<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Sorella: as in, transcendant conveying ‘whatever isn't just plain-text’. Whether that's embedding images, or interleaving output with instructions, or even static analysis and code and documentation and tests, or displaying code-flow in three dimensions, or ... wtf ever. All of the things people discuss when they speak of non-text editors.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and the point here being that *any of that* done modally, à la vim, is something I hope to see.
<Sorella>
Hm, I'm not particularly a fan of modes.
<Sorella>
Though they'd probably simplify things visually.
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
<alexgordon>
yo
Hrorekr has joined #elliottcable
Hrorek has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon!
<alexgordon>
yo ELLIOTTCABLE
<alexgordon>
what's up
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
should do homework
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
just sat down at the computer
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
trying to figure out what I need to do before Wednesday
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: how are you managing so far?
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i don't think it's a mistake most of the time (ruby parens)
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: but `link_to image_tag` is the most common example of why i think it's a mistake
<ljharb>
ie, nested method calls
<alexgordon>
?
<alexgordon>
lack of parens on method calls?
<ljharb>
from an earlier discussion about lang design
<alexgordon>
ljharb: problem in ruby is you can't tell what is a variable and what is a function call...
<alexgordon>
if I write
<ljharb>
and i'd brought up ruby's "parens are optional" which i think is a mistake (versus "required" or "prohibited")
<alexgordon>
foo
<ljharb>
yes, i also think that is a problem
<ljharb>
but less of one, since it only tends to really matter on side effects and wrt caching
<alexgordon>
imo it's fine to drop parens in a few limited circumstances
<ljharb>
i'm not at all saying parens must be required in a general sense
<ljharb>
just saying that ambiguous, "optional" things are problematic
<alexgordon>
i.e. in situations that are of the form: f x
<alexgordon>
because that is unambigious
<alexgordon>
but anything that has multiple args... or no args, absolutely must have parens
<ljharb>
sure. so if `f x` prohibited parens, and the rest required them, i'd be happy with that too
<ljharb>
alexgordon: most ruby styleguides agree with you
<alexgordon>
well you can't really prohibit parens, since they are used for grouping too
<alexgordon>
but you can definitely require them :P
<ljharb>
a problem that could potentially be avoided when designing a lang from scratch
<ljharb>
but definitely can't be fixed once created
<meowrobot>
<alexgordon> ljharb: problem in ruby is you can't tell what is a variable and what is a function call... <- i wonder if this is part of why it's been somewhat harder for me to learn/read ruby than C/C++
<alexgordon>
ruby just has bad syntax
<meowrobot>
i never really thought of that since i'm not experienced in it
<alexgordon>
I mean... it's based on perl
<meowrobot>
lol
<purr>
lol.
<alexgordon>
meowrobot: C has somewhat of the same problem, especially C++
<alexgordon>
foo() // what is foo?
<alexgordon>
could be a macro
<alexgordon>
could be a function pointer
<alexgordon>
could be a function
<meowrobot>
ah, true
<meowrobot>
macros monkeywrench it all
<alexgordon>
in C++, could be a struct with operator ()
<meowrobot>
wait what
<meowrobot>
overloading is weird...
<alexgordon>
yeah it's how C++ does lambdas
<whitequark>
alexgordon: i'm quite sure it's worse than perl
<whitequark>
perl quite honestly feels more straightforward to me
<whitequark>
it's just like, very overloaded and has tons of weird fluff like sigils sharing a variable
<whitequark>
but it's not deeply /ambiguous/ like ruby's
<whitequark>
you have no fucking idea what does it take for something like
<whitequark>
p (p 1 do end)
<whitequark>
to work properly in ruby
<alexgordon>
haha
<whitequark>
hacks upon hacks upon hacks, and half of the people who wrote those hacks have left
<whitequark>
there was a case last month where i'm pretty sure i implemented a lexer hack more elegantly than ruby-core
<whitequark>
(when porting it from ruby mri to my parser)
<whitequark>
which is frightening on multiple levels
<alexgordon>
mormons. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
<whitequark>
wat
<alexgordon>
yeah I think the critical mistake of ruby is allowing crazy flexible syntax + monkey patching
<alexgordon>
like, it's fine to have a crazy syntax, if it only affects core types. you can still learn the ins and outs
<alexgordon>
BUT when you have a crazy syntax, and that syntax can be used to invoke user code, then you have a problem
<alexgordon>
because now the code has literally no meaning, unless you run it
<whitequark>
not really no
<whitequark>
ruby has no core types
<whitequark>
for most part ruby just has some types that happen to be in scope
<alexgordon>
yes that is my point. Imagine there was a language Ruby-prime, that had the same syntax, but without the ability to define types
<alexgordon>
the syntax wouldn't be _so_ bad becausey you could just learn the names of all the methods
<alexgordon>
e.g. having the syntax 'puts "x"' is fine because you know puts is a function, etc
<whitequark>
no it would be just as awful
<whitequark>
no
<whitequark>
not really no
<whitequark>
if you do puts = 1 then it is a syntax error
<whitequark>
wait no i'm wrong, it's still a function call
<whitequark>
see, i wrote a fucking parser for it and i still don't really know how it works
<alexgordon>
hahaha
<alexgordon>
I have not written that much ruby
<alexgordon>
only one rails project, and some glue code
<alexgordon>
but the only bit I had trouble with was working within an "open" system, i.e. where the meaning of the code is decided by what libraries you have loaded
<alexgordon>
in python, it's closed. You must explicitly import every identifier (except for builtins), and there's no monkey patching
<whitequark>
in ruby, just operating on generic methods is bad enough
<whitequark>
there are so many weird special cases
<whitequark>
did you know {} binds tighter than do..end ?
