foamfill

[foamfill]

[foamfill]

amazing⭐️triple feature

[foamfill]

as someone who is very interested in minds very unlike my own, LLMs are kind of frustrating. because i mean...its an artificial intelligence! it *should* be alien, it should be the other! but we figured out how to make an artificial mind by making a mind...very much like us. and not just like humans, like *anglophone* humans, *on the internet*. its a culture that closer to me than my parents' culture! minimal alienness, maximal familiarity!

[foamfill]

[foamfill]

does humorism have anything about needing to balance semen? asking because I forgot that white humor was phlegm and made an ass of myself in public

Yes. Ejaculating changes the balance of your humors.

[foamfill]

Bro last night was trite and insisted upon itself

[foamfill]

The sweetest daintiest boy detective in all of Los Angeles, Willie Gore Explosion, has died of rickets after thinking about clues too hard.

[foamfill]

[foamfill]

Oh God that's terrible is the property and physical capital okay

[foamfill]

[foamfill]

do you have a favorite historical wizard beef?

Yes. I believe that you can read Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopegite as thickly veiled shade towards St. Augustine.

After that it's Zosimos vs Nylos.

[foamfill]

I don't really understand exorcisms in Christianity.

I mean, one I just don't think Demons actually exist, but also isn't the ability to work miracles or whatever granted by God?

Like, first of all God is like, the boss of all demons, so if I'm friends with their boss that they always have to listen to, I don't understand why I would be afraid of them at all.

But also second, like... Don't miracles and things happen because God is working through the miracle worker? God isn't, like, a natural process, or part of a dualistic universe where He sometimes loses, He is the Head Honcho.

So I don't really understand how the entirety of an exorcism isn't just the priest going, "Hey God, please remove these demons" and the whole thing is over after that one sentence. I mean He is either going to do it or He isn't, like, am I supposed to believe He is sitting up there in His divine totality being like, "Well, you said please release this person from the demons once, but I'm not going to do it until you repeat it a few times and throw some holy water around so I know you're really for real serious."

And also He isn't going to go, "Well, I don't like that exorcist and I want that guy to be full of Demons, but he did say all the right words, so I guess I don't have a choice." Like surely the idea isn't that you can kick Demons out of people without any help from God, that seems theologically weird.

Like, you know, Matthew 6:7-8, I kind of don't get how that doesn't entirely scuttle the idea of exorcisms.

[foamfill]

Even anteaters have fun...

[foamfill]

There’s an idea that the British monarchy is a fundamentally harmless institution, a national quirk of pageantry and symbolism with little power except the ceremonial; that it’s a “constitutional monarchy,” democratic in practice if not on paper; that whatever its faults in history or superfluousness today, the British people and the commonwealth seem to like it, so who are we to judge? Even setting aside the exorbitant and parasitic wealth of the royals—procured by blood, sustained on public dime—their alleged innocuousness is a classic case of British understatement. For one, the British don’t have a “constitution,” at least not as the term is understood in most modern democracies. The so-called “unwritten” or “ancient” constitution is more akin to an earlier sense of the term: “constitution” being an organic metaphor, referring to the compositional character or makeup of a living creature, with the king as “head” and his realms as the “body.” The constitution is just the way the British (and their dominions) are disposed to do things. As it happens, the way they do things has been, for a few odd centuries, for the crown to delegate the task of lawmaking to its advisors, an arrangement known in the biz as “parliamentary supremacy.” But the king is part of parliament, he retains reserve powers and authority of royal prerogative, and legislated acts become the law only with the king’s assent. The fact that he is “constitutionally” disposed to non-interference doesn’t change the fact that his kingdom and dominions function, ultimately, at his pleasure.

This is the central issue at stake in the question of republicanism. The republican tradition posits “liberty” not simply as the freedom from interference or restraint. Liberty, to republicans, is freedom from arbitrary rule. A slave master, for example, might choose to treat his slaves with leniency or kindness; he might even, as some did, leave them relatively unmolested, granting them a measure of practical freedom. But so long as he retained legal title to his “property,” that freedom was illusory. In colonial America, the king ruled his possessions according to medieval law from the Crusades, treating the colonies as conquered “infidel” lands, subject to absolute prerogative. All of his subjects—natives, enslaved Africans, even English settlers—existed on a continuum of feudal subjectship. The latter had been given, for a time, a level of autonomy and self-governance, but it was liable to reverse; and when it did, the natural result was revolution. (This republican revolution would result in the abolition of slavery in half the revolting colonies, and in the delayed abolition within the remainders, along strictly revolutionary principles. This can be contrasted with the rest of the British empire, which—while abolishing slavery shortly before the Americans, but only because its remaining slaveholding territories were suffering economic and political fallout prompted largely by American independence—took pains to compensate the dispossessed slave masters; monarchy being, of course, the bedrock and custodian of bloodline privileges and property.)

The best that can be said is that the monarchy is kept in check by custom and by the threat that, in the event the king should try anything too shifty, a constitutional crisis would occur. But that’s only a roundabout way to say that what makes the monarchy even tolerable is the possibility of its abolition.

[foamfill]

It's kind of weird when non-linguists refer to themselves as "being descriptivists". Like. Descriptivists vs prescriptivism are different approaches To *studying language*. If you're not doing that you're not describing anything you're just like. A guy

[foamfill]

concatenate is normal people vocabulary

[foamfill]

NGL I think it’s hilarious how angry Europeans (and specifically Italians) get when Italian Americans call themselves Italian. A guy can be 100% ethnically Italian, have an Italian name, speak the language, uphold Italian cultural practices and they’ll argue with him if he calls himself Italian. And it’s kind of the opposite of how Irish people treat Irish Americans. They’re like “JFK was one of us. Obama? Also one of us.”