Neil Absurd
@neilabsurd.bsky.social
arbitrary, capricious, supercilious, biomedical engineering student
ink-stained bookworm, thrift store sleuth, basketball nut, rhythm wanderer, twilight dog walker
Tucson, Az
ink-stained bookworm, thrift store sleuth, basketball nut, rhythm wanderer, twilight dog walker
Tucson, Az
I’m not against declutterring but to universally prescribe it it all individuals/families is just absurd
Clearly, Messie Condo isn’t a fan of “clutter”, that’s their prerogative of course…good for them
Clearly, Messie Condo isn’t a fan of “clutter”, that’s their prerogative of course…good for them
August 18, 2025 at 5:21 PM
I’m not against declutterring but to universally prescribe it it all individuals/families is just absurd
Clearly, Messie Condo isn’t a fan of “clutter”, that’s their prerogative of course…good for them
Clearly, Messie Condo isn’t a fan of “clutter”, that’s their prerogative of course…good for them
What you call “crap” might not be so to someone else;”unnecessary” is a vague term without fixed meaning in this context. Objects aren’t just things for everybody, they’re signifiers; nodes in a system of relations where meaning can come.
Clutter isn’t otiose or emotionally laborious for everyone
Clutter isn’t otiose or emotionally laborious for everyone
August 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM
What you call “crap” might not be so to someone else;”unnecessary” is a vague term without fixed meaning in this context. Objects aren’t just things for everybody, they’re signifiers; nodes in a system of relations where meaning can come.
Clutter isn’t otiose or emotionally laborious for everyone
Clutter isn’t otiose or emotionally laborious for everyone
What a nihilistic/absolutist take?
Didn’t structuralism and postmodernism make a convincing point that maybe clutter can give meaning to life?
Didn’t structuralism and postmodernism make a convincing point that maybe clutter can give meaning to life?
August 18, 2025 at 5:51 AM
What a nihilistic/absolutist take?
Didn’t structuralism and postmodernism make a convincing point that maybe clutter can give meaning to life?
Didn’t structuralism and postmodernism make a convincing point that maybe clutter can give meaning to life?
I dunno 🤔 That 4.6% metric only counts people who applied for work the previous 4 weeks and not people who have given up.
Also doesn’t factor in part-time workers who want full-time living wage work; which I imagine is a large swath of workers.
It’s a flawed metric to declare “not an emergency”
Also doesn’t factor in part-time workers who want full-time living wage work; which I imagine is a large swath of workers.
It’s a flawed metric to declare “not an emergency”
August 16, 2025 at 11:22 PM
I dunno 🤔 That 4.6% metric only counts people who applied for work the previous 4 weeks and not people who have given up.
Also doesn’t factor in part-time workers who want full-time living wage work; which I imagine is a large swath of workers.
It’s a flawed metric to declare “not an emergency”
Also doesn’t factor in part-time workers who want full-time living wage work; which I imagine is a large swath of workers.
It’s a flawed metric to declare “not an emergency”
Human jobs? Aren’t companies already firing people? And/or already implementing hiring freeze’s to replace humans? 🧐
August 7, 2025 at 5:36 PM
Human jobs? Aren’t companies already firing people? And/or already implementing hiring freeze’s to replace humans? 🧐
Just the 11-year media rights package signed & taking effect in 2026 is worth roughly $2.2 billion, meaning about $200 million annually for the WNBA vs $60 million currently; a 300–400% increase. Most if not all teams will be in the black and that’s not the only revenue stream increasing league wide
August 3, 2025 at 8:48 PM
Just the 11-year media rights package signed & taking effect in 2026 is worth roughly $2.2 billion, meaning about $200 million annually for the WNBA vs $60 million currently; a 300–400% increase. Most if not all teams will be in the black and that’s not the only revenue stream increasing league wide
Operating losses are just one gauge; owners profit on value not just narrowly on operating gains/losses.
