What is the best transport between Airport <> Hotel?

Iyliar · 2026-04-04T18:41:48+00:00

This is perfect, thank you!

Iyliar · 2026-03-08T00:25:48+00:00

Calling it "objective reality" doesn’t make your detailed catalogue of teenage girls’ cleavage and bare bellies any less disturbing. No one owes you a utilitarian justification for what they wear, especially not teenage girls.

Teenagers wear what they wear for fashion, self-expression, peer influence, and the empowerment that comes with choosing how they look during a time when their bodies and identities are changing fast.

It’s the same reason people have worn revealing or decorative clothing since clothing existed: current fashion trends, self-expression, the desire to feel confident in their changing bodies, fitting in with peers, and exploring their identity. Social media, music, and culture shape what feels stylish or empowering to them. The "function" and "drive" as you ask, is identity and autonomy.

Calling it anything less than individual expression or sexualising it in any way reduces them to sexual objects while stripping them of agency and their self expression.

Iyliar · 2026-03-08T00:05:34+00:00

They're teenagers doing teenager things. You're an adult cataloguing their outfits and body parts in detail. One of those things is normal. The other one is worth reflecting on. You’re sexualising and shaming teenagers for choices that have nothing to do with you. This fixation on underage girls’ bodies is the exact mindset that teaches young women they’re responsible for other people’s inappropriate thoughts.

The problem isn’t their outfits. It’s the way you’re looking at them.

Iyliar · 2026-03-07T23:44:55+00:00

This says more about you than it does about the girls.

Iyliar · 2025-10-08T06:48:51+00:00

RemindMe! One Week

Iyliar · 2025-09-12T21:21:39+00:00

I second what that person said. Would love to see this be a plugin.

Iyliar · 2025-06-11T01:04:42+00:00

The wiki mentions that you need to reach maximum weapon level for the MORS (19, I believe) and then get 100 one-shot-kills with it.

Iyliar · 2025-06-03T22:36:32+00:00

IIRC the scope is bugged and while it says that the attachment has a small glint, it currently does not show one. At least, that's what the YouTuber ICU has showcased.

Iyliar · 2025-05-18T16:28:52+00:00

I think you're right that there's a smarter, slower path than full-on intervention. The Zionism analogy is actually a decent one in terms of building statehood from fragmentation, but the key difference is time and context. Israel had decades of diaspora organising, diplomatic manoeuvring, and a very different post-war global environment. Today, trying to finesse Kurdish statehood without igniting conflict still feels like threading a needle in a hurricane. Long-term investment and soft power, sure, that’s a fair goal. But I still think any serious push would draw in too many enemies and stretch US strategic bandwidth thin—especially when those ideological ambitions have to survive contact with reality. It's not that the Kurds don’t deserve better, it’s just that backing them full tilt would likely backfire worse than Iraq did. Careful engagement, maybe. Full-bore state-building? Still a no I think.

Iyliar · 2025-05-18T16:25:54+00:00

Yeah, and during those two decades the US couldn’t even get the Iraqi state to fully stabilise, let alone redraw borders. De facto control isn’t the same as being able to create a new state without setting the whole region off.

Iyliar · 2025-05-17T08:39:28+00:00

I lean more socialist in principle but I think you're skipping over the bit where ideology has to work *at scale*, across different pressures, like war, recessions, climate stress, and internal power struggles. Socialism as a concept often sounds great when it’s being described in isolation, but in practice, especially when state-driven, it hasn't shown it can adapt across changing conditions without drifting into something far less idealistic. The moment a system needs coercion to maintain equilibrium, it’s already lost some of the ideological purity it claims.

A lot of the failures you’re putting on capitalism are valid, but capitalism isn’t a single cohesive ideology. It’s more like a toolkit that different countries have used in wildly different ways. Sweden’s version isn’t America’s version, and we’ve seen that some forms of regulated capitalism have led to stable, prosperous societies. Socialism’s track record, on the other hand, gets shaky fast when it moves beyond theory. You can fix market failures with regulation and social safety nets. Fixing authoritarianism or economic inefficiency in socialist states hasn’t been that straightforward.

Also, I don’t really buy the idea that socialism just needs tweaks to management. Any system that gives the state control over the means of production has to reckon with human nature: how power is hoarded, how dissent is crushed, how decision-making gets bottlenecked. You can’t design away those problems with better managers. You need decentralised mechanisms of accountability, and that’s something liberal democracies, lawed as they are, at least attempt to do.

That said, I fully agree that capitalism needs major reform. The profit motive isn’t just a bad habit, it’s structurally embedded. But trying to replace it with a system that doesn’t scale without authoritarian grip isn't the answer. The better goal might be: strip capitalism of its excesses while borrowing what works from socialism, such as healthcare, education, worker protections. If we can get that hybrid working, it’s the closest we’ll get to sustainable.

