Youtube comments of Mighty One (@mightyone3737).

  1. 192
  2. 184
  3. 150
  4. 122
  5. 113
  6. 106
  7. 84
  8. 83
  9. Their is a large portion of the rich in the west who are very interested in going back to the old system of massive wealth inequality, with the veneer of 'worthiness' since the wealth was 'earned' in a 'legitimate way', not like when the Nobility had all the money. The rich make the rules in the US, and oddly enough the tax and legal systems really seem to like to help them get even richer, while openly sabotaging the educations of the poor, to keep them ignorant and manageable (while leaving them very unable to improve their situation at all). Of course their are many rich people that say 'you don't to get an education' in countless talks, they want ignorant and desperate workers they can mold into whatever they need, and treat them as they see fit. This desire to rule over the poor is why populism is being pushed world-wide, to distract people from the actual issues with idiotic cultural irredentism about how much better their parents had it. They then take away the progress that has been made over the last 500 years under the cover of 'helping', and make us all effectively serfs again. Note, slave owners historically cared more about their slaves than serf owners cared about their serfs, since serfs were literally slaves you didn't have to pay for, and they were valued accordingly. The beauty of course is that if you have a serf, he can lie to himself and say he is 'free', even though he can't move, stop working for any reason (or he can be punished, even killed), refuse military service, choose to be single if fertile, etc. This is what they want to bring back, absolute power over the poor, and they are inundating us with propaganda to achieve this end, so that we will willingly embrace a slight variant that has been prettied up.
    77
  10. 70
  11. 70
  12. 67
  13. 56
  14. 56
  15. 54
  16. 49
  17. 46
  18. 44
  19. 44
  20. 43
  21. 40
  22. 39
  23. 34
  24. 31
  25. I eagerly await the capitalists disbanding the military, since having everyone pay into it and then let the government deal with things is socialism, and the only truly capitalist military is a militia where everyone brings their own gear. Same for police, fire departments, and most infrastructure. People pretend that pooling resources for this or that is somehow magically different than pooling resources for something else, but the important question is can the government do the job better than the free market and individual purchases. Capitalism is about making money, not offering services that don't make money but might be very necessary. Do we want for profit police? Look at the fiasco that is the private prison industry, where the prisons owners bribe judges to get harsher sentences. Regarding healthcare, it is patently obvious that the US health care system is broken and financially onerous to the people it is supposed to be servicing. Spending is much lower in countries that offer a strong government option, even if they don't remove the option of 3rd party insurance, and healthcare is comparable. The US has a system designed to make money for rich people, not so much help masses. People should not be bankrupt by what is essentially bad luck. Wealth can be pretty toxic to a society if it gets out of hand, and the US won't be a magical exception to the fact that the real drivers of the economy are the workers/consumers, not the owners of businesses. Rewarding owners with all of the increases in profitability per hour of labour was unfair, and it sabotages long term growth. Government debt may not be the bugbear it's made out to be, but individual debt, especially bad debt, is a very serious problem for an economy. The rich are trying to pull up the ladder now that they are rich, and it's pretty disgusting.
    29
  26. 28
  27. 26
  28. 24
  29. 24
  30. 24
  31. 23
  32. 23
  33. 18
  34. 18
  35. 17
  36. 16
  37. 16
  38. 16
  39. 15
  40. 15
  41. 15
  42. 15
  43. 15
  44. 14
  45. 14
  46. I still remember studying maps as a kid, we had a big world map across from our piano (irony! choose the piano or choose the map maybe? it was also the only reasonable place to put it, where you could actually look at all of it), and I used to look at countries and wonder why they ended up that way, and what 'adjustments' some of them would make, some pieces of land stick out funny and don't make a lot of sense, but as I learned later as an adult, many colonial powers used their power to set boarders that wouldn't be based on ethnicity/traditional borders, famously the soviets did this everywhere, as did the colonial powers in Africa, which didn't want African states coming out of Imperialist hell to functionality and set boarders so that hostile groups were going to be shoved together. Nasty stuff, but we're not a 'nice' species at the higher echelons. Obviously belt/road initiative pipelines should help with oil/gas issues? It's not even like when the US abused countries, they do make infrastructure to make their projects work I understand? Former soviet states have tons of resources, it's not just Siberia that has resources. Important point in India Vs China, India has way more local food production at this point I understand, and India imports lots of extra pulses from Canada, a route that china has no hope of interfering with. If china offends the US, they can interfere with routes to South America and obviously North America, there is no way that ends well for china. Also, I will possess the strongest person near putin if he drains Lake Baikal, and I will beat him into a coma. Do not abuse such a sacred resource, you've already polluted it plenty!
