philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
philosoraptor
5d ago
aresa
I'm sure it's a typo for "area", but in my heart you meant to write "adjacent to their own arses".
Which, you know, chair, so it's extra-appropriate.
philosoraptor
5d ago
It's usually folk-pop sort of stuff (on the average, I'm not saying it's always that, just that that's about where the "center of mass" is), played much more quietly than you're thinking, but not quite so quietly that there's no point in it being there. Same with most coffee shops, if they actually want people to sit down for a while.
philosoraptor
6d ago
That's because it is just two random English words paired together. You don't need a non-English speaker (real or imaginary) in the picture to see that. You'd never guess its meaning from the words alone if you didn't know the history and context behind them.
philosoraptor
17d ago
I think people have largely come around on Bettman. The booing is mostly a fun tradition at this point and Bettman is very much in on the joke.
In recent years my biggest issue with him is the ridiculous lengths he went to to keep the Coyotes in Arizona long after the writing was on the wall. (Especially in contrast with doing little to keep the OG Jets from moving there in the first place, albeit almost two decades earlier under quite different circumstances.) He still doesn't seem to have wholly given up on Phoenix even with the team's de facto move to SLC. (Technically it's a new franchise that just happens to have inherited all the old one's assets, but it walks and quacks in a remarkably duck-like manner.) But still... trying too hard to keep a struggling franchise where it is, possibly against the league's financial interests, hardly seems like the worst of sins, especially next to the stuff from the 90s he gets blamed for.
The going conspiracy theory of biased-looking refereeing these days seems to be that it's got something to do with sports betting, not the league itself putting its thumb on the scales.
philosoraptor
21d ago
Maybe this is a subset of your first group, but also transhumanist weirdos like Shulamith Firestone. That's what radical feminist used to mean, but like almost any term that gets politicized, it's been mangled so often so many different ways that nowadays it basically means whatever the speaker wants it to, like Carrol's Humpty Dumpty.
philosoraptor
21d ago
The Online Left seem to have missed that memo too.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
What... do you think expertise means in a logistics sense? The ability to do something with investments and time, or the ability to do something without infrastructure?
"Without infrastructure" is, in this case, more or less the definition of the task, so I don't follow your point.
Yeah, that post puzzled me too. I'm not saying the tendency he describes doesn't exist but philosophy, or at least the analytic tradition that is dominant in English-language departments, is one of the fields least guilty of it outside the hard sciences.
So it's weird the way he gives "philosophy" as his main exemplar. Like, say there was a flaw in a lot of recent American vehicles' onboard computers, and it was found to affect 17 Ford models, 14 GM ones, and 2 Chrysler ones (and an overall share of their respective sales roughly proportionate to those numbers). It's as though someone went on a big rant about that, and got a lot right, except they explicitly claimed it was mainly a Chrysler problem.
Absent the concrete examples you very reasonably asked for, I suppose the maximally charitable interpretation is that he thinks the continental tradition is all that exists.
(EDIT: First sentence of the second paragraph wasn't very accurate previously, toned it down.)
philosoraptor
3mo ago
Ranges from 5%-40% depending on school.
0% at some, for example Rice bans frats and sororities entirely. They have something sort of similar through their college system but it's far more inclusive, by design.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
Touché.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
I've alttabbed to degenerate tentacle hentai rather than let my wife notice I'm watching Tucker Carlson.
As opposed to the non-degenerate tentacle hentai preferred by polysyllabic wine-swirling sophisticates such as myself.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
Even so, wouldn't you rather have one set of bugs and security issues, or at most one per platform, than as many as there are apps (or worse, as many as there are app/platform combinations)?
philosoraptor
4mo ago
Personally, I am a huge fan of the ability to incorporate emojis in text in a manner that works across operating systems, browser, and applications.
