Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
No bio...
User ID: 314
And, btw, yes, I am aware that the gap is a result of different choices and tradeoffs, but I am also aware that those choices and tradeoffs are the result of constraints, some of which are socially imposed and can change. Once upon a time, for example, almost no women chose to go to medical or law school, perhaps because when my aunt graduated law school as one of two women in her class, she was only offered jobs as a legal secretary. Now, women make up the majority of medical and law students,
Ah, I basically assume that changing that dynamic is vanishingly unlikely. In the most egalitarian nations, it's more extreme. And those lady doctors go on to become pediatricians and marry surgeons who double their salary; I'm guessing there's a similar dynamic for lawyers. The core thing you would need to change is "women prefer men who out-earn them" with a secondary "men don't care much about how much women earn". You'd also have to equalize out how much of a working lifetime men and women take off to raise children. I am skeptical that those things are amenable to social constraints, which makes it a very silly line of speculation.
"communistic* equal income distribution
I meant it as a catch all for economic systems where income/rewards are totally untethered to chosen behaviors like hours worked, risk undertaken, etc.
I thought almost all the supporting cast walked a fine line between hammy and caricature and playing it straight that really worked for that kind of absurdist dark comedy. The only real exception was Alexis Louder, but her character was closer to being the straight man contrast to everyone else.
Are you arguing for a communistic equal income distribution or full replacement of wages with UBI? I am deeply skeptical that you're unaware of the reality of the wage gap, namely that it's overwhelmingly a result of different choice and tradeoffs between men and women.
As a counterpoint to the lackluster movie reviewed just below, Violent Night was surprisingly good. I took the kids to see it as their first R-rated movie, and we ended up liking it so much I bought it On Demand, and watched it another half dozen times over the holidays.
The movie itself is like a tongue-in-cheek mashup of Die Hard, Home Alone and Bad Santa. It was the best execution of a dumb concept I can think of. The script was surprisingly tight, and basically everyone on screen went above and beyond with the material they had to work with, especially David Harbour and John Leguizamo.
Any recommendations for a handgun training program or resources? Now that ammo prices are less insane, I'd like to more properly develop the skill.
On a related note, I've had employees at the range tell me I'm "good for a beginner, could be very good with practice". The cynic in me says this is a naked effort to get me to come spend more money, while the compliment-starved male in me wants to bask in the praise. How common is that sort of fluffing, do you think?
On a different note, I have ended up in possession of a neat inheritance of classic firearms, including some 19th century antiques. I'd like to get them cleaned up into display pieces, but formal ownership of the items is basically a gentlemen's agreement, and some of the other men in the family have expressed some vague concerns about getting ripped off or screwed over. Any suggestions for finding a reputable antique restoration gunsmith? I'd ask at the range, I feel like I'm on good terms with the owners... but they're all cops and a libertarian part of me flinches at rolling up and announcing I have a bunch of unlicensed guns of dubious legal provision in the trunk. Any insight on the legal side of that? If it matters, they belonged to my grandfather, who died unexpectedly young, so no will.
And on a geekier note, this is an Ares Predator from Shadowrun. If someone (me) wanted to have something customized to look like that, full form-over-function, what starting base would you recommend? Supposedly, the design was inspired by the gun from Robocop, which is a modified Beretta 92fs, but that's closer to what Shadowrun would consider a "light" pistol, as opposed to the Predator as the mechanical king of the heavies.
More personally, what do you use as your competition guns, and why did you pick them? Is that different from your EDC?
Nah, we just like side-strange. It's fun to cheat on American politics with German or Finnish politics for a fling or ons.
Wordlessly and thanklessly picking up after toddlers is what adults do. If this is actually Extremely Dangerous To Our Democracy, then suck it up and throw a few votes to McCarthy to end the circus and move things along. Crying and caterwauling about how the situation is so bad, but you refuse to do anything about it is the behavior of a shitty 10 year old.
I know Waffle House has the reputation for violence, but it's generally comparable to a Denny's or an IHOP, right?
There were a couple culture war flashpoints over racially disparate impact from non-vaxxed bans. For example, in DC they tried to ban unvaxxed kids from going to school, and people were pointing out that this was banning half the black kids in the city. Not really sure how that one shook out.
World Star Hip Hop is a video posting site that was open to crazy videos of real life violence. It became a meme, and many videos would feature people recording a fight or whatever while shouting "World Star!", because obviously that's where the footage would end up.
99% of the time when I see someone described as "fierce", I think it's vapid, participation trophy bullshit. But it fits in that brief clip of the Waffle House girl, and it is incredibly appealing. Like some instinct is recognizing that this Valkyrie would defend the children against all comers.
They would either ban or coopt a subreddit dedicated to crime in general if it didn’t aggressively moderate to wokewash racial crime rates.
Opponents note that lots of murders happened in red-tribe areas, rather than just the cities, and did not correlate with defunding.
That's a pretty bad cite. Most of the sub-cites are pay-walled, but I'd seen the NYT one with the city-to-city comparisons before and it was bullshit. Their list of cities was "arbitrary"; no real rhyme or reason, but it included cherry-picked tier-3 cities with Republican mayors just so they could play dishonest games with percentages (This small R city went from 4 murders to 8. That's a 100% increase! Much worse than D megacity that went from 500 to 800, which is only 60%.). I ended up just taking the wiki list of top 50 cities in the US and looking at the before and after murder count for the Republican and Democrat mayored cities. R cities definitely had a large increase, but it was still significantly smaller than the D increase.
