thrownaway24e89172
wrong about everything
No bio...
User ID: 1081
I think you misunderstood both my comments here. The change I was referring to was the cumulative change since 2019, of which this particular clarification is just a minor part. The "RIP TheMotte" was a tongue-in-cheek way of pointing out this "clarification" resolves an ambiguity in a direction that makes the forum less personally appealing. Not because it is a major change, but because it is indicative of the direction the wind is blowing. Which to be clear I'm not complaining about--as I said, you can't please everyone.
First: sex and sexuality topics are quintessential CW material and therefore banned from the Friday Fun Thread.
Does that apply to only explicit sexual topics, or does it include sexual innuendo as well? That is, would RoyGBivensAction's root comment be considered prohibited "sex and sexuality" under this ruling?
No, not dying. Merely evolving into something new, which inevitably involves changes some people view as a loss. It is impossible to please everyone.
Either way this appears to be a declaration of RIP TheMotte.
Is it too much to ask for hidden text privacy blocks for when you post with/about/pertaining to the sexualization of children?
Yes. This is a forum for posting controversial opinions and that includes controversial opinions that you personally find disgusting enough to warrant "privacy blocks" to avoid. The sidebar is a more than sufficient trigger warning that you may encounter such topics here.
You don't cull the horny men though--you cull the men whose social status isn't high enough to permit them to ignore the general ban on male horniness. Effectively you cull horny men who are highly conscientious and/or agreeable and select for horny men who aren't.
Do you think the human race must be non horny? Why?
Not the human race. Just the male subset. Women are allowed to be as horny as they want. Men must not act like women...
I think you are discounting how hard it is psychologically to commit suicide too much. It reads to me more like a botched attempt by someone who used escalating social bridge-burning to overcome her subconscious desire to live without actually having a thought-out plan and thus defaulted to a "Hollywood" plan when that threshold was finally reached after she murdered her kids.
A hallucination would be when the AI says there are two r's in strawberry
Strictly speaking I believe this was a translation error caused by tokenization, not a hallucination. It's like asking someone "How many strokes are in て?" and criticizing them for not recognizing you were referring to the kanji 手 when they get the "wrong" answer because 手 was translated to て before the question was presented to them.
Not to mention how many of the daycare dollars are "wasted" because the child is sick and thus forced to stay home to avoid spreading the infection, which is usually not reimbursed despite the child not being cared for by the daycare.
Do women actually take them seriously in the sense of believing them? All the women I've known that are into astrology/tarot/etc only take them seriously in the way "gamers" take video games seriously--they put in effort to do them well, but recognize it's just a form of social entertainment.
"False accusations [that result in criminal conviction] are incredibly rare." would also seem like a good analogy here.
I don't see how a lucid person could possibly do what she did without realizing that they would inevitably be ruining their own life in the process. Either her ability to think through the consequences of her actions was completely disrupted, or it was an incredibly twisted attempt at suicide-by-proxy - either way, these are the actions of someone completely off their rocker, and the subsequent suicide attempt only strengthens that impression.
Note it's not uncommon for suicidal people to intentionally ruin their life in order to ensure they have no choice but to fully commit to the suicide.
Consider a deepfake nude made of a celebrity, or fanfiction about another celebrity. Are these somehow not pornographic because the celebrities weren't consulted?
Why would they need to be consulted in these situations? Consent is only needed for their performance--if they don't perform in the media, as they don't in such fictional situations, then their consent is irrelevant.
Because of AA or because half your clientele refuse to see a male practitioner and the law neither permits you to override their bigotry nor fire the discriminated-against providers for not seeing enough patients?
Only half-assed affirmative action for men--there is little done to combat the routine sexism men face in caring fields, particularly around "vulnerable" patients. The destruction of the female-centered culture is where the affirmative action is needed, much as the primary affirmative action for women in male-dominated fields is the destruction of male-centered culture.
Iran is isolated. Iran's missile attacks on UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc.. have shown to those countries that Iran must never have nuclear weapons or missile capabilities. Iran's only constraints were lack of ability, not willingness.
I don't follow your logic here. Iran has long had the ability to launch such missile attacks on these countries. The constraint wasn't lack of ability but lack of motivation.
They are obviously bad, like child obscenity is obviously bad. Arguments that they are artistic are ridiculous and not credible.
You are sneakily building consensus here, as not everyone believes they are "obviously" bad, and claiming that those who actually do believe they are artistic are broken in some fundamental way that allows their opinions to be ignored.
Pacification of a population has many historical examples to draw on, many of which are well-known and studied. That we choose not to follow them is not due to lack of knowledge but rather due to "morality", which I put in air quotes because I'm pretty confident it is less true belief in said morality than the domestic political benefits of signaling said morality driving the decision.
we had no idea how to win the peace
We knew how to win the peace. We choose not to win the peace because doing so would require actions counter to the actual goals. Like so many political "failures" in the US, Afghanistan was just a way of siphoning tax money under the guise of "helping". Actually achieving peace would halt the gravy train and impose political costs.
No, the Army was authorized to throw money around without a competitive process. There’s the first problem.
I think there's an important distinction between the Army being authorized to throw money around without a competitive process and the Army being instructed to. I think a lot more of the blame from this lies on the civilian side than the Army side, with the latter primarily being the designated scapegoats and Army leadership accepting that designation as part of their duty.
and more chance (which is to say any chance) of a hymen.
What's so attractive about a hymen?
I really don't think this is compatible with the state of law. In the sense that I don't think it's true, because otherwise the law would use 16 instead of 18.
Isn't 16 still more common than 18 though, with the historical trend being even lower and the recent rise being due to moral concerns (ie, finger-wagging at men for liking women the wrong age)?
I don't think his main concern is justice. Consider the following two quotes from separate parts of his article (emphasis mine):
While a bit more theologically florid than any comparable beliefs ascribed to Lindsay Clancy, a similar theme has emerged in her case — Lindsay also did not go around openly announcing plans to kill her children, and the government is alleging this proves the malicious forethought of first-degree murder. But like Andrea, according to Resnick, Lindsay’s reasons for this intent-concealment were explicable per the internal logic of her psychosis. She did not want to trigger a situation whereby police, social services, or some other agency/individual would have cause to intervene and take the children away, because she believed it was her own solemn duty to protect them. And protecting them required that they be strangled to death with exercise bands.
and
Women empathize with Lindsay Clancy not because they want to "excuse" the triple homicide of her small children -- that's ridiculous -- but because she was overwhelmed and literally begging for help, telling her husband/mother/etc. she was having intrusive thoughts of harming the children, received woefully inadequate treatment that only made things worse, her mental state deteriorated even further, the tragedy happened, and now the state wants to prosecute her for first-degree murder -- as though she's Jeffrey Dahmer or something. Which is also ridiculous
So women are supporting her because she was "literally begging for help" while she was intentionally concealing her condition? She "received woefully inadequate treatment", but they conveniently leave out what "adequate" treatment would have been outside the implied "magically make her feel better without any negative trade-offs like civil commitment or other forced treatment".
He's just making heat to make heat.
- Prev
- Next

This situation involves a multi-month long pattern of content involving material tamer than exists in Hollywood comedies. If that doesn't belong in the "fun thread", then I weep for our culture.
More options
Context Copy link