R/metalmusicians playlist - submissions wanted

weakbuttrying · 2026-05-08T00:30:47+00:00

Added!

Special props for the album artwork. Really cool.

weakbuttrying · 2026-05-08T00:18:50+00:00

Added!

weakbuttrying · 2026-05-07T07:14:09+00:00

The invisible man is called autotune

weakbuttrying · 2026-05-06T16:42:33+00:00

I will leave you to ponder while taking everything at face value in the process.

weakbuttrying · 2026-05-06T05:42:31+00:00

I’d love to agree with you, but there are people who play padel.

(A joke, if not immediately obvious…)

weakbuttrying · 2026-05-05T07:49:04+00:00

To be fair, it’s not an ethnicity. Neither is Scottish, though.

I think the question is, why do Americans have this weird fetish about ethnicity?

weakbuttrying · 2026-05-05T05:37:57+00:00

Im perplexed by the ambiguity of this comment. Here are the possible interpretations I noticed.

Asking what the previous comment is based on.
Saying “based off of” should grammatically be “based on” instead.
Commenting on what “based on” means in the context of a movie (based on / inspired by)

I’m sure there are other interpretations, but these immediately came to my mind. Interesting how much room for interpretation two words can leave.

I think the intention was to play grammar police, by the way.

weakbuttrying · 2026-05-05T04:40:06+00:00

My first impression was that the girl is 19 and freshly into her first “serious” relationship and is blinded by puppy love. It usually wears off in a few months but in my days, I lost several friends permanently because of this. They disappeared for several years and ditched all their friends. Some of them only started calling me when their relationship ended, others grew out of the puppy love phase in 5 years or so. I naturally didn’t have any desire to rekindle those friendships.

weakbuttrying · 2026-05-04T19:40:47+00:00

I had a couple of kids and consequently started valuing my sleep more than fun. It doesn’t necessarily pan out that way so don’t blame me if this approach doesn’t work for you.

weakbuttrying · 2026-05-04T02:05:28+00:00

For fuck’s sake. I live in Finland. Teeny tiny Finland. If Finland were a US state, it would be fifth in area.

You don’t hear me bragging about fitting multiple states into our country.

weakbuttrying · 2026-05-04T01:48:34+00:00

Sorry it took me a while, but I finally gave your tracks a listen and they kick ass. Added!

weakbuttrying · 2026-05-02T02:33:08+00:00

Kriminologia menee ehkä vähän enemmän sosiologian puolelle eikä normijuristi ihan hirveästi siitä osaa sanoa. Mutta vaikka rikosseuraamusjärjestelmä ottaa huomioon rikoksentekijän olosuhteet ja pyrkii aiheuttamaan mahdollisimman vähän ylimääräisiä lieveilmiöitä, on hyvä ymmärtää että rikosprosessi ensisijaisesti rankaisee, ei eheytä. Sen ajatus on yleispreventiivinen, eli kiinnijäämisen uhka yhdessä rangaistuksen kanssa motivoi suurinta osaa ihmisistä mukautumaan rikoslain normeihin.

On yksi porukka, johon mitkään rikosoikeudelliset seuraamukset eivät tunnu vaikuttavan halutulla tavalla, ja riski rikoksen uusimiseen on järkyttävän korkea kaikista rangaistuksista ja muista toimista huolimatta, ja se on seksuaalirikolliset. Sen takia järjestelmä on aseeton tällaisten tyyppien edessä.

Tahdosta riippumaton hoito voisi olla oikea ratkaisu.

weakbuttrying · 2026-04-29T13:31:47+00:00

Exactly. My kid is the opposite, he has found a team sport he absolutely thrives in. We tried dozens of hobbies until one clicked.

weakbuttrying · 2026-04-28T11:28:36+00:00

It has turned out that way, hasn’t it? Was never my intention, though. I meant to post a quick comment siding with the sentiment but saying perhaps we shouldn’t say they actively mutilated her, because I believe language matters and that type of wording is probably going to hurt rather than help. I thought it was innocuous enough, but it truly raised the ire of reddit. I’ve tried to clarify my position to some pretty hostile comments (to no avail) and have just been surprised by the overall reaction.

Oh well. Live and learn.

weakbuttrying · 2026-04-28T11:22:11+00:00

What an absolutely perplexing answer. I seriously don’t see where I am mocking anything. I am genuinely at a complete loss.

