thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
7d ago
But it was renamed and set to private immediately after all her content was apparently removed by a mod (according to both the moderation log and the message displayed if you try to look at any of it).
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9d ago
How so? Welfare is typically defined as "financial support given to people in need" whereas pensions are paid out to those who contribute (and/or their dependents) based on their contributions.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9d ago
Why do you consider pensions to be welfare rather than compensation?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
14d ago
The hit-site is worth reading, I think, at least for young (and maybe not so young) men.
I love how many of their listed "patterns of manipulation" are just typical feminine behaviors in relationships:
- Uses self-deprecating statements, both privately and publicly, to elicit compliments and endear himself
...
- Positions himself as submissive, which has a disarming effect, and purposely creates the illusion of the interaction’s onus being on the target, as he is "helpless” against them
...
- Attempts to control other relationships in the target’s life, both romantic and aromantic; insisting he be the only man in their life, etc.
...
- Distances his targets from other women with tactics such as triangulation
...
- Punishment in the form of withheld attention/affection, often but not always when the target questions his behavior or is otherwise noncompliant
...
- Abrupt termination of relationship without communication ( ghosting)
As usual, manipulative behavior is only seen as a problem when men do it to women. Or to put it more progressively, feminine behavior in men is seen as a bad thing...
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
14d ago
It's been criticized for having amazingly poor care (what's the difference between a VA nurse and a bullet? A bullet can only kill one person), being more of a job program than a health system, at the same time some people love it (everyone involved understands the veteran experience).
One important thing to consider with the VA is that its level of care is pretty consistent over the entire country. It is "amazingly poor care" relative to many comparable institutions in some urban areas with high quality clinics and hospitals, but amazingly good care relative to what is available privately in many rural communities.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
15d ago
I don't know about your workplace, but I've never had a job where I had to prove that to HR (the rough private sector equivalent of OPM here) or shareholders (the rough private sector equivalent of the "public" here) directly. That's always been strictly between me and my direct management.
Probably the combination of being notoriously slow and requiring significantly more up-front design than other languages. EDIT: And being more associated with ivory tower academics than "hackers"...
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
18d ago
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
19d ago
Has it been formally criticized in a published source? If so, have you tried adding it to the article with the appropriate citations? I don't see any attempt in the page's history.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
19d ago
How is this evidence that Wikipedia is ideologically captured? It seems like a rather banal description of terminology with little editorialization. Is there something in particular about the article beyond its mere existence that makes you think otherwise?
In contrast, the 'Same-sex marriage' section of the 'Christian views on marriage' article seems more like evidence of ideological capture than the article you linked, as the listing out of individual denominations that recognize same-sex marriage while grouping opposition is pretty clearly an editorial decision to make the former seem more popular than the latter.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
24d ago
Even if it was true, there's the obvious fact that female people cannot forcibly penetrate other female people, impregnate them and/or infect them with STDs: only male people (regardless of how they "identify") can do that.
Two thirds of your "obvious fact" is completely false. Female people may not be able to forcibly penetrate other female people with a penis, but can easily do so with other things--even restricting yourself to body parts their fingers, fists, feet, etc work just as well. Likewise a penis is not required to transmit STDs since oral transmission is a common infection vector.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
26d ago
The people complaining about cutting USAID are not people who could take up the slack once America pulls out, because they are Americans.
Why couldn't they privately pick up the slack for the cutting of USAID? Charitable aid doesn't need to go through the government. There is nothing preventing them from raising funds themselves and providing this aid. Again it comes back to power--they don't want to bear the cost of their preferences and instead want to force others to subsidize them.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1mo ago
The fact that social embrace of homosexuality has tinged every intimate relationship between men with ‘a hint of homoeroticism’ is one of the biggest black marks against it in my view.
Homophobia is just a distraction here. The social embrace of homosexuality has little to do with this other than being a convenient way to deflect blame from those actually responsible. This is the result of the social embrace of feminism. It is the natural consequence of pushing the narrative that unwanted intimacy from a man is harmful in order to give women power over men. Society has been sexualizing ever more forms of male intimacy to allow women to claim to have been victimized by it and thus be entitled to "justice". Men naturally learn to shy away from intimacy because of this.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1mo ago
I know the general tendency but haven't seen specific examples (about specifically AI CSAM, at least).
@SteveAgain is likely referring to legal changes like this, which seem to be based on sentiments like these.
Setting up a snitch hotline for employees to inform on each other and warning that non-snitchers will be punished for failing to snitch on their colleagues
My employer's annual DEI training (required by government contracts...) for the last few years has included mandatory reporting of discrimination and harassment, with the explicit warning that witnessing such and not reporting it will result in punishment "up to and including termination". It seems more likely to me that they adopted the same reporting policy as before just with different behavior to report than that they were intending "panicked overcompliance".
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1mo ago
You start dividing humanity into 'upstanding citizens worthy of life' and 'sub-humans whose life and well-being is not worth any efforts', sooner or later someone will put you into the second category.
