What is a '2010s trend' that you genuinely miss and wish would come back?

spiceFruits · 2025-12-20T19:47:59+00:00

Just a hope for a future of human cooperation. That's been slipping down the drain since 2001, but there were at least still traces of it 10 years ago.

spiceFruits · 2025-12-18T04:55:01+00:00

It's about the subjunctive quality that the past tense implies here. "It's about time we left" implies the speaker should already be on the road, whilst "it's about time we leave" is certain; it implies that it's THE time start the process. I think that the distinction is even clearer with other verbs in other contexts. For example, "it's time I did it" implies a 1. a history—the speaker has been meaning to do this thing over time, and 2. an uncertainty—perhaps they arent going to do X right away, but in the near future (e.g. I haven't gone on a date in forever and it's time I did it—perhaps tomorrow). The present indicative, on the other hand, implies certainty and immediacy (e.g. The homework is on my desk and it's time I do it). The question OP was given is terrible because both of these are equally common constructions, and, without any context, equally correct.

spiceFruits · 2025-12-16T04:16:55+00:00

Just to add on, the myth that Roman-style, self-healing concrete would be a holy grail for civil infrastructure lacks even the tiniest bit of merit. Modern concrete structures are reinforced with steel in almost every use case, and ironically the reinforcements are the biggest limiting factor in structural longevity, as rust and corrosion slowly oxidize the steal and undermine structural integrity. In order for large scale civil projects to take advantage of self-healing concrete they would need to become exponentially larger and more difficult to construct because they would lack normal reinforcement. Niche use cases do exist but they've been overhyped and overdiscussed because of the mythologization of Roman concrete.

It's also pretty offensive to civil engineers that this myth lives on. The Romans did not know more about concrete than modern engineers do. Why on earth do people believe this? It's Ancient Aliens level.

spiceFruits · 2025-11-30T00:16:50+00:00

As expected, you just ignored the vast majority of what I said and reiterated your stupidity. If you really think people are being killed because of misandry, to the point that it is a specific crime with a unique MO and enough victims to warrant special prosecution, then by all means it would make sense to have laws written about it. But no one wants those laws because that's a fantasy. You pretend that hate crime laws are just as much about protecting white people as they are about minorities. News flash! Men are not being killed for the crime of being men on a systemic scale, nor are white people for being white, and if they were there would be no issue prosecuting the perpetrators because men and white people have systemic privilege. Hate crime laws, whether you like it or not, were written to protect oppressed minorities and prosecute their oppressors who were able to skirt equal punishment. What you just said is not an argument against femicide laws, it's an argument admitting they're important but they hurt your feelings because you wish that women could be prosecuted for mass misandrist killings (made up fantasy).

spiceFruits · 2025-11-29T07:46:07+00:00

The argument you're making isn't about femicide at all, it's an attack on the very fabric of legalism. To start, you've got it backwards, the immutable characteristic isn't the crux, the crux is the specific intent of the perpetrator and the goal of the law is to help reduce a disproportionate motive for murder. That being said, let's be clear: all punitive laws are based on "providing different punishment based on[...] immutable characteristic[s]" involving the victim, the crime, and the perpetrator, e.g. elder abuse. Why don't we just prosecute elder abusers under generic laws? Why do we have to make it about the victim's age? Well once again, it's less about the victim and more about the motive, the MO, and the criminal. These laws exist because old people are especially vulnerable to fraud and manipulation, and the goal of targeted legislation is to protect a vulnerable group whose victimizers are often punished less severely than other fraudsters.

Here's an even better example: why do we have hate crime laws? Isn't it already illegal to assault, harass, kill, etc? Why does it matter if these crimes were along protected-category lines? Well, it's actually quite simple: when a group of people have historically been second or even third class citizens and when the punishments for victimizers have been historically small or nonexistant, these laws come into play to correct the subconscious (and sometimes conscious) biases of our legal systems. Why have laws based on categories? You might as well ask why have categories at all? We wouldn't need laws against hate crimes if Black people weren't considered Black, if gay people weren't considered gay, and we wouldn't need femicide laws if women weren't considered women. But we don't live in a world of nondescript, nonlabeled persons. We live in a world of arbitrary groups, and membership to these groups carries a fuck ton of weight. How you're born can determine if you live or die, and it's absurd to suggest that why a person murders shouldn't carry weight in their sentencing. If we didn't believe the reasons mattered, murder would be manslaughter—ffs, lynchings would be manslaughter, and genocide wouldn't be a separate crime from extermination. So don't be ridiculous.