<whitequark>
oh yes i remember what i was trying to show with that puts thing
<whitequark>
so
<whitequark>
p / 1 /
<whitequark>
will print a regexp with " 1 " as the source if p is a function
<whitequark>
but it will divide p by 1 if it's a variable you have defined previously
<whitequark>
er, sorry, remove that first space
<whitequark>
and add a #
<whitequark>
like this
<whitequark>
$ ruby -e 'p /1#/'
<whitequark>
/1#/
<whitequark>
$ ruby -e 'p=2; p /1#/'
<whitequark>
$
<alexgordon>
haha
<alexgordon>
you know, I know elliott from when we were trying to make syntax highlighters for the espresso text editor
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: is that really our first interaction?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I thought that was an effect, not a cause
<alexgordon>
yes indeed
<alexgordon>
and anyway I remember you tearing your hair out trying to parse ruby with regexes
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ljharb: yes, I'm specifically talking about nested ones
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
a b c being a series of method calls is the only thing that makes sense. I hate things that require you to slather that up with like six parentheses.
<whitequark>
you can't even parse ruby with bison, it's context-sensitive
<whitequark>
did you know that the meaning of any given line of ruby depends on the meaning of the NEXT line, too?
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: you can do that, but it is better not to
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: yah
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: I did know that
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: *because I spent months building a mostly-regex parser for almost all of Ruby*
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
;_;
<whitequark>
that's the single worst investment of time i know of.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
9:21 PM <+whitequark> that's the single worst investment of time i know of.
<whitequark>
including the two hours i just spent lining up the opening scenes of koyomimonogatari and bakemonogatari to demonstrate that shaft reuses animations
<alexgordon>
why the hell can't vlc support multiple windows. grrrrr
<whitequark>
alexgordon: open -n /Applications/VLC.app/Contents/MacOS/VLC my_video.mp4
<alexgordon>
yeah but...
<alexgordon>
now i have two cones in my dock
<alexgordon>
and I always end up quitting the wrong one
<whitequark>
alexgordon: "now i have two cones in my dock" wat.
<purr>
beep.
<whitequark>
that sounds really lewd
<whitequark>
-wat
<purr>
whitequark: what the ever loving fuck are you saying
<whitequark>
-what
<purr>
<ELLIOTTCABLE> -34 brendan eich
<whitequark>
no
<whitequark>
no no no
<whitequark>
no no no no no
<whitequark>
/quit
<alexgordon>
-34 brendan eich
<alexgordon>
uh oh
<alexgordon>
what have I done
<alexgordon>
actually... is that disabled?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: … why
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
why.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
it's probably broken.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
like -listening
Hrorekr has quit [Quit: Leaving]
alexgordon has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: if parens are prohibited, then `a b c` is unambiguous, and that's ok
alexgordon has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
<whitequark>
ban parents
eligrey has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Sorella has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Sorella has joined #elliottcable
|jemc| has joined #elliottcable
<pikajude>
ok so
<pikajude>
i guess this is a holiday
<pikajude>
fuck me
<ljharb>
tis
<pikajude>
can anyone here use facebook chat over jabber
<pikajude>
i certainly can't
<jfhbrook>
never tried
<whitequark>
i thought they broke that
<whitequark>
vaguely recall hearing about it
<ljharb>
i thought they turned that off many many years ago
<jfhbrook>
for some reason facebook chat never upset me the same way slack does
<ljharb>
because it's not compelling to use. slack is.
<ljharb>
there's no danger of facebook chat supplanting literally anything
<jfhbrook>
well no
<jfhbrook>
facebook chat is reasonably commonly used for me
<jfhbrook>
more so than gchat for instance
<jfhbrook>
I chat with my mom through facebook more than I do sms/imessage
<ljharb>
but only because it's on facebook, not because it's better
<pikajude>
whitequark: i'm pretty sure they did
<pikajude>
one day i stopped being able to connect
<pikajude>
yeah, guess they disabled jabber
<pikajude>
now they use mqtt
|jemc| has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
12:09 AM <+ljharb> ELLIOTTCABLE: if parens are prohibited, then `a b c` is unambiguous, and that's ok
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
we're still not on the same page here, lol
<purr>
lolllllll
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I don't think `a(b(c))` being *allowed* makes `a b c` ambiguous. at all. I'm sorry.
<ljharb>
hm
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
And I don't think *requiring* `a(b(c))` is ever okay/a good idea/fucking remotely acceptable, in 2016, in new languages. That's some ugly, difficult shit.
<whitequark>
elliott is correct in that it's not ambiguous; ocaml does something like that
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
It's still my biggest single problem with JavaScript (literally! worse than new, coercion, or any of the other famous ones!)
<whitequark>
though it's more like a(b, c) not a(b(c())
<ljharb>
my link_to + img_tag example is all over rails apps
<ljharb>
and it's DEFINITELY ambiguous because it's often a source of bugs
<whitequark>
anyway, railing against minor syntactic features is stupid
<whitequark>
the single stupidest language design thing there is
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ljharb: can you explain what it means? I don't write rails )=
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: yeah, I'd agree that picking something and sticking with it is more important;
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: `link_to` takes multiple args and constructs an <a>. `img_tag` takes multiple args and constructs a <img>
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but *once it's there* I'm damn-well gonna rail against it even if it's a terrible idea for somebody to change it :P
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: when you want a link around an image, it's problematic
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
just on the off-chance somebody designing new languages hears me and makes The Right Choice next time ;)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
like, for instance ... how dumb not having signifigant whitespace is in 2016 ;)
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: such that the parens are required in one case, and optional in another, and thus, you always include them to be unambiguous
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ljharb: I meant, like, gimmie a line of code where it's confusing?