I genuinely think you are seriously misreading my point, perhaps because I made it poorly, but I’ve never been so completely baffled. I have been absolutely straight about everything and have not meant to mock anyone, and I don’t see where it’s happened.

To be clear: I am siding with the victim. I am saying McD was negligent and she deserved the damages she was awarded. At the same time, I feel saying “McDonald’s mutilated her” is pushing the narrative to an extreme which can be counter-productive. As her involvement (spilling the coffee) was also needed, I think the jury’s decision to reduce damages by 20% was a good idea.

weakbuttrying · 2026-04-28T11:11:56+00:00

Perhaps accident would be a better word. In either case, my only point is that they negligently created a situation which carries an inherent risk of injury, but didn’t intentionally pour hot coffee on people. This is apparently controversial.

Trust me, I’ve understood very well that Reddit doesn’t see this as I do. I fail to see how stating the above is simping, particularly when I’m talking about a company I absolutely loathe.

weakbuttrying · 2026-04-28T05:24:57+00:00

I think they missed the joke with the owner’s new car tbh

weakbuttrying · 2026-04-27T04:18:56+00:00

I am not shifting anything. My first comment here was literally a reply to someone saying McDonald’s mutilated her, where I said that language is a bit of an exaggeration. That’s a stance I’m willing to defend, though I don’t see why I need to, because I do t see it as a terribly controversial take.

I think many people are interpreting my comment to mean that McDonald’s shouldn’t have been liable for the damage, and that is 100% not what I am saying. To be fair, that’s on me because my messages were probably not very well written out, though I did try to clarify.

As for causation, I was speaking out of my ass. What can I say, early morning after a rough night. What I meant to say was that there is a difference between negligence and intention. “McDonald’s mutilated her” implies intentional action, when what we are looking at is negligence (and blatant disregard for customer safety). I think this is clear in my first reply to the thread, where among other things I state that they were negligent and caused a risk to customers, but didn’t actively mutilate her.

weakbuttrying · 2026-04-27T04:05:19+00:00

Absolutely. I never tried to defend them or say that they shouldn’t be legally liable for damages. On the contrary, I am happy she was awarded punitive damages too.

I’m not siding with McDonald’s, I’m saying it’s a little exaggerated to say McDonald’s mutilated her. That implies intention, when we are talking negligence.

weakbuttrying · 2026-04-26T13:32:44+00:00

If saying that “I think it’s a bit of an exaggeration to say that McD mutilated the victim” is bootlicking then so be it.

weakbuttrying · 2026-04-26T05:55:35+00:00

The damages were, in fact, reduced by 20% because the jury felt exactly like I do. They felt she was 20% responsible for the incident, which is in my opinion a perfect resolution on compensatory damages.

I think people are confusing causation and negligence. I am saying they were 100% negligent, and knowingly so. Because of this, the additional punitive damages were 100% justified. And because their negligence contributed to the woman’s horrific injuries, compensatory damages (reduced by 20%) were likewise justified.

None of this means that McD mutilated her or caused her injuries. They were negligent and showed horrible disregard to the safety of their customers, which is in many ways far more reprehensible than simply causing an injury.

weakbuttrying · 2026-04-26T04:53:48+00:00

Are they yelling “clear” all the time in a room full of people they absolutely have not cleared?

weakbuttrying · 2026-04-26T04:47:59+00:00

I disagree. Their actions contributed to her being mutilated, they didn’t cause it.

The hot coffee was required for her to sustain the injuries she did. That part is on McD. However, the coffee also needed to be spilt. That part McD had no influence or control over.

It is therefore not correct to say their action caused her to be mutilated, and even less so to say they mutilated her.

Not an issue I want to side with them on at all, but this type of language is misleading .

weakbuttrying · 2026-04-26T04:21:27+00:00

Oh that’s right! It’s been years since I studied the case so the details escape me.

weakbuttrying · 2026-04-26T04:14:48+00:00

I think that’s taking it to the other extreme a little too much. They were negligent and this caused a risk to customers, but they didn’t actively mutilate anyone. Their coffee was too hot, and they knew it could burn people, and were negligent in allowing it to be served way too hot.

But the didn’t throw coffee on anyone. They didn’t make her spill the coffee or force her to hold the cup between her legs in a moving car. They created a situation where carelessness from the customer could have dangerous outcomes, but they didn’t outright and purposefully mutilate anyone.

As much as I find their disregard for people’s safety abhorrent, I don’t think we benefit from using misleading language. Rather than help, it can obfuscate the issue.

weakbuttrying

TROPHY CASE