site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 235134 results for

domain:cspicenter.com

But can you eat any man opposed to Jackson?

I thought about posting this last night in response to the question about the new NFL kickoff rules, but since that thread is a bit stale I'm posting it here today. First, the new kickoff rules are dumb. There are more returns, but it seems like all these returns end up at the 30 yard line anyway, so there's no point in not kicking it out of the end zone. If we want to "fix" kickoffs, here's my proposal: At the beginning of the 1st and 3rd quarters, the receiving team simply takes the ball at their own 25. Onside kicks are rare enough in these situations that little is lost by eliminating them. We move touchbacks back to the 20 where they belong. After a touchdown the scoring team kicks from their own 40, practically guaranteeing a touchback. After a field goal, though, they have to kick from their own 25, pretty much guaranteeing a return and pretty good field position to the returning team. The obvious positive consequences are fewer field goals and more 4th down conversion attempts. But the real benefit is less obvious: More situations for mentally overwhelmed coaches to fuck things up in comedic fashion.

Consider the following situation: The Steelers are trailing the Chargers by 4 points on Sunday with 7 minutes remaining in the game. After a third down pass that ends up short of the sticks after the receiver inexplicably runs backwards after catching the ball, the Steelers are 4th and 3 at the Chargers 22 yard line? If the Steelers kick the field goal, they're still down a point and give LA excellent field position to finish off the game. If they score a touchdown, they have the lead and LA will almost certainly have to start the ensuing comeback drive from their own 20.

So what does Mike Tomlin do in this situation? First he wastes a timeout unsuccessfully challenging the spot of the ball. Then he wastes another timeout so he can think about the decision. Then he kicks the field goal anyway, because of course Mike Tomlin was going to kick the field goal. Then the Chargers start the ensuing drive at their own 40, but the Steelers defense forces a 3 and out. The Steelers then take over deep in their own territory and begin to quickly march down the field, only for time to expire before they can get into field goal range because they were out of timeouts (they wasted their other timeout to avoid a delay of game penalty on first down early in the third quarter). Then I get to listen to yinzer heads explode on talk radio the next day because they totally would have scored a touchdown if they had had Justin Fields run a keeper / given the ball to Jaylen Warren / run some other dumb play that probably wouldn't have worked. At no point would the poor clock management come up.

I love the Steelers, but I must admit that the inevitable meltdowns make losing almost as good as winning.

for those oppressed by the principles of masculine competitive society

Fucking academics. Saying "men who are getting off using the mental/sexual pathways that [normal] women use to get off with, by projecting themselves onto the self-insert female character just like everyone who read 50 Shades does, maybe because a thing or combination of things in their brains makes that the more attractive option" doesn't need to be this hard.

But then again I'm also of the opinion that the real reason we don't have an accurate taxonomy of sexual behaviors is that we don't have the language to express them, they're all defined by their [statistical] normal distribution anyway, and then people just take language not meant for them and wield it as a weapon so maybe it's pointless anyway.

I bought and used one for months before my teammates staged an intervention.

Remember how previously, 58% of polled teamster union members had favored Trump?

Well, it turns out that the Harris campaign managed to convince almost 77% of the union members:

A million of the 1.3 million members of the Teamsters union have now endorsed Harris, according to Harris spokesperson Lauren Hitt, despite the union’s executive board’s decision not to endorse a candidate for the first time in decades yesterday.

Of course, this is very likely not what happened. What likely happened is that subsections of the teamster union which represent a total of 1M members have endorsed Harris.

There are spins, and there are lies. This seems to be an outright lie. If you make a claim about a decision being made by n people, this means that there were n instances of a person making that decision. In reality, you have a decision made by a handful of people on behalf of 1M people. Even if Union membership contains a terrible clause where members grant their leadership to endorse candidates on their personal behalf (as in Leader: "Union Member J. Random has decided to endorse candidate X"), that arrangement would be so surprising that it should not be reported as "1M union members decided to endorse X". Then preferred phrasing given what we know of the polling tendencies would be "Union members who claim to speak for 1M members have endorsed X".

The alternative is to classify sentences like "In 1939, 80 million Germans decided to have the Wehrmacht invade Poland" as true. With this interpretation, the Nuremberg trials would have had a lot more defendants.

And for the Guardian it was not enough to uncritically repeat the claim by the Harris campaign, they even had to top it with that highly misleading statement that the union bosses had previously decided not to endorse a candidate. In that context, this would be parsed as "Despite being favored by 77% of the union members, Kamala Harris, champion of the people was not endorsed by evil MAGA-favoring union bosses who are out of touch with their base."