    13
  47. 12
  48. 12
  49. 12
  50. 12
  51. 11
  52. 11
  53. 11
  54. 10
  55. 10
  56. 10
  57. 10
  58. 10
  59. 10
  60. 10
  61. 9
  62. 9
  63. 9
  64. If CEOs as a rule don't actually do much, it's even more sharp in the entertainment 'business', an 'industry' where nobody actually knows how things work because they are in constant flux due to the tastes of consumers and the need to produce propaganda for the mono-culture. The premise that anyone in management in hollywood is worth more money than an extra is insane, at least the extra adds value to something, entertainment execs stick their noses in to tell the people who do know what to do to do a worse job. Obvious vanity pieces sharing 'secrets of the rich' make me want to bang my head on the table. The system is simply rigged, and your outcomes are mostly predetermined in life by your starting position, the rich didn't get rich because they made 'good decisions', and most of them didn't even get lucky, they inherited their wealth or got a huge head start from nepotism. Oh yeah, if you actually look at who is allowed into the 1% they are universally right wing nutters when you dig deep enough, even those with a surface veneer of progressiveness, they don't let progressives get rich for obvious reasons, this is why your starting position matters so much, if your parents raised you to be a good citizen you have no chance of becoming rich/famous for example, most rich people have the brains to keep a façade up, but because they are letting dumber and dumber people have more and more valuable positions it's getting obvious, because people like trump can't be bothered to pretend to be half-decent.
    9
  65. 9
  66. 9
  67. 8
  68. You seem to have left out an important proof of your position, that any of the colonies that could/were settled by European settlers not only had genocide committed on the locals, they were all treated differently economically during and after, a colony without a white population was exploited exclusively, and not only were no efforts made to advance/develop these territories, they were deliberately isolated from trade and sabotaged further to ensure that all of these non-white states would be 'failed states', even if they somehow became independent. This was done by the political/economic elite of the West to empower Europe, but it's also worth noting that when a truly fascist state rises up in the West, the exploiters all gravitate toward that state, such as nazi Germany (which had money dumped into it by corporations) and the US (where the elites like to live, because you can literally do whatever you want and face no consequences if you're rich, and you're useless children will similarly be propped up, no matter how incompetent, provided they stay evil enough). In the present, corporations 'invest' in poor countries because the workers will/have to tolerate lower wages, and as china has shown, their are likely no consequences for state-enforced slavery in the international community, with the US elites going out of their way to normalize the enslavement and abuse in Western media, all the while dramatically wringing their hands and exclaiming 'clearly nothing could be done'. The US had no compunctions about installing rightwing lunatics in power anywhere they could (if it didn't have a white population of course), extending the influence of imperialism and fighting against the wave of progresses that was going through the world at the time. Anyways, there can be no doubt that the various failed former colonies were selected to fail, while the ones that succeeded were all handpicked and shown considerable favouritism. This exploitation was deliberate, and continues in various forms today. All that said, the biggest difference at this point between the global south and Western powers is that Western workers are still being 'broken', they still expect their lives to 'feel' better than that of their parents, even if their actual share of the economy has become literally trivial. Conditions grow progressively worse in the US, and the share of the pie going to the workers isn't much better than that of the workers in the Global South, the difference is that US workers requires a higher standard of living or they'll revolt, which is why the republicans keep sabotaging things, so that people will be forced to accept progressively worse conditions. American infrastructure rots away without care or replacement while the rich pay less and less tax on their arbitrarily gigantic share of the profits of OUR collective labour. Things look better here, but they are very quickly getting worse, and that's not a coincidence, it's more enemy action from the rightwing elites that have exploited and abused the people since they gained power.
    8
  69. 8
  70. 8
  71. 8
  72. 8
  73. 8
  74. 8
  75. ​ @bignades1  You talk about work being required for existence, but you're flat out wrong, the wealthy among us don't have to work, your example is stupid. The point of being an elite in capitalism is you get to not work and getting paid well for this lack of labour. In American style capitalism you also get to do whatever you want to whomever you want once you're rich enough, so there is also that perverse incentive. Work becomes slavery when said work has little value to the worker and they are artificially kept desperate to keep them working longer, harder hours, and because they are desperate they can't fight back as their share of the pie shrinks continuously. We're still paid now, but only barely compared to how much of the profit from our labour is taken by the rich. Were the slaves of old 'technically' slaves because their owner had to pay them with food and other basic maintenance? Of course they were, and we're at a point where many workers in the US even struggle to feed their family despite working long hours, that's an example of wage slavery rather than properly paid work, because their minimum wage labour is worth a lot more to society than minimum wage, they just don't get a fair share because, never forget this, capitalism literally rewards bosses for underpaying their workers as much as possible, and modern shareholder's rights views dictate that companies are required to underpay their workers as much as possible, because only shareholders have rights in a company, not workers, because workers are more or less, well, I think you know what modern workers are in all but name.
