Gosh, I didn't think of that! I thought it was just short-circuiting!

<3

He also just ran out of "olive uhl" ... whatever that is

@guest_ I suppose it depends on what you define as harm. When you get a job, logically someone else didn't, and they're sad about it. Does that classify as harm? It could in reality be a net gain because they might go on to find a job that fits them better. When you step on grass and crush some bugs, you didn't mean to harm them, it just sort of happens as a result of your existence. This I see as a sort of balance, a natural cycle. Where I do see real harm is us messing up whole ecosystems and causing extinctions or consuming things made by slave labor. I'd say we should all be more mindful of our choices but even that is a privileged statement, not everyone would be able to make ends meet if they only shopped from local farmers or bought ethically made clothes. But as @promanchild said, I have been seeing some positive change lately, so I'm generally somewhat positive about the future. Let's hope it's enough, I guess?

I guess they really wanted to drive the point home that no ground is truly safe and stuff can crunch or even explode under your feet at any time, when you least expect it.
But idk I'm not an expert in metaphors.

@karlboll On a totally unrelated note, I'll need to buy some softer shoes for those eggshells lmao

In Czech we have a saying that translates into "The shot goose will always scream the loudest". If you thought our jokes weren't aimed at you, you wouldn't have "screamed" in the first place. So I apologize for any offense caused, and wish you all a good night.

Anyway @karlboll I'd prefer to go back to making jokes rather than having to explain them. Got any good ones?

No drama here, just making jokes. Which (at least speaking for myself anyway) were not aimed at you at all. But if the cap fits...
As for impartiality, no human being alive on Earth is truly impartial. In terms of natural sciences I'd trust a government funded scientist rather than someone paid by Exxon. Similarly, I might not trust a scientist paid by a dictatorial government in questions of political science. It's about which matters they have a stake in. Ultimately, when in doubt you can actually read the studies and assess their credibility by yourself, and you don't always need a background in the subject if you know how to analyze studies. That's the cool thing about the scientific method.

*gasp* not the government!
Maybe they were privately funded scientists. Those have a reportedly sterling reputation when it comes to impartiality.

Yeah, in reality that's Jotunheim, Nidavellir, Hel and Niflheim. Reject science, embrace Óðinn!

LUXURY GAY SPACE FRUITY COMMUNISM

Yup!

Zum Wohl Glykol!

The Geneva bucket list?

Ooh I haven't seen that movie, thanks for the recommendation! While we're at recommendations, I did quite enjoy listening to the audiobook version by Librivox. Not all the narrators are good, but the ones that matter (ie. Victor and the Creature) are brilliant. You really get sucked into the plot when they narrate it.

Well he's had some controversial takes but I wouldn't lump him in with the tiki torch idiots, from what I've seen of him anyway. Could you perhaps share a clip of him screaming about white replacement?
While we're at it I strongly recommend watching him get obliterated by Matt Dillahunty. It's a good debate and shows that his biblical morality stuff is mostly academic word salad. I do like his self improvement stuff, I gotta admit. But his phenomenology is lacking imo.