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: and the problem isn't that the precedence rules aren't explicit. the problem is that humans don't intuit them by looking at the code
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I presume you mean like `func other a, b, c`
<ljharb>
let me find one
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and wanting b, or c, to go to `func` and not `other`
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yah?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
the solution to this is to never allow multiple arguments :P
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
currying is great, or take the Paws approach and make somebody construct a list if they want to pass a multiplicity of things
<ljharb>
that's fine too
<whitequark>
why not just make a language that rejects all code unless it's formatted according to your rules exactly
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but `foo a, b, c` is just terrible in buckets of ways
<ljharb>
agreed
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: so, every language! :P
<whitequark>
also prohibit comments not in english
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ljharb: *nods*
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
so lemme rephrase:
<ljharb>
all i'm saying is that ambiguity is bad. theres *tons* of valid ways to remove it
<ljharb>
and literally all of them are acceptable when designing a language
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I'd rather have to type `foo (a, b, c)` every time I want three arguments, than have to type `foo(a(b))` if I want multiple nested calls
<whitequark>
it literally does not matter whether you have parens like that or significant whitespace or whaetver
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
because nested calls is *always* more common in high-level abstractive languages than multiple arguments.
<jane>
ELLIOTTCABLE: tinder.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: trying.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: not going well.
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: as long as the multi-arg form can't be confused with the one-arg-nested form, i'm on board
<whitequark>
basically
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: been on tinder for *years*. got a couple relatively healthy *relationships* out of it, but *still* haven't gotten laid because of it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and it's, like, a huge stressor in my life
<ljharb>
i like how you equate "relationship" with "not getting laid"
<whitequark>
there should be a rule that until you've figured out ALL of the semantics of your language, you're not allowed to discuss syntax
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
because there's a huge stigma that *anybody* can get laid on Tinder, and if you're *not* getting laid on Tinder, you must be The Worst Possible Kind Of Person
<jane>
well the answer imo is not to get gayer or to ignore consent
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ljharb: did you read my recent tweets?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: yeah. /=
<whitequark>
that would cut down on pointless bikeshedding quickly
<ljharb>
i'm still a day back or so
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
2:17 PM <+whitequark> there should be a rule that until you've figured out ALL of the semantics of your language, you're not allowed to discuss syntax
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I like this
<whitequark>
syntax threads are the absolute worst of any threads on rust discussion forum
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: remind me your tweeters again, i can never remember it
<whitequark>
(and in all the other places too but i observe those lately)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: this is a running thread amongst a large sub-set of my friends: basically, 1. women of nearly any body-type get laid easily, 2. nearly all gay men get laid easily, 3. 9/10 straight-men get laid easily, and 4. shitty, ignorant men get themselves laid easily
<jane>
ELLIOTTCABLE: also i mean, drunk sex is not nonconsensual sex...
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: ... the vast majority of my sujwoeey friends would strongly disagree with you there.
<jane>
if its just a little drink/meet at the bar type of thing its not bad
<jane>
ELLIOTTCABLE: well im sjw-y too, im just making a distinction between trashed and like, one glass of wine
<ljharb>
"drunk sex" is a tricky one because technically no, it's not consensual, but plenty of the time it would be consensual *if sober*
<ljharb>
one glass of wine !== drunk tho
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
(not implying *any* of those things is a good thing: most of the women I know don't get *happily* laid; most of the gay men I know are equally unhappy about how much they get laid; … fuck guys who are 9's and 10's, moving on; and getting-laid-by-being-shitty is neither a good thing)
<jane>
well i guess the implication is like, you get along with this person, drink a couple drinks, have sex. not get trashed/blackout sex
<purr>
hah
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: yeah, not what I mean by drunk sex at all
<jane>
okay okay :P
* ELLIOTTCABLE
nods
<jane>
just making sure
<jane>
yeah in that case THAT drunk sex is never okay
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I'm definitely not going out there and then turning people who are interested in me down because they've been drinking happily with me :P
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
this was a direct reference to what my friend earlier today was telling me.
<jane>
have you tried like, groups on meetups for singles and such?
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: k just read them
<jane>
or other dating sites? one of my friends found someone on eharmony? i think? super fast. got married. super happy
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
she was basically asserting that I need to get more girls drunk slash start saying yes when very drunk girls are all over me; or i need to start being more pushy and less concerned about consent.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
this person is ... very not sjwooey.
<jane>
yeah that's fucked
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: like, Tinder is waaaaay more up my alley: I have *no* trouble finding romance.
<whitequark>
desire leads to suffering
<whitequark>
</thread>
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
or to flip that on its' head, finding romance *is* my problem.
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: tbh (when single) i have the same difficulty
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Everybody wants to *date* the rich, mildly attractive, funny, super-intelligent, caring dude with two insanely cute dogs? Can't believe I'm actually typing out a *complaint* about this
<jane>
honestly i dont know what to tell you
<pikajude>
ELLIOTTCABLE i have cats, not dogs
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: 'sokay
<jane>
that's what it seems like but "normal" people get laid and do stuff too
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
not looking for advice from you; I genuinely wanted what I asked for on Twitter:
<jane>
oh i know im just thinking out loud :P
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
data points *from other men* that “hey, yeah, we go out here, and we get laid, without compramising on consent. you can do it too.”
