I’m starting to feel like more and more of these comics here are just political opinions not even intented to be entertaining.

Well yeah… Having money is not fun. Getting money is fun.

Think about all the things you used to wish for that you now have. Did it stop you wanting more things?

Having things is not fun. Getting things is fun.

And even if not, I’d rather be miserable on a cool bike.

When I was like three I watched the property maintenance dude plowing snow on our building’s front yard with a pickup truck and I thought that not only was it the coolest job in the world, but oh, how badly I wanted a truck like that too.

Fastforward 30 years and there I’m staring at one in the used cars parking lot at the local dealership realising it’s what I’ve always wanted and I can actually afford it too. Now I get to stare at it every single day because it’s mine. I even ended up starting my own business later so now it’s not only fun to drive and beatiful to look at but also useful.

Exactly, plenty of genres to choose from in the spawn menu. I too chose to like niche artists only.

the assumption that their compliments are all or mostly insincere

I disagree that this is being claimed here. Stereotypes don’t imply that everyone, or almost everyone in that group is like that.

I hope people realise that simulation theory doesn’t actually imply that someone is actively micromanaging the simulation. The point of a simulation kind of is to just let it run and see what happens.

That user is on my blocklist so I haven’t seen their comment and I was asking you anyway.

incorrect stereotype

I’d argue it’s not, in fact, incorrect. Sure you can say it is but that doesn’t really prove anything. Stereotypes stem from reality.

if you swapped either or both of the characters in the comic out for men, it would no longer work as a joke.

Ofcourse it wouldn’t. It’s a stereotype about women. If you made the same joke about men it wouldn’t be funny because it would be completely made up. Equivalent joke about men would be two guys being nasty and talking shit to eachother but neither actually meaning it.

You still haven’t explained what’s deeply misogynistic about this cartoon. Or was that a joke too?

Not all women, no, but some definitely are. Stereotypes come from reality. While they don’t apply to every individual, it does apply on a group level especially when compared to other groups. If this was completely made up nobody would find it funny. People find it funny because there’s a kernel of truth there. It’s not misogynistic to aknowledge that women as a group act differently to men.

The women in the cartoon are not being bitchy to eachother either, are they?

It’s a stereotype about women complimenting eachother while not actually meaning it. It’s a joke. Look at the upvote / downvote ratio. Most people get it. You’re in the minority here being offended by it. Recreational outrage so to speak.

Why is it deeply misogynistic?

The test asks whether a work features at least two female characters who have a conversation about something other than a man. Some versions of the test also require that those two female characters have names.

Two female characters. Not talking about men. Both have names.

I haven’t seen that movie, but you’d need to hold the match there for a while. Inside the sprinkler head, there’s a small glass vial with liquid. When it heats up enough it expands, the glass breaks, releasing the water behind it.

When replacing thermostat valves or radiators in buildings with steel-pipe radiator lines, the water that comes out is often as black as ink. It’s surprising how dark it can get.

And for anyone wondering why steel is used, yes, it does rust, but only while there’s air in the water. As the pipes start rusting, that air gets used up, and the rusting stops. Same applies to sprinkler lines. Steel pipes in radiator lines can easily last the building’s lifetime, whereas copper pipes for drinking water usually need replacement every 30 years or so.

I fired an assault rifle in the army without hearing protection once just so try how loud it was. No need to try that one again. I knew it’s going to be loud but not that loud.

Sprinklers react to heat, not smoke and they don’t all go off at once. Also the water that comes out is brown from rust, not clear.

War bows are so heavy that you can barely hold it for the moment it takes to aim. There’s no way you’re holding it for minutes before told to release.

To me, being an intellectual doesn’t necessarily mean someone is exceptionally smart in the traditional sense. I’ve always taken it to mean a person who can take a few steps back and dispassionately, honestly evaluate things from a distance. It describes how they think, not what they think.

I listen to a lot of podcasts with guests/hosts I’d consider intellectuals, and I’ve often found that, given the same information, these people tend to land on the same or similar conclusions on unrelated topics. Another common trait of an intellectual is that their ideas don’t map neatly onto a political ideology. They don’t adopt ideas wholesale but instead form opinions on different subjects individually. Maybe I’m talking about intellectual honesty now, which might be slightly different, but that’s my take on it. I remember Sean Carroll defining intellectualism along these lines on an old podcast, and it resonated with me.

There have been two recent events that, in my view, serve as good tests of a person’s intellectual honesty. First was the Trump assassination attempt. One of the thinkers I admire most is also one of the most anti-Trump people I know, but I was confident they’d still condemn political violence like this, which they did. The second event was just a few days ago: the landing of the Starship 1st stage. If a person is so blinded by their hatred of Musk that they can’t admit how impressive that was, then I don’t consider them an intellectually honest thinker.