domain:archive.ph?page=4
2rafa
17hr ago
Especially with only half a mil in the brokerage account, not much room for extravagant spending.
I chuckled.
- Mouth tape
- Sleep mask
- Ear plugs if you live in the city and have the window open
- Bedroom temperature below 19c / 65f
- Blackout curtains in summer (if you live far north/south of the equator)
That plus 7.5-8 hours of sleep has been what I’ve found to work best, and has significantly improved my life.
jkf
17hr ago
Which is why we have laws against it.
Laws which in practice aren't really enforced when a man is perceived to have gotten himself in over his head -- that's the point.
We have a system for establishing a policy of "Do not do $THING or There Will Be Consequences."
Where $THING <> "force other people to pretend that you've changed your gender" I guess -- y'know, the topic of this thread? Then it's the opposite, right?
People have spent thousands of years moving us up the entropy-slope
No, people have spent about 20 years convincing people like you that resort to violence is not a part of the masculine story -- to the extent that anything's actually changed if you step outside of your coddled environment, it's been at the earliest since after I went to high school.
In which case one approaches the problem by degrees -- prosecute the man who becomes violent over a tiny slight before the man responding to a more serious insult; prosecute the man who attacks someone smaller than himself before the man who picks on someone his own size, &c.
Who's this 'one'? Nobody does that.
Tim Walz' Golden Rule.
What does Tim Walz being a huge hypocrite have to do with anything?
Ioper
17hr ago
Someone here recommended history of the Germans and I've liked it well enough.
rverghes
19hr ago
I've never been in your position, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
I think you should try to make it work. You're head-over-heels for her, and the way you describe it seems somewhat rare to me. Best case scenario, the LDR works out and you're with her. Worst case, the LDR doesn't work out, and a year from now you've broken up and are looking for someone new. Which is the exact same position you are in now. To me, the potential losses from trying to make it work seem much smaller than the potential gains.
I think you should give her the benefit of the doubt (fool me once, etc.). Assume she saw this was getting serious, but she would have to leave, so she tried to nip things in the bud before it went too far. But now she's reconsidering.
JarJarJedi
19hr ago
Russia has consistently had full coverage of entire Ukraine territory with its weaponry, there's nothing new in that. Ukrainian government is well aware of that fact.
JarJarJedi
19hr ago
Pivdenmash is indeed a large missile factory, and has been repeatedly attacked during the course of the war.
JarJarJedi
19hr ago
Not an ICBM, a mid-range MIRV missile.
JarJarJedi
19hr ago
he'd declare a national emergency and use military assets to institute a mass deportation program
That makes a lot of sense. Military knows how to house, feed and clothe large groups of people, and has logistical chains to do stuff like that. Why reinvent the wheel?
anon_
19hr ago
I think it was the paying for sex part.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
19hr ago
No, I was merely acknowledging the circumstances in which the argument for an absolute never-respond-to-words-with-violence-never-ever-never-forever policy is at its weakest. (They are also circumstances in which it would be reasonable for Adam to fear that Bob, if not deterred, might escalate to violence against Adam or his relatives. Prior to the genocide in Rwanda, certain Hutu radio broadcasters regularly referred to Tutsi as 'cockroaches' (inyenzi); 'Useless eaters' (Nutzlose Fresser) and 'Life unworthy of life' (Lebensunwertes Leben) were terms used to refer to disabled people by the Nazis prior to murdering them in 'Aktion T4'.)
If Bob said to Adam "Your mum threw herself at me and ten of my friends last night.", or "You can't $OCCUPATION worth beans, they just promote you because you're golf buddies with half the C-Suite and have pictures of the other half in flagrante.", or "It looks like you have a dead rodent glued to your scalp.", Adam would be justified in being upset, but would not be justified in escalating to assault.
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '21
19hr ago
I looked up the scandal on Wikipedia. He allegedly had sex with a 17 year old (who he claims he thought was 19)? That's what's made him radioactive? Is there anything else I'm missing? The wiki section for this says "UNDERAGE SEX TRAFFICKING" so I was expecting he was ordering 9-year Ukrainian war orphans to his house or something, but this really underwhelming. Technically a crime, yes, blah blah blah, but reminds me of the pearl clutching over Lewinsky.
Jiro
19hr ago
ou (and most other people) are not complaining that all the English majors and all the physicists can't leave your kids alone, because (presumably) you agree with the majority of them.
