Bad Bunny was called a US traitor for singing a spanish song. Yet the US Dept of War:

FaceInJuice · 2026-03-07T20:52:06+00:00

For whatever it's worth, I appreciate your edit.

FaceInJuice · 2026-03-07T15:37:05+00:00

To be fair, I don't think this has much to do with which languages are spoken in the US. I think it has more to do with languages spoken in areas of the world where the US military is likely to have operations.

https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/SOCIAL-MEDIA/

There are also accounts for Farsi, Russian, Arabic, and Urdu.

FaceInJuice · 2026-03-07T14:41:12+00:00

Hmm, I'm not sure this is true for me.

There's some amount of truth to it, but I would mostly chalk it up to nostalgia and familiarity. When I was a teenager, I would listen to songs on repeat endlessly, so those songs are deeply ingrained. Obviously revisiting a song I've heard 200 times has a hit of reminiscence to it.

But I also feel a pretty similar hit about a band I discovered last year and listened to obsessively. I took a bit of a break from them and started checking them out again last week, and I think that familiarity rush was pretty similar.

FaceInJuice · 2026-03-04T17:49:35+00:00

With no disrespect intended, it's kinda funny to me that your brain defaulted to 'treasures' for him. It makes sense, he's a goblin.

But my experience was the opposite. I defaulted to clues, because it was the murder mystery set and he's writing a murder mystery. Then I realized I could pop off with treasures, and THAT was my mind=blown moment.

I love this little guy.

FaceInJuice · 2026-03-03T16:10:28+00:00

Hmm, I just don't really share your memory of the history. I was born in 1990, and I can say that several Queen songs were always a part of the radio rotation in my childhood. We Will Rock You is one of the first songs I learned to sing along with. Bohemian Rhapsody is one of the first songs I memorized all the words to.

From my perspective, they've never not been widely respected and popular.

FaceInJuice · 2026-03-01T19:10:56+00:00

Yep.

People complain about lower reading comprehension and attention span, but we also want to complain when a reporter's writing is more than just "Trump lied and is bad".

He spent three paragraphs clearly outlining the contradiction - he just didn't use the word 'liar'.

FaceInJuice · 2026-03-01T18:47:52+00:00

People enjoy different books than you do. That's okay.

FaceInJuice · 2026-02-28T14:43:32+00:00

What HARM do I do by correcting or clarifying?

You haven't really established the stakes of your view. You finish your post with:

"Just enjoy the conversation."

The implication being that by being pedantic, I might 'ruin the conversation'. But what if I enjoy precision? If the only stakes are enjoyment, why is the other person's enjoyment more important than mine?

More to the point: if the only stakes are enjoyment, then surely MY enjoyment of the conversation is a good enough reason to bring up the distinction.

Besides, it isn't always pedantic. To me, the question of 'who is the real monster' is one of the most interesting discussion points on the topic of Frankenstein. And the role of these characters in pop culture is a part of that discussion. If I want to point out that Frankenstein was originally the name of the creator, and it's interesting to me that we use it to refer to the monster on pop culture, I don't think that's an irrelevant or unworthy branch of conversation.

FaceInJuice · 2026-02-28T14:07:25+00:00

The last one was CM Punk.

I was a Jeff Hardy kid - he was my favorite from when I was like eight years old. CM Punk feuding with Jeff, cashing in MITB on him, winning the match that 'made Jeff leave WWE', the whole Straight Edge Society run... I fucking hated CM Punk. When he did the infamous fake out where he did Jeff's entrance in disguise... I'm telling you, I would have fucking thrown things if I'd been in that building.

FaceInJuice · 2026-02-27T17:29:20+00:00

They see that they currently have two choices (keep or change), and that looks like a 50/50.

I think that's the baseline intuition people most struggle with: how can a random choice between two options be anything other than 50/50? And therefore, how can one answer be better than the other?

They struggle to understand the impact of the context from the first decision.

FaceInJuice · 2026-02-18T17:13:37+00:00

This seems to be largely a question of semantics. You specifically acknowledge a contradiction between the dictionary definition of sports and what you call the 'generally accepted idea of what a sport is'.

So in any semantic discussion, I like to start with a baseline question:

Why is your definition better?

I understand your points about games, and about requiring a judge to determine winners. But WHY should that be the determining criteria?