<jane>
im a fat ugly bitch and i get laid and i got married so idk :p
<pikajude>
"without compromising on consent"
<pikajude>
the fuck does that mean
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
because I've literally not once in my life done that, or seen it done. so I, like, need that data-point for my self-esteem/perseverance/comfort rn.
<pikajude>
how often are you in a situation where you have to compromise on consent to get laid
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
pikajude: twitterthread. or earlier in the convo in here.
<jane>
i met eridius online and we hit it off in person and got laid without compromising on consent? in fact that was what i loved a lot about him? :p
<pikajude>
oh ok
<jane>
also dont you like, live in the middle of nowhere or something?
* ELLIOTTCABLE
eyebrows
<pikajude>
yeah, chicago
<jane>
its easier to find people in big cities :p
<pikajude>
basically a ghost town
<jane>
oh damn you live in chicago?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
2:25 PM <jane> also dont you like, live in the middle of nowhere or something?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
2:25 PM <+pikajude> yeah, chicago
<pikajude>
yo ELLIOTTCABLE have you run into my sister recently
<jane>
lol
<purr>
lollllllll
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
a thing of beauty just happened
<jane>
for some reason i thought you lived in like middle of nowhere nc or something
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
‘lollllllll with seven l's’ WHY IS THIS YOUR NEW THING CHICAGO
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
er, purr*
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: I did, we haven't talked in ... a while
<pikajude>
why else would such a ruggedly handsome gentleman be so troubled in his love life?
<jane>
ah
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
moved to Chicago three or four years ago. a while now.
<jane>
christ.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
for a girl and for work. neither worked out. >,>
<jane>
aw bummer
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but I fell in love with the city and stayed
<pikajude>
personally i have the charisma of a sponge soaked in cat piss
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
pikajude: thank you!
<pikajude>
you're welcome
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
... works much better as a reply to the first than the second
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
what about your sister? o_O
<pikajude>
she works in chicago
<jane>
ELLIOTTCABLE: are you into any kinks?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: literally everything!
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
this was the conversation I was having with the friend earlier:
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
it was like
<pikajude>
so no, then
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
me: I want sex
<pikajude>
oh well
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
her: go hook up
<pikajude>
how often do you go to the apple store
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
me: <complains about difficulties>
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
her: well, it's hard anyway, 'cuz you gotta turn off all emotions
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
me: wait, what. I don't want that. that makes for terrible sex.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
her: then you don't want just sex.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
me: oh. you're right. I don't want just-sex. hm.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
pikajude: which one?
<jane>
that's kinda true..
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: that's exactly it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
pikajude: answer to both: a lot.
<pikajude>
is there more than one in chicago?
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: if you don't want "just sex" then you're way less likely to get it.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yah, jane / ljharb
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
so despite my friend being kinda-a-piece-of-shit re: the consent thing (i swear I mean that lovingly),
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
she made me realize something pretty important:
<ljharb>
because it's *written all over your face and body language* when you want more than that.
<pikajude>
case sexLife of { Nothing -> "loneliness"; Just sex -> "disappointment" }
<jane>
im super digging the woman im into right now because we talk about a lot more than sex :p
<jane>
because im not a one night stand person, and that means i dont get laid as much, but
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I *do* desperately need an emotional connection, for good sex. I just need a *light-hearted* emotional connection. Not somebody who's going to expect my every minute to be about them, or that we're gonna get married, or Work Really Hard On Our Relationship, or … whatever.
<jane>
that's fine, it's just difficult :/
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ljharb: wat
<jane>
and i think its easier to pull that off when you have more than tinder going on
<jfhbrook>
I love haskell's take on the option monad
<pikajude>
use okcupid
<jfhbrook>
it reads so funny
<jfhbrook>
"MAYBE sexLife???"
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
yeaaaaah. I just have this really weird hold-up on ‘succeeding at tinder’ to feel like I'm successful at life.
<jane>
but you dont have to be. tinder is just a tool.
<pikajude>
let Just fontaine = ...
<jfhbrook>
I don't think I could ever do tinder
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
like to be clear; while I don't have many male friends at all, those I *do* have all 1. get a lot of sex, 2. get it off tinder, and 3. are puzzled as to why *I* don't.
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i'm suggesting that other humans can sense, on many levels, your intent
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and as far as I can tell it's all centered on consent: all the sex they get is like, questionable from a sjwooey standpoint, but not from a normal societal one?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
if that makes sense?
<jfhbrook>
I can barely manage "so what are you up to this weekend" though
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
lol okcupid is so LET'S FALL IN LOVE
<purr>
lolol
<pikajude>
sound it out
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but I'm seriously considering AdultFriendFinder
<pikajude>
you need EmotionalConnectionder
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
because like, it does frustrate me that I see other guys finding just-wanna-hook-up girls on Tinder while I'm not; but, *whatever the reason*, Tinder has very much just been ... another OkCupid for me. all romance, no crazy fun sexual flings.
<jfhbrook>
interesting
<pikajude>
if you're into kinks use fetlife
<jane>
^
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ljharb: That's a really, really interesting thought.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
pikajude: I feel like too much of a noob/beginner for that, though.