    7
  76. 7
  77. I mostly buy/do stuff I wanted to do as a kid, if it doesn't bring me joy why should I spend my money on it? I have derived more joy from making from scratch (handle and head from literal raw materials, I added the carbon to the steel and carved the tree trunk into the handle) a gigantic axe I use to split wood than most people will have in their entire lives, people need to wake up to the fact that you need to do things that make you happy sometimes to achieve contentment, it's not like life won't send you bad experiences you need to offset! Didn't people have dreams as kids, things that they looked at and thought 'wow! I really want to do/try that!', yet everyone is miserably working dead end jobs that are designed to pay you less than you need 'to keep you hungry'. As a rule, if you can make or grow something instead of buying it (without it being impractical) then you probably should. Mass produced stuff is terrible by and large, our ancestors used to buy hand made goods that they'd pass on to THEIR children, now we pass everything on to the landfill because it's nothing but trash, our society has forgotten it's soul in the name of perpetual profits for the rich. Try growing a tomato if you can, I grew up thining I hated tomatoes, only to find out I hated greenhouse tomatoes that are grown in fiberglass because they taste like nothing and are crunchier than carrot, when I moved out to the country and actually grew my own, I couldn't believe how good they were. Our ignorance makes us exploitable.
    7
  78. 7
  79. 7
  80. 7
  81. 7
  82. 7
  83. 7
  84. 7
  85. 7
  86. 7
  87. 7
  88. Alyssa, we have black raspberry gin in Ontario, which doesn't have artificial flavor, just black raspberry juice and gin. Black caps are awesome! I have a 'union negotiating tactics' Elder Dragon Highlander deck, it's all stax, discard and discard payoffs, with a Commander that draws cards in Sygg, River Cutthroat. Nothing says 'general strike' like resolving a Static Orb imho, it's a Vorthos deck at it's heart, but it's absolutely hilarious when it can actually 'set up' and people just lose to having no mana and not being able to store up cards due to stuff like Bottomless Pit. I think the only deck I have that's more oppressive is my cEDH Zur deck, which is also stax, but has infinite combos to win before turn 25. Yeah, nothing like non-creatives that live entirely off of the work of creatives arguing that the creatives should take a big pay cut, and that people who don't measurably contribute to society (or even their company) should get an ever bigger share. It's a pet theory of mine that most executives that didn't work their way up in that field know functionally nothing about it, and are entirely at the mercy of their handlers. Rich people aren't smart because they don't have to be, they can pay smart people to think for them, and they're way more organized than the workers now. I hope this strike kneecaps these execs because they are terrible people, it was priceless hearing zazlav brag that the strike 'was saving his company money'... as if his company has ways to make money beyond producing new content (he's working hard to kill their streaming platform), that is a man that has all the utility of a wet sack of oats. It's exactly like a company that makes nails being happy because they have nowhere they can buy steel, you're not saving money dipshit, you're company isn't functioning.
    6
  89. 6
  90. 6
  91. It'd be nice if people actually had any kind of solidarity with victims, but humans are a largely amoral species when remotely stressed/challenged. I'm also not surprised that scientologists in particular would side with the abuser, their 'religion' teaches that if something bad happens to you it's because you specifically deserved it, it's like hubbard once read a children's book on Hinduism and felt qualified to invent his own religion (because his writing wasn't panning out). No part of me is shocked that iggy azalea is now primarily an OnlyFans thing, I'm not sure how/why she ended up in the music business other than people wanting to exploit her. Trying to get lenience for a scumbag makes you also a scumbag, so yeah, I'll continue to avoid her work. Aside, I'm pretty confident that you can't 'spend' karma, the way I understand it is that it's best explained as a weighting of outcomes, if you have lots of bad karma you'll end up with bad outcomes almost regardless of what you do, if you have good karma things will tend to go well. You don't 'spend' your good karma, it doesn't go away because a good thing happened, you just keep getting more if you keep doing correct/appropriate things, while you keep accruing bad karma if you don't perform your assigned duties (by life/the universe) or perform evil/unclean acts. If you're ever curious why rich people tend to end up rich it's not because they have good karma, but because they have bad karma, excess wealth is a punishment if you're actually trying to progress towards enlightenment. This is also why society hates people who don't care about money (and tends to punish them whenever possible), most people who have accrued power are not good people and they don't like good people. Human nature makes a LOT more sense if you start from the perspective that we're mostly evil if we're allowed to be, children start out selfish and extremely cruel in most cases, that's why it's a chore to raise them (and is also a form of punishment). If you start from the angle that 'people are mostly good at heart' you end up confused because your world view doesn't match up with reality, there is too much evil that is deliberately sustained and enabled by our society for it to be accidental. Yeah, all of these celebs being dragged for being assholes' defense is 'well I wasn't planning on you all finding out...'. That is a great excuse when fucking children use it, such useless babies. Can't believe I used to be a big fan of kunis, but I've always thought kutcher was pretty trashy (his candid camera show was often mean spirited and was rarely funny) and got by 100% on his looks/other people writing funny things for him to say/do. I honestly think the term 'it' was invented to help obfuscate how we select people to work in Hollywood, women were historically selected because producers wanted to abuse them, while men were selected because they had connections. At least some of those monsters are facing consequences.
