Want to wade into the sandy surf of the abyss? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)

    • corbin@awful.systemsEnglish
      5·
      11 hours ago

      Good post but it’s overfocused on “technical” as a meaningful and helpful word for denotation. Quoting what I just said on Mastodon:

      To be technical is to pay attention to details. That’s all. A (classical) computer is a detail machine; it only operates upon bits, it only knows bits, and it only decides bits. To be technical is to try to keep pace with the computer and know details as precisely as it does. Framed this way, it should be obvious that humans aren’t technical and can’t really be technical. This fundamental insecurity is the heart of priestly gatekeeping of computer science.

      If a third blog post trying to define “technical” goes around again then I’ll write a full post.

      • bitofhope@awful.systemsEnglish
        7·
        10 hours ago

        A technical is a civilian vehicle (typically a pickup truck) modified with a system for mounting weapons (typically machine guns or heavier, crew-operated weaponry) on it. An ongoing debate among military philosophers concerns whether a zamboni with a T-shirt cannon should be classified as one.

        • BlueMonday1984@awful.systemsOPEnglish
          3·
          9 hours ago

          An ongoing debate among military philosophers concerns whether a zamboni with a T-shirt cannon should be classified as one.

          Strictly speaking, no. Whilst T-shirt cannons and other such armaments can cause serious injuries (a hot dog cannon hospitalised a Phillies fan in 2018), they aren’t weapons in any real sense.

          • istewart@awful.systemsEnglish
            5·
            8 hours ago

            We’re perhaps underrating the distribution of t-shirts with appropriately subversive messaging as a tactic in psychological operations. The sudden appearance of a zamboni, and distribution of assets via novel ballistic means, is also likely to drive enthusiasm among the target population.