Journal of Other Forum Analysis (Volume II, Issue 2)

[Uncle]

please god not another Uncle/BoredFrom wrangle 

apparently I just reposted pogi's message

[Uncle]

free childcare? how about we abolish CAPITALISM and let parents spend time with their kid?

bore or era???

isn't free childcare the socialist stance

[HardcoreRetro]

I have a modest proposal on what to do with kids.

[Taco Bell Tower]

Well shit, that's a load more actors on the HP train...
https://variety.com/2025/digital/news/audible-harry-potter-keira-knightley-kit-harington-james-mcavoy-simon-pegg-1236512046/
Matt Berry completes the IT Crowd terf set I believe. But there's enough names here that I'm genuinely wondering if there is any big name actor left to be promoted as a tervert.

It's only been 10 days since the last TV casting announcement, but this is the audiobooks so I'm expecting the 4 weeks between announcements to hold on the show.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/j-k-rowling-and-her-legacy-of-hate-the-uk-gender-critical-movement.643740/page-150#post-144945399


Need to ban discussion of ALL 200 actors on the site and ALL works associated with them. This is a genocide!!

James McAvoy?!  That fucking TERF BITCH needs to be stopped  

[Yulwei v2]

Well shit, that's a load more actors on the HP train...
https://variety.com/2025/digital/news/audible-harry-potter-keira-knightley-kit-harington-james-mcavoy-simon-pegg-1236512046/
Matt Berry completes the IT Crowd terf set I believe. But there's enough names here that I'm genuinely wondering if there is any big name actor left to be promoted as a tervert.

It's only been 10 days since the last TV casting announcement, but this is the audiobooks so I'm expecting the 4 weeks between announcements to hold on the show.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/j-k-rowling-and-her-legacy-of-hate-the-uk-gender-critical-movement.643740/page-150#post-144945399


Need to ban discussion of ALL 200 actors on the site and ALL works associated with them. This is a genocide!!

 

I wonder if they're going to have another mass freak out when that show comes out, and start harassing random streamers and people on social media talking about the show.

And btw Hogwarts Legacy 2 is certainly in development so they have that to look forward to as well lol

[Ethan]

The societal pressure of expecting a healthy adult to work. Am I in the mutual aid Bluesky thread?

Raising kids IS work, dude. Someone has to raise the kids, and it can either be a caretaker watching 10 different strangers' kids for a paycheck or the parent that loves them and is invested in their future. Who do you think does a better job? Raising kids is a job someone has to do. Best be a parent, if possible. And here's a reminder: for most of human history it was possible on less tech and less money and way more kids, because again, kids are a GOOD investment not only for society but also the family's wellbeing.

I know it is. Which is why it's great that it's gonna remove a financial strain on parents, leading them to have to work less and have more time with the kids. Also relieving them of financial stress that will make for a more harmonious household. A hypothetical scenario that I made up, but that is probably more likely than going back to a 50s utopia when mom had all the time in the world to raise the kids while dad was either at the Ford factory securing bolts or at the tavern with the boys. Because I don't think you and I are willing to take a 50% loss on our houses to go back to that.

Anyway, last care post for the day. Happy to disagree

ETA: Oh and maybe you or your wife/SO stays home to raise the kids. I'm in no way attacking this arrangement. I think it's great if you can make it work. I just think most people could not because there's no way we are reversing 50 years of inflation. So we'll have to find other ways.

[Boredfrom]

The societal pressure of expecting a healthy adult to work. Am I in the mutual aid Bluesky thread?

Raising kids IS work, dude. Someone has to raise the kids, and it can either be a caretaker watching 10 different strangers' kids for a paycheck or the parent that loves them and is invested in their future. Who do you think does a better job? Raising kids is a job someone has to do. Best be a parent, if possible. And here's a reminder: for most of human history it was possible on less tech and less money and way more kids, because again, kids are a GOOD investment not only for society but also the family's wellbeing.

Again, you should ask those people about their quality of life. Or ask my parents and my uncles whose families consist of 11 siblings.

