Dirt_Possum [she/her, undecided]

But those shows are the rare exceptions

I would say that good shows are still a rare exception. There were a few great shows in a sea of slop then and a few great shows in a sea of slop now with the biggest difference being that the sea of slop is significantly more vast now. The changes in the medium from old school TV to streaming sites has allowed for a little more of a blurring of the line between movies and TV shows in that prestige TV is higher budget and does take longer to produce, closer to how only movies used to be produced, and it’s fine that there are more shows with higher production value and longer wait times between seasons, but that doesn’t mean that TV is great now and was bad in the past.

I don’t think that’s necessarily brainworms because you’re not wrong just because the benefits of imperialism were always withheld from minority groups in society. There has been a very real shift especially since the dissolution of the USSR away from placating the majority of the proletariat with the promise of a decent, stable life. Wage earners as a single block in the US in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and into the 80s and 90s really did have significantly better prospects and stability in stark comparison to the kind of precarity faced by everyone below a certain wealth threshold now, with that threshold continuing to creep upwards. That doesn’t mean there weren’t always sizeable segments of society for whom that wealth and well-being was withheld because of course it was. But it is also true that the number of people on the “have-nots” side of the ledger is increasing and deepening and you are not wrong to notice it.

People coming in this thread and saying only “Reshaping?” as if your observation about the growing wealth disparity is inaccurate and always how it has been are engaging in bad analysis because yes, there has been a massive reshaping of the social strata into an even more obscenely top-heavy form, it’s getting worse and it’s accelerating. We can recognize the role that the spoils of imperialism played in allowing for that relatively affluent proletariat in past decades and we can recognize how black and indigenous people were always prevented from benefiting from it without having to say “don’t believe your lying eyes, things haven’t changed, they’ve always been this way.” The New Deal has been rolled back, the livelihoods of vast swathes of wage earners have been corroded, and pointing that out is not brainworms.

Nice. I’ve never actually eaten one that way but maybe I’ll give it a try. The only problem with avocados is that they can get messy to handle and that way sounds like it would be hard to avoid the mess aspect. Doesn’t mean it’s not another good method though. But the “yolk” of your hardboiled egg-ocado is going to be rather tough!

When I’m eating one just on its own or sprinkled with salt, I usually halve it along the length, take the pit out of whichever half it ended up in, then use a spoon to scoop out all the goodness from inside the peel like it’s two little single-use bowls. For slices, I do the same thing but I make the cuts while the “meat” (pulp) is still in the “bowl.” That way when you scoop them out with a spoon placed just inside the peel, the slices are all ready-made and uniformly sized and you don’t even need a surface to cut them on. A friend who worked at a deli and would always make my avocado sandwiches taught me to do it that way.

Avocado. Hands down.

We don’t usually think of it as being cooked, but it can be grilled (cut sidedown on a grill for a few minutes then filled with salsa or beans, the grill make it smokey but the inside stays creamy), baked and stuffed, seared in a pan, cooked in a soup, and there are avocado fries. But it is delicious and often best uncooked, literally just completely on its own with nothing else it is rich and nutritionally substantial. It often is eaten totally on its own, or maybe with a little salt sprinkled on it but also sliced up and put on/in just about any Mexican food or put on sandwiches or in salads. Its flavor can be nutty, faintly sweet, even “grassy” and even though its delicious its subtle enough it doesn’t compete to overpower whatever else its with is partly what makes it so versatile.

Obviously as guacamole it is once again highly versatile.

It works for lunch, dinner, snack, and even breakfast or dessert depending on how it’s used since its fat and creaminess can stand in as butter or oil for everything from brownies to mousses to frozen desserts. It is essentially plant-made butter and was even called “poor man’s butter” in places where it was common and cheap. It is ridiculously healthy largely because it is so dense with healthy fats. Those monounsaturated fats are healthy in their own right but also help the body take up nutrients from other parts of a meal, and they provide high satiety, they actually help make you feel full and sated. On top of that, avocados are loaded with micronutrients we need. I’ve read somewhere that if there was only one single food a person could eat and nothing else, (not that that would be a good idea, just like if you were cursed and had to choose only one) then avocado is in the front running for the best candidate because it has more stuff you need in a single place than just about any other single food. And to me at least, it would also be in the running purely for its taste.