Homosexuals already put me in the latter category in their scramble to not suffer such a fate themselves. Why should I care if others want to toss them in the abyss with me?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1mo ago
Probably weird of me but I maintain an Excel spreadsheet of many motte regulars (their usernames , I mean) with my own notations, so I can have a clearer idea who I'm interacting with or reading.
Why a spreadsheet as opposed to just text?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1mo ago
But I have to wonder- in practice, a 50%+1 majority usually means you need to work with the opposing party at least a little bit anyways. What do democrats think they’re avoiding?
There was an elaborate power-sharing agreement put in place after the election resulted in a tie, with leadership positions held jointly by members of both parties. These leadership positions are set at the beginning of the session and remain in place for the entire session. Importantly, these positions control the agenda of the house and its committees, so the power sharing agreement effectively ensured that neither party could push out the other's agenda. That tie was disrupted by the disqualification of a DFL member, giving the GOP a temporary majority until a special election is held. The GOP is trying to take advantage of that temporary majority to appoint its members to all the leadership positions before the special election (likely) restores the tie. The DFL tried to fast-track that special election, but the courts denied it. Now they are trying to stall until the election can be held and the tie restored so the power sharing agreement would also get restored.
I'd be less critical of it if it merely ignored men. Instead it often takes blatant evidence of discrimination against men and views it as discrimination against women. Eg, consider the section on education, which says of higher education:
While women have made substantial progress in rates of enrollment in postsecondary education and represent a majority of college students, they hold two-thirds of the nation’s student debt
"Women represent a majority of college students" here is hiding a large and growing gender gap in college education going back over 40 years at this point. Worse, pointing out women hold two-third's of the nation's student debt and implying it is discriminatory against women completely hides both that women are very nearly two-thirds of college students (so it is nearly proportionate) and hides the structural issues that disproportionately prevent men from accessing student loans, most prominently being men having to sign up for selective service in order to be eligible for (note this changed very recently, with men being automatically enrolled since so many weren't doing so voluntarily...) the government subsidized loans which make up over 90% of student loan debt. This is like claiming whites were being discriminated against because they held a disproportionate amount of outstanding mortgage debt at the height of redlining.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1mo ago
Yeah, one only needs to look at the National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality to see how this would play out.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2mo ago
Oh yeah, the asteroid resistances are particularly egregious.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2mo ago
Dealing with enemies: Pre-expansion game, there were multiple viable approaches - a belt of ammo going to a bunch of turrets, a couple layers of laser turrets, a pipe to flamethrowers, or some mix thereof were all viable strategies with advantages and disadvantages. In the expansion on Gleba, though, the 80% laser / 50% physical resistance on the stompers makes the "laser turret / gun turret perimeter" approach a lot less viable. This is clearly intended to push players towards using rocket turrets in the places they're needed, but it feels like they encouraged rocket turrets by making the other options worse rather than making rocket turrets better
I think you being a bit too critical of Wube's design here. The basic gun/laser turrets will handle the initial enemies easily enough. Rockets, tesla turrets, flamethrowers, or some mix thereof (railguns too, but those are overkill...) are all viable to handle Gleba's enemies once evolution starts kicking in. Rockets can be researched and sourced entirely locally. Tesla turrets require the player to go to Fulgora, but trivialize Gleba's enemies. Flamethrowers are held back by the lack of oil production on Gleba, but Vulcanus's coal liquefaction combined with Gleba's coal synthesis make it viable. Or you can just ship the fuel in from another planet since flamethrowers are so frugal and enemy attacks so sporadic. And if you really want to keep using the basic laser/gun turrets, the infinite damage research for both keeps it viable though expensive. You can get sufficiently far into them to handle Gleba's enemies without ever leaving Nauvis since they don't require any other planet's science.
On top of that, Gleba's design encourages a different defensive strategy. On Nauvis, nearly everything produces pollution that aggros the biters, which expand aggressively and attack in large waves. This encourages players to build a defensive wall around the entire factory for the constant biter attacks to break against. In contrast, only harvesting produces pollen on Gleba, so most of your factory doesn't need to worry about attacks if you ensure enemies don't need to path through it to get to your farms. Your defenses can thus be focused around your farms with almost no defense needed for the rest of the factory beyond some artillery turrets to keep expansions from popping up too close.
Wube's design is thus pushing people to try something different, with multiple options unlocked or enhanced by visiting the other planets. You can still use the same defensive strategies you used on Nauvis, but there are better ones and the design rewards you for trying something new.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2mo ago
I think this is a rather localized phenomenon. I never see dogs* in stores where I live and, as a dog owner, the idea of wanting to take my dog with me to the store makes no sense. The only people I've met who do so seem to have picked the idea up living in the south western US (eg, CA, NV), either having grown up there or moved later in life, and people around here have no problem telling them to keep their dogs home.
*With the rare exception of seeing eye dogs and police dogs.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
2mo ago
I've only played 3, 4, and particle fleet, but I enjoyed them quite a bit. I'd agree that 3 seems to be the best of the bunch, particularly with the community maps (the CSM variants are way too addictive).
You might also check for chronic sinusitis.
More options
Context Copy link