sarker
hantavirus landfill tour guide
Suddenly I cannot remember the color of your eyes
Or the things we said as we stood together for the last time
User ID: 636
The Ptolemids seem like the closest parallel. They managed about 300 years before the Romans knocked them over and IIRC kept it, ah, in the family, so to speak.
Is London such a shithole that you run the risk of being robbed during a craigslist meet?
I'm not so post-modern to think everyone's idea of a good time has equal value.
TIL de gustibus non disputandum est is a postmodern sentiment.
Nevertheless it remains narcissistic to view his refusal to hang out with you through the lens of how it affects you.
Of course not. I will happily take them up on their offer of a quiet cocktail another night. If he asked me to game with him some night, or do a quick DnD campaign I would even though it's not my highest preference for an evening.
In all likelihood, he will never ask you to do this, though.
So if I’m in Mexico, what’s the “coolest” experience I can have on a given day with very little extra effort?
I knew a guy like this. He basically viewed doing "quirky" and "interesting" stuff like this as a way to present an interesting facade so that he'd have stuff to talk about with other people. Kind of like the guys who buy a Rolex as a "conversation starter". He was (and, I assume, still is) a total schmuck.
Anyway, point is that not everyone shares your view of what a good time is, and it's narcissistic to view this as some kind of personal sleight.
I would strongly encourage you to read this post about how Australia's laws unintentionally drove one of our posters to attempting suicide. This stuff has real consequences.
I'm sorry this happened to him but the guy sounds like a real piece of work and if I found out my buddy wrote and collected books about kids raping each other I'd never talk to him again and I surely would make sure he's never left alone with any kids. This stuff is totally fucked up and I'm pretty sure the vast, vast majority would agree with me on this whereas most people don't care about GTA.
Whether or not this requires criminal penalties is debatable, but not everything that is unacceptable should be illegal.
DnD didn't make people satanists, nor did Doom. Grand Theft Auto did not product a wave of, well, grand theft auto. Porn is blamed for lots of nasty new sexual behaviours - mostly choking - but the direct evidential link seems weak and not in the direction that is given (it's a girl-desired thing not a guy-desired thing).
Perhaps it's my viewpoint from 2026, but, none of these seem as shocking or disgusting as sexualized depictions of children. It seems obviously false that there is no media you can consume habitually that has an effect on your behavior or beliefs. Ultimately that boils down to an argument against the existence of culture.
you think 10% of Japan and many, many teenage boys who like goth loli should be literally locked in a mental home.
Japan seems like a profoundly ill society, so I'm pretty comfortable biting that bullet.
In practice, many people privately consider these arguments hackneyed and their force has been dropping through the last century
Indeed, but most people still see consuming this stuff as disgusting and at the very least indicating people who shouldn't be alone with children, even if they don't think it should be literally illegal.
That's an argument against production, not consumption. In any case, it's easy enough to come up with harms from consumption of fictionalized sexualized children (see other responses in this thread).
It's pretty normal to ban distribution or possession to prevent production - look at ivory.
I'm not familiar with countries that ban possession of ivory, although its sale is often illegal.
There's also cases of goods whose possession is legal but production and distribution is not (for example, Portuguese drug policy).
Interest in the Benin Bronzes declined considerably as it became known that they were essentially made by the worst slavers in Africa
I mean, surely people always knew that those people were slavers? It's not exactly a secret what they were up to.
The bronzes are very prominently displayed in the British Museum and Nigeria apparently wants them back. They seem fairly popular though not at an all time high of popularity. Of course, the Benin bronzes were only indirectly enabled by slaving, so it's not really the same as your other examples.
consumption of actual torture porn or gore stuff is both rare and heavily frowned upon even when that doesn't affect production.
Indeed, but the consumption of fictional sexualized depiction of minors is heavily frowned upon by the general public even though it's been normalized in certain toaster fucker parts of the internet.
Neither argument applies to fiction, though.