<jane>
gotta start somewhere
<pikajude>
lol, only EC would suffer from impostor syndrome when joining a fetish board
<jfhbrook>
yeah fetlife sounds mildly dangerous
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
like, that's not ‘kinks’, that's tying-people-up and lifestyle-BDSM, neither of which I'm very experienced with.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
pikajude: wat.
<purr>
beep.
<jane>
that's not true
<pikajude>
true story
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
it literally just seems to be BDSM people. There's so, so much more to sex for me than BDSM. In fact, I find BDSM really kinda boring. sshrug
<pikajude>
although i did meet one couple from fetlife and they were REALLY fucking weird
<jane>
i mean sure i was into lifestyle-bdsm but there's a whole range of interest
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
why does this room get 90% more active when I talk about my sex life
<pikajude>
lol, BDSM boring
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
WHY ARE NONE OF YOU INTERESTED IN PROGRAMMING-LANGUAGE DESIGN EXCEPT WHITEQUARK AND ALEXGORDON
<pikajude>
that's what the b stands for
<pikajude>
Boring, Depressing, Soporific
<jane>
look, im demisexual. i get those problems. you gotta stop comparing yourself to others :p
<pikajude>
and I can't think of an M
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
pikajude: omg
<jane>
mindnumbing
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: ooo ooo oo you hi you uh,
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: the only time in my life i was able to have casual hookups was when i legit didn't actually want a relationship
<pikajude>
maybe "motherfucker"
<ljharb>
ELLIOTTCABLE: and that was a much smaller subset of the times i claimed i didn't want one
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
so I've been having a mild identity crisis
<pikajude>
jane: good one
<jane>
i would be more interested in programming language design but im enjoying giving everything-tech the middle finger
<pikajude>
more like butthole numbing am i rite
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
literally every person I know who identifies as ‘demi’ is like, nearly goddamn ace except when in a super-meaningful relationship
<jane>
the problem is yeah, im not quite ace. but this is all a spectrum so meh?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I kinda am this close --> <-- to identifying as demi, except, I'd feel like a fraud, because I want sex *all the time* a *very lot*, and I *deeply love it* (every other demi I know: terrified of sex, and borderline damaged into becoming 100% ace by past experiences)
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
like I feel like I'd be nosing in or appropriating if I identified as demi publically
<ljharb>
what is demi
<pikajude>
she's a teen singer
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but I've realized that I have *zero* aptitude for being attracted to bodies: I just want to bang All Of My Friends.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
It's like, demi, but instead of “dating for six months” making me want sex, it's “hearing you say your name to me for the first time also hi nice to meet you”
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
>,>
<ljharb>
:-p
<ljharb>
srsly tho
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
so like identifying as anything ace-spectrum feels so inappropriate or inaccurate, but, it *is* very tightly tied to emotional connection for me? and that sounds very demi.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ljharb: ‘demisexual’ is “asexual when without emotional connection.”
<jane>
it is. i think you need to stop focusing on what other people think of how you feel about yourself
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
like, basically, you look at a supermodel of your precise ‘body-type’ desires, and feel absolutely nothing,
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but get close to one person who would otherwise do nothing for you and become extremely(?) horny for them slash attracted slash interested in sex
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: Adulthood in a Nutshell™?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
lol.
<purr>
lol
<jane>
it's a gray area and if you need an emotional connection to get shit going then that's what it is
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
PURR NO
<jfhbrook>
"demisexual" is a thing?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
2:36 PM <+ljharb> what is demi
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
2:36 PM <+pikajude> she's a teen singer
<jfhbrook>
I, uhh
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jfhbrook: surprised this is news to you o_O
<jfhbrook>
I thought that was normal :(
<whitequark>
>slash attracted
<jane>
yeah i had a couple one night stands before i realized im not into that kind of casual sex
<whitequark>
confirmed gay
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: I mean, cock is great, but, why?
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: wat.
<purr>
beep.
<jane>
its kinda an extreme though, like, i need to have some connection before i even consider being attracted to someone
<jane>
its not just "oh its nice to have that but im attracted nonetheless"
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: I've only had a couple external-to-relationships sexual encounters (would barely qualify as hookups I think), and they are definitely like all three the three *worst* sex I've ever had.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
that sentence structure: For Great Excellence
<pikajude>
holy shit dude
<pikajude>
someone diagram that
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: I can relate. yeah.
<pikajude>
it's going to look like a drunk spider
<jane>
:p
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
-what
<purr>
<Nuck> Richard Stallman would be *so* pissed at elliottcable.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
*Richard Stallman identifies as demi, is offended by elliott's appropriation*
<jane>
im done with other people determining what i am so fuck it :P i'm demi, i'm pan, i'm poly, and none of that means i can't be married either :p
<pikajude>
i can't form emotional connections with people and i get tired when i'm around them for too long
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
A lot of my cismale friends are like that. That's a big part of why I hang out with a lot of trans-people.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
most likely.
<pikajude>
what am i supposed to do
<jfhbrook>
I think I have the opposite problem, if anything <_<
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
nothing? be yourself?
<pikajude>
ok
<pikajude>
that's sad
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jfhbrook: yeah, that's what I was expressing above.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
pikajude: why?
<pikajude>
being a hermit is incredibly depressing
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
hm
<pikajude>
it's not very cathartic
|jemc| has joined #elliottcable
<pikajude>
would like to, you know, hang with people that share interests with me
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
if a personality trait is making you unhappy, instead of feeling compfortable and a part of yourself, work on changing it
<pikajude>
and feel as though they enjoy my presence
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
that's my only real thought there, I know it's unhelpful >:
<pikajude>
autism, now a personality trait
<pikajude>
2016
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
you're autism-spectrum? o_O
<pikajude>
i thought everybody knew that by now
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
not even a little!
