shneancy

joined 1 year ago
[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (5 children)

i know people on the Internet have seemingly impossibly boring lives where nothing ever happens to them - but this isn't even that hard to believe

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

ooo fascinating! thank you for the information :)

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

yea true, though (and again i'm just speculating and talking out of my ass, do tell me if you find that annoying i can do research i just don't feel like it atm) wouldn't first schools have been made just for the working class kids? The rich kids were getting home schooled by best professors and then sent off to universities. The working class kids would be sent to the newly established general schools where they could learn and find new opportunities (and get conditioned to work in factories). I don't think you'd see many rich kids in schools with "the poors". And once schools became the norm, and rich kids schools began popping up then the schematic of what a pre-university school looked like was already established

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

what? like the shoes?

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (4 children)

i thiiink it's to help everyone see & hear better, like in ancient Greek theatres

this is all guesswork but, i'm guessing that since university education historically (and in a lot of places to this day) is more a thing of the rich they actually put some thought into the design of the lecture halls. And for the education of the poors that's simply made to condition them to work in factories they just put some tables and chairs in a room and called it a day - and since then the design stuck

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

god i'm dumb, instead of filtering out moe i blocked every moe lemmy by hand. it's not like i didn't use filters before either, it was simply a dumdum moment

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

idk man, the shape of my skull is just not aesthetically pleasing imo

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

ye but i wouldn't have known about it since i never put it on with an intention to disappear. Only after being told the ring is "special and powerful and stuff" i'd try to use it to do something i can't normally, otherwise it's just a trinket. Well, a trinket i'd be oddly attached to, but it's a gift from my uncle so that attachment wouldn't be that weird, right?

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

or as Freud put it:

“So, I gave my lecture yesterday. Despite the lack of preparation, I spoke quite well and without hesitation, which I ascribe to the cocaine I had taken before hand. I told about my discoveries in brain anatomy, all very difficult things that the audience certainly did not understand, but all that matters is that they get the impression that I understand it.”

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (3 children)

as someone with adhd - that age is now, I'm 24

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

that's a very grim way of looking at goodness. Of course doing things you believe are making a positive change makes you feel good, of course helping your community makes you feel good, and it does feel nice to be recognised and known as a good person.

It's a strange ambient idea in our society, that to be truly good you must suffer, and never find joy in the good things you do. Not to turn conspiratorial, but to me it sounds like a cope from actually selfish people who look at people who do nice things and think to themselves "they're only doing it to be popular and feel good about themselves, why else would anyone do anything"

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (5 children)

trueeee but 17 years would certainly not have been my first guess if I was asked "after how long do you kinda stop caring about a small trinket your uncle gave you & don't actively remember where you put it"

view more: next ›