We need something that isn’t THE internet, and is only accessible if you have the patience and knowledge to connect to it.

That kinda does exist it’s just that you and I lack either the knowledge or patience to connect to it.

Delusion.

AFAIK whilst some creatives do fully conceptualise the work in their heads then set out to externally reproduce it, the more normal approach is to have a less complete notion and then create something via the process. IE, a musician might have a melody in their head but then they will play it on the instrument and experiment with different variations and accompaniments to see what sounds good and build on it that way, rather than sit and think of an entire piece based on that, then play it out loud.

I did write a lengthy (nice) response to try to better articulate my own subjective experience for comparison so we could continue to try to better understand one another but then I kinda just lost faith in the idea…

Do you possibly speak more than one language to any degree? If you think of the words “yes” and “oui” (yes in French), there must be some difference in what you experience inside your mind despite the meaning being the same. So what is different between the two subjective experiences for you?

But, for you to put the words in “in the right order” they must take some sort of descreet experiential form.

Yes but my question is that if you say you neither hear nor see the words, what experience does “I just think of the words” mean?

For me if I think of the words in a song I experience that as an auditory thought that may have some more abstract or emotional types of thinking attached to those words (ie, if I’m think of the word “cold” I might hear the word cold in my head and also feel the idea of coldness, or if I think of the word “angry” I’ll hear the word angry in my head and angry associations will come up. Note, this hearing of sounds inside the mind is not the same as experiencing an auditory halicination where you perceive you have heard an external noise with your ears.)

i just can’t stop trying to get all the words in the right order

I do t understand why you’d need easy access to buy 500 at a time of something you shouldn’t take more than 8 a day or for more than three days at a time without consulting a Dr and now I just realised what this is about…

In the UK we just see the Dr if we’re in pain for more than three days because our system isn’t evil.

If you neither hear nor see the words in your head, how do you experience them to reorder them?

What makes you think OP hasn’t just been offered 10 million dollars to lay in a coffin for 48 hours?

It’s because people try to kill themselves by taking lots of ibuprofen and it’s both a bad way to go and a bad way to survive. Making it harder to access large amounts has been shown to reduce the amount of suicide attempts (as often actual attempts are somewhat impulsive.)

The issue for the commenter you replied to is that they think that laying the blame for a specific incident at the personal responsibility of the people directly involved somehow means that the diffuse responsibility of wider society in creating conditions wherein those incidents are guaranteed to regularly occur is somehow no-longer relevant.

All that seems to matter in their assessment is who gets the finger pointed at them when the problem happens, not, why does the problem happen and what can we do to avoid it?

The driver can be personally responsible for their own failures without that alleviating the responsibility of good decision making by those who are responsible for ensuring people are able to live their lives safely.

It’s so much safer to have an accident in a modern car than one from even just a few decades ago. There’s no amount of better-than-what-we-have levels of driver awareness that can make up that gap.

It’s always seemed strange to me that free-speech absolutists seem to argue that what people say doesn’t have much effect on the world.

If it’s so insignificant an act… Why are they so invested in protecting their right to do so without any constraints?

I think it’s the least worrying of possible stances protecting possession of CP

I’m not sure I’m willing to force my brain into considering the relative shadiness of different arguments for child pornography. It is a worrying stance, splitting hairs over whether he could have said something worse or not seems like an unproductive discussion.

I think it’s possible to recognise that valid concerns are hijacked for other purposes without needing to take a stance against the concerns themselves though.

IE I think child porn is a bad thing and we should work as a society to address it in a multi-faceted way. I also think that using that as a way to gain legal capabilities to infringe on people’s rights in a way that is not actually related to the prevention of child porn is also a bad thing. Those aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. Though I did see the claim that he was 16 at the time he wrote it, so it’s possible he worked that out later?

Such a weird stance to take and to make a point of wedging in there. I thought perhaps on reading I’d find he’s being misinterpreted or taken out of context but he’s very explicitly like “child porn isn’t an issue and we should do nothing about it.” Quite a worrying position for him to take.

Haven’t seen Elysium but I remember In Time being much better than that rating suggests.

Sherlock Holmes: A game of Shadows

AFAIK the intention was to build a franchise and now Robert Downey Jr has finished with Marvel they’re all keen to pick it back up again (he’s also pushing for Jonny Depp to join the franchise.)