I thought that was the 70s that were all about that brown. Seems like 80s shifted to orange and pink.
FD I didn't get to see either, well at least I didn't see the 70s and not able to remember the 80s. This is just based on how it's referred back to in the current era.
Somehow my tastes stagnated and ossified so I mostly only play my childhood games. That said those that stood up the most are
Super Smash Bros Melee Super Mario 64 Wave race 64 1080 Snowboarding Rise of Nations
Those 5 games have cumulatively, for better or for worse, consumed a pretty sizable chunk of my lifespan. Sounds depressing to think of it that way, but then they did such a good job of being fun that I continue to enjoy that time so you got to hand it to them, they're hella good games.
I have wondered the same thing many a time. I don't think it's naive to wonder honestly. I find it genuinely confusing, not from a moral judgy standpoint but more of an effort to reward standpoint.
If you or I sold tobacco in exchange for a quantity we'll call a "shit-tonne" for the purposes of discussion. It would change our lives considerably. As you said, you personally would do it, and I think odds are pretty good I would too. But if that 1 shit-tonne of cash doesn't significantly change the recipient's life or capabilities or long term security, I don't understand why they'd bother with it. I think my confusion diverges from yours in so far as I don't think the point of getting rich for the vast majority of people has to do with acquiring the luxury of a moral compass. It might be for some, but I'd say for most it's at best a side benefit and for many irrelevant. However I do think that most of us without the requisite shit-tonnes of cash like to imagine the purpose for acquiring it is to avoid having to expend the effort required to acquire anymore thereafter. In this framework, which seems so obvious and relatable to me, you'd think you couldn't hook wealthy actors in to shilling tobacco because basically, they just couldn't be bothered, I mean why bother? You might keep acting if you find it fun but surely there'd be funner gigs than ads?
This is a more cynical way to look at it, but no less inaccurate than your theory of acquiring wealth to buy the ability to be moral. In the case of wealthy actors however, I think they're maybe not the best example, the richest ones are very rich but their material desires are sometimes able to scale with their wealth. Nicholas Cage was a good example as he managed to get himself in to ridiculous debt ostensibly from insane spending on ridiculous things. Presumably he liked having those things and was able with some effort to actually spend enough outpace his unbelievably high earnings. In that context you might well take lucrative acting gigs for scummy companies to help you out of debt or to help you buy one more private island.
There's a whole other tier of offensive and obscene personal wealth where you see people like billionaire CEOs. These people trash my model of the 'purpose' of acquiring wealth and by the actions we see them do, yours as well. These guys probably couldn't spend all their money on material objects if they actively tried. Their motives are very obscure to me. I definitely judge these guys but I leave them just a little bit of slack in so far as it seems generally observable that acquiring this much wealth seems to make you want to keep acquiring more wealth. I may not know why, but it almost seems like some kind of a fundamental law or drive so it could almost have some exculpatory power, though not much and in any case would only lend credence to the idea that society as a whole ought to avoid the accumulation of quite so much personao wealth since if my observation is at all accurate it would tend to mean, that much like we hold it to be true that all drivers will be impaired after a certain amount of alcohol so too does wealth tend to corrupt the decision making and motivations of people who have too much of it.
I've read about the topic a little bit and there's some concepts that make some sense. People do crave purpose, so if you make enough money to sit on your ass and avoid having to make money people have a tendency to create objectives for themselves to work towards and if they don't it can lead to unhappiness. In the case of some of those who achieved such wealth they had such objectives on the way up too, so it's how they've always lived their life (theoretically, if they supposedly got their through hard work and merit, big if). This does explain it I guess, but as an explanation it feels vague and weak. I've heard ideas around a kind of competitive peer pressure effect too, these guys want to be richer than each other. This is unsatisfying because it's just so dumb but makes a lot of sense, especially because it kind of scales with wealth as well. Often as people at all walks of life take stock of their position they will assess how well they're doing in comparison to where they were before and also in comparison to someone else around them so by those metrics you're always going to want to be doing just that little bit better than a few years ago and your always going to want to be exceeding or approaching the person you've most recently set as a desirable standard. All of these ideas seem to explain the behaviour we see but to me all feel too wishy washy to really make sense but I guess that's because it's going to be lots of these drives acting in concert along with something that one probably just has to experience and which basically none of us ever will as it comes with becoming richer than god.
