help finding a documentary/manifesto (public sex, private property, united ireland)
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/2319299
> pretty much what the title says: I remember watching a video (probably on vimeo) very serious but quite humorous of a girl making some sort of case against private property in ireland which I believe started with a weird proposition regarding the legality of public sex (particularly in private land(?)) I think it had a companion manifesto as well > > I really don't remember it that well, but it just popped in my head and I'd love to find it if you guys know of anything of the sort, this is the only place I feel like I can ask
Lifting belts give you superpowers
it doesn't. it just removes pressure from your lower back
I skyrocketed out of a plateau after getting one and I don’t have any other explanation of why
see above, you're using a tool that removes/facilitates the force imposed on your lower back in a given lift and this has the disadvantage of not progressing the strenght on that part of the body at the same rhythm as your other muscles you're engaging in the lift
honestly if you're not competing there's virtually no reason to use a lifting belt, egolifting is a thing and something that everyone lifting recreationally should not engage in
not saying to get advice from the internet, just sharing a readily-available source that's quite reliable and is consistent with precisely the advice I've personally received from professionals IRL
the guy himself is a physical therapist but whatever, be as condescending as you want to be
Not a great example since squat form varies with a person's anatomy so the way you describe is not necessarily "the proper form" (and to be honest I'm a bit worried by it). Feet position and angle will depend on your anatomy and squat depth will depend on your mobility. Squat university has some good videos for helping out with finding the proper squat form for each individual
thanks for the corrections
I'm sorry if I came across like that. I'm not criticizing the literature, I'm trying to ask to those who are familiar with it if my preconceived ideas hold true since that has been my experience with other works of the kind (and even in other art forms). From that experience I know that I have to be weary particularly of louded american works, I'm not outright saying american equals bad.
With that said, have you read something from the authors I've highlighted and if so what were your thoughts on their work?
Are the "classic" american novels any good?
I'm talking works by Kurt Vonnegut, Isaac Asimov, Joseph Heller, Stephen King, Art Spiegelman, Elie Wiesel, Daniel Keyes, etc. I haven't read any from these I've mentioned, I just have a bias that tells me they're overrated trash. I think it's quite common on american "classics" (not just books but also films) a certain political defeatism or instead a very liberal surface level criticism of "bad things" (Steinbeck stays winning). And then these barren ideas get louded as incredible literature classics (which makes sense as far as the rulling class's efforts for maintaining the status quo are concerned).
But as I've said this is my analysis a priori of having read such novels, but are there actually redeeming qualities on those novels that make them worthy of pursuing? I'm not that interested in style but I can see that some of the authors mentioned have that idiosyncrasy going for them. Also I'm sure some do get the problems they're writing about and maybe that analysis, even if it doesn't go all the way, is a good enough quality.
(I write this about american novels in particular but it clearly expands to other 'classics'. Unfortunately I have read stuff by that Orwell fella which is a clear perpetrator of the crimes I've mentioned. I focused on the american side because most of the 'classics' lists are filled with them (they're anglocentric in general but more american-sided))
Well let's just stay at the very end
spoiler
everyone in the world (? maybe just the in US even i dunno) got 1 million dollars in their bank accounts and lived happily ever after
The show has some good acting, some very good episodes and does tackle some important issues but the bigger picture stuff got very cringe indeed
Damn right after rarbg as well
I really do not understand the obsession with multiparty democracy.
A multiparty system has been sold as the defining trait of democracy (or at least synonymous with an electoral cycle), election ballots must have little symbols for each little party. But even those who buy into it fall into inevitable contradictions: when, for example, they're made aware that nations like the PRC and the DPRK have other parties (similar to the post-imperialist scenario you've stated), they become quite perplexed; also, all these people would be only satisfied if the party they support won not only the general elections, but also every election in every region/municipality/district/etc, essentially desiring the one-party system they are feverishly against.
These are just brief points on how that obsession falls over itself, I purposely don't want to get into how the basis for the obsession (be it the electoral cycle, how a multiparty system actually behaves, etc) is a sham on its own.
The Quietus | Prole Art Threat: Cynthia Cruz On 'The Melancholia Of Class'
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/31001
> first I'm hearing from this book, very enlightning interview with the author, quite curious to read it
The Quietus | Prole Art Threat: Cynthia Cruz On 'The Melancholia Of Class'
first I'm hearing from this book, very enlightning interview with the author, quite curious to read it