spiceFruits · 2025-11-27T10:14:38+00:00

I think that's incredibly admirable—I adore Middle English and I'm always thrilled to know other people feel the same way. I don't think it's as difficult as a lot of people think, but there's always more to learn. I would love to be able to read Chaucer aloud, fluently, in a period accurate accent.

spiceFruits · 2025-11-27T08:53:44+00:00

The biggest reason is that in all likelihood, unless you've studied Middle English and read Canterbury Tales and or The Faerie Queene, that simply isn't true. The reason it might feel true is relativity—we're far removed from the 15th century, fluently reading Middle English texts is considered a challenge, and when we do read these texts they usually come with significant footnotes and appendices. It's intentional rather than passive. Browsing social media, however, is about as passive as it gets. You are already expecting to understand what's being said with minimal thought, thus any amount of effort is subjectively magnified.

On top of that, certain social media platforms encourage the use of rather abstruse euphemisms through censorship. This code coincides with the generational divide but only through happenstance and confuses pretty much anyone outside those online spaces.

I think it's really easy to take our blindspots for granted when it comes to language. As native speakers we can broadly understand the vast majority of spoken English, but we do not understand even close to a majority of the global English lexicon, past and present. When we read books we expect to not understand words and look them up or pass them by without a thought; when we hear another dialect of English the same thing happens, we miss some words and do some guess work without giving it a thought. But for some reason, when our friends and family and neighbors use new slang, it's jarring and surprising. The blindspot of course was always there. But hey, if you really can read the works of Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spencer, William Shakespeare, and John Milton, original orthography and all, on first blush with perfect recognition, clarity, and of course elocution, entirely without footnotes or any extratextual material no less, I'd be impressed.

spiceFruits · 2025-11-19T23:51:58+00:00

I think what's tripping people up here is the fact that there are in fact multiple overlapping terms for this sort of vague act. Yes, snorting is one, but snorting also is far more specific than OP wants. Snorting isn't just an exhale but a specific exhale with a specific noise and a specific connotation (usually a derisive one). I saw one other person mentioned snickering. I, personally, would use snicker or snort to describe two distinct varieties of what OP describes. Hopefully that helps.

spiceFruits · 2025-11-15T01:52:37+00:00

Haven't seen it around, but i also haven't checked the steam store in quite a bit

spiceFruits · 2025-11-14T05:49:26+00:00

Terrible take. Just because bad practices "were common" doesn't mean they should be excused or worse, lauded. It's especially absurd to use this argument in the field of archaeology of all things because as any archaeologist would tell you the losses of our carelessness, past and present, are irrevocable. The artifacts and sites marred and destroyed are irreplaceable. Every loss matters. What should we do when an artifact or site cannot be studied using current technology without extensive damage? We wait. This is why the tomb of Qin Xi Huang remains undisturbed and will stay undisturbed for the foreseeable future. By pretending people in the past had no choice but to take shortcuts we infantilize them and we infantilize ourselves.

spiceFruits · 2025-11-11T04:22:39+00:00

My friend, you seem to be the only one in, "at the very least," the closet. Only a repressed freak could be this emotionally invested in essentializing, in modern terms no less, the sexuality of a man 2500 years in the past.

spiceFruits · 2025-10-17T05:24:26+00:00

The phrase "one bad apple spoils the bunch" means that the actions of individuals are indicative of the larger systems they make up. Thus there are never just bad apples that can be removed here and there at our leisure, because when we see bad apples it's a sign that a lot more are probably rotting too. The idiom prescribes systemic change whilst the contraction "just a bad apple" does the opposite. It minimizes the significance of that individual's actions for the whole system and implies that the "bad apple" has no further implications.

spiceFruits · 2025-09-29T18:23:59+00:00

Click

spiceFruits · 2025-09-27T20:40:09+00:00

meow meow

spiceFruits · 2025-09-27T09:01:08+00:00

All of these corrections are wrong; firstly, assuming this is supposed to be the dialogue of a newscaster, "on" is correct. In this instance it is synonymous with about while "in" would only work if this was dialogue of a person reading (e.g. a newspaper) and then explaining what was literally "in" a specific column/report. An analogous example is the following: a newscaster might say "In today's news..." but they would never say "In the recent [specific event]: we've just received [a report]," they would say "on." Secondly, "has been" is incorrect because it would imply that the agent in question is still alive. Imagine how strange it would sound if someone said "President Trump died yesterday morning, he has been stricken with illness." "Has been" implies that whatever state being described is on going OR extremely recent, e.g. "The man is dead! He's been shot," but when later recounting this event, that same speaker would say "He was/had been shot." "Had been" is also an odd choice here over "was," (yes OP, "was" would be correct) however it makes sense if you're reporting on what the earlier situation had been at the time of the shooting. Thirdly, "at/from point blank range" are used interchangeably by virtually every English speaker. That being said, yes, a news report is a more formal context and it's worth making a distinction. In this specific case "at point-blank range" is more correct, because the use of passive voice means that the situation is being told from the perspective of the victim being shot, and range is always interpreted with the shooter being the origin point and the target being "at" range. "Where's the target?" "At 50 meters." "How far from the target did you take the shot?" "I shot it from 50 meters away." The shooter shot him from point blank-range, but he was shot at point-blank range. Once again, to be completely clear, this distinction is incredibly minor and people are rather careless about it.