[Uncle]

oh now you're telling people they should listen to Uncles

[Boredfrom]

oh now you're telling people they should listen to Uncles

My uncles, uncle. 

20 uncles are better than 1.  

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

More than half of them are dead.  

[benji]

People in the 1950's were a lot poorer than we are. "Owning their house" and "only the man working" are doing heavy lifting in these fantasies because people are imagining modern homes and salaries which those people were not getting at all. These fantasies often also ignore all the things those people couldn't buy even if they made ten times the amount.

The 1950's "boom" only exists relative to the two decades of forced poverty that came before. (It was also something that the "experts" that forced that poverty believed impossible to occur. We were in late stage capitalism after all and things would only get worse from there on out. Almost none of whom were ever held to account for why they were wrong that the Soviet Union didn't surge past the US/West* and leave it in its dust when the exact opposite happened.)

Much of the 1950's mythology doesn't have anything to do with conservatives fascists imagining a time that didn't exist, there were plenty of media celebrity academics who were wrong at the time that are still used as experts despite continuing to be wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society

*Most believed Yurop would never recover from the war, that the rationing of the war (and after, because that would be the new normal so we might as well get started early) would be permanent unless it turned towards socialism. (Which is a system in which rationing is in fact the only thing that exists so this prediction doesn't make a lot of sense.)

[Propagandhim]

People in the 1950's were a lot poorer than we are. "Owning their house" and "only the man working" are doing heavy lifting in these fantasies because people are imagining modern homes and salaries which those people were not getting at all. These fantasies often also ignore all the things those people couldn't buy even if they made ten times the amount.

The 1950's "boom" only exists relative to the two decades of forced poverty that came before. (It was also something that the "experts" that forced that poverty believed impossible to occur. We were in late stage capitalism after all and things would only get worse from there on out. Almost none of whom were ever held to account for why they were wrong that the Soviet Union didn't surge past the US/West and leave it in its dust when the exact opposite happened.)

Much of the 1950's mythology doesn't have anything to do with conservatives fascists imagining a time that didn't exist, there were plenty of media celebrity academics who were wrong at the time that are still used as experts despite continuing to be wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society

Yeah but there's no arguing that the core family essentials: housing, childcare, and healthcare have risen much faster than incomes, so maintaining a single‑earner household is harder today even if overall consumer amenities and creature comforts are better than in the 1950s.

[benji]

Yeah but there's no arguing that the core family essentials: housing, childcare, and healthcare have risen much faster than incomes, so maintaining a single‑earner household is harder today even if overall consumer amenities and creature comforts are better than in the 1950s.

Yes, there is. You have to account for how those prices have gone up because people can both afford and demand more. Healthcare is a perfect example, not a single (white) person would accept 1950's care at adjusted 1950's prices. And 80% of people wouldn't be willing to pay for it out of pocket at today's lower prices despite this increasing how much they will pay for it.

[Polident]

People in the 1950's were a lot poorer than we are. "Owning their house" and "only the man working" are doing heavy lifting in these fantasies because people are imagining modern homes and salaries which those people were not getting at all. These fantasies often also ignore all the things those people couldn't buy even if they made ten times the amount.

The 1950's "boom" only exists relative to the two decades of forced poverty that came before.

Tangential. There’s an old boat you can tour in Yokohama that details a voyage from Japan to America’s west coast. Something like two weeks at sea, tickets costing the price of a house, and the dirt poors were six to a room near the engine. They planned elaborate events to keep the passengers from going crazy. 

Now it takes 8 hours and it’s a couple hundred dollars. You’re fed an extra sodium Kid Cuisine and fall asleep watching the latest superhero dumpster movie. Wake up and you’ve travel across the planet, and you’ve got a hydrogenated meal biscuit to eat before landing. Life is pretty good.

[benji]

Tangential. There’s an old boat you can tour in Yokohama that details a voyage from Japan to America’s west coast. Something like two weeks at sea, tickets costing the price of a house, and the dirt poors were six to a room near the engine. They planned elaborate events to keep the passengers from going crazy. 