Avocados do three great (and rare in the SAD) things, they nourish like a whole food, satisfy like a luxury ingredient, and adapts to tons of different uses/cusines as an addition or even as the primary aspect of the dish.

Oh yeah and millennial avocado toast.

This point was already clearly made by Awoo’s comment but I want to drive it home verbally. Rowling’s importance in the anti-trans “movement” has little to do with her popularity as a celebrity which has waned significantly over the years (and was never deserved though it rarely is), but it has everything to do with the fact she is now a billionaire. Because of her vast wealth she gets to dole out funding by the tens and hundreds of millions to the individuals and groups of her choice, handpicking those who will turn that wealth into terror campaigns that have real, quantifiable material effects on the oppression and persecution of trans people. This is because, especially in capitalism, wealth is power and the flow of currency is like the flow of energy in a system. She is a prominent central node in the anti-trans “movement” not because people still think she’s a good writer but because the wealth like energy flows from her outward, percolating out to the bigots who actually use it to materially influence policy as well as public sentiment. This billionaire has made it her actual life’s work to try to eradicate trans people by ensuring they have no place in society and she has had more than a little degree of success towards that end purely by virtue of the fact that she was able to hoard such an obscene amount of wealth (which is stolen labor at the end of the day). She may have been able to do that initially by being a popular writer, but at this point no one even needs to know her name in order for her to be that central node in a greater system of cruelty and despair (since a system is what it does).

What does that even mean “be a bit more critical of who seems to be leading the criticism”? Who here isn’t intensely critical of chuds (and patsocs)? Should we “be more critical” about pejoratively using the word liberal because in the US it’s always chuds who are the loudest in their hatred of liberals?

We noble but underappreciated mammals must recognize our intersectionality and unite to support one another with mutual solidarity.

Scene from Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) - a horror movie supposedly about fearing commies.

^{In the film, there’s a homeless person who sleeps with his dog for warmth and the alien pod didn’t know how to differentiate between man and dog so instead of making a copy of the man as intended, it makes this kind of hybrid, a chimera.}

It is shocking to me too how much the world gets increasingly more ridiculous all the time, making it almost impossible to navigate the sickening absurdity, and even at different scales, from local interpersonal interactions on up. It does indeed suck.

Thanks for the advice and info. I’ll look into the pH tomorrow and see if I can snap some pics. I did give them some home-made finished compost a few days after planting, not a lot, but spread a layer of it on top of the potting soil around the base of the plants assuming nutrients would seep down upon watering. All 3 of them look pretty healthy, green leaves, new growth, just s l o w, stagnant almost. Well the sativa might have some yellowing leaves (I got 1 sativa dominant, one indica dominant, and one even mix hybrid). Maybe I’ll try from seeds next year.

I was reverse fooled by this one. Saw the headline and just absent-mindedly assumed it was c/fakenews trying to snare people expecting news about McConnel or something. But then caught the comm and the poster on a double-take and started smiling.

Good riddence shitslime.

Except these dinguses aren’t even anti-war (as the northwest quadrant is labeled), they just aren’t willing to question, let alone separate themselves from the propaganda machine that has made them feel good and righteous about being on Team Ukraine fighting against Sauron-Putler.

If I’m not mistaken, no one has actually pinged @Cowbee@lemmy.ml to this thread about him yet.

That’s exactly it. They have no actual defense against Cowbee’s method of respectful patience (and they absolutely can’t compete with his well rounded knowledge of history that he can back up with citations even they can’t deny). So their only option is to fabricate outright ridiculous lies and twist themselves in knots to try paint him as the bad guy somehow. This time he’s the big bad guy who must be literally boycotted because… he doesn’t know about the wikipedia definition of once-niche term now used as a catch-all by anti-communists? Um. Right. Ok, libs. But no, I think we can safely assume that Cowbee is as well aware as the rest of us what reactionaries and liberals mean when they start frothing about “tankies.”

