Odd, Superbad is the only movie I’ve ever seen twice (or more) in the theaters.

I saw it and thought it was the funniest movie I’d ever seen, then a couple weeks later my buddy wanted to see a movie so I saw it a second time with him. No regrets.

Good to know we can just “teach” any imaginary thing we want. It sounds like it’d be neat? Fuck it, let’s teach it.

Ha I was writing another comment on this thread when this got posted, but I just feel like it’s important, relevant to that, to say that the hairs didn’t evolve FOR any specific purpose.

This is funny, and really speaks to a fundamental issue we have during education as to assigning agency for what amount to"random" events.

OP is presumably educated and intelligent, and the takeaway they had was that bees “are pollinators” which is true with regard to our interest in them, but definitely implies agency that they are intentionally pollinating, which (I am pretty sure) isn’t true.

It feels like the same question that gets asked in a million different ways of “why did XYZ evolve that way when ABCD?” (Because evolution is random and tends toward selecting for energy conservation. Not to “achieve” some specific goal.)

My God that’s white.

No, of course not! That was a joke.

…Nor do I think self-amused tweets count as political news.

One wouldn’t know, because this is the same low effort Jeff Tiedrich style clapback tweet that is posted constantly regardless of context.

That is to say, I would love it if there was actual content posted here that informed me of what I now have a vague awareness of, and then I can jerk off to the imaginary conversations people are having with Republicans in, again, every other community.

Oh, I thought the USA news and politics community might be about news and politics in the USA, but it’s good that it’s the same sort of snappy tweet screenshots that are in the hundred other meme communities that come up with the “Everything” filter on. What a relief.

Question, is it OK to post Calvin and Hobbes and “yiff” porn here too? It just feels like those are too uncomfortable and important to contain in several other Lemmy communities too.

Agreed!

… But also, does every community need to just be righteously indignant screenshots of tweets? Like… Can’t a community called USA be something… else?

I don’t know, but I keep trying to comment on posts federated from other instances and half the time I get some obscure error and it fails, and it’s fucking irritating.

I know a girl who thinks of ghosts. She’ll make you breakfast; she’ll make you toast. But she don’t use butter. And she don’t use cheese. She don’t use jelly, or any of these.

She uses Vaseline.

Vaseline.

Vaseline.

… you are correct that if I’m unfamiliar with your terminology, I will not know what you mean.

You are incorrect that if I understand the definition of a “partial Kundalini awakening” I will not have a shared understanding. I can’t imagine why that would be true.

If by spiritual you mean “hurt my teeth” then sometimes eating ice cream is spiritual for me.

Otherwise, I’m not sure what spiritual means, as I said.

I also agree, because we all pretty much understand what “happy” means.

No one seems to understand what “spiritual” means with any definition, and hence we shouldn’t just be using it like we do, in my opinion.

Apparently for you it means “gives you perspective into your own insignificance”, when I think for many people it, instead, means, “offers evidence for God or at least for the supernatural, in a non-spooky way”.

So… it’s a good way to get a group of people all talking about different things and feeling like they’re agreeing about things they don’t necessary agree by means of an equivocation fallacy.

Thanks. Respectfully, though, it sounds like you are saying it’s OK to take an event that happened to you and arbitrarily decide that it’s going to be called “spiritual” without knowing what that means?

And then other people can take their own definitions that might be different, and read your story and be like, “Oh, I understand what this person means,” without actually knowing… potentially adding or removing their own meanings to it (the implication of the existence of a dirty, say) when that wasn’t part of the original person’s construct?

Because if that’s right, I don’t think I can go for that.

One cannot have a “spiritual” experience without having a shared definition of spiritual that isn’t just a deepity.

I would urge anyone who wants to share their “spiritual” experience to give a solid definition for the term first.