VeganPizza69 Ⓥ

Writing code is bad!

Writes condensed configurations and properties files in 3 different languages instead. Cloud deployment uses yet another source of configurations and properties.

Doesn’t write documentation for configuration and properties.

Ah, yes, that’s much more readable.

For context on the reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/comments/1but3c2/wait_zoomers_actually_cant_read_analogue_clocks_i/

why do you hate Zoomers?

You implant a chip in your brain that gives it control over your finger movement.

Fourth try: total motion blur

Trust the muscle memory.

When fascists do vision boards and manifestation.

And they were arrested, right? Right?

Reduce. Reduce plastic companies to dust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect

Servant: What’s your zodiac?

Future Tyrant: giant meteor.

As long time atheist and anti-theist, they love Trump because he’s fulfilling a role of messiah (lowercase), an anointed one. You probably already know this, but it basically means that Trump is a king to them, that’s what the anointed part is about. They’re traditionalists (monarchists).

If you want to get how monarchism works in this context, try Wilhoit’s Law: https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288

And the Catholics in the US are likely to get in on the action, as evidenced by the Supreme Court and the people who made that happen. There’s also a bunch of drama going on between them and the Pope.