    6
  92. 6
  93. 6
  94. 6
  95. I'm not lying when I say I was looking forward to Kamala Harris making a major contribution to the Biden presidency, but she seems almost cloistered away, we hear so little about her. I guess after the circus that was the trump regime (where everyone was an incompetent showman/conman that wanted to be noticed/respected, because most these people were already disliked outcasts) a normal VP is going to feel invisible, the norm is for them to not be very active. If the options are 'overly visible and very obnoxious pence' or someone more traditional, if not very visible, I'll take the less visible. Honestly, at this point things aren't that ambiguous anymore, the republicans are embracing open racism in the lead up to the midterms, a thing that feels almost unprecedented in US history (not quite, but politicians haven't been this openly racist in my lifetime, and I'm not that young), it's no longer a question of simply 'left vs right', it's become 'delusional racist demagoguery vs a party that is actually trying to govern, even if they have profound corruption issues coupled and are still dominated by an establishment that keeps the progressives at the kids table whenever there is a discussion, though with inflation at least the Biden admin has had to swing a tad left of 'distinctly right of center', because things like legal abortion and marijuana are extremely popular, even among people who don't intend to take advantage of those things. In contrast to the liberals wanting to give rights to people, we have the conservatives who have literally taken away women's rights, and are fighting to take even more, this is very much a 'not really good vs pretty openly evil' scenario.
    6
  96. 6
  97. 6
  98. 6
  99. 6
  100. 6
  101. 6
  102. 6
  103. I did babysitting, I think I wasn't terrible at it, but I felt vaguely overpaid since the life experience was pretty valuable and the work wasn't very hard, even if kids misbehave/can be annoying, lord knows I was a handful sometimes! But anyways, I also had to do actual work as a kid (mostly farm work), not a ton, but enough to understand how fucking hard it would have been to have to do it all the time as a kid, as ancestors had to. I'm really horrified that kids are being funneled into work like meat packing, even if I had some pretty rough summer jobs at least I wasn't in that kind of danger, and I was given training and provided with protective equipment as needed, these kids are having their workers comp taken away, purely because they're more likely to get hurt and it'll be expensive to pay for their injuries, so utterly fucked up. As for having kids, I agree, conservatives are beating around the bush pretty hard about the whole 'we only want white babies' thing, it would be refreshing in a way if they'd just be honest and say what they mean, also it'd be peachy if I could hear good ol' rishi say it, that he only wants white babies, on TV. A complete hypocrite! The irony about conservatives wanting lots of babies is that they're all members of a death cult that only wants those babies to feed into it's baby eating machine called capitalism, so nobody wants to have kids as conservatives gain influence, especially women that are having their rights stripped away. If they wanted more people to have kids they'd be adopting progressive ideas, but conservatives (and the rich that own them) don't want the 'underclass' to have a reasonable number of kids and raise them to be well educated high earners, they want to disempower workers as much as possible before AI arrives, for painfully obvious reasons. It's pretty disgusting how much media is beholden to the amoral rich, I hope Crooked doesn't get bought by some weird 'libertarian' rich douche who'll deliberately tank it like they did Jezebel (and don't even get me started about what they did to The Root and that sports one I refuse to mention, a whole thriving family of sites, each with it's own vibrant community that did a decent job of handling assholes due to sane/profit minded moderation, all completely destroyed when it was bought by scumbags who made up stuff about 'making more money' while they gutted anything progressive, including banning good commenters and enabling racist trolls 'in the name of free speech'. This has tanked the readership and commentariat brutally, so they keep adding more and more obnoxious ads in desperation/desire to tank the sites further, now they're nothing but rattling skeletons of a once important piece of the internet, at least the jackasses that bought it lost their money).
