BurdensomeCount
Apparently "BIPOC" is a racial slur now.
The neighborhood of Hampstead is just at present exercised with a series of events which seem to run on lines parallel to those of what was known to the writers of headlines and "The Kensington Horror," or "The Stabbing Woman," or "The Woman in Black." During the past two or three days several cases have occurred of young children straying from home or neglecting to return from their playing on the Heath. In all these cases the children were too young to give any properly intelligible account of themselves, but the consensus of their excuses is that they had been with a "bloofer lady." It has always been late in the evening when they have been missed, and on two occasions the children have not been found until early in the following morning. It is generally supposed in the neighborhood that, as the first child missed gave as his reason for being away that a "bloofer lady" had asked him to come for a walk, the others had picked up the phrase and used it as occasion served. This is the more natural as the favorite game of the little ones at present is luring each other away by wiles. A correspondent writes us that to see some of the tiny tots pretending to be the"bloofer lady" is supremely funny. Some of our caricaturists might, he says, take a lesson in the irony of grotesque by comparing the reality and the picture. It is only in accordance with general principles of human nature that the "bloofer lady" should be the popular role at these al fresco performances.
User ID: 628
I'm beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.
Based and C.S. Lewis pilled:
“I think I can understand that feeling about a housewife’s work being like that of Sisyphus. But it is surely, in reality, the most important work in the world. What do ships, railways, mines, cars, government etc exist for except that people may be fed, warmed, and safe in their own homes? As Dr Johnson said, ‘To be happy at home is the end of all human endeavour’. We wage war in order to have peace, we work in order to have leisure, we produce food in order to eat it. So your job is the one for which all others exist.” - Narnia dude.
Krystal Ball
Her name always makes my mouth curl into a slight smile whenever I see it. I mean, the memetic potential of it is next level and were I her I'd be leaning into it a lot more e.g.:
The Virgin Cassandra vs the Chad KRYSTAL BALL...
Photons have momentum. If you're collecting light that's hitting your craft always at the same angle this momentum has to be transferred somewhere, and your craft is this somewhere as there is nowhere else for it to go.
Why would you want to stop this? White people should be just as free to decide where they want to live as anyone else.
And you know what? This will only happen when California's voters are minority white (and when that happens a Prop 13 repeal will follow shortly). Older whites use their entrenched position in western countries to benefit themselves at the expense of more dynamic and younger non-white immigrants, it's a tale as old as mass immigration itself and California is no different to the other places this is happening, see how the UK is using the taxes of the young (disproportionately non-white immigrants) to pay for the social care of the old (disproportionately white "natives", especailly so because non-whites are more likely to believe in filial responsibility and take care of their parents instead of thrusting them upon the state).
Past whites brought about Prop 13, present whites are tacitly voting to continue it but fututre non-whites will be the ones who get rid of it and free California from all the deadweight loss and misery this policy causes each year.
An urban growth boundary, inside of which there is only high density development, outside of which no one may build at all.
I don't claim to want this at all. An urban growth boundary would be a terrible thing. Letting people build on farmland they own is no different to letting people build on urban land they own. You wouldn't get the Kowloon Walled city, you'd get a smooth gradient of housing densities slowly decreasing from urban centres to rural locations.
A lot of the UK's current housing problems stem from the fact that people can't build on farmland they own.
They might like their neighbourhood, but they probably like $5 million for their quarter acre a lot more. Then big developers can consolidate and build something that can house more people and sell the units for $1 million each. Everyone wins: the people who sold their house, the developers, the people who now get to live affordably in the bay area, the government (a lot more tax for them) etc. etc.
Only losers are busybodies who want to restrict what others want to do with lan they own.
New housing gets built and rich foreigners like Indians come in and pay 100k over asking
This is a signal that supply nowhere near matches the level of demand. It's a sign we need to build even more, not control building.
Hopefully the tyrants would be smart enough to not fall for that, I did say only "politically motivated" reasons which wouldn't include if one of them fell down the stairs and died and I'd hope the process which determines whether something like that is what led to the death would also be able to recognise such a situation and in this case, do the reverse (again something all the tyrants would agree to because none of them want to die to their own side either).
How could you see this and not be reactionary?
Simple, by recognising that the problem isn't Indian and Asian workers but ratherer old and retired whites who fight tooth and nail to keep property tax for themsleves much lower than what an Indian or Asian tech worker would have to pay to live in literally the same house.