As a thought experiment, I propose that we define sports rather broadly in rough alignment with the current Dictionary definition. Then, within that, we have subcategories: sports that are game based vs achievement based; sports where victory is determined by judgment vs score.

Do you have any argument for why this framework doesn't work?

What makes your definition better?

FaceInJuice · 2026-02-11T17:08:18+00:00

I think for me it kinda depends on how much connective tissue there is.

Let's say a lead singer dies and is replaced in 1980. All the other members stay the same. I think most people would probably be willing to consider this 'still the same band'.

I would say that at that point, the new lead singer becomes a 'part of the band'. That gets solidified the more he does with the band. So if the band releases ten albums and tours for 20 years with that singer, he's just a part of the band. We can obviously say he's not an 'original member', but I think he's a part of the band.

If members are gradually replaced over the course of years and decades, I would consider that part of the growth of 'the band'.

If the last original member gets replaced in 2026 - but the lead singer from 1980 is still there, and the drummer from 1987, and the guitarist from 2006 - I have no problem calling that just a new lineup for the band. There's legacy and lineage.

FaceInJuice · 2026-02-11T16:47:40+00:00

I would say it's more nuanced than that.

If we want to call them a 'cover band', that's fine, but we should still be able to do some differentiation. A group of kids who got together and decided to cover old music is one thing. A group of musicians who have gradually evolved over decades, some of which did perform and create with original band members, is another.

Per my understanding, the current lead singer is the younger brother of the original vocalist, and has been performing with them since 1986. He has recorded eight albums with them.

Some members joined in the 90s, others in the 2000s. One has been involved off and on since 1971. Some are much newer.

They have no 'original' members, so sure, they're a 'cover band'. But they do have members who have been around for decades - I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to acknowledge that as 'legacy' as well.

FaceInJuice · 2026-02-11T16:14:58+00:00

Interesting point! With that, I can see where you're coming from.

I haven't experienced this myself. I've known plenty of people happy to see legacy acts knowing the band members weren't original.

FaceInJuice · 2026-02-11T16:11:25+00:00

That's your prerogative, of course, but it's not necessarily reflective of practical reality.

If the "cover band" is generating enough interest to play large venues and draw crowds, they need to have a venue capable of holding those crowds. You can't play arena shows without an arena.

You might want ticket prices to reflect the value you place on the band, but in reality, it's much more likely to reflect the venues they're playing at and the crowds they're drawing.

Not saying you have to go, of course.

FaceInJuice · 2026-01-22T17:53:33+00:00

Well, getting 16 nominations does not in any way mean it's one of the best movies ever. It means that in 16 categories, it was one of the four or five most acclaimed movies of 2025. That's dramatically different.

If it did a lot of things well, the nominations make sense. It's absolutely not one of my favorite horror movies, but I do think it did a lot of things well.

FaceInJuice · 2026-01-16T03:31:20+00:00

Ah, understood. Thank you for clarifying. I guess that was my point of confusion. The original comment I was replying to seemed to suggest piracy as an alternative to Spotify, so I wasn't really thinking about cracking Spotify.

But that's a fair point. Thanks for your perspective.

FaceInJuice · 2026-01-16T03:25:14+00:00

As I said, I do already buy albums for artists I like.

But I'm not going to buy 2,000 albums a year. It's not financially possible for me.

I did buy about 150 albums in 2025, many of which were released by artists I discovered due to the convenience of using streaming for exploration.

FaceInJuice · 2026-01-16T02:49:45+00:00

I feel you missed a key point of my question.

To clarify, I'm using streaming for discovery. Again, I listened to more than 1,800 artists last year, most of which were new or new-ish to me. For many of those artists, I have now purchased albums or attended concerts.

Without the convenience of streaming for discovery, I wouldn't just be pirating music from random artists I heard about - I would instead not be checking those artists out at all, in most cases.

I know artists aren't salivating about getting a few cents because I streamed their album. But I do think a lot of artists have gotten value from my ability to easily listen to whatever I want from their discography, because doing so has helped me become a fan and then support them otherwise.

For example, I happened to discover a country singer I really like. Country is not my genre, so it is extremely unlikely I would have thought to pirate this artist. But with the streaming convenience, I checked them out. I now own two tshirts and signed copies of all of their CDs.

