4doorsmorewhores
No bio...
User ID: 223
4doorsmorewhores
1d ago
Yes, I flagged that in brackets.
4doorsmorewhores
2d ago
This seems like a misrepresentation or at least to have some logical leaps.
My objections:
- It's perfectly fine to hold those beliefs and still want accountability for a drug company that does bad things. Someone's desired counterfactual isn't limited to a binary.
- "I think these firms should do less to limit beneficial healthcare and do more to prevent harmful healthcare" isn't some gotcha where you should object "Well do you want more or fewer free markets"
- The tradeoff between good-quality tested opioids and sketchy street drugs isn't real. I can't pull them up right now but throughought the 2010s the economist had like 4 studies cited that showed about 60% of people dependent on street drugs (from someone else's prescription to black tar heroin) started out on prescription pain killers like oxycontin.
4doorsmorewhores
7d ago
Can we read them
4doorsmorewhores
15d ago
Mr Freeze is for the modern era, he uses technologically complex equipment such as an ice-gun and has the yet-unperfected technology similar to alcor, to keep his dying wife ins stasis.
4doorsmorewhores
17d ago
I wonder if modern dynamic IPs work this way for Wikipedia (but not other websites) because Wikipedia logs your IP specifically for edit-tracking purposes. Creating specific demi-profiles for each of them behind the scenes. I don't know anything about networking this is just speculation.
4doorsmorewhores
19d ago
If you won't make an account then it will be hard for a website to remember your preferences across different devices or cookies etc. I imagine your only option is to use an add on for example:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/legacy-wikipedia/
4doorsmorewhores
25d ago
In the same vein I'm finding it harder and harder to approximate the value of these good RBs. On a really good offense they are clearly force multipliers, dynamic runners and catchers that add points to every game. The convention wisdom is that they aren't worth a lot of salary because they're replaceable, and even on bad teams they do very little. I'm more skeptical of this these days, seeing the big drop off in effectiveness on the Raiders and Giants offense after losing Jacobs and Barkley. The flipside of this is a good blocking and offensive team that has a bad RB who is carried by his environment. Najee Harris maybe? Not a lot of examples come to mind.
4doorsmorewhores
1mo ago
If the cops show up to my house for some stupid reason and want me to go sit in the squad car while they do whatever, and I thrash and kick and headbutt one of them like a BLM protester then yes, I do think it is fine to punish me for that, even if the original reason they were there didn't pan out. If you're more libertarian and completely disagree that the state and its agents should have some good faith wiggle room for mistakes or best practices that fine, but there's no sense in us spending 8 comments to reach that impasse.
4doorsmorewhores
1mo ago
The squirrel bit a guy I think. If a murderer built a house that tries to punch your balls every time you walked by I'd probably want to demolish it.
4doorsmorewhores
1mo ago
Probably that the animals spread disease and rabies and are more likely to bite their owners and have to be put down sooner or later anyway. Not sure though, the justification might begin with the negation that he was the right to own this specific property.
4doorsmorewhores
1mo ago
Animals are property.
4doorsmorewhores
1mo ago
A plain reading of my comment is clearly that this policy is eminently reasonable, these things happen frequently and are mundane, and this story's notoriety is unrelated to its merit, but the man involved is flooding social media for personal gain. That's not enough analysis for a reply to a thread?
4doorsmorewhores
1mo ago
He deserved to have his feral disease ridden animals taken because he is a degenerate pornstar and vain social media publicity seeker. This non story is total brain melting slop.
I'm sure every animal department has stupid policies where they needlessly kill tame housebroken foxes and let feral pitbulls continue to eat toddlers: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/
4doorsmorewhores
1mo ago
Reddit-style forums like this have always felt bad for live update events since the multitude of nested threads and lack of strict chronology is hard to track
4doorsmorewhores
1mo ago
Yeah someone should make a discord (cringe i'm sorry) or a telegram channel for fast cool witty motte update/analysis
4doorsmorewhores
2mo ago
How far is this Deshaun Watson situation going to go? All of the analysis I've seen suggests that because of the unique total guarantees in his contract, they are almost completely unable to cut him. Benching him would make the entire coaching and front office team look so bad that they would probably need to be fired - they seem so tied to him that the usual strategy of starting the backup to limp to 7-8 wins to avoid being fired seems impossible.
Solutions?
- In the NBA we sometimes see awful players with huge contracts just floating around on the team for a few years
- New regime manufactures a reason to cut him and not pay his salary for rape or other reasons
- Same coaching staff comes back for 2 years and gets fired the same time they can be rid of the Watson contract
- Retain 20 or 30% of his contract while shoveling lots of picks for another bad team to take the contract
- Trade all of their good players for picks and admit they won't be good until 2027
The NFL's typical lack of guaranteed contracts makes this look like a solution doesn't really fit.
