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

Showing 25 of 251350 results for

domain:anarchonomicon.com

There's not an ounce of humor in that.

Any S.T.A.L.K.E.R. fans out there? 5 days until release of the long-awaited sequel. The newly updated system requirements dashed my hopes for launch, unfrotunately.
But GAMMA's latest update is launching on december 3rd, and it's a big one. Huge changes to artifacts, gear, damage system. And tooltips that are actually accurate and descriptive, for the first time ever.

Why are you convinced of that? Is she that sympathetic to normies?

I think Gorsuch would fall on the side that the 8th covers punitive damages. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-177_d0fi.pdf

Here is a compilation video of them:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=A45XMOC7aPE

Is there a way to crawl profiles for pronouns? Just ran into a therapists saying she noticed it as a wider trend in her profession

If a general wins a war, does that mean every decision he made was the best one? By the way, I don’t think this has a clear answer.

You have had Musk posting a video of Jeffrey Sachs giving the Russian perspective on Ukraine. ..and what hawkish Republicans are now even there?

Didn't they all sign up for Never trump? Is Trump stupid enough to give them a chance once more?

Whereabouts do you live? You’re probably correct but I wonder if it’s balanced out by large numbers of female NHS etc workers now that Filipinos and Poles are being joined by both Nigerians and Indians in larger numbers.

Is it not charitable anymore to honestly state your opinion on the analogy a user made

Never has been?

I might honestly think a lot of things people post here are absolutely retarded, but I am not allowed to say that. Also note that the ban went to the parent comment, and this is just a warning to not make the conversation worse.

I have always found her untrustworthy. Nor sure why.

It's not about politics- I generally approve of what she's for she just does seem to be too calculating in what she says.

went out with my dad for the reception of one of my dads ex-student (2nd marriage, first was 5 years ago). My dads a senior prof in the uni I went to, got his job at 22, would teach blow off social science classes in an engineering school so he is super popular with students. UNlike other people he was nice to them would have many over for drinks every week for a few decades. My senior invited plenty of alums and they all got drunk, I did not since I take concerta. Their stories were mostly about ragging or fagging or hazing depending on where you live is good, how they liked it, how the seniors and juniors developed a bond because of it. Also stories about beating up people from other schools, flrting with research scholars and mostly missing old times.

We dont hav any rituals at all here. I am not sure how good this stuff was.

My uni experience was different, most dudes look like wusses compared to these guys, we had zero interactions with seniors, the only thing people did after class was watch movies, all the dudes hated me because they thought that I was someone who was good with girls.

Also listened to some more music from the past. Pendulum recently uploaded their cover of the taylor swift song anti hero. Electronic music peaked in the early 2010s given how little new stuff we have coming out that is any different.

Is it not charitable anymore to honestly state your opinion on the analogy a user made (as opposed to their beliefs or character)?

Myanmar is 90% Buddhist. It's unavoidable.

Hello, and welcome to the Motte!

This response is not sufficiently charitable. You may note that I have banned the user to whom you were responding; one big problem with rule-breaking comments is that they tend to proliferate by encouraging further rule-breaking responses. But responding to a rule-breaking comment in a rule-breaking way does not excuse you!

...actually, looking through your rather fresh comment history, you seem to have a remarkable knack for sussing out problematic posts and making the discussion even worse by responding, not to the substance of the post, but to its rhetoric. Somehow that is, actually, most of your posts! The odds of this are so low as to not be worth contemplating.

Still, in the interest of charity, I will hold off perma-banning you as a suspected alt until the next time I notice this peculiar pattern. Once, after all, may be happenstance.

I can buy that cis allies were the majority of participants just due to relative sizes of each population, but if you're telling me that trans people were sitting it out, I'll need something tangible. Like, if I go to some trans subreddits and look up what they were saying about Gina Carrano's bip/bap/bop joke, do you think the prevailing sentiment is going to be "who cares"?

I'll also need a definition of "actual trans person" that is accepted by the trans community itself. If you're angling for limiting them to trans-meds, that is already dismissed as bigotry by the trans community itself.

Really? "Fail to support" transition, or "try to block their kid from accessing the relevant medical treatments"?

In the state of California there was a bill governing custody disputes between divorced parents, which would make a parent's decision to affirm the child's stated gender identity (or not) a factor to take into consideration in said disputes. Essentially, if a married couple gets divorced and their child has announced that they are trans, if one parent affirms the child's stated gender identity uncritically and the other parent is more sceptical and prefers a watchful waiting approach - all things being equal, the judge is meant to rule in favour of the former parent.

What do they mean by "affirmation"? "Affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for each child, but in every case must promote the child’s overall health and well-being." - so this isn't as simple as providing a child with medical treatment which has been recommended by a qualified professional.

This bill was voted on and passed in both houses, before being vetoed by Governor Newsom. Elected representatives in the state of California believe that if a child announces that they are trans, the correct position for the child's parents to adopt is to uncritically affirm the child's gender identity without question.

This isn't even "making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike", it's just plain making things up.