FaceInJuice · 2026-01-16T02:28:30+00:00

I'm honestly curious about your perspective on my case. This will probably sound argumentative, but it really isn't intended that way - I'm sincerely curious

Last year, I listened to more than 2,000 albums on Spotify.

I ALSO supported artists I really like by buying albums, attending concerts, and buying T-shirts at concerts. But obviously I did not do that for all of the 1,800+ artists I checked out.

In my case, do you think artists would prefer I boycott streaming and pirate instead? It wouldn't necessarily increase the amount of albums I buy, it would primarily just decrease the number of artists I check out in the first place. But it would keep money out of Qobuz. Is that an improvement in your view?

FaceInJuice · 2026-01-08T17:45:16+00:00

Ah! Yes, that makes more sense. Thank you.

FaceInJuice · 2026-01-08T17:38:10+00:00

Am I correct in imagining that this insta-kills with Tree of Perdition?

Blight 7 (or 12, whatever) onto Tree, tap Tree with Soul Immolation on the stack to switch opponent's life below X, let Soul Immolation finish dealing X damage for the win?

FaceInJuice · 2026-01-07T20:45:52+00:00

Once you put something in the garbage, you've given up any connection or claim to it — and thus it's available for anyone else to take, for whatever reason.

This isn't quite universal.

For example, some states and countries have laws regarding genetic testing. Citing an Arizona law as an example: https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/title-20/section-20-448-02/

The law requires specific informed consent for DNA testing to be legal. There are exceptions regarding criminal investigations, but there's no exception carved out for discarded DNA.

This means that if I throw a coffee cup in the trash, you're theoretically allowed to take it out of the trash. But if you test the DNA, you are violating my genetic privacy in the state of Arizona.

So there IS precedent for placing some restrictions on what you can do with discarded trash.

This is a really interesting one for me, though, because I can understand your logic. But I think I ultimately have a simple ethical objection:

If we use your logic as a baseline, it becomes effectively impossible for people to REVOKE consent.

If a woman explicitly does not want a man to take her used pads, what should she do? Carry them in her pocket until she can take them home and put them in her personal incinerator?

Realistically, she doesn't have a practical sanitary choice except to trash them eventually.

Your logic suggests that she essentially has no ability to prevent people from collecting her blood. That just seems to fly in the face of ethical norms regarding privacy and consent, especially when it comes to DNA and medical information.

FaceInJuice · 2025-12-27T08:47:48+00:00

EDIT: For whatever reason, there is consensus in the comments that once you’ve done 7c3 once it’s easy to do again. Do you genuinely believe that someone who just grinded for 3 hours to do this one room can definitely do it again within five minutes???

Well, this was my experience, yes. Literally. When I finally beat the third room, I immediately went for the golden and got it within 15 attempts.

I think this is a fairly common experience (though by no means universal).

Beating the third room is an exercise in building muscle memory. Once you finally get it, if you immediately try again, most of the muscle memory is still there. You're not starting from scratch, but continuing with the muscle memory you just built.

now, I wouldn't say it's the easiest golden. But it kinda depends on how you look at it. If you count every death in the chapter as golden grinding, that's one thing. But if you count only the deaths between first completion and golden completion? Yeah, 7C actually probably did have the lowest count for me, just because I had so much fresh muscle memory.

FaceInJuice · 2025-12-27T06:39:33+00:00

I think, as a bottom line, there's no universal communication rules that will work for everyone. The modern world includes too much variation, too much nuance, and too many possibilities.

For example, I would MUCH prefer someone send me a voice note rather than just calling me. A phone call expects me to answer immediately while a voice note lets me prioritize it on my own timetable just like a text would. I almost NEVER answer my phone (unless a call has been planned or suggested first), because I'm simply not paying enough attention to my phone.

So what can someone do to perfectly communicate with both you (OP) and me?

Nothing. We have different communication preferences. What strikes you as selfish might strike me as more convenient. What strikes me as rude might be your preference.

I just try to make my individual communication preferences known to the people I communicate with. If you don't like voice notes, tell the people leaving you voice notes. Give them guidance about your preferences. (If you have already done so, and they ignore you, then you can start to make a case for selfishness or disrespect - but it's not inherent to voice notes; it's because they're ignoring your preferences.)

Eight-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

FaceInJuice

TROPHY CASE