• 7 Posts
  • 368 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 4th, 2023

help-circle

  • I kindof hate the slogan “they go low, we go high” (from Hillary’s campaign.)

    But this is an example of the “good” side of that slogan. The political left(-of-what-passes-for-center-in-the-U.S.-now-a-days) isn’t given to publicly calling for assassinations of the opposition party. It’s not even given (and, yes, there are exceptions) to calling privately for assassinations of the opposition. And that’s a good thing.

    It means the left(-of-U.S.-center) hasn’t turned into the fascist-dictatorship-trying-to-happen that the right has. It’s not the left(-of-U.S.-center) calling for civil war and pandering to creeps who chant “blood and soil” while carrying tiki torches around the capital.

    The day left(-of-U.S.-center) news sources delight in assassinations even of opposition as dangerously unhinged and power hungry as Trump because that sentiment started with snide remarks like yours is the day we have to worry that maybe the Democrats are sliding into their own brand of fascism.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m for radical support of LGBT rights, womens’ autonomy in matters of personal health, universal free healthcare, and most other “liberal” causes. (I also identify as well left and libertarian-ward of the Democratic party and would love to see “to each according to need” be our modus operandi. I’m also for direct action.) I don’t fault the Democrats for being “too radical” by a long shot. (More likely, the Democrats will continue to be far too willing to let the Republicans control the narrative and cheat their way to political power. And that’s the bad side of “they go low, we go high”) And I don’t believe it’s very likely that the Democrats will slide into widespread advocacy for political violence like the Republicans have much more so already.

    But taking delight in assassination attempts and wishing they’d been successful – even those directed at Cheeto-flavored Hitler himself – isn’t helpful.

    All that said, I get it. I’m pissed at the U.S.'s descent toward fascism, too. But wishing him assassinated isn’t going to change anything for the better.


  • So, I accept the premise that something that started as an abbreviation can take on a different meaning than just what it stands for.

    And I do feel it’s most reasonable to consider the term “incel” to include an attitude of entitlement to sex without consideration for the bodily autonomy of whoever they feel should be providing it.

    But I think that attitude is already baked into the un-abbreviated form. The term “involuntarily celibate” implies bigoted entitlement. It implies a worldview in which someone (typically women) owe the person who identifies as “involuntarily celibate” sex.

    If someone wants to murder people and nobody will let themselves be murdered to satisfy the wannabe murderer’s impulse, well, the wannabe murderer clearly has some issues to work through anyway, but calling themselves “involuntarily murderless” or whatever is highly fucked. The wannabe murderer has to already be thinking in terms of entitlement to kill people to adopt or identify with that term.

    If someone is “celibate” and would prefer to be in a relationship, don’t call them “incel” or “involuntarily celibate” unless they’re entitled bigoted assholes about it, in which case just call them “incels”.

    If they’re “celibate” and would prefer to be in a relationship but isn’t bigoted about it… probably prefer whatever term they would prefer you use, but maybe something like “single and looking” would be a reasonable term.

    If they’re “celibate” and don’t want to be in a relationship and are bigoted, “volcel” or “MGTOW” (with a derisive dip in tone) is probably a reasonably good term.

    If they’re “celibate” and don’t want to be in a relationship and aren’t bigoted, again, whatever they prefer, but “asexual” and/or “aromantic” might be reasonable.









  • TootSweet@lemmy.worldtoProgrammer Humor@programming.devJava Was The Future
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    I write Java for a paycheck, but I really hate it.

    It feels like everything is layers and layers of overengineered cruft, each added to the precarious tower for something extremely minor. But every subsequent card in the house of cards makes it more precarious. “But look, I don’t have to write accessors.” “But look, I eliminated the need for the web.xml file.” “But look, I don’t have to understand SQL now.” But look, the codebase depends on a shit-ton of completely opaque Automagic™ that you have no hope of understanding the moment something goes wrong – which it will if you even think of changing your Java version. And since it’s practically impossible to understand what’s going on under-the-hood of whichever dependency is fubar’d this week, you have to resort to a mixture of trial-and-error and copy-pasting shit (that you also don’t understand) from StackOverflow and praying to Cthulhu something works – which is also trial-and-error because Java questions in particular have tons of just straight up wrong answers.

    To be fair, I’m the guy on my team who people come to when they run into those sorts of “I bumped up one subminor version of Mockito to fix a bug that was preventing my unit test from working but now literally half of our unit tests won’t build” or “I added the war plugin to the build.gradle and now SwaggerUI is broken.” So maybe I see more than my fair share of “well shit, I guess I’ll just spend the next three hours hunting down which magical combination of Jar version numbers will fix things” kind of problems. But damn. This shit didn’t ever happen back when I was doing Python for a paycheck.

    I don’t use Java if I don’t have to. If I have to use Java, I prefer to just use Servlets (mostly I do web development) and absolutely as few dependencies as I can possibly get away with. Fewer moving parts mean less that can break.