dickie

Kids today don't understand. Modern soap comes out of the bottle ready to use. Old Dr. Bronner's came out like concentrated peppermint reactor coolant. If you used it straight, you quickly learned why the label was shouting at you.

And then there was the label.

Oh, the label.

You'd pick up the bottle looking for directions.

Twenty minutes later you're reading about morality, religion, world peace, human unity, and trying to figure out whether the soap company had accidentally printed its entire theology on the container.

The soap wasn't the product.

The label was the product.

![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/2835/1780306288596-77cde1e37c2df8ef.webp)

The peppermint soap was just the delivery mechanism.

I even have a few of the Moral ABCs booklets around somewhere.

That was the pre-internet Dr. Bronner's world. The bottle had an address where you could write away and request a copy.

Think about that.

Today every company has a website, a newsletter, a podcast, social media accounts, and a statement on every issue imaginable.

Back then the bottle itself was the website.

You sat on the toilet reading microscopic text, mailed away for the booklet, and waited several weeks for additional philosophy to arrive through the U.S. Postal Service.

It was weird.

But it was charming weird.

Then Emanuel Bronner died in 1997.

A couple years later hemp oil was added to the formula and things started changing.

Maybe the chemistry changed.

Maybe my memory changed.

Maybe both.

But the old peppermint formula felt thicker. More concentrated. More like something that genuinely required dilution instead of merely suggesting it.

To me there was a clear dividing line:

Old Dr. Bronner's and New Dr. Bronner's.

Then came the final break.

In 2022, David Bronner, grandson of the founder and CEO of the company, publicly came out as using he/they pronouns and published an essay about it.

That was the point where I realized I no longer had the same relationship with the company.

Not because I need my soap company to agree with me.

I don't.

I just need my soap company to make soap.

Somewhere along the way Dr. Bronner's evolved from:

"Here is an extremely concentrated peppermint soap."

into:

"Before washing your hands, please review our positions on twelve social issues."

The old company was eccentric.

The new company feels like it has a communications department.

Old weird was better.

The old blue bottle felt like it came from one eccentric man with strong opinions and a printing press.

The new brand feels like a committee.

I still miss the old peppermint formula.

Nothing has ever duplicated the experience of:

1\. Ignoring the dilution instructions.

2\. Taking a shower.

3\. Discovering parts of your anatomy capable of feeling absolute zero.

4\. Reading the label while recovering from the experience.

5\. Promising never to do it again.

6\. Doing it again six months later.

These days I've mostly switched to Kirk's.

Kirk's doesn't explain the universe.

Kirk's doesn't require a manifesto.

Kirk's doesn't ask me to join a movement.

Kirk's just says:

"Here's some soap."

And honestly, after decades of reading what looked like the Dead Sea Scrolls wrapped around a peppermint bottle, that's refreshing.

For scent, I've become partial to Kingfisher's Bergamot & Amber Woods.

That sounds like grooming, not a philosophy seminar.

Soap should clean you.

Bergamot & Amber Woods should make you smell good.

Neither should require homework before you get in the shower.

6 bumps

dickie · 6/1/2026, 6:14:40 AM · permalink

on Where in the "holy Bible" is calling someone baldy a sin? in trolls

" His point is trying to offend and mock Christians"

He comes across less like someone who simply disbelieves in God and more like someone who is emotionally engaged with the idea of God. Much of his criticism is directed not at the ancient authors of the text, but at God as a moral agent: why God did this, why God did not do that, why God allows evil, and what kind of being God would be. To an outside observer, that can resemble the rhetoric of someone who is angry at God rather than someone who regards God as entirely fictional.

Of course, that impression may be inaccurate. Many atheists criticize religious texts because they believe those texts influence real-world beliefs and behavior. But the focus of his argument is largely on God's character and actions, which can make the discussion sound more like a dispute with God than a discussion of ancient literature.