Edit: It’s also amusing they’re calling to boycott not just Cowbee himself but an entire instance because a single user on it is supposedly unaware of the wikipedia definition of an epithet. An epithet every ML has encountered thousands of times. And this is supposed to make the fediverse, (which is famously all about sequestration and disconnecting people from each other and challenging ideas) a better place.

oooh, pretty. Getting too tall is a problem I wish I had with mine though. I am trying to grow three plants outdoor for the first time this year, started from clones I got at the dispensary. They’re in a long raised bed planted with potting soil, get plenty of water but also plenty of drainage and get full sun most of the day, but all 3 of them have, after 4 weeks stayed under 18 inches tall, starting from about 12 inches to begin with. They did put out nice healthy-looking new leaves, they look happy enough, but they all have remained stunted. It seemed like maybe a problem with roots not having enough room to grow, but they have significantly more room than the planter pot in the OP pic, so I don’t know. It has been disappointing and really discouraging. I wish I knew where I went wrong.

Might want to check it again. EldritchEconomics was wrong and said so, it was not an AI image.

But yes, as for your proposal, it sounds good to me.

(@AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net you can rest easy, it seems you were not in fact had.)

Covering your eyes and returning to your safe haven echo chamber rather than challenging your assumptions is quite the opposite of a “dose of reality.” It’s like a creationist saying “I’m in the Darwinist part of the site, aren’t I? Don’t worry, I’m going back to my bible group because I enjoy my biology with a dose of reality.”

And even if that weren’t the case, political violence has been ongoing and overwhelming across the decades and centuries, it is just traditionally used by the ruling class against the working class. Of course to this anti-communist shitslime, it only counts as “political violence” on the rare occasions when it’s members of the subordinate class daring to use violence against the ruling class, when it’s people fighting back against their oppressors. That’s what is fortunately “warming up” as it becomes increasingly apparent how necessary it is and how ultimately it is the only thing that is going to work if we want to stave off the increasing political violence the ruling class has been inflicting on us (something that will only get worse domestically as the empire crumbles and it gets harder for the imperialists to do it in their exploitation of the global south). The problem with his “political violence warming up” bullshit isn’t that he’s ignorant to how warm it already is, it’s the swapping of victim and oppressor: victim blaming while simultaneously demonstrating a persecution complex.

This is how you make it obvious you not only haven’t read Marx, but that you haven’t even looked into what Marxism is actually about, even at a very fundamental level.

That’s a great analogy. Thank you, I might have to use it some time.

When I talk to liberals about Marxism, I tend to compare it to the theory of evolution, swapping Darwinism for Marxism. Evolution is objectively correct, all of the real world evidence supports it overwhelmingly to the point that denying it is absurd, yet we still have these fervent creationists who do deny it absolutely and insist on building elaborate but ridiculous ideological mechanisms to explain away all the undeniable evidence for biological evolution. The liberals I talk to agree with all of that. So I try to explain to them that the world we live in is one where it is as if the creationists won. Those ridiculous ideological mechanisms creationists use to explain away reality are what our politicians and “economists” do. I ask them to imagine if the vast majority of society were to think of Darwinism, if they’ve even heard of it, as some failed explanation for the diversity of life, a little historical footnote of an incorrect theory. It is a society utterly stunted in terms of anything related to biology or ecology. Well that is the situation we’re in only it’s Marxism instead of Darwinism that has been tamped down and smeared as a misguided and false attempt to explain how the world works when in fact it is scientifically and objectively true. The canard that “Communism doesn’t work and it always leads to despots and failed states” is equivalent to a creationist saying “Well if evolution were true, why are there still monkeys? My grandfather was not an ape.”

I’d like to think that comparison planted some seeds in some of them, especially the ones I knew who had backgrounds in biology and an abiding disdain for creationism. But I might have to borrow your analogy to add onto my little speech as another apt comparison to be made.