    5
  104. The idol is such a shitshow in part because they reworked it to make it 'less female-centric' or something similarly awful, it wasn't chauvinistic/abusive towards women to the desired degree, so they made it way nastier. Everything I've heard about it makes it seem awful, and even I, a huge Blackpink fan am aghast that Jennie (let alone her managers! they manage the HELL out of these girls ffs) thought it was a good project to be a part of. Such a terrible choice, I hope it doesn't hurt the band, she's arguably the 2nd highest profile member after Lisa (who is just insanely popular outside Korea and the West), though I think if they were forced to change one member Jennie'd be the easiest to replace. I don't expect that much blowback considering the intense chauvinism in Korean culture I hear about, probably similar to the blowback to when Jisoo starred in the left-leaning Snowdrop, which was ephemeral. I was pretty schizophrenic as a young teen, so I was both completely oblivious to many things yet also hyper-aware of how tons of complex things actually worked. Sex stuff that targets the average teen is usually implausibly dumb to adults, but most of it was stupid to me as a teen. I managed to be both way more informed than most kids my age as to 'how things worked', but would go on to struggle endlessly with the utter basics of life. I think it'd be nicer if I'd instead struggled with sex and life went really swimmingly, but from what most people say, it seems like most of the worst problems in life from from sex one way or another. Age gaps are so touchy, but yeah, big ones are so disturbing because there is no situation when a person should be mentally attracted to someone that much younger, they aren't dating child prodigies that are hyper-mature in meaningful ways, these overgrown boys (and it's usually old men that think it's reasonable) are looking for young and less sophisticated partners they can take advantage of. I think they are inherently exploitative, but obviously there is a certain range which is 'acceptable'. I like the premise that as you age the gap can be bigger, but I feel like puking when I see a man in his 40s/50s dating a teen/girl in her early 20s. No man in his 40s should want to hang out with a person that young, there should be a HUGE development gap, and as noted, they aren't going for 'mature' youths, they're looking for the least mature ones. I think I still like the premise of 'date within 3 years of your age as a teen, 5-7 years in your 20s, no more than 10-12 years in your 30s and after that whatever 40 yo should be an adult!', those are the extremes that I think you can look at as the acceptable maximum (as in, if you go that far you'll be officially weird, but not so weird that people will avoid you), but everyone's got their own opinions on this, I've heard of some people that married with a big gap and seemed fine, but it's hard to know how healthy those relationships actually were, people don't like to brag that they have a shitty marriage! I agree with Erin 100%, I am deeply suspicious of anyone who chases noticeably younger partners, those guys are rarely good partners (which is why they aren't competing for the most in demand women in their 'normal' age range), let alone the best partner that the younger person could have found, it's essentially a form of abuse founded on the premise that young people should be punished for being young and gullible. The most impressive/attractive/desirable men tend to date close to their age afaik, and they date women that are similarly high in similar metrics, it's the men who wanted those women and couldn't get them that desperately date much younger women, it's usually a sign that the guy is a loser. In reference to age gaps, I'm super tired of hearing conservatives complain that non-whites are the only men that try to marry child brides, the repubs are actively fighting to make it more legal to marry children, it's a very right wing thing to do to try to marry a child bride, yet 'lefties are groomers!!!' is a right wing slogan, it's uncanny. They have their base so mixed up they could stab one of their voters like scaramucci, right in the front, and then say Obama did it and they'd believe them. Also, final point, most young people are terrible in bed, anyone who's seeking out people who are very likely worse in bed is deeply, deeply suspicious, most of these men also look for less experienced women, aka women that don't know what to do so you can mislead them. I'll say it again, big gaps are pretty gross.
    5
  105. 5
  106. 5
  107. 5
  108. 5
  109. 5
  110. 5
  111. 5
  112. 5
  113. It's very hard to intervene meaningfully against actions you personally support... this happened to Canada when we had the truck rioters blockading stuff, the police here are also extremely right wing and thus weren't willing to enforce the law against lawbreakers, they supported them too much to do their jobs. The US had issues with this on Jan 6 as well, with the incredibly tepid response that almost certainly got more people killed. Contrast this with how police handle leftwing protests, which is usually brutal violence if the public will tolerate it, in Canada during my lifetime police opened fire on Native Americans protesting, on explicit orders from the province's Premier. The US has zero intention of intervening in this, and the US establishment is quite happy to give israel all the weapons it could ever want in exchange for them keeping the Muslims distracted, so that israel soaks up terrorism that would otherwise end up hitting US targets. The US has never made a secret of the fact that it will happily support truly abominable regimes as long as they are right leaning and friendly to big business, bibi is exactly that, so no matter how many Gazans he murders he'll still have complete US support at the top, disturbing as it I think that is. It's not a secret that after modi (a violent bigot and wanna-be dictator) got really entrenched in india the US started getting extremely friendly with them, while they had governments that leaned left the US had essentially nothing to do with them, it was an economic pariah to US investors, who were way, way more keen on the (arguably right wing by most metrics) authoritarians in china, and it's not like india was great about workers' rights. Anyways, as long as the US is unwilling to actively intervene nothing will change, their just aren't consequences for israel if the US throws their weight behind them. Hopefully the israeli left is aghast enough by all this to hopefully rise up in some fashion, I've heard some 4k Palestinian children have been killed, a number so insanely high that it's hard to understand how you could ever justify it, yet israel keeps stepping things up. How many dead children will be enough to finally rouse the majority of israelis to throw out their corrupt/power hungry leader?
