@Spookykou's banner p

Spookykou


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 March 08 17:24:53 UTC

				

User ID: 2245

Spookykou


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 March 08 17:24:53 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2245

I remember not too long ago, a bunch of conservatives got excited because the audience for whatever show Colbert hosts now, booed when the CNN affiliated host said something about them being impartial. It was amusing to me, because the conservatives took it to mean, even this progressive audience knows how biased (against Trump) CNN is. Of course, the reality was that they were booing CNN for being biased in favor of Trump, because this was within about a month of the debate and that was the normie progressive take, that CNN was basically in league with Trump.

Guam catching strays. Guam is way more American than Puerto Rico, hell, at least on Guam English is actually the primary language. I think Guam is at least as American as any Hawaiian island (except in a complicated pollical sense).

I thought the archetypal male fantasy was a femboy with an AK.

Some artifact of leaving the page up all night, a refresh solved it.

Totally off topic, but I am seeing this comment as 1d old and the comment it is replying to as 12h old, some sort of bug?

Can't they also criminalize it? I could have sworn it used to be a crime in a bunch of places.

As an armature artist, or hobbyist might be more accurate. AI art is vaguely depressing, I feel like my life is worse because it exists. That said, it is hard for me to call it 'evil' and I don't get overly upset about it. I used to have fun drawing everyone's characters in my D&D group. Now somebody produces AI art of all the characters and major events, within an hour of session wrap, so I don't bother to draw them anymore. I am sure the group enjoys them, they look nice, and it is not like random D&D art ever had a lot of meaning or artistic value in the first place. The group is almost certainly better off, even if I feel kinda shitty about it. Ultimately I never felt comfortable calling myself an 'artist', I have some technical ability but I never put much thought or 'soul' into my work, I thought of it more like illustration, viewed myself as more of a craftsman. Like so many craftsman before me, my craft has been automated and I have been made redundant. Life is suffering.

I guess this needs clarification, but when I said 'at the population level, at the national level' I was trying to preclude the 'literally zero' type objection. I did not assume that a 'most' was all the OP needed to fix their post, since you called it a 'zombie idiot' idea, which suggested a fair deal of distance from a directionally or mostly correct idea (which it seems to be, to me).

I would also really love an answer the question in my post. At the population level, what other cause, that does not reduce down to oppression, is an acceptable progressive explanation for why minorities do bad things? Full disclosure, I honestly don't even know what your answer could be. I literally can't think of one. My understanding is that, 'oppressive society' and 'genetics' covers 100% of the total possible causal factors for the question "why minorities do bad things", with 'oppressive society' containing all of the factors that a progressive would view as acceptable. Again, to me, the view expressed in the OP is stock standard progressive ideation presented in an unfavorable way.

Maybe this has to do with the fact that people aren't paying their rent & are scared to pay their rent & so they go out & they need to feed their child & they don't have money so... they feel like they either need to shoplift some bread or go hungry - AOC

The idea that crime is fake and that societal factors explain all observable group differences is stock standard progressive thought, actively taught in sociology departments all around the country. I was personally taught this in a university sociology class, and in a criminology class(at the same university).

I am curious, what, other than oppression, would a progressive accept as an explanation for why minorities do bad things? At the population level, at the national level, what other explanation is even compatible with progressive ideas? You could argue culture, but of course a criminal culture is a natural response to an oppressive society. You could argue socio economic factors, but again you are going to very quickly run into the root cause for those difference, oppression. When I brought up the crime-lead theory in my sociology class, my professor countered with, 'and why did certain groups have to live in the areas of high lead concentration?? tut tut tut'. It's oppression all the way down.

Sure, they might not be as frank as the original poster, but the underlying belief structure obviously leads to the same conclusion.

I feel like one of us must be WILDLY failing the ideological Turing test, for you to call this a 'zombie idiot' view.

FWIW, Gas stations suck. The ability to home charge an EV daily driver is literally the only reason I would consider getting a near term EV.

I just google Denver, CO homeless camps and got tons of articles, videos and photos of them(I suspect Denver was not always like this, my city wasn't). I then googled Denver homeless crime, and while I will admit it is very narrow in its focus, the article titled

Crime calls up 2,900% at hotel converted to homeless shelter in Denver

stood out.

The OP mentioned a car break in, so I tried to google that,

DENVER — After leading the nation in stolen vehicles, including a staggering 98 percent increase over a 5-year period the latest data show Colorado vehicle thefts dropped in 2023, a trend that has continued into the current year.

I tried to find stats on just breaking into cars to steal stuff, but all my google searches were swamped with, leading the nation in auto theft, articles (I even checked page 2)

Which is all to say, for all I know OP lives in Denver.

I think these “tribes” will turn out to be even stronger categories than politics. Harvard might skew 80-20 in terms of Democrats vs. Republicans, 90-10 in terms of liberals vs. conservatives, but maybe 99-1 in terms of Blues vs. Reds.

I have quoted the deep lore.

I think Harvard culture is basically interchangeable with Oxford culture, such that the college elite of both countries are culturally very similar. Which is why I called the political elite of the UK, blue-tribe. I see globalists multiculturalism as a pretty ubiquitous cultural affectation of western college elites.

