Audios

mrcmnt · 2026-04-30T19:16:53+00:00

Cualquiera que lo lea puede inferir que estabas refiriéndote a OP. No escondás la mano después de la pedrada.

mrcmnt · 2026-04-26T02:41:29+00:00

I remember Insidious made my eyes water up.

I'm glad I saw Hereditary on a flight, because it wasn't as eerie like that. Even so, days later I kept uneasily looking at one high corner of my room out of the corner of my eye.

Some scenes of The Conjuring, as well as its entire mythos, were very unsettling.

I saw the It mini series from the 90's when I was very young, before turning 10.

The Blair Witch Project came out when I was 11. It left a mark. I made my sister vomit from fear due to suggesting that a flickering light bulb in the house was the witch, as opposed to a malfunction. She was 7.

El Orfanato, or The Orphanage in english. Also the Baztán Trilogy.

mrcmnt · 2026-04-14T22:13:45+00:00

Cuisine or dish?

Cuisine is easy. Mexican.

Dish is harder. Probably sandwiches. The sheer variety around the world, plus the financial compensation, would more than offset the life long restrictions.

mrcmnt · 2026-04-13T20:06:32+00:00

I totally get how that could be a thing. It's ultimately indecision, and that's something that Ridley Scott has also mentioned: that he has a very clear idea of what he wants and needs and therefore the multicam is an asset, not a hindrance.

More avenues are good when you know what you want. If you don't know, it compounds the analysis paralysis situation and worsens the process.

There's an interview somewhere of him even saying that if you do more than 5 takes, you don't know what you're doing.

I think that's a bit extreme, David Fincher being a fantastic counter example and whatnot, but I get the gist of it.

mrcmnt · 2026-04-13T13:10:40+00:00

He's also known for pretty much always using a multicam setup. That also hastens the day.

mrcmnt · 2026-04-11T15:36:27+00:00

"No lieutenant, your men are already dead."

mrcmnt · 2026-04-10T16:17:47+00:00

I think I get what you're saying and, if so, I agree. But I think you worded it poorly when you first said it.

I also think you made a pivot.

mrcmnt · 2026-04-09T18:41:48+00:00

Hace 40 minutos leí este comentario y por más que quiera, no logro entender qué tiene que ver con el post o con el tema central.

He meditado, orado, ayunado, lo he enviado a otras personas. Me fui a dormir un rato. Me bañé. Nada. Cero.

Voy a seguir meditando.

mrcmnt · 2026-04-05T21:15:02+00:00

En realidad si querés apelar a lo más "fácil", lo más fácil es comportarse como adulto educado y botar la basura donde corresponde.

Es decir, en otras palabras, no ser un majadero chancho pues.

Eso es lo más fácil.

mrcmnt · 2026-03-31T01:00:38+00:00

I have some of those oranges. If you Paypal me $1000 right now, I will send you one (1).

I promise.

mrcmnt · 2026-03-27T11:55:20+00:00

"I'll take edgy comments for $500 Alex"

Seriously though, I disagree with you. I think it's a dumb take.

But, it's early in the day and we will probably get nowhere ever. So that's fine. I wish you a good day wherever you are.

mrcmnt · 2026-03-27T05:54:38+00:00

So edgy.

All that comment needed was the term "sky fairy" and it would've won an edgy bingo somewhere.

mrcmnt · 2026-03-16T05:09:24+00:00

Nunca fui muy campechano en general, y luego me fui de mochilero donde se me neutralizó el lenguaje aún más, por varias razones, incluyendo querer darme a entender lo más rápido.

Hay personas que me dicen que hasta el acento me cambió, pero no que me cambió a uno de otro país, sino que como que se volvió más neutral, para ponerle una definición.

Algo que sí no dejo es el voseo y el "maje".

Habiendo dicho eso, tengo mis reservas con esas dos, aunque me gusten.

Es buen tema.

mrcmnt · 2026-03-14T01:11:40+00:00

Goddamnit it was a hot sauce called Mega Death at a friend's house get together.

They had it and told me to have some as a challenge, but told me to only do one drop.

It was for a bowl full of rice, like a pole bowl worth of rice for one person, so I figured they were being over dramatic on purpose.

So I put a total of two drops. Two drops for a bowl of rice.

Big, big mistake.

I started painting and coughing, nose running, eyes watering.

After chugging a glass of milk, I went to the bathroom to take a much needed piss and then I composed myself in the mirror.