This is not sufficiently charitable. Specifically,

we ask that responders address what was literally said, on the assumption that this was at least part of the intention. Nothing is more frustrating than making a clear point and having your conversation partner assume you're talking in circles. We don't require that you stop after addressing what was literally said, but try, at least, to start there.

It's fine to raise questions about source veracity, but if you're going to respond to others, you need to actually be responding to the substance of their posts--not ducking into your motte when they raise points you don't care to substantively address. Actually several of your comments in this thread do the "law of merited impossibility" and "Russell conjugation" thing, where you oscillate between "this isn't happening" and "it's good, actually" while rhetorically re-framing specific concerns. This kind of engagement creates frustration and lowers engagement quality, even though it basically keeps to the rules on tone. If done deliberately and repeatedly, it amounts to a kind of trolling. Please engage with what people are actually saying, rather than substituting your rhetoric for their substantive concerns.

In lefty circles in the UK (and I assume the US is similar) the dogpiles were led by clueless cis allies and tumblrgendered headcases, not by actual trans people living as the opposite gender to their birth sex.

There's a strong element of "choose your destructor".

Trump should be the cautionary tale. Be careful who you think you want to tangle with politically. Obama probably thought that joke had no chance of backfiring. He mike dropped on national television, and then Trump made him eat it....twice.

And I find myself constantly disappointed that they keep finding a way to get in a reddit-y snark along the lines of "Men, Amirite?" I try to be non-argumentative in this context, but I increasingly have the urge to go meta-therapist and say something like "I feel like there's a lot of implicit hostility in that statement.

That is your problem. The correct tactic is to double down/be provocative. The same way if a woman meets your gaze while you look at her deep deep cleavage, you shouldn't turn eyes away but smile.

Some ultra liberal women decided to make the korean 4B movement happen after Trump won. A substantial part of them are not lookers and probably not women that the majority of men would put on the top of the fuckability pyramid anyway - hence the orks, also one of the safest assumptions you can make about the people that do this type of grand gesturing is that they are complete narcissists - so refusing to take them seriously is going to drive them nuts.

I actually enjoy teaching, but the opportunity cost of displacing research time is too high. I think the way to isolate this question is to hypothesize a literally magical offer: you have an almost entirely-filled research life with your typical 24 hour days, and you can choose to either keep that as it is or get some number of bonus hours that can only be used to teach. I'm sure some people would dislike teaching, itself, enough to just reject the bonus hours. I'd kinda like them.

I actually think these statistics are relatively difficult to get access to- the 2021 Census a) missed the large numbers of people who arrived 2021-2024 and b) almost certainly vastly undercounted. Roughly 3 million people have arrived in the country Jan 2021-Dec 2023 according to migration observatory, and most of these arrivals won't feature in the Census data, plus whatever the 2024 numbers are. The census estimated 1.9m Indians living in the UK in 2021. Between 2021-2023, the official preliminary numbers estimated 670,000 Indian nationals arrived on long term visas. Adding in people overstaying short term visas, plus the 2024 numbers, and 1 million total Indian arrivals since the Census took place looks reasonable. My 95% confidence interval for Indians in the UK would be 2.75m-3.5m, as I have no idea what the potential undercount might be. This doesn't include Sri Lankans, Nepalese, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis but does include 2nd and 3rd gens ticking the Indian ethnicity box.

Going just off the primary language census data (with the caveats noted above), Telugu, Malayalam, Marathi and Tamil speakers have seen the largest proportional increases since 2011. So mostly South Indians/Dravidians. The established languages have all either plateaued (Punjabi, Urdu) or fallen (Bengali, Gujarati) which probably reflects the maturation of these groups as their 2nd gen offspring use English as a main language. Of course Bengali, Urdu and Punjabi speakers are probably mostly of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origin.

I repeat that, anecdotally, very recent Indian migration in particular seems to heavily skew towards men. This might be a feature of where I live rather than for the whole of the UK. I can't find any stats to back this up, especially as trying to make estimates that don't factor in the 1m post-census arrivals would be redundant.

I was thinking, gun to my head, I'd rather my daughter was molested by a catholic priest (unlikely as that is, being a girl and all) than fall in with your ilk.

Your first comment got a lot of reports, which opened a mod conversation about whether to ding you for it. One mod said "not bannable, but warnable," another said "not even warnable." I tended to agree that it was not a great comment, but that it ultimately fell on the permissible side. The meta-moderation system agreed with me on this. However the low-quality responses you've generated certainly lend credence to the inclination toward moderation there.

This comment, though, fails the test of "write like everyone is reading, and you want to include them in the conversation." In particular, "your ilk" is a quintessentially antagonistic framing; we're here to engage with ideas above people, and watch our tone in preservation of content.

It's preposterous and totally insane. But that's what you sound like.

And this, of course, is worth moderating all on its own.

You do your substantive position no favors by cranking the rhetoric to 11. Your occasional AAQCs only get you so much lenience. It has been a while since your last ban, after which you became a quality-content machine for a bit! But recently your warnings have been arriving with increasing frequency. Let's try another week-long ban.