zbyte64 @ zbyte64 @awful.systems

Posts

1

Comments

1,479

Joined

2 yr. ago

There's being rich and then there's being wealthy. Being wealthy means you can fuck up everyday and still be rich.

With you on all but makeup. I don't do it but I know enough to know it is an art form and I also know there's a paradox of self-expression that is intertwined with camp and seduction. These things are not inherently bad, but they are destructive when they are commoditized so that we start to think we have to pay admission to express ourself

This Marine Park fellow sounds like one bad hombre.

Please, dick going up a butthole fits too perfectly for it to not be natural. Same goes for sucking. What they are referring to is the Roman practice of grooming children. Having a sexual relationship with a boy you adopted is unnatural.

"So anyways I built a new language luan and you are a bad person if you don't appreciate it"

Depends, if it's a bunch of Sinemas and Fettermans that win then nothing would change and people will ask why they even bother voting. Leadership needs to be primaried and changed or else it's a wasted shot.

The comparison to a Nazi flag is absurd. A better comparison would be if an agent had a straight price flag on their desk. And no, the agent would not have lost their job under this regime for such a display.

So the hope is that things are bad enough that voters finally learn their lesson but not bad enough that their votes don't matter....

More like food is expensive as hell and so I can't really afford to loose my pay check. Which is why organizing often starts as mutual aide.

Rumor has it he has a Grindr account

I mean there are so many options to write ironic things on bullet casings for a man like that. Second brain worm, the final jab, the cure, the list just goes on....

This might be worse with context. He was comparing rape and murder to attacking pedophiles.

Laws don't bind the in-group

Eliezer, given the immense capacity of the human mind for self-delusion, it is entirely possible for someone to genuinely believe they're being 100% altruistic even when it's not the case. Since you know this, how then can you be so sure that you're being entirely altruistic?

Because I didn't wake up one morning and decide "Gee, I'm entirely altruistic", or follow any of the other patterns that are the straightforward and knowable paths into delusive self-overestimation, nor do I currently exhibit any of the straightforward external signs which are the distinguishing marks of such a pattern. I know a lot about the way that the human mind tends to overestimate its own altruism.

Fun to unpack this here. First is the argument that we should be dismissive of any professed act of altruism unless someone is perfectly knowable. There is an interesting point here completely missed: even if the person knows themselves well enough to make the claim, others cannot possibly know another well enough to make the claim of another. Instead what we get is "trust me bro" because being contrarian is evidence of being on the correct path 🙄. We went from "we can't possibly know another well enough to say they are altruist" to "I know when people are not altruist because they are predictable, but I am unpredictable therefore I am altruist". I think this touches on the manipulation present in the community: you are either being manipulated and therefore cannot be an altruist because your motives are not your own (are you even selfish at this point?), OR you are contrarian enough to show you are in control of your own motives (nevermind we still can't say whether your motives are altruistic). This is a very surface level read, I can't bring myself to read all that slop. Parts are so redundant it feels like it was written by AI.

Religion is open to interpretation just like art. If someone interprets art and feels empowered to be a shitty person then they or the art is wrong. I don't have to "believe" anything particular about the art to arrive at that conclusion, the same is true for religion.

They’ve helpfully characterized “the five principal forces of antiscience “ into alliterative groups: (1) plutocrats and their political action committees, (2) petrostates and their politicians and polluters, (3) fake and venal professionals—physicians and professors, (4) propagandists, especially those with podcasts, and (5) the press. The general tactic is that (1) and (2) hire (3) to generate deceitful and inflammatory talking points, which are then disseminated by all-too-willing members of (4) and (5).

They're so incompetent but also incredibly lucky.

Because the conservative justices have signaled that precedence doesn't matter if they don't want it to. Maybe other judges need to follow suit to make a point...

About as much as I love having 9 people appointed for life that can overrule that voting system in case it does actually let the majority win.

They only anticipated white land lords voting. But then again, that's exactly who voted for this.