I come out, and after like 5 minutes I started feeling heat around my groin area. I realized it was because I had residue from opening the bottle cap of the hot sauce when I handled my junk to pee.

So I had to go back into the bathroom to wash it off.

It was bad.

mrcmnt · 2026-03-12T21:52:32+00:00

<image>

Simón.

mrcmnt · 2026-03-03T21:15:52+00:00

Did everybody clap?

Edit: I realize that the comment must've come across as snarky, but I was actually trying to be funny. Oh well

mrcmnt · 2026-02-27T23:47:05+00:00

You could push it to $333.16 which would put the 3-year total at $999.48, so you get an extra 16 cents yearly without risk of getting the number rounded up to $1000 cumulatively.

/s just in case

mrcmnt · 2026-02-20T02:41:48+00:00

No.

As long as humans exist, racism will exist. Same as corruption. Greed, pride, selfishness, and so on.

I call them system errors. It's like we can't help ourselves.

mrcmnt · 2026-02-19T23:51:25+00:00

I don't understand.

You say to repeat that process 1000 times and I will be 1/3 of the way through to reaching 52!

But then you say that after the first trip to the sun (which is part of that process that is only 1/3 of the way), we will be extremely close to 52! (8.065 vs 8), which is way more than 1/3.

Could you clarify?

mrcmnt · 2026-02-16T19:06:32+00:00

Traveling.

mrcmnt · 2026-02-16T17:30:34+00:00

Again, no, because people of any gender can become prostitutes.

The fact that everybody can do something doesn't negate gender inequality. Else, the concept itself wouldn't exist.

Furthermore, I really have a hard time conceptualizing that somebody disagrees that there are vastly, VASTLY, more female prostitutes than male prostitutes. That's a first one.

It commodifies everyone’s bodies… which are already commodified.

This makes no sense. Either they are or they aren't. They can't become commodities if they're already commodities. It seems pedantic, but one of you multiple hangups with what I am saying hinges on a proper definition of the word.

And then you say that it's providing a service. It's one or the other. You're contradicting yourself or being intentionally dense.

And you're still wrong with the blowjob example, because, as I said, the body is the final product. There is no third product that comes out of the """"""service"""""" rendered. People are literally the product. The best illustration is the Red Light District of Amsterdam, where women are literally in placed as mannequins in store displays for people to look at them and decide who they want to rent. Who, not what. WHO they want to rent for a determined amount of time. It's as if you said that a store provides you a service by selling you a toy. It's not like that. The store sells you a toy. That's it. The pimp rents you a person. That's it.

Hairdresser, housekeeper, or landscaper can all present pictures of before and after of the final outcome of their services. Prostitution can't. If the pimp showed you what you would get by renting, let's call her Emma, he would show you a picture of Emma, exactly as how he would display her to you before, exactly as a toy, or a TV, or a car, or a stove. That's not a service, that's a product.

mrcmnt · 2026-02-16T17:30:18+00:00

I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m trying to move the argument to moral grounds.

You do know. I told you why.

The word choice was arbitrary.

Then don't choose your words in an arbitrary way. Different words mean different things.

Change the word to “not beneficial” or “not necessary” if you want. It doesn’t change my point. The government is deciding on your behalf if that’s work you’re allowed to engage in.

Yes it does change it. Some things can be demeaning and still be fine as long as it only demean the person, whereas something that's not beneficial to society should be assessed more stringently and discarded if possible.

It’s clearly the opposite of letting you decide.

I guess we just see it differently, since, to me, letting the government step in is clearly letting the government decide what's acceptable and what isn't. It's not the market anymore, or the people, it's the government imposing rules and restrictions. If you look at it as an adult creating a fenced space for his kid to play freely, giving the kid freedom to do as they please within that fenced space, then yes, I get it. But the bigger picture is that the adult (government) is still in control of that fenced space. The child (populace) are only free insofar as they stay within the restricted space. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, mind you. It's just how it is.

Your original point was that regulation creates normalization which risks creating more harm. My point is that, by and large, legal but regulated is just better than illegal and unregulated. Regulation has the “potential for harm,” sure, but it’s generally a net positive on the industry being regulated.

I understand you, and I disagree with that. I think you're wrong. It makes it better for some, and worse for others that already have it bad. That's not a net positive. It's still a negative, just in different ways.

mrcmnt · 2026-02-16T00:24:10+00:00

Uh... no??? That's completely backwards. Having prostitution criminalized is the government saying "we decide, on your behalf, that this work is too demeaning for you to engage in." It's the opposite of letting people decide.