<jfhbrook>
figuring out what's a personality trait vs what's under some other axis seems like a whole science in and of itself
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
re: getting tired when around them for too long, *that* part I relate to strongly.
<pikajude>
welcome to The Know, my friend
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I have about 2 hours' social-spoons per week, average. I've measured this now.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
it rolls over to some extent, maybe up to about 6 hours' per month, total.
<pikajude>
i mean in that i can't even retain friends
<pikajude>
no interpersonal interaction feels genuine
<jane>
idk how to start. so am i? outside of a few close friends i have very little energy to deal with social situations... it's a balance of discomfort and how much i want to work on changing who i am
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
strangely i can *also* relate to that
<pikajude>
it doesn't seem real
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
strangely because it's never been an issue in my life until the last few months
<jane>
i think i went through a lot of potential friends before i found people who just understood these things and respected it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I'm not close with *anybody*, since chellio dumped me; I've been like scrabbling desperately trying to turn one goddamn person into a close friend successfully, but obviously that's not how it works
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and in the process I'm failing to really connect with anybody on any level |=
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
2:44 PM <jane> ... it's a balance of discomfort and how much i want to work on changing who i am
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
qfft
* ELLIOTTCABLE
hugs pikajude
<pikajude>
i feel that jane
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
come 2 chi-town n be irl frans
<pikajude>
trying to change who i am is exhausting
<pikajude>
because it's not like you get used to it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
promise I'm less fucking insane and/or offensive offline :3
<pikajude>
you just have to keep it up as long as you can
<jfhbrook>
yeah
<jfhbrook>
change is hard
<jfhbrook>
so is not changing
<jfhbrook>
life is hard, let's go shopping
<pikajude>
honestly, interpersonally speaking, i get worse and worse the longer i have to keep it up
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jesus, actually, out of this channel, gkatsev's the only one who's met me; and even then, that was in a setting where I was driven to Be Hyper And Social And Keep Up @ELLIOTTCABLE-Personality Appearances
<pikajude>
which is hard on people i hang out with
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
no wait jfhbrook you've met me
<jane>
yeah, but i find it less discomforting/frustrating when im at least trying something vs like, wishing i would even though i find it difficult, if that makes sense?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
can't remember where though. nodeconf?
<jfhbrook>
jsconf ELLIOTTCABLE
<pikajude>
ya
<jfhbrook>
oh jesus speaking of
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
that was a bit chiller than the jsconfs where gkatsev met me >,>
<pikajude>
having tried both jane i'm gonna have to say i am about 50/50 between the two
<pikajude>
and i oscillate depending on which one i've been doing recently
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
2:46 PM <jfhbrook> life is hard, let's go shopping
<gq>
i've met you elliott
<gq>
ya goober
<gq>
lol
<purr>
lollol
<gq>
stfu purr
<jfhbrook>
do you remember rebecca siler ELLIOTTCABLE ? she worked for nodesource for like 5 minutes?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jfhbrook: jsconf? really?
<gkatsev>
ELLIOTTCABLE: we didn't attend nodeconf at the same time
<jane>
so im generally a hermit and 9 times out of 10 if i go to an event i hide in the corner, but i cant beat myself up too hard
<jfhbrook>
yeah ELLIOTTCABLE think so
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
gq: you don't count, it's literally been like ≥ half a decade
<gkatsev>
ELLIOTTCABLE: jfhbrook: yep, jsconf
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
gq: god, I was such a different person even a year and a half ago
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
six years ago!? I was a piece of shit
<jfhbrook>
yeah me too ELLIOTTCABLE
<gq>
lol aww
<pikajude>
jane: do you go alone or with a crew
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Ryan had this conversation with me on Twitter the other day
<jfhbrook>
I can't really look at, say, my college years, fondly
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jfhbrook: that's crazy
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jfhbrook: I swear I hung out with you and emily
<jane>
too often i end up going alone :(
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I thought that was a whole thing!
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
2:46 PM <jfhbrook> life is hard, let's go shopping
<pikajude>
ya, carrying it alone is super hard
<jane>
sometimes with a +1
<pikajude>
it's much easier to go with a crew
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
just want to reflect on that for a moment
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
a moment of silence, if you will
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
-truth
<pikajude>
i'd say going with +2 is another level of easy compared to +1
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
-learn truth = <jfhbrook> life is hard, let's go shopping
<purr>
ELLIOTTCABLE: Learned `truth`.
<pikajude>
because they can at least carry it between themselves
<pikajude>
but with a +1 i feel pressure to participate in all the conversation
<jane>
it has to be a +1 i already know and trust that they won't push anything
<pikajude>
yea
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
look at the conversation that starts here with redrummy
<jfhbrook>
ELLIOTTCABLE: there was one time I met up with Emily in Portland, nodeconf 2012 maybe, and she got me embarrassingly high
<jane>
aahah
<jfhbrook>
ELLIOTTCABLE: but I didn't think you were there
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
like I don't remember *much* about when I knew you, but I don't expect very much of that self. sshrug
<pikajude>
drugs are great
<pikajude>
i wish i could use them all the time
<pikajude>
everything is way easier with drugs
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
pikajude: plz don't >:
<jane>
i dont remember when i first met you but you used to be an ass :P
<pikajude>
i know i'm just saying
<jfhbrook>
idk, last might was kind of a shitshow in its own way
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: slash still am, online
<jfhbrook>
I shouldn't buy those cookies but I do anyway
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: am mostly speaking offline
<jane>
ah
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jane: like, online-me is almost … an intentionally affected mask of my past self, with some intentional filters laid on top?
