I was just thinking. In the UK government every cabinet minister, which are those with specific jobs like head of education, or health, also has an opposite "shadow" person from the other main party whose job is to argue with the other. Imagine you had the job of Shadow head of education. Must be an easy job, you just argue with the other guy. But then your party wins the election and things just got real. You got to do the job for serious now.

it's fucking majestic. best water i've ever had and the best item they've ever had

Thinking about this because of a greentext I saw earlier complaining about OF models.

It feels like a lot of the stigma surrounding sex work in the modern day (that doesn't just boil down to misogyny/gender norms/religion) is based on the fact that selling intimate aspects of one's self places a set value on something that many see as sacred; something that shouldn't have monetary value.

Not to say anything about the economic validity of a society without currency, but I think that, hypothetically, if that were to exist, sex work would be less stigmatized since this would no longer be a factor. Those engaged in sex work would be more likely to be seen as doing it because it's something they are good at/enjoy, and less because it's an "easy" way to make money, as some think. It would also eliminate the fear of placing set value on social, non sex-work related intimacy (not that those fears were well-founded to begin with).

Wouldn't they benefit from more people? Of course it would come with the condition of learning the language at an acceptable level and that being tied to residency.

We don't like being average

Bobbing their heads at every step. How ridiculous must have that looked if it was the case.

I saw a post on lemmy about how we could prevent 133 holocausts by promoting animal rights and veganism. The article opened by doing some math about how many dogs you could torture and kill in order to be equivalent to taking a human life, and then how many animals humans kill, and concluded that we're committing holocaust equivalents many times over.

I have respect for people who question the status quo and think seriously about morality. Thinking about slavery, it used to be argued "this is the natural order," "this is actually the moral thing to do" and so on. It wasn't easy then to stand up for what we now see as the obvious moral position. So I have some receptivity to this type of argument.

That said, I think back to when I was a Christian (atheist now), and was fully bought into the anti abortion movement. They argued that fetuses were human, that we were committing fetus holocausts all the time. Taking that view to its logical conclusion, one could justify things like killing a few (abortion doctors, judges) to save many (fetuses).

The author of the vegan piece was not advocating for such things. But one could ask why not. I think the fact the conclusion (133 holocausts) is so far outside accepted views should prompt some examination of the starting premises. (Is any killing of an animal for food the same as torturous factory farming, should we do something about animals that eat other animals etc)

I'm glad I read the piece because there's value in hearing other perspectives. We can't see ourselves and our own blind spots. I would have responded in-thread but that community description said "not a place for debate", so tossing out this thought here.

Think about it. The more you learned about your brain the more complex it would become. Also I'm not sure we have enough capacity to reflect on ourselves by processing everything. Think about the massive complexity of every connection. Could someone actually process that or are we limited by ourselves?

This would be a quick way to see of it's racist, close minded, or just straight bs.

Ex1- You want women to kill babies, boy!

Ex2- You want to feed the homeless, boy!

Why couldn't this call be an email? Why would you call, when you know that you are near indistinguishable from spam calls about Microsoft services and Nigerian princes?

I dunno, English is a funny language isn't it 😂

Ain't no sunshine when she's gone

It's not warm when she's away

Ain't no sunshine when she's gone

And she's always gone too long

Anytime she goes away

What would aliens think if they leaned we evolved fear as a survival mechanism, but we intentionally seek out situations that trigger our fear response, for fun?

Horror movies, extreme sports, thrill-seeking, it's all weird.

Edit
Changed the title and added an extra line to make it clear I'm talking about the fear response, and not specifically about extreme sports

As opposed to a wet Willy

My city is in the middle of the worst drought in recorded history. My showers are typically under 2 minutes and I have to shower with a bucket to catch otherwise wasted water to use to flush the toilet. I also shut the water down when I am wet enough so I can scrub myself without having unneeded water flowing then start it back up to rinse.

Plus, water is damn expensive!

Who here really has the time to stand, think and waste in the shower?

You can’t have a shower thought outside a shower so how can it be that thoughts in a shower are outside in the shower?

Bear with me, if you have a shower thought outside is it in a shower if you’re showering?

You could probably make a poptarts are sandwiches alignment style thing out of this.

Basically, any video game with an explicit goal, or set of goals is just a puzzle game with extra steps.

What buttons do you push, when do you push them, what does this accomplish, how does that lead you to your end goal, etc.

You could even argue that multiplayer tactics constitute a puzzle, a more social puzzle.

Yes, this is reductive, but this is a dumb showerthoughts post.

...and they COULD NOT think of a natural process that could produce plastics in the environment in the amounts required to produce life?

Their science would never dream of how it happened.

Alternative title: Dinosaurs wouldn't be that big if they weren't that big