Sure, but there's other arguments that apply to fiction. Such as:
-
People who produce or consume fictional disgusting material may have something wrong with them and belong in an institution rather than among a community of like minded people
-
People who produce or consume fictional disgusting material may eventually move on to producing or consuming real disgusting material
Etc.
That's an argument for banning production, not distribution or possession.
Why is the line drawn at fiction?
"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.
So, you are presumably okay with people possessing and distributing actual CSAM?
Specifically, college educated womens' voting patterns (in the U.S.) vs. those of non-college educated women.
Surely you are smart enough to realize that these groups are not the same but for the college degree, or, to put it simply, that correlation does not imply causation?
I encourage you to see what Caplan writes on this in The Case Against Education. You can even feed the EPUB into your favorite LLM if you don't want to read it.
College is in my view a large part of the problem.
It's a nice thesis. It has the disadvantage of conflicting with empirical evidence, though.
That's where they get turned into lefties.
Probably not (see The Case Against Education). They were already lefties to begin with. Alexa, play the George Orwell quote.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.
now that trans people are everywhere (thanks to anti-trans activists)
Surely this can't be serious? I've worked with numerous people who went down the autistic adult male to trans woman pipeline. I doubt I would have known even a single person like this thirty years ago. Are we really to believe that this was all due to anti trans activists?
There's a brief reference to the demons having horns, but they also apparently have horned helmets which is a little strange:
Therewith stood up Lord Juss, and with him the Lord Goldry Bluszco, that went in all his war gear, his horned helm of gold
Of course, none of these special features play any role in the story, even in the wrestling match where you would expect horns would play a role. It's all very uneven.
it just doesn't do to approach it with 21th century fantasy literature expectations.
Ah, but Tolkien is firmly 20th century fantasy literature. I think even Conan the Barbarian does better with naming conventions, though perhaps largely thanks to cribbing from actual cultures.
Nevertheless I will persist.
Finished The End of Eternity. Strong ending, I think, though I would have preferred it if
Now on The Worm Ouroboros, by the man who called Tolkien a soy. I'm bewildered by the swiftly abandoned framing device, the variety of kingdoms named Impland, Demonland, Goblinland, etc all peopled by ordinary men, and the general lack of cohesion in naming conventions among things that should have some common origin. Maybe Tolkien made good naming table stakes for fantasy? it's holding my attention despite that, and the 17th century prose is very convincing.
But the King would not hear him, but said, “Methinks it is for loyal subjects to seek greatness in the greatness of their King, nor desire to shine of their own brightness. As for this Demon, when thou sayest that I have overcome him thou speakest a gross and impudent lie. In this bout I did but measure myself with him. But thereby know I of a surety that when I put forth my might he will not be able to withstand me; and all ye shall shortly behold how, as one shattereth a stalk of angelica, I will break and shatter the limbs of this Goldry Bluszco. As for thee, false friend, subtle fox, unfaithful servant, this long time am I grown weary of thee slinking up and down my palace devising darkly things I know not: thou, that art nought akin to Witchland, but an outlander, a Goblin exile, a serpent warmed in my bosom to my hurt. But these things shall have an end. When I have put down this Goldry Bluszco, then shall I have leisure to put down thee also.” And Gro bowed in sorrow of heart before the anger of the King, and held his peace.
They are already not tolerated - stalkers are explicitly violating international law.
Credit bureaus are as a rule run by the critically retarded.
You should probably just set up a recurring payment (e.g. your Internet bill) on the card.
But finance is directly responsible for issuing credit
You are aware that mortgages are propped up by Fannie and Freddie, correct?
If they provide more credit, prices will rise! They are creating money when they extend loans.
This is probably true in the narrow sense of price to income but it's not true in the sense that people care about (monthly payment to income). In either case, it's quite clear that mortgages have existed in the modern form, with some changes in interest rates within certain bounds, for nearly 100 years and can't possibly explain the housing crisis. Getting rid of mortgages would have a one time price cut and then you're back on the old trend line.
