Anyone who looks into the camera like this is insane, 99% a maladjusted narcissist. Autoplaying videos on a website is terrorism

If you pay attention you can tell that she's looking at herself on the screen & not actually you, the audience, as it's supposed to look like on your end. You can deduce this but thinking about it for all of one second, or, you can notice how she has to keep herself from smiling
Anyone who can look or act "normal" while looking at their own reflection in real time, is fucking nuts. Someone who gets off on it, while also being conscious that this should be hidden, but then does it anyway? Extremely nuts & also willingly deceiving on a personal level
Knowingly being filmed/mirrorrd/recorded is physically instinctively unpleasant and it fucks with your self-relation. What the camera does is make it impossible to be yourself, because immediate distinction between self and world is shattered.
The moment the camera is turned on, you are no longer "acting" in the philosophical sense, directly engaging with whatever is it, the world - you are "acting" in the theater sense. It is instrumental and necessary, there is no way out of it. Being observed changes being,
Changes behavior. And observing self, observing being observed, that's on a primal level dissociative. The human, genuine, honest reaction to this is madness: the Mike ma scream, Sam hydes whole thing, all of "funny internet videos".
What's so disastrous about this trend of short annoying nagging bitch infomercials that's being promoted across the board is that it's literally evil. Before she's said a word, she's already lying to you. The genre is lying to you. The medium is the message

More from All

You May Also Like

@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the


chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project

starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".

P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!

https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x