ulyssessword
No bio...
User ID: 308
ulyssessword
4mo ago
MASH (1970) Possibly the only time in recorded history that the TV show was actually better than the movie it spun off from.
Stargate??
ulyssessword
4mo ago
Rule Violation: Temporarily Banned for Report Abuse
You’ve been banned for three days by the Reddit admin team for violating Reddit’s rule against report abuse in the following content.
Link to where abuse occurred: https://old.reddit.com/r/me_irlgbt/comments/14krwct
Using Reddit’s reporting tools to spam, harass, bully, intimidate, abuse, or create a hostile environment is not allowed.
Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, and a big part of what makes the platform a safe space for people to express themselves and be a part of the conversation is that redditors look out for each other by reporting content and behavior that breaks the rules. Moderators and administrators rely on redditors to accurately report rule-breaking activity, so when someone uses Reddit’s reporting tools to spam or harass mods and admins, it interferes with the normal functioning of the site.
To avoid future bans, make sure you read and understand Reddit’s Content Policy, including what’s considered report abuse.
If you use Reddit with a different account and continue to take part in report abuse, or if you’re reported for any further violations of Reddit’s Content Policy after your three-day ban, additional actions including permanent banning may be taken against your account(s).
-Reddit Admin Team
This is an automated message; responses will not be received by Reddit admins.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
One of my favorite blog posts:
Since I did, in fact, study game theory, I constructed a payoff matrix in my head before the game had started. I noted that I have little chance of acquiring the gummy bears, and also little desire to do so. My real matrix was as follows: [Spoiler redacted]
ulyssessword
4mo ago
Yeah, I believe that. Furthermore, "If you disagree with our political positions, you're dead" isn't merely acceptable on reddit, it's so obviously acceptable that reporting it is abusive and I caught a tempban from the admins.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
Bud Light is a brand, not a person. Dylan Mulvaney (of Bud Light fame) had the potential to be cancelled, but as far as I can tell it didn't happen. Was there even an attempt against her?
ulyssessword
4mo ago
Right wing cancel culture is a thing-
Not much of one. If you added up the top 10 people cancelled by the Right, do you think they would reach the prominence of James Damore? Google Trends could quantify it if you want to check.
remember when homosexuality could get you canceled?
No, I literally don't. Jack Black probably does given his age, but homosexuality has been (at least) tolerable for as long as I've been politically aware (though that could be a Canadian vs. American difference).
ulyssessword
4mo ago
Watching people post these sentiments publicly online as if they are completely unaware that advocating for the assassination of your political opponents is really bad and completely unacceptable has left me amazed. How can people not realize that it's a bridge too far?
Have any of them ever seen anything be a bridge too far (to the left)? That's an honest question, because I can't think of any popular news stories where someone had their reputation damaged by too-far-left comments. Sure, a few people have been fired or harassed, but that's always painted as inappropriate backlash.
I'm not surprised at their sense of invulnerability, given the stories I've heard about.
Today, Jack Black cancelled their tour and appears to have killed the band.
As an aside, I may have found the funniest way to bypass their paywall.
It blocks half of your screen with the pester message and prevents scrolling, so simply get a bigger screen (and/or one set in portrait mode) and zoom out. Voila, you can see the entire (short) article in the unblocked half.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
I want people to know that it's possible to make fandom.com more readable than an average website. It just takes uBlock Origin and a couple dozen custom filters.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
That seems like an appropriate response to a prospective assassin. It's not like the crowd is attacking the dignity and respect that he should have.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
Interestingly, the New York Post describes the shooter as “a Chinese man.”
As of now, it is (emphasis added):
The gunman believed to have been behind the attempted assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump Saturday was shot and killed by Secret Service, sources told The Post.
The shooter, identified only as a white male, was in a sniper position located hundreds of yards away from Trump’s podium in Butler, Pa. as he spoke to a campaign crowd, sources said.
Yes, an agent(?) said the shooter was dead before they left the stage. As far as I can tell, there still hasn't been official confirmation, but anonymous officials are repeating it.
EDIT: adding more
video link, just before the shots
6:50-6:58, 7:07 Shots fired
7:32 "he's down", "Shooter's down."
I'm curious if the agents shot the would-be-assassin with that last shot. It sounded the same as the rest, but I don't think gunshots are that distinct based on angle and caliber.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
Yeah, sometimes security really is that bad.
For a less serious example, "somebody" walked into the phone store, asked for a replacement SIM for my account (providing the phone number and possibly my name, but no other information), and walked out a few minutes later with the old SIM deactivated and the new card in their possession. That person was me, but they had no way of knowing that because they never asked or checked.
I think elections should at least be protected against that level of fraud.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
...but none of the latter?