There is also an internal tension in the argument. On one hand, he dismisses the story as fictional. On the other hand, he often discusses the events of the story as though they reveal something meaningful about God's conduct. That is not necessarily inconsistent, but it shifts between criticizing a literary portrayal and criticizing a real deity, sometimes without clearly distinguishing between the two.

4 bumps

dickie · 6/1/2026, 5:57:37 AM · permalink

on Where in the "holy Bible" is calling someone baldy a sin? in trolls

So let me get this straight.

You don't believe the story happened. You don't believe the miracle happened. You don't believe God exists. You don't believe the Bible is divinely inspired.

Neither do I, at least not in the sense that God personally authored it. I think the Hebrew Bible was written by ancient Jews, for Jews, and reflects the beliefs, culture, history, and theology of the people who wrote it.

So why am I supposed to accept your interpretation of what the story means and what God was thinking?

I'd rather start with what the text actually says.

The text doesn't say God sent the bears.

The text doesn't say the youths were killed. It says they were mauled.

People often retell this as "God murdered 42 children," but that is not what the text actually says. Bears don't commit murder. Murder is a legal concept that applies to persons under a legal system. Bears can attack, injure, maul, or kill, but they don't commit murder.

And if you think God did it, "murder" is still a legal conclusion, not merely a description of an event. Murder means an unlawful killing. Under whose law was God tried, convicted, and sentenced? You can argue that the story portrays something immoral. That is a moral judgment. But "murder" is a specific legal judgment.

And we're still back to the original problem: the text doesn't actually say God sent the bears. It says Elisha cursed the youths in the name of the Lord, and then bears appeared. If you think that proves divine causation, you're accepting a supernatural claim from a story you otherwise reject.

If we're discussing an ancient Jewish text written by human beings, then let's discuss what those authors actually wrote and why they may have written it. If we're going to discuss the Bible, let's discuss what it actually says, not what critics and believers alike sometimes assume it says.

4 bumps

dickie · 5/31/2026, 8:39:25 PM · permalink

on Where in the "holy Bible" is calling someone baldy a sin? in trolls

A few things.

First, the story doesn't actually say God sent the bears. It says Elisha cursed the youths in the name of the Lord, and then bears came out of the woods. "God sent the bears" is an interpretation of the story, not something the text explicitly states.

Second, if you think the story is fake, then you're arguing against a literary portrayal of God in an ancient Jewish story, not an actual historical event.

Third, even within the Bible's own framework, it is not a complete record of every interaction between God and humanity. The Bible never claims to document every act of divine judgment. So "the Bible doesn't record bears being sent after rapists" doesn't prove anything. The absence of a story is not evidence that something never happened.

The stronger criticism is that the author chose to preserve this story at all. If the story is fictional, then the real question is what message the author intended readers to take from it and whether that message is morally defensible.

Also, the text itself never says they were innocent children. That's a common retelling. The passage says 42 youths were mauled after mocking Elisha. People fill in a lot of details that aren't actually in the text.

9 bumps

dickie · 5/31/2026, 7:19:45 PM · permalink

on matt should go see this 🍉 in watermelon

In this image, "太陽を食べよう。" ("Taiyō o tabeyō.") literally does mean "Let's eat the sun."

Whether it was actually used in a historical Japanese advertisement is a different question.

Looking at the image, several clues suggest it is modern graphic design rather than a scan of a real vintage poster:

The English text "SUMMER IN A SLICE" appears integrated into the design.

The typography and layout have a contemporary poster aesthetic.

The Japanese copy reads naturally, but also feels like advertising copy written for effect.

AI image generators and modern designers frequently add plausible Japanese text to create a retro Japanese feel.

The phrase itself is perfectly valid Japanese. A Japanese speaker would understand it as a poetic slogan meaning:

\> "Eat sunshine."

"Taste the summer sun."

"Enjoy the sun through watermelon."

So the translation is real, but I would not assume this exact slogan comes from a famous historical Japanese advertising campaign without evidence.

