, it’s me :3 ) is gonna tie them up (of course not, the ropes are for me :3 ), nor that anyone’s getting bullied by the tool’s name or it’s irritating old wounds or really anything at all. I don’t think they’re taking any of this seriously. If the term’s abusive in a way that can’t be neutralized by taking it from abusers and making it something else (an arguably valid thing to do) then that’s worth actual serious discussion and not just part of one sentence in a six-page essay.
tl;dr: The article barely even mentions anything about disability and, I think, does so more as an excuse for itself than out of any serious concern for anyone. My complaint/point is, to be clear, exclusively that the article is crap and not that abusive terminology is okay. The article has failed to demonstrate any actual problem with the name itself other than handwavey “some people say” that it’s vaguely unprofessional.
WOOOOO RIVEN!! \ö/
That’s how many major car companies caught bullshitting emissions requirements now? It’s almost as if there’s some kind of underlying thing driving (pun unintended but welcome ;3 Call it comic relief if you like) capitalist entities toward awful behaviour.