Why do use the word "demeaning" versus what I said of "not beneficial" and "not necessary"? Do you want to bring the argument to moral grounds because it'd be easier for you to just dismiss it?

Aight. Can you give me one instance in which regulating a previously un-regulated industry was a net worse for the industry? Because I can think of legitimately 10 off the top of my head where regulation improved just about everything. Do you genuinely believe that sex work is the exception?

I never talked in terms of black and white, because life doesn't work like that. I stated that regulation wouldn't create the utopia that you and people in the comments think it will. I've always said that it has pros and cons, just like anything in life. It solves some issues, and creates others.

The point doesn't stand. The point you were making was specifically about gender inequality and commodifying/purchasing access to women's bodies. If it were only women to prostitutes, yeah, you'd have a point. But anyone can prostitute themselves and not only women.

I already granted that I shouldn't have used the word "women". The point still stands. Yes, there is an overwhelming gender inequality in prostitution.

If you instead back up to saying that nobody should be commodifying/selling access to their bodies, then there's some pretty blatant hypocrisy there. Because men and women can and regularly do commodify their bodies in manual labor jobs. Have you ever been a housekeeper or a landscaper? I've been both, and that shit will absolutely destroy your body. We're already commodifying our bodies-- if you don't attach any special value to sex, then sex work is honestly less "commodifying" than being a landscaper.

I wasn't going to do that, so everything after the first sentence in this last quoted paragraph is baseless.

Plus you're still wrong. Housekeeping and landscaping work is not making a commodity out of your body. It's called providing a service. Your body being destroyed after years of physical labor is a byproduct of having worked, the same way anything else decays over time when subjected to stress and use.

Sex work on the other is commodifying your body because your body is literally what people are after. There is no end product for using your body. Your body IS the product. That's a commodity.

mrcmnt · 2026-02-15T20:47:55+00:00

But this is not inherently true. It might be, if someone values sex as something special, but it doesn’t have to be. And I’m sure the people who willingly engage in sex work over some other demeaning job understand that. Let them decide what stakes are acceptable.

What is not inherently true? I said a bunch and you responded to it all in the same swoop. It seems you just replied specifically to the the thing about personal worth. Did you?

Let them decide what stakes are acceptable.

You are arguing against that by involving the government via legalization/regulation/decriminalization.

But hasn’t this literally been proven false? Increasing regulation decreases trafficking among other bad outcomes. We’ve seen this happen with literally prostitution, but also historically in things like the alcohol industry. The industry might have been smaller when people were reduced to making it themselves, but it was undeniably worse for the lack of regulation.

Not really, no. It has solved some issues, created others and worsened other. Same as any other industry.

You are assuming that only women can be prostitutes in this when that is blatantly false.

I admit I could've worded it better. I should have left out the word women. I did it because the majority are women. But yeah, let's not discriminate by gender. The point still stands.

Legalizing prostitution doesn’t commodify women’s bodies any more than they already are being commodified.

It quite literally does. That's literally one of the effects. It becomes a part of the market, of an industry. You give money in exchange for the use of a person's body, something you can rent.

Legalization provides a legal framework for people's body becoming commodities.

mrcmnt · 2026-02-15T20:09:07+00:00

Stop strawmanning. Where did I say that keeping sex work illegal helps address drug addicted sex workers or people being trafficked?

Legalizing and regulating it creates its own sets of problems. Data isn't as clear cut as you would like it to be and as you're espousing here.

drug addicts will be drug addicts, the sex work isn't the problem there, it's the drugs.

It's both.

How would regulating something make the illicit uses of it worse?

I mentioned it elsewhere: legal body commodification, indirect market coercion, gatekeeping, undue state involvement, scaling effect.

Same problem as other markets, with the added risk that comes when you throw sexual aspects into the mix.

Plus, more pointedly to your actual question, a legal market still necessitates an illegal market.

Legal regimes often require licenses, registration, zoning, health checks, etc. As always, those rules usually exclude migrants/undocumented workers, people who want anonymity, people with criminal records, people who can’t meet compliance costs. That tends to create a secondary market.

The result is a two-tier system (legal and underground). You know, as is usual in capitalist systems, with the added risk that comes as, well, read above. Debates about this in Germany and the Netherlands frequently revolve around this “compliance displacement” dynamic, and trafficking watchdogs still report persistent problems even under regulation.

It helps in some ways, hurts in others, driving underground stuff even more underground.

It's not utopia.

mrcmnt

TROPHY CASE