From what I have read on the motte, the better paraphrasing of the situation would be: "Due to a majority of their base favoring Trump, Democrat-leaning union executives declined to endorse any candidate rather than having to follow their members into endorsing Trump. Later, subgroups of the union representing 77% of the members decided to endorse Trump, likely contrary to the majority opinion of their bases."

I would not vote for Trump if I was an US citizen, but I find this behavior by the Harris campaign and the media disgusting.

Of course, that leaning on on the union bosses and then telling the lie about 1M endorsements is very unlikely to even matter at all. The only people who might care are the 14M union members, perhaps 10% of the voters. About 13M of them will not care very much whom some other union endorses. The 1.3M teamsters who might care a bit more will have a much clearer picture what is happening between base and leadership than I could ever have from the far side of the pond. "Hey, Bob, Joe, listen up. Our Union just decided that we and 999997 other Teamsters are in fact endorsing Harris, so take off your MAGA caps and vote for her."

Too much wasted space while the houses are tiny. The road between the houses is bigger than the houses themselves, and double-wide driveways are hideous.

I would do the following:

  • slim down the road as much as possible (one-way, pedestrians have priority, no setbacks etc)
  • somehow classify on-street parking as off-street parking, then each lot will have three parking spaces
  • if that's not possible, turn setbacks into driveways (6m/20ft deep setbacks)
  • make the houses as wide as the fire safety code allows and as shallow as necessary, aiming at 33sqm/330sqft per occupant

The sheer gall of the authors calling their American building/zoning codes international will never cease to inflame me.

The way he said it is guaranteed to upset both sides (which is why it's so hilarious), but the basic truth behind it is undeniable.

Huh? Why is it guaranteed to upset both sides? It seems obviously directionally correct to me (I'd nitpick that femininity is more prominent than masculinity rather than being hyper-feminine, which implies the near absence of masculinity to me) from the lolicon side and I have pointed to research supporting much the same conclusion in the past:

Recall Kinsella's suggestion that lolicon be understood as men performing the shōjo to come to terms with an unstable gender identity (Kinsella 2006: 81-83). If being a man ceases to promise power, potency and pleasure, it is no longer the privileged subject position. Akagi explains that lolicon is a form of self-expression for those oppressed by the principles of masculine competitive society (Akagi 1993: 232).32 Lolicon is a rejection of the need to establish oneself as masculine and an identification with the "kindness and love" of the shōjo (Akagi 1993: 233). This interpretation reverses the standard understanding of lolicon as an expression of masculinity to one of femininity. This is, of course, not the only way to approach the wide range of lolicon images, but it certainly highlights the complexity of "pornographic content" and its uses.

What's there to be upset over?

Numpads are overrated. I won a nickel in a bet with a coworker that I could type numbers faster without. I love my keyboard.io model 100 split ortholinear walnut thumbcluster keyboard

There apparently existed some group of people who used that term once upon a time, and maybe you can still find one or another stray adherent, but it's not clear why it would even still be popular given that the typical SJW is hustling for a seat at the table of the megacorps and passive-income fatcats.

As I said in my reply to OP, the term “cultural Marxist” refers to a specific umbrella of ideas, originated and promulgated by individuals who explicitly self-identified as Marxists, and who applied Marxist analysis and praxis to issues of cultural/social inequality. These people mostly called, and still do call, themselves critical theorists. Do you agree that this is a discrete and identifiable phenomenon or not? If you do, what is the point of quibbling about the term “Cultural Marxism”? Your concern clearly isn’t that you don’t want to use an exonym for this group, because you yourself call them “SJWs” and “the Social Justice crowd” - terms that these people clearly do not use amongst themselves.

but it's not clear why it would even still be popular given that the typical SJW is hustling for a seat at the table of the megacorps and passive-income fatcats.

Marx himself made it very clear that he believed that capitalism was a necessary step on the way to communism. One of the first major wrinkles in Marxism that caused a lot of consternation and soul-searching in the movement is the fact that the only country where communism had securely taken hold before WWII was Russia - at the time a non-industrialized semi-feudal state that had not yet undergone most of the preliminary steps that would have allowed capitalism to first take root and then expose its own contradictions. Marx himself expected communism to flourish first in countries like the UK and Germany, where the Industrial Revolution was the most pervasive and capitalism strongest.