4doorsmorewhores
2mo ago
Wouldn't Charli be Blossom (leader, most well known) and Chappell be Buttercup (rebellious dyke)
4doorsmorewhores
2mo ago
I can understand why you may have that impression, but I would suggest that a normal reading of this post is not complaining about the outgroup. The phrase "attached (my) own impression" is very dangerous, as a weasel phrase to me it sort of is a catch all for nearly all writing that isn't a technical drawing of a patent. The Wealth of Nations and Meditations and Persuasion are all the author's own impression. I think what I did was argue that the narrative structure of the article itself reveals something about the headspace and disposition of the author which is contrary to the apparent point being made.
Similarly, I think that a novel psychological breakdown of a historical figure through a new lens would be appropriate and engaging enough for this forum, even if all the thesis pointed to was "Yes, he is a bad guy." Perhaps you disagree.
4doorsmorewhores
2mo ago
Sorry for the 100th "Feminism is corrupting the youth" post on this website, but this short article was really something
https://www.elle.com/life-love/a62231356/best-friend-from-polyamory/
Written by a woman to extol the value of female friendship as better than the fickle and emotionally damaging heterosexual relationships to which so many of us are accustomed.
The article begins deftly (or dishonestly, depending on your disposition) with the author drizzling her thoughts and emotions onto the page after discovering her man cheating. Only after this framing of hurt emotions does she reveal that they were in an open relationship.
She reveals that after spending her 20s working in journalism she wanted to move to South America to find herself or achieve inner peace. He wanted to stay in the USA (presumably to avoid becoming a professional hobo, more on that later). As a compromise (?) he suggested they open their relationship. She agrees seemingly without objection, but adds the caveat that they share a don't ask don't tell policy.
The framing doesn't even have the sensible presentation of "I didn't want to be in an open relationship, but I was afraid of losing him and he forced me" or something, she is even convinced by progressive literature.
During my earliest weeks in Mexico, I read self-help books like Sex at Dawn and The Ethical Slut. I recited arguments in my mind about why it made perfect sense for someone you love to enjoy intimacy with others, why lifelong monogamy was an unrealistic societal expectation that bore no resemblance to our biological roots
The author further reveals not raising concerns to her boyfriend, but instead the depths of her anxiety and worry. She begins online stalking him (Obsessing might be more appropriate), checking his social media profiles for any change, and eventually finds him interacting and posting photos with the "other woman" Ari.
There are then some rah-rah girl power moments touched upon:
We discovered we both loved tuna melts and spent an afternoon procuring the fanciest loaf of bread and tinned fish we could find, laughing as we concocted absurdly extravagant sandwiches. We realized we wore the same size clothing and regularly began raiding one another’s closets.
She also has a sit down chat with Ari about her now ex boyfriend
It turned out, her connection with him had been the same as mine: passionate, volatile, unpredictable. When she’d found out how upset I had been upon learning about their relationship, she was devastated (he’d spent the summer insisting to her that I was “totally cool with everything”). They were no longer in touch, and she had no interest in ever seeing him again.
It's not laid out, but you can imagine the dialogue where they spend an afternoon talking about how terrible he was, and the psycic toll he inflicted upon the author. The phrasing “totally cool with everything” is obviously meant to remind a reader of the shitty boyfriend they had that would give half truths and lie about these types of things. However in this situation he is being truthful, as far as he knew they were in a working open relationship. I don't want to paint with too wide a brush, but it's shocking how people allow themselves to become caricatures. As far as I can tell she is fitting the crazy ex girlfriend to a tee. She was upset with their arrangement, didn't tell him about the problems she had, and then would tell anyone who will listen how about how he cheated infront of her or something, and holds him responsible for not reading her mind. From his perspective it's unlikely he did anything wrong (Deciding to open up your relationship could reasonably fit here in and of itself, but it's very likely that he and his entire social circle consider that action acceptable or even laudable), and he's presented as an abuser or liar.
The most obvious irony here is how she wrote an entire article to tell us about how the girl friendship is more meaningful than her old boyfriend and her's, but it's clear to anyone who read it that she had much more thought and feeling for Him than for Her. Even the ending misses the point:
A few years ago, on a trip to Rosarito, my ex-boyfriend texted me to say happy birthday. Ari was next to me when my phone pinged with his unexpected overture. In response, we made silly faces and snapped a selfie, devolving into a fit of giggles when I pressed “send.” I tossed my phone on the nightstand and went outside to join her in the hot tub before I could see his reply. By then, neither of us cared all that much about what he had to say.
This gets at the heart of the point I'm trying to make. The progressive argument here is one where a person enterered into a bad situation entirely of their own choosing, has deluded themselves about how they really feel, and is now lashing out at the closest "Fucking White Male." Even the pictures the editor chose oozes this belief, kitschy 1930s and 1940s domestic life shots that are often used to hint at a rebellious or sinister undertones for the women involved, is entirely contrived. The last sentence has this attempted-catharsis of silencing the man and letting the women speak (Louder for those in the back queen), but in this entire article we don't get anything from his viewpoint except for 1 sentence in scare quotes. The person calling JD Vance weird for being married with kids and a steady job is deeply unhappy, anxious, contradictory, and packed into a 13 person house in San Fransisco while they hop from job to continent to relationship. They believe that this is ideal and empowering, and something the man has done in this situation has created the ills in their life.
4doorsmorewhores
2mo ago
These arguments and ideas all stem from a very narrow view of consumer choice and individual psychology. The correct answers all lead back to my original post. People have an appetite for leisure, discretionary spending, risky behaviour, lifestyle purchases. Advertising can sway some of these choices from Coke to Pepsi on the margin, but your suggestion that there is mass trickery going on to induce people to buy something which they are otherwise averse to is an elementary and naive understanding of the power of suggestion and consumer preferences. In short, companies aren't spending all their effort to get you spending money on things which you have deemed less socially valuable, but instead to spend your money on their specific product instead of something else. You should re evaluate whether it's likely that everyone shares your value, moral, and belief system and is being tricked by advertisers to do bad things, or if your mental model of their behaviour is perhaps very flawed instead.
4doorsmorewhores
2mo ago
Think of the 99% of activities hobbies or media you have no interest in, then consider that they also hire marketing professionals, perhaps even the same ones. The suggestion that everything would be in peace and harmony without evil corporations tricking us into being fat or dumb is so childish and poorly reasoned that I'm disappointed seeing it on our humble website. People like things they are predisposed to enjoying, or which they objectively value. If the national poop-eating league was given 100 billion dollars to market, I struggle to imagine all that advertising and psychology convincing me or you to watch it. On the margin advertising is obviously effective to get people to play, attend games (both forms of participation, shockingly), buy jerseys, and the like, but your argument here is so poorly developed I struggle to engage with it. Accusing me of mistyping while spelling Reebok wrong is also funny enough that I'll point it out.
The second argument is more coherent, that even if 'sports' are naturally popular, the degree to which they are catered to or how they are played is immoral. My simple response is what I've written above, that if someone tried to open a gladiator coliseum nobody would watch it or participate in it. My simpler response is "tackling people isn't nearly as bad as killing them." The meaningful degree to consent to bodily harm is not clear for contact sports, whereas I think about almost all people would think it is clear for We who are about to die.
4doorsmorewhores
2mo ago
People get this causation backwards very frequently. The NFL isn't tricking you into arguing with people online less, or thinking that it's a spectacle, or giving you microplastics. It is downstream from the things people desire to watch and participate in. Consider that the National Lacrosse League has all of the same incentives yet you don't think of it very frequently. Maybe you think "giving viewers and participants something they yearn for" is immoral, but the intuition needs some workshopping, I would suggest focusing on the gambling arguments.
4doorsmorewhores
3mo ago
I went to Toronto in June of this year to meet my partner
makes me the only member of my family to have ever been in North America
🤨🤨🤨
Toronto is very sprawled and mediocre, despite people who live there never being willing to admit it, it's just a large Midwestern city no different than Cleveland or Indianapolis. However while I can't make any insight into whether the art community is shrinking or growing, the fact that this piece made you feel emotions, and then discuss them, is probably a victory for the artist. Consider how bland and boring most public art is:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/city-of-calgary-public-art-1.6757072
https://globalnews.ca/news/8787114/the-ring-art-place-ville-marie-esplanade/
4doorsmorewhores
3mo ago
This is so under-analyzed, I think the exact opposite could be asserted. This will force large PMC corporations to sell, as the wealth tax will be harder for them and their shareholders to deal with, as they are less liquid than Johnny P Billionaire—as the structure of their firms demands that all money be invested efficiently unlike individual billionaires— this will lower prices and allow rich individuals like Elon Musk and the like to step in and rein in control.
I don't see the use in framing common disagreements between different groups as some sort of political contradiction. Wanting more government regulation of the border or guns, but also wanting fewer EPA requirements for food or DEI requirements isn't a contradiction or a gotcha, it's a valid expression of people's political desires. Similarly, wanting healthcare but not have addictive or unnecessary procedures or medicine pushed on you is totally acceptable. I reject the notion that it's just a matter of politics as a broad claim you've made. I concede there is is a large amount of political finagling and ideology in many of these decisions (whether by doctors, congress, hospitals, the federal executive), but I also believe you could parse out 60-75% of policy as being harmful or helpful to individuals and have broad (over 75%) public agreement.
More options
Context Copy link