<jane>
mmm
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but like despite actively trying not to use slurs, I'm still not actively a *nice person* online. Because that's, I guess, kinda my brand, or something? idfk.
<jane>
shrug
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but offline, in the last two or three years, I've watched myself develop into something I'd *never* have expected to see in myself. (I don't think gkatsev's seen this, but for some reason I imagine jfhbrook knows? I thought he'd hung out with emily and I, but I guess not, so now I'm super-confused)
<gq>
ELLIOTTCABLE: do you still have that twitter account you used to have that was separate from your main one so you could @ people who had blocked you?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
gq: I still have it, but that's not really its' purpose
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
please don't link it.
<gq>
i wasn't going to
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I have a private list to which I add anybody that blocks me. It's a sort of … self-reminder? I guess?
<gkatsev>
ELLIOTTCABLE: idk, you're basically the same here as in person
<gq>
it just occurred to me while thinking of your online self
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
gkatsev: yeah, that's what I was saying: I'm on high-energy, trying hard to be this *person*, idk how to describe it, when I'm at jsconf
<gkatsev>
though, maybe it's just my mind blending you into one
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
it's part of why I'd decided to not attend another one /=
<gkatsev>
trying to be a person is always good
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
although I'm *also* not keen to go to another nodeconf, I liked that a lot more, was a lot chiller there.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I think being around emily when I'm at tech events is really good for me. she tones me down and reminds me I don't *always* have to be ELLIOTTCABLE, I can just … be elliott. :P
<gkatsev>
yep, you can just be elliott
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
this conversation got hella weird. :P
<gkatsev>
even here
<gkatsev>
and on twitter
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and with that, I'm off <3
<gkatsev>
you don't have to be ELLIOTT CABLE anywhere
<gkatsev>
especially if you don't like being ELLIOTT CABLE
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ehhhhh, neither is that true
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
it's an important part of me, and I'm compfortable with it; don't get me wrong. It's just much more of an *illusion* when I let myself be this offline, and *that's* when it gets uncompfortable? if that makes any sense?
<jfhbrook>
jsconf was really weird for me the 2nd time because I changed meds in between
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I just have two very different on-line and off-line lives, and I haven't really worked out a good way to reconcile that when I interact with one of those two sets of people in the other context. sshrug
<jfhbrook>
the first time I went I was really up and hyper and interested in making friends, the 2nd time I was quiet and shy and more interested in drinking beer with people I already knew really well
<gkatsev>
acting differently between the two isn't necessarily bad
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
oh fuck
<jfhbrook>
no, not bad specifically
<jfhbrook>
but weird
<jfhbrook>
I felt like a different person
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
jfhbrook: I'm confusing you with uh
<gkatsev>
but it seems to me that you don't necessarily like the ELLIOTTCABLE persona (the online one) because you keep complaining people don't like you on twitter and what not
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
fuck, what's his twitter handle
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
thealphanerd! he's in here
<jfhbrook>
oh, funny!
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
thealphanerd: I met *you* w/ Emily, possibly at a nodeconf, right? I think?
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
gkatsev: Hm. I'm definitely confused when I find people I've never met have blocked me,
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but also I guess not *that* confused.
<gkatsev>
jfhbrook: you definitely seemed different, then again, I didn't really interact with you. Except when ELLIOTTCABLE cable introduced us in the 2014 jsconf
<jane>
fucking meds.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
The confusion is less “what *possible* reason could this person have for not liking me!?” and more, like, “Wow, this person is in my circle of friends, and has had me blocked since back when I was an asshole, but I never noticed!?”
<jfhbrook>
right jane ? fucking years of my life
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
ELLIOTTCABLE cable
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: i've blocked hundreds of people i've never interacted with
ELLIOTTCABLE is now known as ELLIOTTCABLEcabl
<jane>
oh fuck i forgot to take my adderall today :(
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
ah fuck you irc
<jfhbrook>
I don't think I've actually ever blocked anyone on twitter
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
whitequark: yeah, that's mostly what bothers me
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
but that's a *whooooole* different conversation
<whitequark>
my personal view is that blocking for literally any reason is fine as long as you don't have an obligation otherwise
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
... not a conversation I want to get *into*
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
lolol
<purr>
lolllll
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
NO PURR
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
guh
<gq>
heh
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
wait it was five l's that time
eligrey has joined #elliottcable
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
like I wrote some new lol-code but I clearly fucked it up royally and now I have no idea where this behaviour is coming from?
eligrey has quit [Changing host]
eligrey has joined #elliottcable
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
like whatever he's doing now is definitely not what I wrote.
<gkatsev>
lolol
<gkatsev>
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
<gq>
at first i thought it was purring saying lolol and shrug emoting instead of gkatsev and i was very concerned
<jfhbrook>
ahahaha
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
gq: lol'd
<gq>
:P
<gkatsev>
lol
<purr>
lolllllll
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
shuhs
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
7 l's
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
why
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
afk
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
jane: thanks for engaging me on all of the above, though
<ELLIOTTCABLEcabl>
jane: was some good insight on a few points
<jane>
:p
ELLIOTTCABLEcabl is now known as ec^
<ec^>
-hat @ jfhbrook
<jane>
i needed a break from reddit ha ha
<purr>
jfhbrook: When in #ELLIOTTCABLE, laugh as the #ELLIOTTCABL…er…IANS. hat-hat-hat.