    5
  114. Having a fancy suitcase to me is mostly about proving you've got too much money, it's like having a gambling habit, you do it because you are too rich and can't think of constructive things to do. How can it be aspirational btw? It's just a bag that you paid too much for, designer stuff isn't usually especially durable, often they make stuff too dainty in my experience, so you're aspiring to pay extra for shoddy things? At least buy a good bottle of wine or some good steaks if you have too much money, have some actual enjoyment, maybe buy a good pair of boots, something that'll last a long time with proper care, and will keep you safer and more comfortable. I think pretty much everyone needs a hobby, but I think you also need to do things you don't especially like doing or you'll become soft and weak. Yeah, men's football is really, really 'drama' driven, the refs are notoriously dramatic too, the game would be better if people both took it more seriously (and didn't dive/cheat all the time) and took it less seriously (so people don't beat their wives to death because their country's football team lost). Also, maybe if they did it all on ice, so they could move faster and it wouldn't feel like I'm watching slow motion sports most of the time (I mostly watch ice hockey if I watch sports, so football is incredibly slow and tedious in comparison, but it can also be way more relaxing because of this)! I'm not sure how you'd kick a ball while in a skate without popping it though.
    5
  115.  @Shawn-gr5ww  Huh? People in the US shit and piss on the streets, not even talking homeless. People have been shitting in weird places for a VERY long time. Seriously, in some cities you have to watch where you walk because of the poop, in other cities you just have to watch out for rats, and most people act like the US is 'doing it right'. Poverty in developing countries was systemically created by the West in order to enshrine it's power/influence for centuries. This is also why when you colonize an area you torture any survivors until they're so traumatized they can't fight back effectively, it's a way to lock them into poverty and suffering. No amount of hard work is going to help you if an outside power has ensured that your neighbors are all starving and desperate, if you get ahead people will take your stuff. Africa is poor because the West spent huge amounts of time and energy to make it and keep it that way, most of the world's gold was mined in Africa, most of the world's wealth either came from Africa, was created by slaves taken from Africa, or is in Africa and awaiting Western exploiters to get access, Europe has historically been a poor backwater, even during it's heyday of the Roman empire it was dependent on endless caravans and shipments from the East for it's standard of living, resource poor Europe impoverished itself so rich Romans could gorge themselves on spices and delicacies from India and China (and even further afield), that poverty affected the continent a great deal during the period after the Romans, when Europe was an afterthought that produced almost nothing anyone else wanted (and would continue to do so for about a thousand years).
    5
  116. 5
  117. 5
  118. 5
  119. My garden is doing fairly well this spring, though it'd have been nice to have opened up my larger outdoor fig a couple weeks back, but like you're saying, depending on where you live you can get late frosts, iirc in this part of Ontario they can technically hit in June, but by then you're way more worried about hail! Fingers crossed that this is the year I get a pawpaw fruit, but I'm not going to bet on it with so few flowers (and only 3 small trees). I think I need to do some more seeding, and it's definitely time to get the onions and potatoes in! Yeah, computers are 'better' at Chess and Go, but iirc the first Go program that they made proved easy enough to solve because it had no ability to adapt/had no actual understanding of the game's actual strategies, it was like a kid who knows one combo in a fighting game and just practices that. Anyways, Chess isn't even close to as complex as Magic the Gathering can get, especially since every game has huge amounts of randomness backed in. MtG's Elder Dragon Highlander format in particular (I'm talking at least 3 players per game) is much, much harder than Chess, especially when you throw in the political aspect that decides an awful lot of games. Checkes to Chess is like Chess to MtG, and 1v1 MtG is child's play compared to EDH. I suspect it will be a VERY long time before we have computers that are reliably better than the best Magic players, and I've seen what AI thinks is deckbuilding, it's adorable and makes the kind of mistakes that even a newbie wouldn't, because even a newbie understands the game on an infinitely high level than any AI we have. Heck, people try to make deck rating tools, they're almost completely worthless because it's impossible to code in all the synergies for the mindbogglingly large number of cards that exist, and rating decks is MUCH easier than actually piloting them even close to optimally.