Modern Marxists have developed corporatist theories of how 21st-century Marxism will necessarily be achieved. They’ve given up on the short-term goal of expropriating industrialists and shifted their focus to working within the existing framework of monopoly capitalism; many of them welcome a paradigm in which megacorps crush smaller companies and centralize the means of production among an ever-smaller group of nearly state-adjacent entities, because it makes it that much easier to infiltrate those organizations and direct them toward ideological ends. Public-private partnerships are the new Marxist paradigm.

Someone who doesn't identify as a Marxist can't be a Cultural Marxist, any more than a folk music fan who is not into metal music or culture can be a folk metal fan. What you are doing amounts to relabelling all folk music fans as folk metallers, because you hate both metal and folk music and during the most recent resurgence of folk music there happened to be a group of metalheads who got into it.

Again, have you actually read any of the works of the figures I and others are identifying as Cultural Marxists? If you were to read their works and see that they do actually identify as Marxists, and offer sophisticated explanations of how their work furthers Marxist ends, would that change your mind?

I use Unicomp, but it's the mother of all clicky keyboards.

[comic sans]UAP DISCLOSURE UPDATES[/comic sans]

A little over a year after the landmark UAP hearings with David Grusch that took place in the US House of Representatives, both chambers of Congress are gearing up to have additional new UAP hearings within the coming months. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's office confirmed that the Senate Armed Services Committee is planning on having a public hearing after the November elections which will focus on the progress in UAP analysis made by AARO, the official "UFO office" in the Pentagon. Rep. Nancy Mace further confirmed that the House will have its own public hearing on November 13th.

Would be nice if they had something concrete planned. Maybe we'll finally see that stunning photo that Matt Gaetz mentioned last year? Or at least some new witnesses coming forward.

Thank you, that makes sense. It seems like the cultural Marxist in your example might be exaggerating the concerns of the parents whereas the traditionalist might be restraining the autonomy of the woman.

I've never quite got the appeal of deep mechanical gaming keyboards for work. I prefer something my fingers will fly over, not sink into.

As such, I like the thin aluminum Apple ones, or similar in office. I still use a thick one for gaming though. Feels more secure in WSAD-position.

Who are "they"? The vast majority of people you seek to describe as "Cultural Marxists" do not use that terminology for themselves. There apparently existed some group of people who used that term once upon a time, and maybe you can still find one or another stray adherent, but it's not clear why it would even still be popular given that the typical SJW is hustling for a seat at the table of the megacorps and passive-income fatcats.

The definitions are not that hard.

  • Marxists are adherents of Marx's theories and visions for society and economics, who believe that the principal division in society is between people who own property that generates value and those who have to sell their labour to provide for themselves, and it is inevitable that the latter will rise up and bring about a new form of society where the former mode of existence is impossible and the latter retain control over the property complement that is needed to convert their labour into value.

  • "Cultural Marxists" are not really a thing anymore; to the extent to which people identified with this, this can be compared to the tendency of metal music fans to create new "types of metal" whenever they stumble upon a non-metal music genre that they like, so folk music as enjoyed by the metal community is "folk metal", J-pop enjoyed by Metal fans is "kawaii metal" and so on. "Cultural Marxism" is a label that emerges when people whose identity revolves around being "Marxist" discover their interest in culture warring, and have to lay claim to still being part of their old community.

  • The people currently controlling culture in the US and its vassals can be called SJWs, Wokeists or the Awokened or whatever you prefer. I found that in my life calling them "the Social Justice crowd" is specific and inoffensive enough that it gets the point across without eliciting backlash.

Someone who doesn't identify as a Marxist can't be a Cultural Marxist, any more than a folk music fan who is not into metal music or culture can be a folk metal fan. What you are doing amounts to relabelling all folk music fans as folk metallers, because you hate both metal and folk music and during the most recent resurgence of folk music there happened to be a group of metalheads who got into it.

Endorsed -- be aware that everyone in Canada (other than people from Toronto, who will smugly inform you that 'it's a World Class City') has felt the same way since roughly 1965:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=-4x54lnkCMw

It's not clear whether it's illegal in the strict formalist sense.

It probably isn't, but as you observed, you can be denied a security clearance for behavior that is not illegal. For example, smoking weed in a state where it's legal (granted, that is still federally illegal), or having too many foreign contacts, or having financial problems or a gambling habit.

It used to be, of course, that homosexuality was grounds for denying a security clearance. The reasoning was that it "made you vulnerable to extortion," but even an out and proud homosexual would be judged unsuitable. Homosexuality is now a protected class, but being a furry hentai aficionado is not (yet).