I was reading a book about Adams and Jefferson not too long ago that went into more extensive detail than normal about the multi-month journey to get to Europe and was like holy shit. John Quincy Adams learned his foreign languages on the trip over there, that's how much time it took to get to Russia and even closer places like metro France. And getting to Europe wasn't the end, they often landed at Spain and then had to make their way up which took more months.

JQA's diary has a bunch of entries of his talking about how boring the day was on the ship as they just sailed along and nobody did anything, no new gundams at all.

edit: OH, and you weren't in contact WITH ANYONE. That whole Revolutionary period has tons of stories of dudes getting across the Atlantic and shit being so completely different and conflicts they headed over for being totally over. Even the mail took a long time, that's why so many treaties are just dude's winging it and using whatever map they could find.

I think one of the Adams has an instance where his ship got great wind and he beat his letter telling people he was coming back.

[Uncle]

People in the 1950's were a lot poorer than we are. "Owning their house" and "only the man working" are doing heavy lifting in these fantasies because people are imagining modern homes and salaries which those people were not getting at all. These fantasies often also ignore all the things those people couldn't buy even if they made ten times the amount.

The 1950's "boom" only exists relative to the two decades of forced poverty that came before.

Tangential. There’s an old boat you can tour in Yokohama that details a voyage from Japan to America’s west coast. Something like two weeks at sea, tickets costing the price of a house, and the dirt poors were six to a room near the engine. They planned elaborate events to keep the passengers from going crazy. 

Now it takes 8 hours and it’s a couple hundred dollars. You’re fed an extra sodium Kid Cuisine and fall asleep watching the latest superhero dumpster movie. Wake up and you’ve travel across the planet, and you’ve got a hydrogenated meal biscuit to eat before landing. Life is pretty good.

[Propagandhim]

Yeah but there's no arguing that the core family essentials: housing, childcare, and healthcare have risen much faster than incomes, so maintaining a single‑earner household is harder today even if overall consumer amenities and creature comforts are better than in the 1950s.

Yes, there is. You have to account for how those prices have gone up because people can both afford and demand more. Healthcare is a perfect example, not a single (white) person would accept 1950's care at adjusted 1950's prices. And 80% of people wouldn't be willing to pay for it out of pocket at today's lower prices despite this increasing how much they will pay for it.

Would you not accept the typical argument here that higher quality alone/demand/preferences doesn’t explain why healthcare outpaced incomes because of the US' costs vs cross‑country comparisons with outcomes/lower cost in other first world nations?

[Jansen]

I have a modest proposal on what to do with kids.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

[Polident]

Tangential. There’s an old boat you can tour in Yokohama that details a voyage from Japan to America’s west coast. Something like two weeks at sea, tickets costing the price of a house, and the dirt poors were six to a room near the engine. They planned elaborate events to keep the passengers from going crazy. 

I was reading a book about Adams and Jefferson not too long ago that went into more extensive detail than normal about the multi-month journey to get to Europe and was like holy shit. John Quincy Adams learned his foreign languages on the trip over there, that's how much time it took to get to Russia and even closer places like metro France. And getting to Europe wasn't the end, they often landed at Spain and then had to make their way up which took more months.

JQA's diary has a bunch of entries of his talking about how boring the day was on the ship as they just sailed along and nobody did anything, no new gundams at all.

edit: OH, and you weren't in contact WITH ANYONE. That whole Revolutionary period has tons of stories of dudes getting across the Atlantic and shit being so completely different and conflicts they headed over for being totally over. Even the mail took a long time, that's why so many treaties are just dude's winging it and using whatever map they could find.

I think one of the Adams has an instance where his ship got great wind and he beat his letter telling people he was coming back.

otoh if John Quincy Adams could’ve played Halo 2 on a Steam Deck, maybe we wouldn’t be talking about him.