If you're asking whether I made up the translation, no. The text in the image literally says:

すいか = Watermelon

真夏の味 = Taste of midsummer

シャリッと甘い、夏だけのごちそう。 = Crisp and sweet, a summer-only treat.

太陽を食べよう。 = Let's eat the sun.

The uncertainty is only whether the poster itself is an authentic vintage Japanese advertisement or a modern design inspired by one. Based on appearance, I would lean strongly toward modern artwork inspired by vintage Japanese fruit posters.

3 bumps

dickie · 5/31/2026, 7:10:46 PM · permalink

on matt should go see this 🍉 in watermelon

6 bumps

dickie · 5/31/2026, 3:10:21 PM · permalink

on Watermelon: The New National Security Threat 🍉 in watermelon

2 bumps

dickie · 5/31/2026, 2:23:08 PM · permalink

on Where in the "holy Bible" is calling someone baldy a sin? in trolls

15 bumps

dickie · 5/29/2026, 5:27:14 AM · permalink

on [deleted by author] in freethinkers

# Lessons Learned Trying To Delete My Entire Comment History

Is there was a way to bulk-delete my own comments? The answer turned out to be "sort of."

I got a JavaScript deletion script to work partially several times, but the biggest lesson was that deleting an entire comment history is not as simple as finding every delete button and clicking it.

I was not trying to access anything I couldn't already access. I was simply trying to automate the same actions I could perform manually on my own profile:

```text
Go to my profile
Click Comments
Click Delete
Confirm
Scroll
Repeat
```

The first step was inspecting the page and finding the actual HTML for the delete button and the Comments tab. Once I had the real HTML, I could give it to AI and ask for a script that interacted with those specific elements.

That worked much better than asking:

```text
Make me a script to delete all my comments.
```

The real challenge turned out to be page state.

The script could often delete one comment successfully. Then the site would reload part of the page, switch tabs, unload comments, stop exposing delete buttons, or otherwise change what the script was looking at.

In other words, the page kept moving underneath the script.

The other complication was infinite scroll. Comments were not all loaded at once. The script had to:

```text
Click Comments
Look for delete buttons
Delete one
Confirm
Click Comments again
Scroll
Wait
Look again
Repeat
```

That "click Comments again" step turned out to be surprisingly important.

One useful thing I learned was that AI works much better when you provide the actual page details:

```text
The delete button HTML.
The Comments tab HTML.
What happens after a delete.
Whether there is a popup.
Whether the page uses infinite scroll.
Console output.
```

Once AI had those details, the scripts became much more accurate.

Another lesson is to test pieces separately.

Don't start with a giant deletion loop.

Start by confirming:

```text
Can the script find the Comments tab?
Can the script find a delete button?
Can it delete one comment?
Can it handle the popup?
Can it return to Comments afterward?
```

Only after those pieces work should you try to automate the whole process.

One issue I did **not** have to deal with was blocked users.

There are reports that deleting comments can become more complicated if someone involved in a thread has blocked you. Comments may not display normally, the thread may not load correctly, or delete controls may behave differently.

Since I never encountered that situation during testing, none of my scripts accounted for it.

The final takeaway is this:

```text
Deleting one visible comment with JavaScript is easy.

Deleting an entire comment history from a modern web app with tabs,
confirmation dialogs, dynamic page updates, and infinite scroll
is the hard part.
```

The approach that worked best was not treating the page like a database.

It was treating the page like a person would:

```text
Go to Comments.
Look around.
Delete one.
Confirm.
Go back to Comments.
Scroll.
Look again.
Repeat.
```

I never got a perfect one-click solution before my post history was gone, so I couldn't keep refining it.

Still, for anyone trying something similar, the biggest piece of advice is simple:

**Give the AI the actual HTML and actual console output.**

That ended up being far more useful than asking for a generic deletion script.

9 bumps

dickie · 5/28/2026, 7:22:05 PM · permalink

on [deleted by author] in freethinkers

3 bumps

dickie · 5/28/2026, 6:57:43 PM · permalink