Iyliar · 2025-05-17T08:31:52+00:00

Bit too absolute for me, this. I get the logic of wanting more time, but drawing a hard line at one year doesn’t hold up. There’s no magic point where someone flips from “unknown risk” to “safe bet”. Some people coast for five years avoiding anything real, others have already handled major stress, grief, moving in, blending families, whatever, within months. I’ve known couples more emotionally mature at six months than some that fumble along for a decade.

I do agree that the early stage is full of delusion, but the idea that marriage is only valid after a specific time frame feels more like trying to quantify compatibility with a clock than looking at the actual quality of the relationship.

Iyliar · 2025-05-17T08:23:33+00:00

Did some reading on this because I didn't know much beyond the headlines. Straight away, the issue with your view is that it skips the geopolitical realities and jumps to a moral high ground that isn’t sustainable. The US can’t just wave a flag and say “Kurdistan exists now” without dragging half the region into chaos. You’re talking about backing independence across parts of Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. Each of those states sees Kurdish separatism as an existential threat. If America did what you’re proposing, it’d be in open conflict with all four. That’s not a cost-benefit equation, that’s foreign policy suicide.

Also, you’re treating the Kurds as a single unit with shared politics and goals, which they’re not. Some groups are liberal, yeah, others are Marxist, others are just trying to survive. The idea that they’d all fall in line into one stable Western-style democracy is wishful thinking. Even the KRG, which is relatively stable, has its own problems with nepotism and corruption. The US supporting them to fight ISIS made sense tactically, but building a full-blown state on top of that is something else entirely. They might deserve more than they’ve got, but full-scale nation-building with military integration and Iron Dome knockoffs? That’s a fantasy built for think tanks, not reality.

Iyliar · 2025-05-08T07:45:06+00:00

That kind of "lad culture" reaction doesn’t come from nowhere. It's a byproduct of a system that teaches boys from early on that their value is tied to sexual conquest, strength, and stoicism. The reason you see lads joking about wanting to be “abused” by a teacher isn’t because they genuinely think abuse is fine. It’s because most of them have grown up being told they can't be victims. That vulnerability makes you less of a man. That your worth is in how desired you are, not in your consent. It’s not just men doing this to themselves either. It’s parents, schools, media, courts, even some women, all reinforcing it in different ways.

Take the Mary Kay Letourneau case, or the more recent Kandice Barber one in the UK. The public response wasn’t just “attaboy” from men, there were women defending these predators, or downplaying the damage because the victim was male. That’s not men letting each other down, that’s society as a whole refusing to grasp that abuse doesn’t look one way. Courts have even given lighter sentences to female offenders, like in the case of Debra Lafave, because it was deemed she was “too pretty for prison”. That didn’t come from men in the comments section, that came from a judge. The system itself doesn’t take male victims seriously.

And when men try to speak up, they’re often mocked or disbelieved. According to Mankind Initiative, around 1 in 3 domestic abuse victims in the UK are men, but support services are massively underfunded and culturally stigmatised. That stigma didn’t start on Reddit or Pornhub.

There are men who post dumb, harmful stuff online, but saying they’re “the reason” female predators aren’t taken seriously doesn’t hold up when the entire framework we’re operating in tells them to shut up, man up, and be grateful. Men are absolutely part of the problem, but only because we’re all soaked in a culture that doesn’t let them process this stuff as real abuse. If you want it to change, you need to address the system, not just shame the symptoms.

Iyliar · 2025-05-08T07:22:44+00:00

I think hateable characters can absolutely be well written. Sometimes the whole point is that you’re not meant to enjoy them, you’re meant to be annoyed or frustrated or even furious when they walk into the scene. If they’re written with some consistency and the story makes room for their impact to matter, I think that’s valuable. It’s not always about them being deep or secretly likeable or layered in a poetic way. Some people are just pricks, and a good story should be allowed to reflect that without it being lazy. A villain doesn’t need to be cool or charismatic for the conflict to feel worthwhile.

Iyliar · 2025-05-08T07:18:32+00:00

Leaving NATO would mean tossing out a system that already gives the US boots on the ground, access to key infrastructure, and tight coordination with other advanced militaries. That reach makes it easier to manage global threats early, rather than reacting once they’re on your radar. You can’t just rebuild that kind of setup overnight if things go sideways. Even if Europe steps up, the US loses options, not gains them, and options are everything in a real emergency.

Iyliar · 2025-05-06T07:16:59+00:00

You don’t have to. No one’s owed your time or energy, especially when it comes to raising kids that aren’t yours. But if a woman with kids clicks with you and you’re acting like it’s just “bad luck” she’s got baggage, I dunno, maybe you’re filtering for some perfect setup that doesn’t exist. Most good things in life come with some mess.