So yeah, looking at underage hentai, even if they are 1000-year-old vampires, is probably legal but still likely gonna get you flagged as "deviant with lack of impulse control and judgement" by a background investigator. (I too have questions about "intent to continue doing so" - who actually tells the humorless polygrapher who's about to torpedo your career, "Yes, I totally intend to keep doing this"? But then I have watched a lot of police bodycam and predcatcher YouTube, and the things people will admit to on camera is amazing, so...)

The thing you are missing here is that it's 'CULTURAL Marxism', not 'cultural MARXISM' -- the Marxism is secondary but still important. We could draw an analogy with 'football'. Everyone agrees that 'AMERICAN football' is descended from and related to ROtW 'FOOTBALL' in important ways, but the 'American' modifier indicates that it is a different thing. In almost every way! An alien watching the two sports would be unlikely to notice very many parallels other than the most banal. ('played on grass or grass-like field with inflatable object' is about as far as I can get)

Similarly, Cultural Marxism was invented by Marxists working on a Marxist playing field, but they changed the rules in order to apply some (core) Marxist concepts (eg. class conflict) to the cultural playing field. Marx did not really do this, and is not around to say what he thinks about it -- but it still relies heavily on his ideas and suffers many of the same flaws. Same playing field, new ball, if you will.

For my personal use, I use the GMMK. Unfortunately Glorious caught the stupid and stopped selling full size keyboards, so you would have to get one secondhand. For work I use a Keychron K10, which is also pretty good. I prefer brown switches myself, but the GMMK is customizable and I believe the K10 is too.

Yeah, and it's not necessarily a completely overlapping set of circles -- there's a lot more security clearance red flags in totally-legal levels of financial mismanagement than in getting in an ill-advised fistfight. A clearance isn't an official designation that you're a good person, or even a completely trustworthy one, so much as trying to hedge off certain security risks. As I said, I'm not sure the clearance determination here is wrong.

But the heuristics are wonky, here. I'm sure mine aren't representative, but it's hard to name ones that are compatible with what we do.

A triumph for the substance-free politics of vague cultural signalling, unfortunately. Harris still supports the centrepieces of the Democratic pro-labor agenda such as the PRO Act, but because she doesn't give the right cultural signals a portion of the membership turns on her. Ridiculous.

how is furry masculine, how is dubious anime porn feminine?

Look at the faces.

Furry [well, unless it's actively trying to avoid this... and ends up looking like a girl/boy in a onesie] is typically so far divorced from facial neoteny it might as well be bara. Anime characters, by contrast, tend to have round faces and large eyes- emphasis is on soft/round/cute/happy, not hard/angular/ugly/angry.

(Western animation tends to have a mix of both- the largest exception to that was, of course, My Little Pony (specifically Gen 4), and now you know why 4chan liked it so much.)

Mind you, this is just the broad strokes of it- it's a lot more detailed (and honestly, a lot more normal) than I make it out to be- but these are the broad strokes as they relate to the people who are most taken by that stimulus.

Promoting a single unified culture has been a part of every national movement since the Greeks and Romans. Calling “treat everyone in society as legal equals and insist on a unified culture” is a concept that would be as close to universal as can be. The Romans insisted on the unification of their territory into being Roman. Major business and cultural exchanges were in Greek or Latin. If you wanted to be an elite, you better learn to speak the language. It was the same with unification of various countries in Europe— the French promoted Frenchness, the British promoted Britishness, the Russians promoted Russian culture. Peter the Great was not Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. He was a Russian Czar promoting the culture of Russia.

I think as far as people suddenly becoming “strangers in their own land”, again, this isn’t some weird new idea that nobody ever thought about until Marx came along. There have always been subcultures and ethnic groups on the outs in any given society. It’s how a unified culture tends to work, you go along with the culture or you are at least somewhat on the outside. I and my near kin would be on the outs in lots of cultures. The Chinese are not going to look kindly on a bunch of white Americans suddenly showing up in their country, nor would they tolerate a situation in which such groups demand infinite carve outs for their particular cultural preferences. I don’t think that legally forbidding someone to practice a religion makes sense, but that doesn’t mean that it should be perfectly legal to do things that the rest of society finds abhorrent in public under the guise of “my religion or culture.”

Keychron Q6. Full sized, simple, easy to use, and customizable. I never customized it, but it is. One negative is that it's heavy, but I prefer it that way.