    5
  120. People obsess way too much over being skinny when they should spend more time worrying about eating healthy and being active. You're 100% better to be 10-20 lbs over weight and very physically active vs ideal weight range and sedentary. I also enjoyed hating on the idol, it seemed like the original premise might have had value, but then they abandoned the actual director and hired a lazy moronic provocateur instead of a replacement director. The jackass they put in charge certainly seems to have kept the original ending, an ending that no longer makes any sense in context and comes off as a complete ass-pull. It was super gratifying to both know the show objectively sucked and was very dead in the water (and was mercy-killed apparently before even being aired). I might have watched it just to see Jenny in it, but I can't stand the weekend (and I agree he seems super into that persona, it was like some kind of wish fulfillment experience for one of the most privileged shits out their), also the director is trash and makes bad shows, anyone who thinks it's cool to watch 'young people' pretend to do drugs desperately needs to go touch grass, because their is a vibrant world out there to explore! maybe try a drug yourself, find out what 'fun' feels like! Don't let it go to waste by watching garbage TV until we render the Earth uninhabitable. I also hated elno this year, but I was VERY confident he was just a jackass when he interfered in that cave rescue way back. I think people should call it xitter, it's a total xithole. It's been glorious seeing his children's doodle 'cybertruck' be an absolute turd on wheels. Witnessing his level of stupidity makes it clear how unearned most people's wealth is.
    5
  121. Once she moved into a city house from their farm, my Oma liked to do canning as a continuous task, she'd do a jar or two at a time and do the whole thing outside. She'd can hundreds of jars a year, for her and my Opa, until he passed. She kept on canning after, I'm not sure if she still can at the moment, but we'll see if her health improves (she's apparently got a good prognosis). I myself have canned an awful lot at this point, my challenge is finding good lids (the ones made now are essentially defective, possibly regardless of brand as I haven't found a proper one), but when I can tomatoes it's always as a sauce, and I since I shred the tomatoes I don't worry about the skins (and I don't care about the seeds), but I also freeze some roasted tomatoes that would probably require a pressure canner (it's thick and a bit oily, with onions, garlic and peppers). My crowning achievement so far is probably my variation on pepper relish, I use purple tomatillo instead of green tomatoes and substituted various 'fancy' red peppers for the bell (note if you use really tasty ones like Jimmy Nordello you'll be cleaning and chopping forever, but it's worth it), the results are wildly different, but taste much better IMO, much fruitier tasting. I love apricots, but I've never gotten any from my tree yet. :( It's a beautiful tree, so I'm not too mad at it, but a fruit or two would be nice! At least the flat peach is trying, even if it's results have been uniformly disappointing. More impressive, I have some pawpaw trees, and I finally have a little fruit! So exciting! I LOVE a sweet booze drink, a good bottle of sweet port is my happy place. I'm trying to make some manner of relatively high alcohol fruit wine that'll fill the niche of port, so I can be more self sufficient (I grow my own potatoes too, can my own produce, and grow most of my own berries). I'm trying to figure out how much residual sugar will be left in my present batch, when it finished primary it was achingly dry (it's more acidic than most wine, hence needing sugar to balance it out), but I chaptalized it, so finger's crossed I guess? I can still sweeten before bottling, but I'd have to let it sit for awhile again to ensure it won't restart fermenting. It's been brewing for quite awhile now, so I figure it's going to have some kick to it, but it turns out that sucrose is relatively hard for yeast to eat, they much prefer dextrose if you want to fortify you wine, but I think you'd want to back sweeten with sucrose, honey, or something else with sugar after if you wanted something sweet. Anyways, good for you for going with dry martinis, they are a very classy (and tasty) drink. I like a good arrangement, but I feel like it's something you're either very good at or very bad at. I think I'm pretty good at it, but I grow some nice flowers to use, as well as stuff like a eucalyptus tree (I've never seen a plant use water this way, it's vigor is unreal, I VERY MUCH believe this thing would take over places that don't have frost, but especially dry ones).