Well, you see...
When Kahane wasn’t condemning normie Zionists for having contempt for the Arabs, he liked to call them dogs. Not the most original metaphor, but vivid enough, so let’s run with it. Imagine a dog, not a Pitbull (that’s racist), but a Belgian Shepherd or similar. We observe one person who tries to reason with the dog, discusses with him the categorical imperative, and performs random unsolicited acts of kindness to appeal to its better nature. Another, swarthier person enters, perplexed at this cringe European, and pushes him to the side. He takes a good long look at the dog, walks over and kicks it square in the nuts, returning to high-five his friends. Rinse and repeat for three decades. Who is surprised that the dog is deranged?
What you do with a dog, obviously, is you train it. You don’t respond to its barks and snarls by getting down on all fours and barking back because ‘this is the yard’ and that’s what is done here. How do you train the dog? Well, go find someone who’s good at it, and ask him.
You don't have to be a pacifist just because you're not doing pointless chimpouts, is what he's trying to say.
In the Middle East, you don’t win with measured responses and restraint—you need to go berserk. To obliterate. To crush the terror.
I wish we could stop it with the "this is the middle east'. Just stop it.
The first great test of the Revisionist’s claim to understand the Arab came with the Western Wall controversy, of 1928-29. That Jews could use the area for prayer was established by long precedent, repeatedly affirmed by the Ottomans in the late 19th and early 20th century. Fanatic madman, Hajj Amin Al Husseini, was trying to use the wall as a wedge issue in his campaign to cement control over the Arab community, and, like the rightoid shithead he was, pursued a dual strategy of provoking and funding violence against Jewish worshippers, whilst also spreading rumours of Jewish intentions to take over the Temple Mount among the Arab public. The Zionist leadership was trying, with mixed success, to handle the issue through a mixture of appeals to the British administrators, and domestic and international hasbara campaigns.
That’s cucked and bugman, though, and so, tired of Jewsniping impotently from the sidelines for a year, the Revisionists decided it was time for them to step in. In order to demonstrate their enormous understanding of Arab psychology, they unveiled a truly brilliant and strategically adroit plan, so cunning in its methods and delicate in its design that it could not fail to win the day. They would - get this! - organize a gang of oafs to march to the wall and shout stuff. This would ‘assert Jewish pride’ and ‘demonstrate resolve’ and ‘show that Jews are not victims’ and other important goals of
RetardRevisionist Zionism. That it happened to be precisely what Hajj Amin Al Husseini had been trying to engineer the whole time was but a minor detail. When you truly understand that Arab mind like a Right Wing Zionist does, you don’t even have to game out his plans.
Fast forward a few months, of course, and there were riots all over Palestine, and over 100 Jews were dead, many of them murdered in appallingly bestial fashion. To cap matters off, after imposing their Iron Wall on the Arab rioters, the British authorities decided it was time to review the policy of open Jewish immigration, with the Hope Simpson Enquiry paving the road to the White Paper, and ensuring the doors of the Holy Land were slammed shut just in time for the Holocaust. Great job, knobhead. But when YOU HAVE SUCH AN INCREDIBLY GREAT GRASP OF ARAB PSYCHOLOGY, you don’t have to say sorry. You just blow up a hotel or whatever.
...
The truth is that the Middle East is a mess because it is full of people whose thought process extends to ‘but this is the Middle East’ and then respond to real or perceived disrespect by chimping out, then cry when other people chimp back. Those Middle Eastern countries that have managed to turn lemons into a measure of lemonade don’t do it by inciting their dumbest and most violent people to start provoking everyone around them. They do it by taking out Pakistani generals on loan to kill them.
- Prev
- Next

They pay sales taxes, of course. Oh, you mean income taxes? Well, 40% of American households pay $0 in income tax.
Maybe, but they are in fact required to do so, and I don't think your view would change if they did (or if they didn't have a savings account).
More options
Context Copy link