In the NBA, sale prices dwarf yearly profit: Celtics ≈$6.1B vs. ~$121M operating income; Lakers ≈$10B valuation vs. ~$199M operating income; market value (not annual ops) is the real scoreboard.
In the NBA, sale prices dwarf yearly profit: Celtics ≈$6.1B vs. ~$121M operating income; Lakers ≈$10B valuation vs. ~$199M operating income; market value (not annual ops) is the real scoreboard.
August 3, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Operating losses are just one gauge; owners profit on value not just narrowly on operating gains/losses.
In the NBA, sale prices dwarf yearly profit: Celtics ≈$6.1B vs. ~$121M operating income; Lakers ≈$10B valuation vs. ~$199M operating income; market value (not annual ops) is the real scoreboard.
In the NBA, sale prices dwarf yearly profit: Celtics ≈$6.1B vs. ~$121M operating income; Lakers ≈$10B valuation vs. ~$199M operating income; market value (not annual ops) is the real scoreboard.
I mean 🤔, framing Zionism as “cultural” is a dodge; it’s a nationalist project aimed at Jewish sovereignty and demographic control. Buber’s binationalism was fringe and lost. Secular or religious, the institutions and laws enshrine Jewish hegemony, so calling it apolitical is gaslighting.
August 3, 2025 at 4:20 PM
I mean 🤔, framing Zionism as “cultural” is a dodge; it’s a nationalist project aimed at Jewish sovereignty and demographic control. Buber’s binationalism was fringe and lost. Secular or religious, the institutions and laws enshrine Jewish hegemony, so calling it apolitical is gaslighting.
You do realize that $325 million sale is a profit right? The tribe bought the team for just $10 million. If the Boston owners sell the team for $1b in a few years, that’s also a profit.
Plus the new tv deals coming up.
Plus the new tv deals coming up.
August 3, 2025 at 5:18 AM
You do realize that $325 million sale is a profit right? The tribe bought the team for just $10 million. If the Boston owners sell the team for $1b in a few years, that’s also a profit.
Plus the new tv deals coming up.
Plus the new tv deals coming up.
He look 👀 the NYT fanning the flames 🔥 of war?
Why don’t they write about how many American citizens the Israeli IDF and/or settlers have killed recently? 🤔
Why don’t they write about how many American citizens the Israeli IDF and/or settlers have killed recently? 🤔
a black and white photo of a woman in a kitchen with a disney logo in the corner
ALT: a black and white photo of a woman in a kitchen with a disney logo in the corner
media.tenor.com
August 2, 2025 at 2:00 PM
He look 👀 the NYT fanning the flames 🔥 of war?
Why don’t they write about how many American citizens the Israeli IDF and/or settlers have killed recently? 🤔
Why don’t they write about how many American citizens the Israeli IDF and/or settlers have killed recently? 🤔
Guess Bob Rae’d the room and still missed the point.🤡
July 29, 2025 at 1:45 AM
Guess Bob Rae’d the room and still missed the point.🤡
I’m not sure what planet you were living on? CNN, NYT, WaPo, etc etc weren’t criticizing Biden over his handling of Israel/Gaza…In fact they were mostly defending/cheering him on
July 28, 2025 at 9:16 PM
I’m not sure what planet you were living on? CNN, NYT, WaPo, etc etc weren’t criticizing Biden over his handling of Israel/Gaza…In fact they were mostly defending/cheering him on
What a surprise 😳
Who’d of thunk 🤔
Is Bezos sending flowers 🌺?
Who’d of thunk 🤔
Is Bezos sending flowers 🌺?
July 24, 2025 at 10:22 PM
What a surprise 😳
Who’d of thunk 🤔
Is Bezos sending flowers 🌺?
Who’d of thunk 🤔
Is Bezos sending flowers 🌺?
This is hilarious 🤣; almost surreal in it’s absurdism 😵💫
July 24, 2025 at 10:15 PM
This is hilarious 🤣; almost surreal in it’s absurdism 😵💫
MTG’s amendment didn’t restrict the $3.3 billions being sent to Israel in the bill
It only addressed specifically the $500 million for the Iron Dome
It only addressed specifically the $500 million for the Iron Dome
July 23, 2025 at 1:52 AM
MTG’s amendment didn’t restrict the $3.3 billions being sent to Israel in the bill
It only addressed specifically the $500 million for the Iron Dome
It only addressed specifically the $500 million for the Iron Dome
Huh?
They voted for political posturing; why else?
It only got 6 votes.
They’re intelligent, they knew it would signal that they didn’t support funding the iron dome.
So you wanted Tliab and Omar to vote yes on the amendment the yes on the Bill to enact the amendment if the amendment passed?
They voted for political posturing; why else?
It only got 6 votes.
They’re intelligent, they knew it would signal that they didn’t support funding the iron dome.
So you wanted Tliab and Omar to vote yes on the amendment the yes on the Bill to enact the amendment if the amendment passed?
July 22, 2025 at 11:12 PM
Huh?
They voted for political posturing; why else?
It only got 6 votes.
They’re intelligent, they knew it would signal that they didn’t support funding the iron dome.
So you wanted Tliab and Omar to vote yes on the amendment the yes on the Bill to enact the amendment if the amendment passed?
They voted for political posturing; why else?
It only got 6 votes.
They’re intelligent, they knew it would signal that they didn’t support funding the iron dome.
So you wanted Tliab and Omar to vote yes on the amendment the yes on the Bill to enact the amendment if the amendment passed?
All’s I know is AOC states she didn’t support the amendment because it still supports funding the genocide.
Seems like sound reason try not support it; she doesn’t address why she didn’t propose a new amendment herself
But you’re saying she told you why?
Seems like sound reason try not support it; she doesn’t address why she didn’t propose a new amendment herself
But you’re saying she told you why?
July 22, 2025 at 7:32 PM
All’s I know is AOC states she didn’t support the amendment because it still supports funding the genocide.
Seems like sound reason try not support it; she doesn’t address why she didn’t propose a new amendment herself
But you’re saying she told you why?
Seems like sound reason try not support it; she doesn’t address why she didn’t propose a new amendment herself
But you’re saying she told you why?
You know why she didn’t propose an amendment herself?
Do tell
Do tell
July 22, 2025 at 7:24 PM
You know why she didn’t propose an amendment herself?
Do tell
Do tell
Maybe because she knew it was futile and performative; just like her no vote on the bill itself was rendered performative; I dunno 🤷♂️
July 22, 2025 at 7:19 PM
Maybe because she knew it was futile and performative; just like her no vote on the bill itself was rendered performative; I dunno 🤷♂️
Why remove it from the bill if she knew a few hours later she would be voting to not fund the Iron dome?
Again, why didn’t the amendment include defunding the $3.3 billion in offensive aid?
Again, why didn’t the amendment include defunding the $3.3 billion in offensive aid?
July 22, 2025 at 7:04 PM
Why remove it from the bill if she knew a few hours later she would be voting to not fund the Iron dome?
Again, why didn’t the amendment include defunding the $3.3 billion in offensive aid?
Again, why didn’t the amendment include defunding the $3.3 billion in offensive aid?
Again AOC voting NO for the bill means she voted NO for additional Iron Dome funding!
Your upset over intentionality
Why didn’t the amendment include the $3.3 billion in offensive aid?
Your upset over intentionality
Why didn’t the amendment include the $3.3 billion in offensive aid?
July 22, 2025 at 6:57 PM
Again AOC voting NO for the bill means she voted NO for additional Iron Dome funding!
Your upset over intentionality
Why didn’t the amendment include the $3.3 billion in offensive aid?
Your upset over intentionality
Why didn’t the amendment include the $3.3 billion in offensive aid?
You talk like a Jimmy Dore Republican
July 22, 2025 at 6:47 PM
You talk like a Jimmy Dore Republican