Would be a weird magazine if every story had to be a watergate level expose or it wouldn’t be printed
Hey. That sounds an awful lot like “Logic” We don’t do that here.
very fitting from corpo bots
I dunno. Lightly Entertainment is in my experience part of most larger News Papers. And it had been the past decades. Especially in the feuilleton. I mean, you cant pull a watergate out of your hat everyday. And a news paper has a lot of pages to be printed
To be fair just investigate politicians and billionaries, surely you can find something
Ah yes, the Marie Kondo method
I love that bitch but the upper middle class people on her Netflix show was big yikes.
Obviously I felt sad for the one with the dead husband - I’m not a monster
Haven’t seen her show, but as somebody technically in the UMC with a lot of shit to get rid of, I can understand them wanting to appeal to that market.
She looks like if gemma from severance wasn’t meant to be a sci fi character. And no, not like the actress. And no, I don’t just mean bc of the ethnicity plus hair (also she is Nepali!)
I’ve now thrown out all my toothbrushes and toilet paper. My fridge and pantry have been emptied entirely, and the bookshelf has been purged. Maybe this wasn’t the best approach.
Would I still keep the Washington post if it were covered in poop…
It already is and no
Only if Bezos is covered too
Okay, so I’m getting rid of my mattress, most of my furniture, most of my electronics, etc.
I think the idea behind this idea is good: If you’re trying to get rid of stuff, only keep things that you would expend a bit of effort for.
However, I think they’re wildly underestimating how many items will be destroyed or irreversably ruined in some way by poop.
I think it’s probably better to amend it to, “if it was covered in poop would you get rid of it and not replace it?”
I’m too poor to replace the things that got covered, so this still doesn’t work.
Well, work with the basis of the question being that you could afford to replace it.
Ok, i replace everything because theres no reason not to short of the environment
Sure there is - it’ll take up space and you have to go through the hassle of going and buying it again.
They said when decluttering. Most of those things aren’t in question when you’re specifically decluttering. No one looks at their mess and thinks “maybe getting rid of my mattress, couch, phone and TV would make things cleaner”.
Listen mate, if you can cover 50" tv in poop, you need to go see a doctor first.
Challenge accepted!
They didn’t specify whose poop.
Different kind of doctor then.
Maybe they’re coming from the other direction.
Remember; they’re owned by and thus write for the famously depraved billionaire class.
The one I’ve heard is, if you spilled a glass of red wine on it, how hard would you work to clean/fix it? It’s more in the vein of decluttering as opposed to replacing furniture. So obv your couch and TV are exceptions
Just dry the mattress and put some sheets on it
For me, it’s “Does this have a practical function?”, and if no, then “Would I evacuate with this in a disaster?”
and by “evacuate” i mean “poop”
Watergate was covered by journalists; these “articles” are written by clickbait engagement employees.
I think the movie “The Post” did a good job highlighting the corruption within journalists/media as well. It’s not a historical accurate retelling people ensure to point out but it addresses how individuals get tied into closer relationships with politicians which gets them scoops which inevitably make them more money and promotions, but those can be tied to not asking the hard questions, and not wanting to hurt ties/friendships they form along the way.
Then again, most Tom Hanks movies end up being pretty good. Movies like “A Man Called Otto” always surprise me.
Guess I’m throwing out all of my underwear
I mean if it is covered in poop and you won’t clean it then you should…
Time to throw away all the food.
Yo, that peanut butter has below the FDA allowed minimums for rat feces, they said I’m allowed to keep it!
So whether or not something should be kept depends on how easy it is to clean? That seems kinda dumb.
More like “would I spend my life cleaning this instead of throwing it away”. You have to be the type of person to not want to clean everything covered in shit though
You have to be the type of person to not want to clean everything covered in shit though
Ah there lies the fault in the method
Works on most people that aren’t stage 5 hoarders really
“You will own nothing” ass philosophy
I too love consumerism so much. let’s all talk about things we buy and love to keep, that’s a very organic conversation.
One could argue the article is anti consumerist since its talking about de cluttering, albeit in a weird way. At least, that’s what I’m assuming. As for organic conversation, beats “did you see [sports game] last night”. But that’s just me.
It may not be considered organic at this point, but I can still give a shit if I have to!
Keeping my buttplug collection, I guess.
