arken

@arken@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

arken,

I had a coworker in the early 00s that would repeatedly fail to search for something because she would type “www.goggles.com” into the address bar.

arken,

So you simply already need to know what you’re asking it, gotcha. Seems easy enough.

arken,
arken,

I’m starting to feel like a shill because I say this so often, but Kagi is the only one I’ve found that actually does the job anymore. To me a search engine that works is worth the small cost each month, but unfortunately I don’t see paying for search becoming mainstream anytime soon.

arken,

Kids are extremely good at learning new things, and on average, old people are not. Whatever explanation to this state of things you prefer, and there’s obviously exceptions, this is just how it is.

arken,

Well, I for one want to hear more about your racist dog?

arken,

He is obviously inflated, she has to hold him down or else he’ll float to the ceiling.

arken,

How about punk rock is the only thing that is punk rock, starting now?

arken,

The only meaningful use of the introvert/extrovert dichotomy in my experience is just that extroverts charge their batteries in social situations, introverts drain their batteries and need time to recharge. Knowing this is useful, but says absolutely nothing about social or conversational skills, charm, interests, etc - even if it might be easier to develop social strategies if you are extroverted. But there’s certainly a lot of charmless extroverts around as well.

arken,

“It’s a lovely morning in the village, and you are a horrible goose.”

arken,

Surprised to see Yes on that list, but I guess I’ve only really listened to their 70s albums

arken,

Plus it’s an incredibly one-sided and myopic reading of the work that even a child can easily see through.

arken,

And I guess the reason you read the whole thing is…that it was so awful? Be honest with yourself.

It’s certainly not without its faults. (One thing I NEVER see mentioned is the excessive fatshaming, I guess there’s not room for more than one narrative at a time.) It is, however, a book written for children and teenagers. And for what it is, the plots and themes ask more of, and give more back to, young readers than so much of the other drivel that is readily available to them. I know this, since I read to my own children and teenagers every day, and buy them books to read for themselves. There is a reason the Potter books are still as popular as ever.

If we’re being honest, the real issue is that Rowling is now le diable du jour, which means everything she ever did is now material for our daily two minutes of hate. The books have to be completely without merit as well because it’s just not possible to hold even mildly conflicting views simultaneously.

arken,

Something being entertaining to you when you’re a kid that you can acknowledge was shit when you’re an adult is a normal part of growing up.

Sure, I remember my twenties well enough. And then the next stage in growing up is forgiving your younger self and understanding that books can be good in different ways, and that some books are brilliant for kids and teenagers. Good detective fiction can also be brilliant for what it is. You’re nearly there yourself in your original comment. No one is comparing Harry Potter to Gravity’s Rainbow or Wuthering Heights here.

The argument that something should be considered good because there exists other things which can be considered significantly worse is not a very good framework for arguing for the quality of a work of fiction. This is classic “damning by faint praise.”

I’m surprised you didn’t link to Wikipedia…but that’s not really the argument here. The point is one of context and being reasonable, and that in the field of young adult fiction, they stand out. Would I say they’re the best childrens books? No. And if you had been more reasonable - not called them “shit” perhaps - it would have been a different story. And I see you skirt the issue, but the reason people go on and on about the failings of Harry Potter these days is very obvious, and it has little to do with literary value.

The foundational premise of this argument is that you know something to be true because you perceive it to be so. This is like me saying that I know I’m a good cook because I cook every day and enjoy the food that I make for myself.

Or like you saying “her books are simple, accessible, designed for mass appeal, relatively thematically shallow…” Of course it’s my assessment, grounded in experience. I’m not going to do a close reading of the series in this format, I’m sorry. But I don’t really see that level of effort from you, either. (And “accessible” is a weird thing to criticize in a work geared towards children, btw…)

because she did what J. J. Abrams does with every single t.v. show he’s ever made and allude to an elaborate set of mysteries that actively drove fan engagement via wild speculation about the future of the series between novels.

Rowling delivered in the end though, which is what JJ never does and why he should be banned from ever making TV again. I don’t see how the comparison is valid, readers may have been disappointed but there were answers and genuine surprises there.

arken,

I like this idea more and more. All computers off, noone is allowed to work, just a big new years party for everyone.

arken,

Nazis are absolutely vilified in Sweden and Finland, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’d say NSBM bands is a lot more prevalent in Eastern Europe and Russia.

arken,

I don’t have morals

I still think it’s pretty morally repugnant

I dunno I wonder how much of this thread believes in rehabilitative justice when it’s convenient for them to do so, but will then turn around and advocate for extreme eye for an eye style punitive, retributive justice whenever it strikes their moral fancy.

Well.

arken,

Not nonsensical, contradictory. You obviously have some morals.

arken,

Then why care if people are being hypocritical? Why should it bother you that people adopt whatever beliefs are beneficial at the moment and then change them when it suits them? Isn’t that the smartest attitude to have? How could you even call someone else “morally repugnant”?

arken,

I also don’t think that not having morals would necessarily prevent me from caring if people are hypocritical, or thinking that other people are morally repugnant. I’m just thinking that they’re morally repugnant by some external set of morals which aren’t my own, obviously, some morals which I haven’t internalized, and which aren’t mine, probably.

Think you have it in you to write at least one paragraph where you don’t contradict yourself? You say you care, but have no internalized morals? Which is it?

Yes, having no morals would prevent you from caring if people are hypocritical – this is what is known as a moral stance. Without morals, there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy.

Sorry to keep you from your preferred activities, I just think you should really think this through before you mention it to anyone again.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • megavids
  • tester
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • osvaldo12
  • ethstaker
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • GTA5RPClips
  • JUstTest
  • cisconetworking
  • InstantRegret
  • khanakhh
  • cubers
  • everett
  • Durango
  • tacticalgear
  • Leos
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines