4doorsmorewhores
No bio...
User ID: 223
4doorsmorewhores
8mo ago
What do you mean by in/voluntary invaded? Forgive me if I'm missing something but I assume that refers to immigration? But it seems to me that either way you address it it's not a voluntary invasion. If you want someone to come, it's not an invasion, since there is presumably a notion of mutual benefit. And even on the other hand, there are lots(majorities?) of people in areas that care about too-high legal and illegal immigration, they are doing something about it physically, legally, etc. So in that sense it's not a voluntary invasion either, they're doing lots to resist it. I suppose you could synthesize the ideas to the political reality that /some/ people want it, and /some/ people don't but at that point could say every time a country's ruling or military class did something in history that the majority of the middle and lower classes opposed. In that sense you could probably point to the population and cultural changes(opposed by Anglos and Saxons but not Normans?) after William the Conqueror became king of England.
4doorsmorewhores
8mo ago
I don't think that's an accurate characterization of how it was used here or how it's typically used (Which is often the inverse, e.g. 'Oh republicans want to save unborn babies? then by their logic they should also support free universal healthcare for everyone ;) ') At the very least the total population of London vs the surrounding countryside is not an apt comparison to the portion number of people in LA or Portland or wherever that practice a certain lifestyle, and is certainly not a demonstration a formal logic syllogism.
4doorsmorewhores
8mo ago
Surely you believe it's based around what the logic of the argument implies, not the structure of the argument. A structure is just how it's organized. Anyways, the comparison between London's population flows 500 years ago and the individual mating practices of the people in Scott Alexander's blog are obviously not bounded by the same arguments or logic. It's totally meaningless.
4doorsmorewhores
8mo ago
By your logic
This is usually a thought-terminating phrase and should probably be avoided here. Arguing that because someone thinks X about Y, they might also think A about B, and since you disagree with A and B, they should reject X and Y has several problems.
- There are lots of other confounding variables (In this case London in the 16th century and Polygamy in Portland) that make the comparison meaningless
- We don't know anyone's beliefs of A and B, so framing the discussion is just your opinion
- People don't reflexively have consistent opinions
- The phrase itself connotes a negative stereotype of an annoying twitter or forum arguer.
- It's easy to dismiss your parable example and is therefore unlikely to be productive (Yes, London would've been a population sink if not for factor η)
4doorsmorewhores
9mo ago
Teeth of the Tiger wasn't written by Tom Clancy, it was ghostwritten and published under his brand along with 50 other books.
4doorsmorewhores
9mo ago
I'm always disappointed by people who make these actuarial assumptions about individual people (Looking at you Robert Mugabe). Even while being fat and old, Trump has great healthcare and seems professionally active, he could easily live into the 2040s
4doorsmorewhores
10mo ago
That's why I bring up the art analogy. Obviously by and large we all recognize that lots of AI content is meaningless slop, but for all we know this guy put in a few hours of work crafting response and questions for the chatbot for this specific output. Is the post only worthwhile if it's an explanation of that process(which I recognize is very unlikely to even have occured)?
4doorsmorewhores
10mo ago
I don't understand the basis of that determination. We have lots of good comments or posts which don't provide context or an argument, but just themselves. Like this jolly little story for example: https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/e5odim/the_barbarian_and_the_711_clerk/
Would it be a problem if I painted a picture (Think like Where's Waldo not Ben Garrison) of my view of some present issue, or a song, if I didn't provide context and explanation for why I think it's interesting to have a picture instead of a comment thread? Where is the dividing line that I can intuit?
4doorsmorewhores
10mo ago
I don't think that social law is true. With the frequent siloing of groups and their members, most people won't interact with the vocal advocates, and 'most people' drive public perception. The most fervent socialist or gun-rights advocate in an American context are probably tucked away on twitter or youtube or possibly a university or thinktank, the public bases their perception I think from people like AOC or Wayne Lapierre.
4doorsmorewhores
10mo ago
Are you seriously trying to argue that nature and nurture are the same thing? Getting your legs cut off by a bear when you're 4 will also impart lifelong struggles, but you probably should not describe a mauled person's wheelchair as an intrinsic trait.
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
I don't mean to be antagonistic but I cannot understand the points you're trying to make.
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
Hard to read this post re: grammar errors but the numbers don't back what you think is happening in the market.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/QQQ
The highest QQQ ever was is 392, it's currently at 362. It's impossible to go bankrupt on this stuff
Here's Meta specifically: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META
Where are you going bankrupt and not making a comfortable profit over a 15 year period like every other investor?
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
That's just a Chappelle bit: https://youtube.com/watch?v=s5hu7o2Q62k
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
How many of us are there?
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
Yeah I would've. I love misdirection and anti-humour as much as I love making fun of ugly people.
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
🏆🏆🏆
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
I just read about a real life version of the "isn't there someone you forgot to ask?" meme. Woman finds out a guy in his 30s dated a girl 13 years younger. She writes a story with their details, except in her story the guy is a creep. And now they're making a movie based on the story.
This is the short story: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person
This is the movie trailer: https://youtube.com/watch?v=J2VukOLSxoY
And this is an essay where the girl in the relationship says the guy was great: https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/07/cat-person-kristen-roupenian-viral-story-about-me.html
Alexis, a senior in high school, briefly worked with Charles at a restaurant. She was a hostess and he was a waiter. They liked each other and texted a lot. They slowly started dating. He was the liberal type who wouldn't own a car because it was bad for the environment. He even asked for consent before he kissed her for the first time. She said he was very gentle and caring and they had lots of things in common.
The only downside of the relationship was the fact that she felt people judged her for it, and that she felt she was growing up too fast by being in love with someone so old. They eventually grew apart and broke up when she was a sophomore in college, after dating for 2 years.
A few years later, Kristen Roupenian has an "encounter" with this Charles, after which she finds out that he dated someone much younger than him. She decides to write a story that includes personal details about him and the girl, including their small hometowns, places they worked at, the place they had their first date at, the way the guy dressed and a description of his house. Except in her story the guy is a creep, bad at sex, a liar and manipulator, who becomes abusive when the girl breaks up with him.
The story goes viral during the metoo movement. Alexis and Charles find out and are weirded out. Alexis thinks the author couldn't have known so many details about her life without stalking her online. Charles said he started questioning whether he was really an asshole and would go through old texts to make sure that was not the case.
A few years later, Alexis finds out Charles died. No cause of death is mentioned, other than the fact that it was unexpected. Earlier in the essay she says he was on antidepressants, so suicide is a possibility in my opinion.
Alexis tries to contact Kristen and she responds via email with a half-assed apology in which she says she shouldn't have included some of the details. Alexis writes this essay to tell her side of the story, but it doesn't change much.
And now they are making a movie based on this story.
Also, these are the pictures of the women mentioned in this post. I will let you figure out who's who.
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
I'm not sure if you climb much, but it is absolutely not true that you can get to the same view with an easier way. We call these technical summits. Off the top of my head Cerro Torre is famous, near me is Slesse Mountain in British Columbia, in the Canadian Rockies there's Mt Louis, Mt Birdwood, Mt Alberta. etc.
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
"Arabs don't have a right to start armed conflicts" seems like quite the broad claim. Could you explain your reasoning? Did Saudi Arabia not have a right to provide aid and intelligence to fight against ISIS?
As for the treaties, that bypasses a perceived issue of state vs non-state status. Lots of the people in question aren't meaningfully bound by a treaty, because they're from a different tribe, because their tribe wasn't organized enough to sign one, etc. Is a miqmaq obligated by a treaty signed by cherokee and anishinaabe? Presumably not, based on our understanding of how these work.
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
That's what the French and Indian war was. If there had been continued resistance, terrorism, and guerrilla fighting by the Native Tribes after the 19th century. Which year would it have gone from righteous to not righteous? 1935? 1970? 2001?
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
Yeah there is, there are like 4 clinic patients that fit that type of characterization. Have you even seen House? It's unabashedly Pro Doctors Know More Than You Do What They Say.
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
I'm seeing more like 10 a month discounted to bring your own device. You presumably still want some sort of new phone every ~6?(4?8?) years, so add the extra cost in divided by that period, and the extra cost to always have the newest phone seems still fairly marginal.
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
I strongly disagree with the assertion that it's a re-framing of issues for me to say "The party will achieve these goals" in spite of your insistence that 'Some other arbitrarily-chosen goals are more important'. But fortunately for us the aforementioned convention is now over. It's also wrong to assume that the preferences of single-issue voters for example don't matter, and that a political change is only worthwhile if it's sweeping (Good the enemy of perfect etc etc). If literally the only difference between 2 major parties was the guns, that still represents the loss of lifestyle, tens of thousands of (Canadian) dollars, food procurement, etc. If only difference between the GOP and the Democrats in the USA was that the Democrats wanted to ban all cars, would you have a pithy expression for people who rejoice when they are allowed to keep them?
Anyways based on your tone I'm presuming you are preoccupied with culture war issues. In that case the CPC affirmed their intent to ban trans medical procedures for all children. Getting rid of diversity hiring practices, keeping freedom of speech. Pretty much all of the main culture war threads.
4doorsmorewhores
1yr ago
Other users feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I've found that the most economical choice is actually to buy new iPhones whenever my old contract ends. Simply because I can sell the old one for 500-900$ and use that to pay off most or all of the cost of the new phone (which is usually discounted when you sign a 2 year data contract). I have found that the resale market for 2 year old Android phones is not as active (1 exception being the Galaxy series which are typically more expensive and feature-laden than iPhones)
I'm hesitant to engage with these year old necro comments and am skeptical of any productivity, but I read slightly more of this terrible fanfiction after the original comments and am more affirmed in my criticism.
Litigating the specific fact claims back and forth are kind of meaningless, obviously either of us can easily pull up sophistries based on one weak line, a misuse of a phrase, or technical issue etc. Others have also done that well and you can read it.
The reason I dislike it is because the dialogue is wooden, cliche-ridden, hackish, frequently offputting, and the characterization is inaccurate or implausible at different times.
Many are familiar with the tropes and discussions around the phrase "The Curtains are blue" speaking to over-analysis by literary critics [or their lower-functioning cousins, proponents of 'Media Literacy'] of minute and unimportant details, and there is also push back by those who think Blue Curtains complaint style discourse is thought terminating and glosses over real meaning. But in either case that's close to the level of intro literary review you would do in an literature class, you find symbolism, explain what it means, and then maybe relate it to the pacing or tone of the story or experiences of characters themselves, some will go further and map it to the social and historical circumstances of the author to learn about what it says about 1820s Spain or Russia for example, and that follows into Death of the Author discourse which has also become more popularized. A more advanced literary review will likely move past the symbols, and try to mesh out why and where they were used to specifically understand exactly what the author was trying to say when they picked them. [Most university undergraduates will never move to this stage and beyond]. You also have some people who evade this, and are more simulationist [to borrow Pathfinder terminology] and err more on the side of explaining what would likely happen in their interesting fiction, but not trying to tell you what this means for you, albeit still likely being colored by their personal beliefs or historical circumstances [Think Brandon Sanderson's worldbuilding]. Here's Tarkovksy on Symbolism:
I apologize for that long sidebar of how I perceive the modern state of literary criticism. But amazingly the writing of this terrible piece sidesteps all levels of it entirely. The characters just speak cliched platitudes, never having any depth beyond the most cursory, nor any satisfying growth or understanding of eachother. A modern person encountering someone from middle-earth or wherever would have more preconceived notions because of our media tradition, similarly if Superman was real, people would have an easier time digesting it since we have 100 years of Superman media, as opposed to if we had none at all. The prose makes Ayn Rand look like Shakespeare. It is barely half a degree better than something like
#1: I prefer social democracy because more people can get what they want
#2: But they might want bad things. That would be bad
#1: I don't think so
More options
Context Copy link