[Uncle]

yes we would, we'd be like man isn't it wild that this guy from 200 years ago still holds the record for most consecutive kills with an energy sword, legend

[Taco Bell Tower]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/jerry-seinfeld-shows-his-true-colors-compares-%E2%80%9Cfree-palestine%E2%80%9D-to-the-kkk-just-say-you-dont-like-jews.1294041/

[kaleidoscopium]

I am not looking forwards to the next decade or so of this series coming out and everyone talking about it non stop. Maybe I'll take up witchcraft and push for its untimely failure in the ratings, but I don't think even the dark arts would be enough.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/j-k-rowling-and-her-legacy-of-hate-the-uk-gender-critical-movement.643740/page-151#post-144948471

[benji]

Would you not accept the typical argument here that higher quality alone/demand/preferences doesn’t explain why healthcare outpaced incomes because of the US' costs vs cross‑country comparisons with outcomes/lower cost in other first world nations?

I wouldn't because I think almost all of those never seem to actually account for either outcomes or costs. Most of those are the equivalent of the pirates causing global warming chart.

Just from a hypothetical standpoint I'd have to question how healthcare could outpace incomes, especially if the person is also contending that quality is flat. Surely the explanation must be eliminating benefits from "income" despite that being the entire reason everyone has benefits in the first place. And then generally I see such advocacy as ignoring that third party programs mandated to increase demand can only increase costs and advocating for eliminating anything but them even though this is the very mechanism by which supply and demand operating is hidden. Because the not at all subtle goal is almost always to achieve a predetermined end: monopolization so the monopoly can use the monopoly power to "control" costs merely by hiding the price and outlawing alternatives.

In general I don't trust anything that says things are exempt from supply and demand when nobody's actually ever demonstrated that anything is. Ironic because generally the reason given for why we need to block supply and demand from operating is because it will lead to monopolies.

[Taco Bell Tower]

I am not looking forwards to the next decade or so of this series coming out and everyone talking about it non stop. Maybe I'll take up witchcraft and push for its untimely failure in the ratings, but I don't think even the dark arts would be enough.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/j-k-rowling-and-her-legacy-of-hate-the-uk-gender-critical-movement.643740/page-151#post-144948471

[Taco Bell Tower]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/j-k-rowling-and-her-legacy-of-hate-the-uk-gender-critical-movement.643740/page-151#post-144957777
Kagari

Well, it's not wrong though. That game had massive hype which fizzled out relatively quickly because it failed to build a new audience. There's only so many aging millennials who will stay invested to the third part.

Comediansmasher

Yep. I've been trying to point this out forever for people who are like "NOW REMAKE FF8!" or "FFX NEXT!!!"

Every year, there are less and less 90s Final Fantasy fans who still play video games and still care about FF games in particular. Square spending all their money and manpower repeatedly trying to appeal to that demographic is only going to result in a continuous decay of their brand's relevance. It will turn FF irreversibly into a 'boomer franchise' because they're too busy chasing a shrinking demographic instead of trying to build their fanbase outward.

I do have to wonder if this HP show will alienate people who aren't huge fans when it becomes clear the only reason Rowling is pushing it so hard is so she can have a version of the story that isn't starring the three original kids who "betrayed" (in her mind) her.

[Rendle]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/jerry-seinfeld-shows-his-true-colors-compares-%E2%80%9Cfree-palestine%E2%80%9D-to-the-kkk-just-say-you-dont-like-jews.1294041/

[benji]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/j-k-rowling-and-her-legacy-of-hate-the-uk-gender-critical-movement.643740/page-151#post-144957777

I do have to wonder if this HP show will alienate people who aren't huge fans when it becomes clear the only reason Rowling is pushing it so hard is so she can have a version of the story that isn't starring the three original kids who "betrayed" (in her mind) her.

I imagine it's Warner Bros. who is pushing it and Zaslav is doing that because he wants more $$$.

[Taco Bell Tower]

What if I'm Jewish and I say it? Fuck off, asshat

I dunno, ZombieBurrito85 mentioned jewsnazi 

[HaughtyFrank]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/september-10-2025-active-shooter-at-uvu-utah-charlie-kirk-shot.1294083/

They really love political violence

[malfoyking]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/september-10-2025-active-shooter-at-uvu-utah-charlie-kirk-shot.1294083/

They really love political violence

Edit: Fine.. too mean... urgh.

[HaughtyFrank]

How long until this is twisted and used as an example of the "dangerous and unsafe" democrats though?

Violence leading to negative outcomes