Whites pay significantly more in than they take over their lifetimes
Is this before or after you include the imputed damages of tens of thousands of dollars each year they cause by hogging desirable accommodation near jobs after they retire and forcing actually productive working age people to live further away and waste time on commutes (or alternatively pay through the nose to live a pretty shitty life centrally)?
TBH I wouldn't mind an AI leader as long as it was aligned with my political beliefs. Added benefit is that you can't assassinate an AI (backups exist everywhere) so people will stop trying. Imagine a system where people elect parliment and then the parliment chooses an AI leader for the country from a set of models. What the AI says the country should do happens unless parliment overrules it with a supermajority, in which case they can elect a new model to be the leader.
Alternatively a tyranny like the thirty tyrants period of Athens is also a decent model as long as the tyrants genuinely wish to help the country instead of enriching themselves or exacting vengeance on the populace (as the real life tyrants did). Again this reduces the incentives to kill a tyrant because killing a single person doesn't change much and another tyrant can be elected very soon after. This is doubly so if the Tyrants form a pact saying they'll vote in favour of the policies of any of their fellow tyrants who was killed for politically motivated reasons (which they have an incentive to form as none of them wants to be assassinated).
Day traders being retarded again? As I recall the statistics showing, something like 95-99% of them lose money in the long term.
I consider parting fools from their money to be a service to humanity because that way they are less able to shit up the rest of society with it (e.g. imagine if we didn't just hand every impressionable 17 year old tens of thousands in student loans upon asking; the higher education system would be in a lot better shape today because the incentives wouldn't be so misaligned).
This is coarse, and based on racism. The nuanced argument is that IQ is > 50% determined by genetics, and that distributions between groups differ.
Maybe we have different methods of thinking about things but when I hear the statement
different races have different IQs
I immediately think that it's the distribution for the two things which is different, not that all people from the first group are smarter/dumber than all people from the second group. It's the same sort of statement as "men and women have different heights" and nobody sensible would ever take that to mean all men are taller than all women, they'd correctly see it as a claim about distributions. So why why should they interpret the IQ statement in this way?
She claimed that many women who responded with "bear" were victims of violent rape who literally would rather die than be raped.
In that case you can ask them the same question again but now where they have a cyanide capsule they can break at anytime to commit suicide if the man/bear starts doing bad stuff to them and they'd rather die. I don't think this would make many of these women switch from bear to man.
Eh Cathars still have a memetic presense, see how they were a pretty big story block in one of the recent MTG sets (and that card sees constructed play too, alongside a few other Cathar cards).
yaslighting
I am so so using that term from now on...
Personally I would have annexed Gaza (and the West bank too for good measure) and made everyone there a citizen. Then treat any terrorists as common criminals and punish them to the full extent of the law. This would also solve the Haredim problem in one fell swoop (or at least delay it for two generations) and crush the Israeli far right because now there are an extra two million people who'll never vote for them.
In this scenario everyone wins except for the terrorists and far right nutters; both of which are groups that deserve to have a boot stamping on their face for eternity.
Funnily enough black bears are less dangerous than your average bear while black men are more dangerous than your average man. If this leads to percentages inverting to the point more people end up choosing the man then all I can say is Lol, Lmao even.
Passing remidial statistics should be a requirement to be given the vote. If you don't understand the difference between standard deviation and variance then for the benefit of society you should be disenfranchised.
If I ever have daughters (yes yes I know, ultimate cuckoldry and all that) I hope I train them well enough that they consider a random man (statistically IQ 100 with nothing going for him) they are stuck in the forest with as an asset (and know how to utilize this asset properly) instead of a threat.
Why would changing from yourself to your daughter being in the forest change anything? The bear is far more dangerous in either case (assuming we're talking about an average male human vs average bear) and can't be reasoned with. If anything your daughter is better placed to charm the man and get him to sacrifice himself for her if needs be than you are.
On the other hand if the comparison is between a particularly dumb human vs Yogi Bear then I would go with the bear...
Gay son, not even a contest (and especially so if you have other children who can continue on the bloodline). Being gay isn't a personal or moral failing.
Don't pull the emergency lever on the MRT.
To confirm you aren't crazy: I get the bar too, although I don't mind it all that much.
More options
Context Copy link