This path leads to chaos.

Ah yes, the two stances on the issue can only be "foreign interference is bad because it's foreign" and "I love it when Russians try to convince my grandmother to be more racist."

It's odd to be too xenophobic to be able to parse the statement "bad things are bad no matter who does them."

When I had to use them I treated anything less than 90% as not even worth considering. These things are so bad, and I can only imagine they're worse than two years ago when I was actively using them.

I did a lot of cooking earlier and now I'm watching Star Trek. I find cooking+ listening to something to be especially effective because it keeps my hands and brain busy plus I get a reward at the end of the task.

Decaf has been getting better in the last few years! There's a specialty roaster near me that entered their decaf in a coffee competition and placed silver against caffeinated coffees. I tasted it myself, the medal was deserved. If you look in the right places you can have decaf that's incredible.

I do with specialty beer. I once had a jalapeno IPA so crisp and refreshing I still think about it five years later. Or a stout that tasted exactly like an oatmeal cookie overbaked just enough to caramelize it with a touch of char. If I could get non-alcoholic versions I'd drink one every day.

Right wing politics flows naturally out of a belief that (at least some) human beings are violent by nature and that nature can never be changed. It is a program of safeguarding from and harnessing that violence. You are right to call it mythology, and that we on the left must resist it.

Neither of these people is a conservative but it seems to me they are both accepting a conservative mythology of the past and our nature as essentially proto-fascist and fascist-legitimizing.

Samantha did something similar when she characterized indigenous land claims as Nazi ideology.

Do you perhaps have a mind like a diamond and/or know what's best?
I think we can still turn this around

I wasn't expecting Jesse Singal to weigh in on the side of analytic philosophy in the mentions of a random adjunct, I think that was the only real surprise.

Phallogocentrism like you've never seen before

Agreed, probably about right.
I think he'd be a good choice, but if they want him for more than two movies he might be a bit old for the role.

Indeed, there is always a chance of sea change

I look forward to hearing it! I just watched it today, so I have a lot of thoughts about that movie floating around in my head

I don't think I can spoiler tag on Bluesky, so anyone who doesn't want to know can stop reading.

Both Eddington and Bugonia have this problem. Eddington in a particularly frustrating way because two thirds of the movie were quite grounded and serious.