Personally I can't but think that if instead of becoming rich, I suddenly got bequeathed all of Elon Musk's wealth unexpectedly from his timely death then I'd very likely have far less ambitious and contentious goals than he. Not necessarily because I hold myself to a higher standard but because, I mean, why take over the world like a megalomaniac when it's so much easier and more fun to do lots of drugs and go traveling and play with all the best toys? If I really crave purpose I can make a movie or something, I wouldn't even have to be good at it, I could buy everything related to it being made and distributed. If I was talentless and it stunk and flopped, it wouldn't be my problem and I could afford to spend my time getting good at it as a hobby even if each flop cost hundreds of millions. But maybe one the zeros started trailing on my account balance I'd suddenly start wanting to own everything and influence politics and just generally being a bit of a prick, it seems to happen to people.
I'll add to the chorus. No, by definition this isn't gas lighting, but the behaviour is extreme and no less concerning. I'll not try to give amateur psychological diagnosis over the internet like some here are apparently willing to do, but you don't need that to know that she's acting in a really fucked up way.
I wouldn't say you were "in the wrong" for missing her text, I mean, you missed it, it's not like you chose to do that, but I can see why from her perspective it felt temporarily frightening and it made her angry to be put in that situation (I'm assuming she was just frightened and that that's justified where you guys live, because where I am, her request is strange in the first place and getting mad about it not being fulfilled is ludicrous). How she's dealt with those unpleasant, but temporary emotions that had a perfectly reasonable explanation and resulted in no actual harm is unreasonable, unfair and ridiculous.
The questions themselves are as manipulative as they are pointless. "What would you tell my mother?" I hardly think that's a particularly important consideration "she's been kidnapped" probably, since that's what's happened in this scenario, the question is not asked to get an answer, it's asked to maximise guilt because she thinks it's your fault if some psychopath kidnaps her. The subsequent questions likewise are selfish questions to ask because realistic answers are implicitly unacceptable, she just wanted debasement and contrition. If the CCTV is broken then the police, who would be the ones investigating this, would have their investigation compromised, there'd be little you or anyone could do about that hence asking because she wants some kind of super hero saves the princess type of answer or for you to have no answer so she can pounce. She's extracting false or unrealistic promises on purpose as a kind of emotional salve. The worst and most concerning of all is the request that you kill someone for her, this is real life, not John Wick. I can only assume and hope that she doesn't really actually believe you'd do any of this nor really want it and it's just part of this stupid punishment where you've got to promise the moon over and over until she feels you've made an idiot if yourself for long enough. If she really is sincere about that request and wants to bring it up again in any serious capacity that really would be time to leave because the fact that she has a manipulative streak and is now apparently murderous as well raises a lot red flags, but most likely she was never serious to begin with and this will likely not be something that comes up particularly often. This was up to you but frankly I would have stopped the game of make believe at that point and not actually made a promise to kill people on her behalf even if it's all non-specific fantasy, it's not a prospect that should be entertained on any level. The thing about the cat was just funny and honestly would have been kind of sweet if it wasn't for everything that came before. It is evident from the order of questions and the fact that you had answers to everything at that point that she was reaching for a "gotcha" to prove you don't think about things because you're somehow inconsiderate.
This response to an everyday wrinkle in the fabric of life is something to keep an eye on because if she cannot deal with being temporarily made to endure bad feelings on occasion without having to make you pay then this is going to happen to you a lot and the things you're accused of or indirectly implied to be responsible for will be long and absurd. Let her cool off on this specific incident and if after there's been time to reflect, she still brings it up again with the same manipulative and guilt tripping approach I'd suggest to her that maybe it's not working out. If this single incident has shaken her faith in you so badly maybe she could take some responsibility for her own safety since apparently nothing you say will convince her that you'll be of any use in that regard.