I can admit that I might be stretching the meaning of Blue and Red too far, but I like to think that I am actually getting to the heart of the division. I think it is mostly a college/political elite vs prole/working class divide, and that this divide is very similar across all countries under US cultural hegemony and has become increasingly similar over the last fifty years or so, such that it is coherent to talk about the working class proles of the UK as being 'red tribe', and the political elite as being 'blue tribe'.

In this particular instance my position is that the blue tribe or college/political elite are generally multicultural. My read is that globalism was in full swing across basically all of the west by the 90s, such that the political elite across the west were broadly in favor of increased immigration and multiculturalism. I think if you went to the best universities in Germany, France, the UK the US in 1995 and grabbed a hundred random students from each graduating class, and asked them how they felt about multiculturalism, you would get back 80%+ favorability with little between country variation. Maybe I am wildly off base, I do not actually have a survey to back this up, it is just how I feel, having spent time in all these counties during this time period. As well as my general read on the cultural output of these counties during this time period.

Blue tribe does not cleave easily along political parties. It is the culture of the college educated elite, and generally holds across western nations. The soccer hooligan and the NASCAR redneck have more in common with each other than either does with the Yale Conservative or the Oxford Liberal, and vice versa. The college educated elite like diversity and want to live in a multicultural world, they want to go to the sushi restaurant with their black friend and watch the India vs Pakistan cricket match while drinking a microbrew. It's their culture.

Which is exactly why it does not change much with lost elections.

When it comes to women being able to open a bank account on their own, 1974 is 'shockingly recent'.

Recency is contingent on the subject.

I don't buy it.

Immigration is something the blue tribe just wants.

The blue tribe didn't start from the position of, how do we improve the economy, and then searched around and found immigration as a good policy for promoting economic growth. The blue wanted immigration and looked around for ways to justify it. Sure, they also believe the justification(trust the science), but the justifications are not to convince themselves, they are to convince those damn red-tribers.

They really want to live in a 'diverse' world, with ethnic restaurants, and friends who speak English with an accent, who have weird fun customs, different clothing, and different skin tones.

They are absolutely attached to it.

Nice hat... strikes again (the 'first graph result' link is borked)

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what physically happened. This video seems fairly clear to me, I have attempted to write out what I am seeing in this video with as little editorializing as possible.

The Pivotal Action: Watch 0.25 speed starting at 10:35

She is told to "drop the fucking pot" a couple of times, at gun point.

She puts the pot down (the things in her hands are pot holders).

She crouches on the ground.

The cops approach.

She rises suddenly, re-grabbing the pot and holding it over her head with her right arm.

The officer gets out the word 'drop' before shots are fired.

Faker for sure.

Obviously I get all my news from the most reliable sources, The Motte. So imagine my surprise when I randomly heard a news clip today and someone said MAGA, pronouncing the MA, like from the word maw, instead of mad. Before I embarrass myself in conversation, the reporter was a weirdo right, everyone says MAGA with the MA sound from mad, right?

Yeah I loved their 'house of congress' analog turning out to just be a giant pit full of spiders.

Myst is my go to example for explaining what Pixel Bitching is!

The idea behind 'superpalatable' is not necessarily that it is more unhealthy (calorie dense), but that it is more delicious, so you over eat more, or are more likely to want to eat it instead of something else(something healthier). 'Upping the game' here, means tastier sauces, better crust recipes, perfecting baking time/and delivery/heat retention, quality of cheese, cheese blends, herbs, spices. Making more palatable food does not require making it more calorie dense. Can you imagine a world where room-temperature school-cafeteria pizza is the best possible delivery pizza, and how that would effect the frequency with which you order pizza?

Although, you can almost always add calories, one of the headline changes of their 2010 recipe was an herb and garlic butter glaze on the crust.

If Trump had died, I think [Blank] would happen.

A few possible responses.

A. Trump didn't die. (breakfast anyone?)

B. [Blank] didn't happen.

C. I don't think [Blank] would happen.

D. I think that [Something else] would happen instead.

E. I agree.

If [Blank] is, [reasonable possible consequence] or [totally unreasonable consequence], does either option make B a good response?

The first two results for Counterfactual in google,

If kangaroos had no tails, they would topple over. The counterfactual is kangaroos without tails, the assumption, is that a kangaroos tails is necessary for balance and without them, kangaroos would fall over.

If Peter believed in ghosts, he would be afraid to be here. The counterfactual is Peter believing in ghosts, the assumption is that the location would be scary for a person who believes in ghosts.

In as much as a counterfactual is used in a conversation, it is to display your model of reality, for instance, your assumptions about the balance of kangaroos, or the mental states of people who believe in ghosts. The discussion that follows would either be to agree with the persons model and the extrapolations that they postulate in the counterfactual, or disagree with it, and argue for something else. Kangaroos actually only use their tails for balance when moving at speed, and so kangaroos without tails but at rest, would not topple. Peter is actually stupidly brave, so even if he believed in ghosts in this spooky location, he would not fear them. Peter's belief in ghosts does not include a belief that ghosts can harm him, so he would be interested instead of afraid.

Man I'm so fat I sweat when I eat.