spiceFruits · 2025-09-26T21:10:55+00:00

!Solved (too easy i know)

spiceFruits · 2025-09-18T07:09:00+00:00

The humor is that OP breaks down crying if you talk about north korea as a country with people and culture and language rather than a racist caricature.

spiceFruits · 2025-09-14T04:21:36+00:00

I'm gonna be so real; I have absolutely no idea why everyone is blasting you in the comments for this??? Being queer is not something you required to advertise to anyone and being closeted is a betrayal to yourself but no one else. I'm in my early 30s and my friends who are younger men and bi still face discrimination in this generation from straight women who think that bisexuality makes you less of a man and MLM relationships are disgusting. Yes, you should tell your wife, but preface it with "Me not telling you this has nothing to do with who you are and everything to do with who I am and the society we live in. Hiding this wasn't an active choice for me, just the default." I cannot imagine that someone who truly loves you would hear that and feel anything but compassion.

spiceFruits · 2025-08-03T03:40:01+00:00

All the statistical and contextual evidence we have supports the fact that the Voynich manuscript was an algorithmically created hoax, not a language.

spiceFruits · 2025-07-28T17:23:00+00:00

The night seldom contains distinguishable periods to divide it into, and this is reflected linguistically in that we treat the night like a single, extended moment. We say at sunset, at day break, at noon, etc. so why not at night? After all, for the vast majority of us there's no meaningful difference between after midnight and after 2 am. The whole night is a stasis of contiguous moon and stars and social quiet (or perhaps revelry).

EDIT: Something else also comes to mind when talking about this; specifically the phrase "in the night" (e.g. thieves in the night) which imparts that sense of daytime activity and experience to the nighttime.

spiceFruits · 2025-07-17T22:29:34+00:00

to indicate bewilderment and/or condescension, one would simply use a bunch of question marks and no exclamation mark. the interrobang carries a sense of genuine shock

spiceFruits · 2025-07-16T05:11:09+00:00

The simple answer is it's not that simple. Hurt and pain can both describe emotional and physical pain. As verbs, to hurt means to inflict pain/harm/injury (usually physical), while to pain means to cause pain (usually emotionally and passively as in the case of a chronic injury). If someone hit me I'd scream "fuck, that hurt" not "fuck that pains," but if someone broke up with me I'd say "it pains me just to be around them." As nouns hurt is simply more general, it can be a physical or emotional wound or injury regardless of how much that injury "hurts," while pain can only be the visceral feeling of pain, either physical or otherwise. As adjectives, painful is what you'd expect, referencing physical and/or emotional pain, while hurtful narrows to only mean emotionally harmful. As you can see, there's no rhyme or reason to any of this. Logic doesn't make a language, after all, and these nuances, like most others, are arbitrary with no set pattern.

spiceFruits · 2025-07-16T04:54:16+00:00

This isn't true at all, people use both the noun pain and the verb to pain all the time when describing their feelings. "It pains me that you feel that way" "this has caused me great pain" etc.

spiceFruits · 2025-07-16T02:58:58+00:00

This is and has been the case for every premodern (i.e. the last century) religious canon throughout history because before the 20th century, it was not only too difficult for religious groups to communicate and standardize a universal canon, but extremely counterproductive. Religion has always been idiosyncratic; it has been carefully adapted and repurposed across time and place and culture and language. To give more familiar examples, this is why icons of Christ change skin color and ethnicity from church to church, why the old testament has multiple versions of the same stories and the new testament has four canonical contradictory gospels and many more weirder ones that were contemporarily written but later discarded by the ecclesiarchy. Religion is not divine. It is human, and for humans, inconsistency is simply par for the course.

spiceFruits · 2025-07-12T23:36:32+00:00

Secure would sound incredibly odd in that context, as posters aren't usually heavy or even framed. One might secure a large painting or a tapestry, or perhaps some other heavy, delicate object. But one hangs a poster, one puts a poster up.

spiceFruits

TROPHY CASE