Is that including the r/Australia main sub? I didn't go there very often because, well, it's just going to parochial at best but it was somewhere I'd see the occasional top post now and then. I probably first ever visited it and spent any time there around 2013 and it was weird man. It was so hardcore right-wing and overly political that it was impossible to browse it functionally, if I actually waded in on anything explicitly political in nature it was a nightmare. I also even had weirdly innocuous stuff I said just straight up deleted by mods, I'd never up until that point had interaction with any reddit mods so that felt just crazy. That was an abiding and striking memory of the place that I found very odd indeed and weirdly out of step with the experience of reddit in general. One gets used to their bubble and Reddit had always felt like 20-30 something year old male liberal-ish tech enthusiasts so when you accidentally step in to a mixture of a Liberal voter retirees and the One Nation fan club it's disconcerting. It meant that I was even less likely to ever really see or actively seek anything from that corner of Reddit.
A few years later I returned there, I can't remember when this would have been but I guess maybe 2018-ish? And then it'd gone a lot more normal. It's a general forum and there for interaction so I try not to describe and analyse exclusively through the lenses of 2 dimensional political leanings but it's useful here and I think it was accurate to say, it'd settled on a mainstreamish slightly left of centre type of crowd for most posts where politics featured. This was noted by the occasional disgruntled conservative who disliked having to be in relative minority, but nowhere near the vitriole of before. I always wondered if there'd been a cleaning of house or something, and how that managed to happen if so. I also always wondered where the previous majority of One Nation admirers had scurried off to. Having also quit Reddit a year ago, obviously I've not been back and between 2018 and last year I wouldn't have been in r/australia a great deal anyway, but if it's gone full Murdoch as your describing I wonder what weird forces were at work to bring it back to its former repellant mix of visitors and moderation policies.
Yeh that definitely sucks they've rigged it up in a way that's unusual for this type of work and also forces you in to this situation. Redirecting is good and probably your best option, canny and sensitive people will notice you doing this and take it for the hint that it is but dense or uncaring people will probably carry on steering things in to places you don't want to go. If you're forced to eat with them then yes redirecting the conversation will work up to a point but it is a subtle skill to do so non-obviously. It's hard to advise specifically what to say like a script, though I would say if you just totally ignore the question altogether and switch topic very bluntly it's going to come across strange and prompt confusion and questioning. You'll need to somehow maintain the initial thread of their topic as lip service and then turn off down an unrelated avenue fairly smoothly. It's what politicians do professionally. Reading the other responses to your post I think they've got some really good ideas on how to deal with this if you really get forced in to conversing against your will. It's a subtle art of contributing basically nothing and rephrasing their same question back to them. I think another commenter suggested something along the lines of "I don't know much about that what about you?" and similarly bland and useless resonses. This is friendly enough not to piss anyone off and lame enough to be totally uninteresting which hopefully invites little follow up. If they continue on their original track, you can combine this with seguing to another topic.
I didn't suggest this to you initially because it doesn't sound like your natural style and I think advice is best if it allows the recipient to handle things mostly in their own way while helping to avoid pitfalls in doing so. I guess you'll have to navigate this daily frustration in a way a little outside of your comfort zone by carefully appearing to engage whilst really not and hopefully they'll find you so boring they don't bother anymore. Hopefully you don't mind this giving the impression that you're a boring person to the remaining 50% of your peers that don't bother you so much but sometimes it's a necessary evil.
It's not reviewed and may have harmful content, so please read the harmful content on an app instead?
What I remember most about them is that they were extremely effective as unintentional bug zappers. The SMELL of instantly vaporized burnt moths in the room is something I'll likely never forget.
Shit's getting really bad. I mean I'm not sure what I think on the judgement, but the fact that there's people here walking around with Nazi symbols and openly literally becoming members of the National Socialist Network. How has it all gone so wrong and so... Weird.
It's a nice picture and all but I definitely upvoted for the sentence "congratulations to ClopClopMcFuckwad for their pic of the week".
Wow, this article kinda makes me want to see it.