The object level question actually matters here. English and physics usually aren't controversial, and to the extent that they are, parents are justified in complaining about them too.
There is a debatable correlation between wearing Goth clothing as an adolescent and going through troubled times, but teachers do not routinely make a habit of notifying parents of such things, and rightly so.
Secret social transitions are a problem because social transitions are a step towards a medical transition, so parents should have some say in that process. Schools don't need to notify parents about Goth clothing because it doesn't lead to anything (except maybe a piercing? I don't know how common that is).
OliveTapenade
20hr ago
I don't want to get too deeply into my own experiences, but I doubt that I'm completely unique, and in cases like mine, it doesn't feel like a choice, but rather like a grudging admission of something that I could no longer deny. It usually doesn't feel like deciding to believe in God, but often the opposite, as if one tried to decide not to believe in God, but after long trial and effort it proved impossible.
Perhaps the most famous example of a Christian like this would be C. S. Lewis. From Surprised by Joy, ch. 14:
People who are naturally religious find difficulty in understanding the horror of such a revelation [the reality of God]. Amiable agnostics will talk cheerfully about "man's search for God." To me, as I then was, they might as well have talked about the mouse's search for the cat. The best image of my predicament is the meeting of Mime and Wotan in the first act of Siegfried; hier brauch' ich nicht Spärer noch Späher, Einsam will ich.... (I've no use for spies and snoopers. I would be private....)
Remember, I had always wanted, above all things, not to be "interfered with." I had wanted (mad wish) "to call my soul my own." I had been far more anxious to avoid suffering than to achieve delight. I had always aimed at limited liabilities. The supernatural itself had been to me, first, an illicit dram, and then, as by a drunkard's reaction, nauseous. Even my recent attempt to live my philosophy had secretly (I now knew) been hedged round by all sorts of reservations. I had pretty well known that my ideal of virtue would never be allowed to lead me into anything intolerably painful; I would be "reasonable." But now what had been an ideal became a command; and what might not be expected of one? Doubtless, by definition, God was Reason itself. But would He also be "reasonable" in that other, more comfortable, sense? Not the slightest assurance on that score was offered me. Total surrender, the absolute leap in the dark, were demanded. The reality with which no treaty can be made was upon me. The demand was not even "All or nothing." I think that stage had been passed, on the bus top when I unbuckled my armor and the snowman started to melt. Now, the demand was simply "All."
You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape? The words compelle intrare, compel them to come in, have been so abused by wicked men that we shudder at them; but, properly understood, they plumb the depth of the Divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.
Jiro
20hr ago
To the extent that they are not pushier than straights, this is a problem that happens with straights too. To the extent that they are pushier than straights, it's a problem, but it's not a problem with being gay; pushiness is not part of the definition of gay.
SlowBoy
20hr ago
This goes against what many of Trump’s isolationist supporters want. It’s almost certain that Trump is making these picks extremely haphazardly, deciding on names after a bare modicum of thought and prioritizing vibes, “loyalty”, and Fox news appearances over any other concerns.
This is like a self-confession: You have no theory of mind for Trump or Trump-supporters. If you really think Trump is totally arbitrary foppsical and whim: I don't know what to tell you. I think you have a unique theory of how Trump operates. Even the most liberal publications I consume have picked the theme: Trump is nominating people with grudges against the bureaucracies they will lead, or who plan to destroy those institutions. If you genuinely think Trump has no purpose or motive I guess I'd like an explanation for how Trump succeeded at anything. It would be extremely interesting.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
20hr ago
(Although I could see the case for dismissing charges against Adam if Bob had referred to Adam's ethnic group as 'cockroaches', or called Adam's disabled relative a 'useless eater' or a 'life unworthy of living', or accused Adam of some grave act of moral turpitude such as sexual assault against an infant; but anything short of that....)
So it's all who/whom after all. If Bob does something you find offensive, Adam is excused for hitting him.
TowardsPanna
20hr ago
Have any very good new history podcasts popped up in the last couple of years?
I used to enjoy stuff like History of Rome, history of byzantium, norman centuries.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
20hr ago
· Edited 20hr ago
everyone knew would spiral into a fight
And then the poltergeist shows up and plates start flying out of the cabinet!
Fights start when someone chooses to attack someone who has not attacked them. Society has an interest in getting them to make better choices.
