non_radical_centrist
No bio...
User ID: 1327
"look at which side is more Western and choose the other one"
The Western side tends to have significant dominance in warfare so they do often go hand in hand. But I think most leftists do support Ukraine over Russia; and the ones who do support Russia are the craziest of tankies.
I think support for Palestine among non-Muslims very simply boils down to people looking at which side has more people dying, and supports the "victims".
I do think mistake theory is usually a more useful model than conflict theory, but certainly there are exceptions. Hamas being one of them- there is no possible way for the state of Israel to arrive at a win-win result with Hamas, because they value the deaths of Israelis more than they value their own lives. Very few groups are like that though, that's the exception not the rule.
I think simplicity in strategy games is vastly under rated. Game devs always want to add more, and gamers are always excited by being promised more. But in practice, even a very simple game like chess has enormous amounts of emergent complexity and new strategies being discovered. A well balanced game with straightforward but engaging skill tests is better than an unbalanced super complicated game. Because when something's complicated but unbalanced, you can often pick out one overpowered strategy that actually makes a game where you choose between dozens of options easier than one where you pick between 3 options.
I always like anthropological perspectives. Comparing and constrasting all the different communities you've been part of would be interesting.
Solar and battery technology have rapidly expanded, greatly reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
It still exists, but I think there are fewer cases that go super viral, because there are less Toxoplasma of Rage ones. The ones that went super viral were the debatable ones- usually ones where the left were going "You should believe all women!" and the right was going "Hold on, the evidence of this is entirely he said, she said", then they'd argue back and forth for weeks about which position was better. It really came down to, what % likely someone committed rape is the minimum to cancel them, although few people thought about it in probabalistic terms. The right might feel you should be at least 90% confident, the left would feel you only need to be like 20% confident(which I sympathize with- if I was an employer, I'd fire anyone who isn't a rockstar employer if I thought had a 20% chance of being that toxic. But as a member of society, I wouldn't want to imprison anyone with a 20% chance of rape).
I think it ended when Joe Biden got MeTooed with one of those accusations that had a ~20% likelihood of being true, and then all the left suddenly went "oh hold on actually we probably do need stronger evidence and cannot just Believe All Women".
There seem to be different related concepts here that can lead to different methods based on exactly what you mean by "hate". Do you want B to feel maximally unsafe, do you just want them to understand you hate them maximally without them necessarily feeling bad, do you want everyone else watching to think you just got an insane dunk off on them?
Option 1: Probably something that's toeing the line as much as possible to doxxing their information. Like replying to all their tweets with instructions on how to find a celebrity's address or something like that.
Option 2: Figure out some sort of organization that directly opposes their values, like a political thinktank/campaign or even a business they hate, and donate to them a large sum of money, then send this person a picture of the receipt
Option 3: This happens on Twitter all the time.
I think people have downgraded on how bad it will be if he does take office, but upgraded on how likely it is he'll take office, compared to 2016 and maybe even 2020
George wrote the back story for the world, and there's clearly a lot of consistent world building. It's not a very detailed plot, but there are lots of fun small details about stuff like Rot and Madness that make the world feel real.
League is majority owned by Tencent, a Chinese company, but is still thoroughly American in culture and it's developers are in California. It's really an example of the opposite phenomenon, an American game that's extremely popular in China and Korea, even more so than it's popular in the West.
Harris will show how well she can deal with a full volume Trump off-script. She doesn't have to beat him, but she has to perform in an environment and format that she is notoriously bad in. She has to put on her best performance ever for a tie. Again, woe to the campaign staff.
Trump's pretty bad at debate too. People considered him to have lost most of the debates he was in.
I think as long as Kamala keeps tacking to center she'll be fine. People are taking Trump seriously as a threat. There's little sense of "Ugh we're stuck with a centrist when we wanted Bernie" this year because no primary meant Kamala felt inevitable. That means the left wing of the party has less influence, and Kamala's free to appeal to the swing voters who really matter without risking mutiny.
But ultimately I agree, I feel like this debate will be consequential. I'm holding all my prediction market bets until the debate happens.
Interestingly there are a handful of subreddits like arr FauxMoi that can be quite large(3 mil subs!) that I get the impression are overwhelmingly female.
You also likely want to attract immigrants who are elite human capital but don't want to pay $100 000. It makes alternatives like Canada or Australia a lot more appealing for the most skilled workers if your proposal was a complete replacement instead of an augmentation.
But over all, yes, I think a pay-to-play model probably is a good idea. Maybe do it through an auction system too. Let the federal government set an exact number of immigrants it wants to let in each year, and let people bid for green cards.
Grilled cheese sandwich, sometimes with chicken, usually with some quick spices and sauces, was my go to in university.
Personally, I'm usually on instagram, twitter, substack, reddit, or reading a book on my phone. I think most of my friends are usually on reddit or instagram. Reddit is still more male coded but I have a vague sense it's become more gender neutral over the years.
I've never tried that sort of midday break. But I have noticed there have been times I've worked for hard and been unable to concentrate on activities like reading or video games, and TV is much easier to relax with until I've recovered a bit.
I expect it's both anti-nepotism and anti-tall poppy. The public sector workers don't want any coworkers to be working hard so they're revealed to be lazy/incompetent. Just busting unions I expect will have large ripple effects. And I'm still a big fan of chesterton's fence; no need to make bigger changes than necessary. Just getting rid of the unions and slowly reworking contracts is much safer than trying to jump in and firing tons of the pubic sector.
It wouldn't be a perfect system still, but the unions are the biggest barrier to improving.
Bigger budget is one incentive of managers, but they're also incentivized to do a good job to get promoted, and also most people just want to do a good job in general. Getting rid of unions will remove a lot of the worst distortions.
I think what makes this impossible is unions. If you just broke all the public sector unions, then allowed public sector managers to hire and fired as they wished without union interference, that'd solve a lot of the worst issues without even needing a business genius to step in and try to optimize.
Probably you'd want to look at the writing of black conservative intellectuals like Thomas Sowell, particularly autobiographies. Anything by someone left would be filled with blaming white people, and anything by someone white would probably be of limited trustworthiness since it'd be more speculation than true experience.
I personally wouldn't rely particularly hard on either LOTT or CNN for my news. I don't know enough about either to judge which is worse.
And CNN deserves criticism for those sorts of stories, and that's exactly why many people don't trust it anymore. The fact that society doesn't hold it against CNN means that society is making a mistake and is being too lax on CNN, not that society should be more lax on LOTT.
I haven't discussed this incident before.
There's an argument that people should only publish if multiple unrelated sources for a claim can be identified (again, ignoring Corvus in Trace's hoax), but that's not a convention we hold anyone else toward.
One source that's trusted is fine. One source who's just some random email isn't. If CNN published a controversial story, and their only source was one person who emailed in with vague details, I absolutely would consider that that was a major deriliction of journalistic duty.
That does influence it, but a lot of leftists still support Ukraine and will condemn the Uighyr genocide. Just not as loudly as they condemn Israel.
More options
Context Copy link