Then the first article that isn't paywalled keeps trying to compare San Francisco to Jacksonville. The degree of point-missing is almost an art. They take a rich, white city criticized for the crimes/ills of drugs, homelessness, shoplifting and burglary, with a dash of random hate crimes against Asians for seasoning, and compare it to a much blacker city, and act like it some sort of gotcha that one has a higher murder rate. Same deal with the comparisons of states. All those "Red" states are also the ones with much higher rates of black people. And when the claim in question is something like "Racial(ist) backlash against policing of black people has increased the costs and reduced the incentive for policing black people, and this has resulted in a bloodbath", it's hard to imagine this coming from a place with any good faith.
Or maybe the reliably left-wing, pro-police reform Brennan Center is just trying to deflect blame for their own promoting of this exact situation.
It's the trope codifier of the father figure as a completely retarded and negligent/malevolent manchild, with just enough of a veneer of a lesson learned at the end of the episode to avoid outright parody.
Has anyone heard any competing theories?
I know there's a joke here. Best I've got is "side tussle".
People are exppsed to that elsewhere too but arent turning progressive.
Remember when countries with no black people were having BLM protests?
It seems more likely that "conservatives" have shat the bed spectacularly in both the US and UK, allowing for this memetic takeover.
To an extent, yes. But another part is the defection from classical liberal norms from progressives. In retrospect, conservatives do rather look like clowns for not banning leftists from the universities and Hollywood, don't they?
The skin-in-the-game element seems obviously a factor. But there's another major one in play, and that's the sheer memetic dominance the left is throwing around. I occasionally check /all as a guilty pleasure, and I aggressively prune it. The second time I see some dumbfuck political crap (do I even have to specify that it's progressive crap?) I filter out the subreddit. 50+ subs filtered out, and the other day still had the front page with 5/25 posts that were just random, content-free slams against conservatives. Most media, most news, most of academia are in the "fish doesn't realize it's wet" phase. I'm an older Millennial, and my cohort has a sense that old people just sit and wat FAUX NEWS all day, but the awful truth is that most of us are trapped in a comparable echo chamber with a flipped valence and a bigger aquarium tank. Reddit, twitter, netflix, Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, etc. It's just in the atmosphere. You pick up progressivism via osmosis.
So we have people who are having fewer of those conservative-making experiences (being responsible for stuff) while being bombarded with unprecedented amounts and degrees and styles of propaganda. And every person who might start to have a moment of awareness that maybe this nice sounding idea is actually kind of impractical has fewer real life friends and family to discuss it with (especially older ones!). And when they turn to the internet, they either get sucked into a redpill community or face a torrent of SMALL DICK NO BITCHES conformity-policing and flinch.
But I find it literally incomprehensible how you can look at those people and not realize immediately that they're running a scam. And it's not even like there's a "Well, yeah, they're terrible but think about the Supreme Court picks." argument to be made, they're just going to take your money and you'll still be a loser that wants to be like them and defends them when they say stupid shit...
This is a fully general criticism of parasocial relationships. I know a young man who I often overhear listening to these sorts of social media videos. The usual format seems to be a Red Pill Guru type dispensing cynical reductionism (that makes a lot of evo-psych style sense), usually with some clueless man or woman getting "schooled" in either a hostile or humble manner as a foil. The appeal is the impression of being in on non-obvious lore and understanding, and of flexing that superiority over others in a way that forces them to acknowledge it.
It's basically just The Daily Show with less obfuscated and more direct sales scams advertising revenue.
This is the most savage thing I've ever seen you say and I am very proud.
He was apparently "caught" because he started a Twitter feud with Greta Thunberg, during which he posted a video that had a shot of a pizza box that supposedly confirmed his presence in Romania, and the Romanian police arrested him within 30 minutes. That seems... implausible? Like, you needed the confirmation of the pizza box, but knew his exact location within the country well enough to nail him that quickly? OTOH, this all provides further evidence of my Dankest Timeline Hypothesis. Expect one more bit of absurdity before 2022 slips away.
Any tips on how to avoid pointless internet debating?
"Disable inbox replies" and a firm sense of haughty superiority.
I think you could address all of these at once by quitting your job and becoming a full time "Guy who wants to fist fight Andrew Tate" influencer.
Sorry for the "argument in depth" nit-picking, but I think we should be cautious about that stat on "agreements". Much more so than regular contracts, family court has a lot of room for coercive behavior that won't show up in a court record. "If we have to go to court, I'll say you hit me." All the "children need their mother" social bullying. The dynamic where the parent who works less handles more of the scheduling for things like playdates and doctors appointments. I know of one example where the wife only filed for divorce after a year long campaign of meticulous planning and coordination so she could drop a Tunguska-tier mindfuck on the guy and get away with everything while he was reeling in the psychological wreckage. That one would count as an "agreement" in the stats.
I suspect the number for "percent who feel like they came to a mutually fair deal" would be lower.
More options
Context Copy link