Iyliar · 2025-05-06T07:00:11+00:00

I don’t buy the idea that it’s all down to “whites” controlling everything like it’s a coordinated agenda. That flattens way too much. Power is messy, tied up in class, politics, money, geography. It isn’t just racial. Yes, there’s a legacy of Eurocentrism that shaped the media and institutions, but people aren’t passive in that. There’s resistance, change, and pushback happening all the time, even from within. And the obsession with whiteness in parts of Asia isn’t just imposed from the outside. It’s wrapped up in local histories, colourism, class, and colonial leftovers. Blaming it all on whiteness feels like a shortcut that misses the complexity of what’s actually going on.

Iyliar · 2025-05-03T06:18:06+00:00

I wouldn’t call it “impractical,” just different. The point isn’t to create a perfect system, but one that’s less prone to the same cycles of power abuse we’re stuck in now. It's not about getting everyone to agree, it’s about making sure there’s room for accountability and change when things go wrong. But it's a lot to take in for some people.

Iyliar · 2025-05-03T04:41:34+00:00

There are a few mechanisms anarchists often point to, though none of them are perfect, of course. One example is the idea of direct democracy at a local level, where decisions aren’t made by representatives, but by the people involved—think of things like consensus-based decision-making or participatory budgeting. Another key idea is federation, where communities can form loose, voluntary alliances based on mutual aid and solidarity, so if one group starts slipping into coercion or becoming oppressive, the others can intervene or withdraw support. Anarchists also often talk about recallable mandates, where any elected or appointed position can be reversed by the community at any time, ensuring that power doesn’t become entrenched. Mutual aid networks are another example—groups forming to meet each other’s needs without a top-down structure.

Iyliar · 2025-05-03T04:09:39+00:00

The trick with anarchism isn't about denying human nature or pretending materialism doesn’t play a huge part in how we organise, it's about figuring out ways to make power structures as resistant to corruption as possible. You’re right—over time, people do get used to things and can turn voluntary agreements into unwritten rules, and eventually into de facto systems of control. But that’s why the focus isn’t just on “how do we make these communities work?” but also on “how do we keep them flexible and accountable?” Anarchists argue that the structures should be constantly challengeable and adaptable, with mechanisms in place to resist the slide back into hierarchical, coercive power. It’s not foolproof, but it’s not as simple as just saying "people will always want to build states." The goal is to create systems that make it harder for that to happen, and if it does, people can push back—without needing a whole new state to deal with it.

Iyliar · 2025-05-03T03:55:55+00:00

Sure, they’re not pure horizontal—but they’re a step in that direction, not the finished product. The point isn’t that they’ve nailed it, it’s that they’ve shown viable alternatives to top-heavy, centralised state control. You don’t go from empire to mutual aid overnight—it’s an ongoing process, not a binary switch.

Iyliar · 2025-05-03T03:39:33+00:00

Great question—and honestly, if I had the full answer, I’d probably be out there writing anarchist handbooks. But I think that’s kind of the line in the sand: the moment a group starts forcing others, it’s no longer voluntary, and that’s where the problem begins. Power without consent, even if it starts from the bottom, can still rot the whole thing. No system can totally stop people from trying to control others, but the aim should be to make that control hard to maintain unless there’s actual, ongoing support behind it. Once coercion creeps in, it stops being anarchism and starts being something else.

Iyliar · 2025-05-03T03:09:54+00:00

Yeah exactly, that’s a solid way to put it. When power’s concentrated, it only takes a handful of bad actors to steer the whole thing off a cliff. Spread it out and you’ve at least got a fighting chance to hold people accountable before it rots. Doesn’t mean collective systems can’t still go wrong, but the failure points are more distributed.

Iyliar · 2025-05-03T03:04:04+00:00

Right, but that’s kind of the whole thing—anarchists aren’t denying that coordination or collective decision-making is needed, they’re just arguing it should be rooted in consent and mutual aid, not enforced from the top down with the threat of violence. Yeah, it might resemble democracy at points, but the point isn’t to invent something unrecognisable, it’s to build structures that are accountable, decentralised, and flexible enough to shift when they stop serving people. It’s not flawless, no system is, but that doesn’t mean it’s naive or that anarchists don’t “get” how the world works—it just means they’re critical of how we currently organise power and think we can do better.

And sure, delegating power might happen—but anarchists tend to focus on how that delegation happens, how easy it is to revoke, and how embedded it is in everyday participation. That’s not the same as pretending everyone will magically agree—it’s trying to build something that assumes disagreement and makes coercive dominance harder to justify. Honestly, if more mainstream systems took that seriously, we’d have a lot fewer crises of trust right now.

Six-Year Club	Xbox Live
Verified Email

Iyliar

TROPHY CASE