<ec^>
I have this very vivid memory, like, weirdly, one of my most vivid from that far back, of crying outside a sushi restaurant with/because-of/for(?) gq
<ec^>
*no* context in the memory whatsoever. no idea what had happened or *who* was hurting, just that there was hurt and crying going on somewhere, and I was on the phone with gq
<gq>
hm
<pikajude>
you were outside a sushi restaurant crying about GQ?
<whitequark>
maybe you poisoned yourself with bad sushi
<pikajude>
men's fashion is in a woeful state these days
<pikajude>
i don't blame you
<ec^>
pikajude: or like was on the phone with them while they were crying? idk
<jane>
ec^: why is jarvis not in here? :P
<ec^>
20:06 <ELLIOTTCABLE> Why is "AIM" the disturbing part of that sentence, not "cyber ing"
<ec^>
20:06 <gq> ELLIOTTCABLE: because AIM
<ec^>
jane: jarvis?
<jane>
@chipersoft
<ec^>
oh lol idk he's in and out every couple years
<purr>
lololololol
<ec^>
I always think it's cipher or something else
<jfhbrook>
oh I know that handle
<jfhbrook>
wow, right click to open in new tab for embedded tweets works now
<jfhbrook>
it's like someone at twitter actually listened to me and quietly fixed it
<ljharb>
that team in particular actually cares about that kind of stuff
<jfhbrook>
I think this is like the 4th email I've gotten from this particular recruiter
<jfhbrook>
like I'm used to one or two from the same person but this one's being persistent
<ljharb>
one guy from groupon, no less, is up to like 10 emails across linkedin and multiple addys
<ljharb>
i haven't had the heart to reply because i can't imagine what i'd say about groupon that's tactful
<pikajude>
"no thanks"
<ljharb>
if 10 "ignores" wasn't enough to convey that i don't think "no thanks" will
<jfhbrook>
I mean
<jfhbrook>
shouldn't the assumption just be that I like my job more than I like the sound of your job?
<jfhbrook>
maybe my job is actually pretty dope
<jfhbrook>
maybe I don't think $startup could approach it
<jfhbrook>
I don't actually get that much recruiter email
<jfhbrook>
I think because I'm less obnoxious on twitter lately and don't have the energy for open source
|jemc| has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<ec^>
ljharb: whatchoo got against groupon?
<ec^>
and omg Google is that way
<ec^>
I'm now like In Google's System, and there's no “no” that they'll take seriously
<ljharb>
ec^: as a place to work or as a product
<ec^>
the response is always basically “hahaha we're Google, we know you want to work here. we'll contact you in six months when you've changed your mind!”
<ec^>
and they do
<ec^>
like clockwork
<ec^>
and it's always a different talent-seeking employee so it's not like I can get angry at any one over-persistent person lol
<purr>
lolol
<whitequark>
ec^: lol @evilgaywitch had a problem with that
<ec^>
so I just do the same song-and-dance every six months of ‘that's cool! thanks! sorry, though! still not interested!’
<whitequark>
apparently telling them to never speak with you again works?
<ec^>
whitequark: … it always surprises me when you run in the same SJW-developer circles I do
<ec^>
for some reason, maybe because you're vee Russian and vee blunt, I assume you're not very compfortable with that shit. but you are, and it always blindsides me. :D
<whitequark>
she's an ops person though
<whitequark>
hahahaha you have no idea
<ec^>
yeah, I think they wanted me for … was it Dart? whichever language they had that died.
<ljharb>
probably dart
<whitequark>
ec^: the short answer is that the people from 'SJW' circles that i hang out with are not keen on dogpiling for minor transgressions
<whitequark>
neither are people from 'conservative' circles that i hang out with
<ec^>
conservative?
<whitequark>
i thought the running cliche was conservatives versus sjws?
<whitequark>
i try not to follow it too closely
<ec^>
maybe that's an extra-America thing; but here, it's very much SJWs versus closed-minded men
<ec^>
or in some cases vs. closed-minded feminists l
<whitequark>
don't even get me started on american politics that spills all around anglosphere
<ec^>
lollllllll
<purr>
Lol
<ec^>
I'm super curious about that actually
<whitequark>
i have a like four thousand words rant about it somewhere in DMs
<ec^>
tell me more
<ec^>
omg
<whitequark>
i am *not* publishing it like ever
<whitequark>
because there is literally nothing good that can come from publishing something like that
<whitequark>
you'll just get shit from anyone involved. i've seen it happen. i don't want to be in the center of that
<ec^>
whitequark: valid choice.
<ec^>
I'll admit knowing when to keep your mouth sjut perry good trait
<ec^>
fingers frozen many typos coming thx Chicago
<ec^>
Feels Like -20°
<whitequark>
well, seeing one person attempt suicide and then them and another one just fall off the internet was quite convincing
<whitequark>
i don't really know if any of them is still alive
<ec^>
still, I really have no impression of how American politics oozes out on the rest of the world
<ec^>
still want to know more
<ec^>
wat
<ec^>
over American politics?
<whitequark>
over certain parts of american politics expressed in certain 'open-minded' circles
<whitequark>
anyway, i won't be the one to tell you how it oozes out on the rest of the world because i follow so many americans, i'm involuntarily up to date on most of your quibbles
<whitequark>
today i've seen at least fifty tweets berating ignorant white people for pull-quoting MLK