Yes. Even if you don't like them, the genie's out of the bottle. They're going to exist no matter what any one person or organization does. Given this, surely it's better for them to be as compatible as possible. It's better for the people who like them and I don't see how it leaves the ones who don't any worse off. (Which in an odd sort of way, ties right back into the theme of the OP.)
philosoraptor
4mo ago
That sounds more like Cthulhu than the God any Christian I know seems to believe in.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
Abortion will still be a sore spot for Trump and Kamala will focus tehre
I'm not sure why it's a sore spot, but then I may not have kept up with the "debate" on that topic. Can't Trump honestly (for Trump) say something like:
"What are you talking about? I've been saying all along abortion should be left up to the states to legislate, and oh, look, now the Supreme Court says I was right all along, it should be left up to the states. Which contrary to your side's usual fear-mongering, is all the ruling says. I already won! The federal government is out of the abortion business. Don't take my word for it, ask the Supreme Court, that's the law of the land now. There's nothing either of us can do about it, even if I wanted to, which I don't!"
That's actually less exaggerated and blustery than the average policy-related thing Trump says; as far as I know it's basically true. He's probably the least anti-abortion Republican president in living memory, yet has (indirectly) given that side its biggest win of my lifetime. It seems to me neither side can attack him convincingly on this topic. What am I missing?
The main bit of pre-2E orc lore I remember was an article in Dragon on their gods, most of which later showed up in books like Monster Mythology and thus became fairly canonical, if it wasn't already. Though skewing toward the violent and warlike compared to, say, elves, theirs were varied enough that even back then it didn't really support an "Always Chaotic Evil" interpretation.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
Millions of streamers are now salivating at the prospect of commenting on a sassy black woman putting misogynist old huwhite Drumpf back in his place or glorious tangerine god emperor throwing Kamabla in a volcano of facts and logic.
Neither of these seems likely to me. Kamala doesn't seem that witty, and "facts and logic" isn't the kind of witty Trump is, even when he's on.
Look, way back in the 70s, D&D players were raising questions about the "Always Chaotic Evil" trope. Just why should every single Orc be born evil?
I don't understand why Orcs have always been the go-to example for this. First of all the "Always Chaotic Evil" terminology only goes back to 2000 and was gone again by 2009 - it originates with the 3rd Edition Monster Manual introducing a bit more nuance into alignments, with the usual alignment now preceded by "Always" (for things like demons where that alignment was part of their nature), "Usually" (where it was more a case of strong cultural associations with that alignment), or the rarely-used "Often" (like usually but the association is much weaker). I think humans got "Often True Neutral" but I can't remember another case where "Often" was used.
And Orcs were firmly in the "Usually" bucket. You even gave some of the reasons for this. All over the Internet people talk like they got tagged "Always Chaotic Evil" and it's just not true! In both editions where that terminology exists they are "Usually Chaotic Evil". The problem they are referring to (EDIT: insofar as it ever existed, which wasn't very) was already fixed in the same book that originated much of the terminology used to discuss it.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
Yeah, WC got the expression pretty much backwards, but it's an established enough part of the lingo around here that I knew what he meant right away.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
So in essence, Trump being a bullshitter is already "priced in" whereas the worry is that Walz being (possibly) much the same might not be?
philosoraptor
4mo ago
He's the bullshitter, he's the guy that has to inflate every single thing he does.
And Trump isn't?
Trump's pretty bad at debate too. People considered him to have lost most of the debates he was in.
I suspect the people who say that are missing the point, from the Trump campaign's perspective. Perceptions of how Trump does in debates seem very polarized and, even moreso than normal for such things, watching him in debates mostly seems to intensify whatever the viewer already thought about him. And, a small minority are swayed by this charisma he apparently has (which is completely invisible to me) and do switch to him. Maybe not a lot, but it seems to be a lot more than I've heard of moving in the other direction, especially post-2016. So from his perspective they do their job regardless of who the Serious People think won.
philosoraptor
5mo ago
Why not? By hypothesis, the targets of such a scheme would have to be pretty apolitical, or at least not fanatically partisan. What would make them any harder for one party to buy off than the other?
philosoraptor
5mo ago
That part is normal and (according to the red-or-darker-pill view being expressed here) even biologically imperative. Presumably the evil part is the part where (again, according to that specific view) they're prepared to dump their existing husbands on a dime for him.
I don't think I'm anywhere near to fully agreeing with this, but I have seen a lot of media geared to women that treats female cheating very casually or sometimes even as virtuous, while this is rarely the case for male cheating in media aimed at men, and it's bothered me before.
It was, but that's just it; it was controversial, as in there was genuine disagreement, as distinct from being universally condemned.
More options
Context Copy link