pjwestin

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

Yeah, and my point is that's a stupid fucking point. Sexual assault charges are notoriously difficult to get convictions on, even when they're not against wealthy, powerful celebrities. 15 young men accused Spacey, and he was aquitted of assaulting less than half of them in the London trial. 25 women accused Trump, none of them even got a criminal trail, and only one of them was able to get a civil verdict in her favor. You're comparing two men who were both accused by dozens of people of sexual assault and both faced almost no consequences under the justice system, and then saying, "tHeSe ArE tHe oPpOsItE, dOuBlE sTaNdArD mUcH???????"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

If you want to be this simplistic, you could also apply this to the Matrix, Die Hard, at least 3 Star Wars films, most od the James Bond series, and basically every action movie made between 1991 and 1999.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 day ago

I mean, it's the one time he's guaranteed to not be named in a sexual assault case, so why not?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

Because Trump is a convicted rapist... Spacy was aquitted.

Mostly incorrect. Trump is not a convicted rapist. He had been accused of rape and sexual assault numerous times, but has never faced trial. He was found civilly liable of raping Jean E. Carroll after the criminal statute of limitations expired.

Kevin Spacey was aquitted of legal charges in England and found not civilly liable in New York, but in Los Angeles he could not be charged because of the statute of limitations. In Nantucket, the prosecutor dropped the charges against Spacey after the main accuser refused to testify. In 2019, three Spacey accusers abruptly died, one of whom was in the middle of a civil trial against Spacey.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yeah, a lot of people keep telling me, "Oh, the MAGA cult will just believe whatever he tells them," and sure, some of them will, but others only go along with it because they're convinced Trump is about to expose the, "deep-state cabal." They have a fictional Trump in their head that they will protect at all costs, even from real-world Trump. (...and then they'll probably claim that real-world Trump is a cloned body double and the real Trump is recuperating in a medbed and planning his triumphant return or something).

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The dude died suddenly in Gettysburg with the Annabelle doll while on the Devil's on the Run tour. This is so stupid, but one day it's gonna make an awesome horror movie.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This dude looks like Seinfeld if he spent 5 years in a Siberian Gulag.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

I honestly don't know too much about him except that he was a Gaurdian Angel founder and he took over the Reform Party.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago (5 children)

This is what I've been trying to explain to people for a few days now. Grifters like Charlie Kirk or Dinesh D'Souza will just go along with whatever Trump says on Epstien. They never believed in or cared about QAnon and the conspiracy bullshit. They opportunistically picked it up when it was useful, they'll drop it now that it's inconvenient, and a big chunk or MAGA will listen to them.

But guys like Alex Jones, who, if he isn't actually a die-hard true-believer, at least knows that his audience is entirely die-hard true-believers, will not do that. They have staked everything on a made up story about satanic pedophiles that started with Comet Ping-Pong and ended with Jeffery Epstien, and they can't just drop it. That is another large chunk or MAGA, and it will go to war with anyone, even Trump, to keep their delusion going.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

I mean, that was gross, but I thought it did fit her character. She was a traumatized orphan with a dark past and sever attachment issues. It made sense to me that she would try replace D'Argo as quickly as possible rather than cope with or process that loss. I get why that put you off though, it was not a high point for her character.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Surprised I had to go this far for Farscape.

18
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

So, I have an old desktop (Lenovo Erazer X310) that has been gathering dust for a while now. It runs Windows 10, and since I know support will be ending this year, I've decided to switch Linux and see if I can get some more use out of it. After doing a bit of research, I think that, as a complete noob, Mint is the right choice for me. After watching a few tutorials, I think I have a good understanding of how to install and set up Linux, but I have a couple of questions before I take the plunge. If anyone has a few minutes to answer them, I'd be very grateful.

  1. I think Cinnamon is the version of Mint I should start with, but I've read that it might be better to go with MATE or Xfce for older machines. My Desktop is almost 11 years old now, but based on what I've read, I think it should still be able to comfortably run Cinnamon; 8 GB RAM, AMD A8-7600 Radeon r7 processor (4 cores, 3.1 GHz), and I'm 90% sure it has an SSHD. Is that good enough for Cinnamon?

  2. Would those specs be good enough if I wanted to dual boot? I actually don't hate Windows 10 (it's certainly better than 11), and I'd like to keep it as an option for at least for the last few months it has support. I just reset Windows 10 and wiped all my files, and it's now running fairly quickly. Do you think it's capable of dual booting?

  3. This may be a dumb question, but I can't actually find the answer anywhere; if I decide that I want to remove Windows 10 later, how difficult will that be? It's seems pretty easy to just delete it when I set up Linux, but will it be a hassle to remove once I've got Mint up and running?

Those are my big questions. I think I have a pretty good understand of how to install Linux from the BIOS, but I haven't actually installed an operating system since Windows 98 (and my dad helped me with that), so if anyone has any additional tips they think I should know I would welcome them. Thanks!

Edit: Thanks for the replies! It sounds like I should be able to run Cinnamon with no problem, but I'll probably test Cinnamon and MATE from a USB first and see which I like better. I really appreciate the advice!

128
"Winner" (lemmy.world)
 
 

Seriously though, don't do violence.

143
Seems Legit (lemmy.world)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Shazam's first page.

 
168
Ghosted (lemmy.world)
 
333
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
 
 
 
143
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Tankie's original use was for British communists who supported Soviet military expansion. In the modern sense, it is used to describe communists who are authoritarian-apologists. For example, a communist who romanticizes the Soviet Union or makes excuses for the Uyghur genocide is a tankie. I've also seen it stretched to include militant anti-capitalists, or more commonly, "militant," anti-capitalists who call for violent resistance to capitalism from the safety of a keyboard.

Democratic-Socialists are not tankies. Socialists are not tankies. I don't even think most communists qualify as tankies. Criticizing Democrats does not make you a tankie. Condemning Israel's human rights violations does not make you a tankie. Voting third party doesn't make you a tankie. I see this term used here every day, but never correctly.

view more: next ›