Are you sure about that? A study associating poverty, cortisol, and low muscle mass is boring, which sounds like a fatal flaw when searching for funding. Maybe we aren't seeing it because nobody has bothered to look.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate
It used to link directly to the ant page, but was updated in August 2021.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
From the article:
In particular, Gerard gradually started mentally associating LessWrong with neoreaction, though for a time he acknowledged he only saw incidental encounters between the two.
Also note that the claim is "more-or-less fabricating"
now-known neoreactionaries like hanson
Wait, what? That's news to me. Could you share a link, or perhaps a Reliable SourceTM?
ulyssessword
4mo ago
truism
Except when it means the opposite. English is great that way: https://imgur.com/2t7jXIz
ulyssessword
4mo ago
Not me, but a friend bought an Insinkerator instant hot water dispenser. It actually makes their kitchen more functional and luxurious, unlike traditional "luxuries" like stainless steel appliances and granite countertops. You can start steeping tea immediately, make instant oatmeal instantly, and cut a decent fraction of the cooking time for pasta.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
I hope they have an instant hot water dispenser.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
ulyssessword
4mo ago
Sounds like removing the headset would be the most realistically valuable thing to do in that situation. It's also a slip, mistake, or poor habit to over-rely on the headset, so it would warn you away from it.
Every objection to the headset can be countered with "but it'll do good things instead of bad!"
ulyssessword
4mo ago
Part of the problem with omniscient omnibenevolent omnipotent hypotheticals is that they have an answer to any possible objection. Maybe the headset would tell you to do some quick and effective intelligence-and-agency strengthening exercises.
Making matters worse is the fact that she never offered a post-questioning follow-up to let people know what the hell she was talking about.
I'm not sure what would lead her to do that.
My guess throughout was that she knew Kavanaugh had spoken to a specific person at that law firm, and was looking for either a denial (which she would confront with evidence to the contrary) or else confirmation (which she would use to question its propriety). She even set up her (presumptive, but not actual) followup with "So you're denying it?" at the end.
If she didn't even do a press release detailing what Kavanaugh should have answered and why the facts are damaging to him, then I don't know what her game was. Maybe Kavanaugh was on to something with "Are you thinking of a specific person?": maybe she wasn't.
EDIT: a better theory is that she was fishing for "I don't know who I spoke to about it", but Kavanaugh never gave that answer. He only said that he spoke to fellow judges, and that he didn't know who worked at the law firm. When asked if there was another way to know if he had spoken to someone at that law firm (fishing for "I spoke with some people I don't know well", maybe) he deflected back to the roster of employees.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
It was more obvious in the real one than my summary, but yes. I was quite impressed with Kavanaugh's responses.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
Kamala Harris's insane questioning of Brett Kavanaugh
Wow that's a bad clip. For those without 8:00 to spare, the summary is:
-
Harris: Have you discussed Bob Mueller and his investigation with anyone?
-
Kavanaugh: Yes, with fellow judges.
-
H: Have you discussed Bob Mueller and his investigation with anyone at [this specific law firm]?
-
K: I don't remember, but if you have something you want...
-
H: Are you certain you haven't?
-
K: Is there a person you're talking about?
-
H: It's a very direct question. [repeats it]
-
Committee Member(?): Objection, you can't expect him to know everyone who works at a specific law firm.
-
Harris: Have you ever discussed Bob Mueller or his investigation with anyone?
-
K: Of course, he was a coworker.
-
H: Have you discussed Bob Mueller or his investigation with anyone at [this specific law firm]?
-
K: I need to know who works there.
-
H: I don't think you do. You can answer it without a roster of the employees.
-
K: No, I can't, particularly when you switched from "and" to "or" after the objection.
-
H: Have you discussed Bob Mueller and his investigation with anyone at [this specific law firm]?
-
K: I don't remember.
-
H: So you're denying it? I'll move on, clearly you won't answer the question.
If anything, I'm being charitable to Harris. I cut out a bunch of repetitions, insinuations, and opportunities to clarify. (I also cut out some misconduct from the crowd and quibbling by one of her allies(?) because that's not her fault.)
A felony is words on a page. I don't let the Word of God bypass my moral reasoning (I'm not a very good Catholic), and I definitely won't let the US Criminal Code bypass it either.
Let me turn the question back on you: If/when Trump successfully appeals that verdict, will your moral judgment change? He literally would not be a felon, and you are placing a lot of importance on that. Assuming that his felony-free status wouldn't change your mind, why would you think that his felony-convicted status would change anyone else's?
For a lighter story about how the law can be misaligned with morality, see this article:
There's a certain debate strategy that gets on my nerves. I'm sure there's a formal term for it, but I call it a "prohibition on reason".
I see it here, with "felon = evil". I saw it during the pandemic, where public health measures were treated the same as risk factors ("The virus knows if you're sitting or standing, so it's only safe to sit unmasked in a restaurant"). I saw it in cancellation campaigns where an activist NGO is treated as infallible ("The 'okay' handsign is a white supremacist dogwhistle. The trucker should be fired.")
More options
Context Copy link