You moron. Why would you do that?
is the approximate response of everyone from bouncers to cops.
And it is every bit as insensitive as asking a woman who has survived a sexual assault 'why she was dressed that way'.
The principle that Alex should not be obligated to follow the demands of Bob the Random Nobody merely because Bob happens to be stronger than Alex
That's not what we're talking about here though -- we're talking about Alex doing something dumb, which he knows will insult or otherwise rouse Bob's personal ire.
Which, if taken as licence for Bob to assault Alex, allows Bob to impose demands on Alex by becoming personally irate if his demands are not followed.
And doing so in a masculine environment.
Which is why 'masculine environments' are increasingly frowned upon by many of the institutions of society.
(interesting principle though -- does it also apply to the actions of crybullies who are much weaker than their victims, and yet still issue demands expecting compliance?)
Yes. We have a system for establishing a policy of "Do not do $THING or There Will Be Consequences." The Legislative Branch passes a law against $THING; the Executive Branch takes necessary action if someone does $THING anyway, and the Judicial Branch makes sure that $THING isn't something one has a right to do (such as 'voting while black' or 'printing a column questioning Professor What's-Xir-Face of the Department of Oppressed People Studies's opinion on the best way to oppose racism').
If the government votes that $THING should remain legal, or the courts find that $THING is a civil right, it is not generally appropriate to turn around attempt to impose Consequences for $THING on one's own initiative, especially if $THING, to quote Jefferson, "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", because that way lies madness.
People have spent thousands of years moving us up the entropy-slope, from a world in which the strong can do whatever they feel like and expect the weak to cater to their whims, towards a world where The Rules Are The Same For Everyone; they do not appreciate attempts to shove us back down into the abyss.
Civilisation began when the un-fittest decided that they would like to survive too.
--Jon Stewart
men fight each other over slights real and imaginary, whether you like it or not -- it dates well before and after the Bronze Age
Which is why we have laws against it. Seldom do people make laws against things that nobody does anyway.
and up until very recently if they punished everyone guilty of that there'd be nobody left to bring the grain in and whatnot.
In which case one approaches the problem by degrees -- prosecute the man who becomes violent over a tiny slight before the man responding to a more serious insult; prosecute the man who attacks someone smaller than himself before the man who picks on someone his own size, &c.
As the more egregious incidents decrease in frequency, one can establish stronger standards, and move the Overton Window in the direction of "use your words, not your fists.", or in some cases (things which don't affect anyone else) towards Tim Walz' Golden Rule.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
21hr ago
That's all well and good but the default is going to be what most people click on, not your specific niche preference.
You need to train the algorithm by not clicking on the political stuff if you don't want political discourse. But it's going to be there by default because most heavy twitter users use it for this (among other things).
Felagund
21hr ago
Maybe see if you can find out from Trace what the old questions were?
I'd be interested in knowing religious composition, and whether the person is a convert to that tradition.
If someone would consider themselves a rationalist, rat-adjacent, rat-adjacent-adjacent, etc.—how many degrees people are out.
Whether/how many people on here they've met.
What other social media people use.
What their social security and credit card numbers are.
Find a list of questions, and then instruct people to answer a bunch of questions in a section with the answer they think most likely to be the most popular option (so, a Keynesian beauty contest), or, if you prefer, choose a prolific user, and have people try to answer what that person would answer. But people would want to see their results for that one, might be tricky.
What's one old user they wish were began frequenting this place again or were unbanned.
Number of siblings (and where in order). Number of children.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
21hr ago
I missed that one, thanks for the link. Assuming you've read it, what did you think of his arguments?
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
21hr ago
Society has to pick and choose whose safety to prioritize in this instance
Prioritise the safety of who whoever is in more danger.
it should come down hard on the side that's doing what its supposed to do.
And where will you stand when the leopards eat your face? When someone bigger and stronger than you decides that something about your life, that contravenes no legal code in the jurisdiction, is 'not doing what you are supposed to do', and that he is entitled to suppress it by force?
Consider Thomas More:
And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – Man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
A transwoman, in existing publicly while appearing as the gender opposite that associated with her genitals at birth, has broken no law of Man (at least in North America or Western Europe); do not cut down Man's laws against assault, lest you call up that which you cannot put down.
The thing is that indentation should be tabs. Then everyone can set whatever depth they want their tabs to render as.
More options
Context Copy link