    5
  122. 5
  123. 5
  124. 5
  125. 5
  126. 5
  127. 4
  128. 4
  129. 4
  130. 4
  131. 4
  132. 4
  133. 4
  134. It's actually not that hard to figure out that plants have to be making decisions, and then it's a short leap to realize that if something can make decisions, it has to have at least heuristics to make them. I like that point, that a very important facet of intelligence is the ability to adapt to novel experiences, as well as react better to similar ones. A dumb creature can eventually become incredibly good at a difficult task, but it will struggle if you adjust the task. This makes me think of my cat that was bad at making new pathways, if you took away the way it got up on something it wouldn't be able to find a new way down, at least not quickly, it was almost sad to witness the contrast with other cats, but the this cat was actually incredibly kind to kittens, and was actually a source of affection on par with a mother for kittens (it wasn't fixed, but I don't think it competed for mates), societies have weird roles, and individuals just get assigned to things. Re: plants using us, plants needed oxygen breathers to get rid of all the pesky oxygen they make... if the oxygen levels get too high, you don't even need a spark. This was actually an issue at one point, as messed up as it sounds. Re: oats, I REALLY doubt anyone was going to mistake oats for wheat, oats come up in the spring and are annual, wheat we grow is biennial and requires a winter before making seed heads. Also, oat seed heads look absolutely nothing like wheat, and oats have a RIDICULOUS hull on them that you'd have to deal with, it's as bad as rice. I think the theory that people ended up growing non-wheat grains in wheat fields is reasonable, but nobody thought oats were wheat IMHO, but rye makes a lot more sense. That said, I think potatoes and corn are more interesting than wheat, wheat was already pretty near edible (Gluten issues aside), but corn seed used to be inedible (think popcorn, switch the ratio of that hard skin to the starch, and the whole seed is much smaller), and potatoes were literally poisonous, so much so that people apparently used to stomp them to leech out the toxins. The natives of North America had to work harder to create their food sources, but because they were so good at making good food sources (and managing wild ones, because they didn't start that way fwiw) that they didn't have the same pressures that Eurasia and Africa had, food was always plentiful in the New World, even as the old world regularly starved the Inca had almost a decade's worth of food stored up and ready to use. The unfortunate irony is that the skill that natives had with food production meant they weren't competitive, and thus were easily out competed for resources until it started to become and issue, at which point the whites controlled the Midwest and the Natives were so behind in resource production that they'd never be able to compete again, what followed was just traumatization for the sake of it. Around 26:40 he's making me wonder when social insects will start thinking we're intelligent, instead of just incredibly dexterous and inventive. Re: High altitude/weird conditions, roses and junipers in Utah, the wild ones, actually grow seeds that are WAY larger than in wetter, lower altitude areas, the plants are adapted to those conditions, where water will be scarce for it's offspring, and that it might need a lot more dormant time than is ordinary, or need to stay dormant immediately after germination. I feel like the real challenge with trying to banzai plants is in part the fact that certain plants get depressed in confinement, it's a complex art getting good results with such projects, by default a plant is very unhappy in a cramped pot!
    4
  135. 4
  136. 4
  137. 4
  138. 4
  139. Ah, the old 'go on a hunger strike because you raised your son to be an entitled shit and you don't want to deal with your mistakes' technique! All the best people are doing it! If your mom has to go on a hunger strike because you couldn't figure out that you don't forcibly kiss random people without even asking, maybe it's time to reevaluate your positions? How would this jagoff feel is an actual large man decided that he was excited enough to just take a kiss, and he'd be literally powerless to stop it before it happens? There are many man large and strong enough to do it, and I am confident he wouldn't be happy about it being done publicly, yet for some reason women are supposed to put up with it. BRIC was never an alliance in any sense of the word, BRICS isn't either, and making it even bigger is just going to result in an even less cohesive non-group. Most of them are pretty right wing and hoping to establish a different power center than the US, but again, there is no unity/cohesion between these countries, and many of them have an active history of hating one another (china has historically had terrible relations with both russia and india), that's not a recipe for a strong alliance, and that's not changing just because putin and xi are both desperate for allies, and india has fallen into the right wing populism trap. All three of those big countries want to be in charge of the group, the only one that's actually an international power is china, russia hasn't been a world power since putin came back into power, and india hasn't been a major power since the british bribed their way to victory over a WILDLY richer empire (this is what happens when you have extreme wealth inequality and lack of unity/solidarity because you treat most of the population like it's made a clumped together turds that will perpetually be beneath you *purely because of the caste they were born in*, it leads to your army being for sale, and they'll take very little if they are used to you paying them nothing). None of them is trusted by the other countries that are in BRICS, and the expanded BRICS isn't going to be much better about trusting 'me first' countries like china and russia (and now india under modi), the only country that's stable enough to be a natural choice for leadership is Brazil, and Brazil is the country that's probably the least likely, as it's never been outward-looking and is now run by a relative lefty. France and Quebec are both using their secular tradition as a way to institute fascist laws against minorities (that are explicitly unconstitutional). It's worth noting that even the hijab is not a Muslim garb per se, it's not in their holy text, it's a pre-existing tradition unrelated to Islam, such that you can't argue in good faith that any of that stuff is 'Muslim religious garb'. Ultimately they're fighting to make a law that says 'you can't wear clothes from certain cultures', something we'd openly be horrified by if they worded it that way. France treats it's non-whites poorly, not sure if you were aware of that, but it's bad enough that there are always thousands of people who are very eager to repay the French public for year after year of shitty treatment with a nice riot. France is in many way a very progressive country, but it's not a fan of anyone who's not a native French speaker, and it's not a fan of non-whites (tbh most white countries are pretty racist, even the nicer ones are just more subtle about it), so non-whites who speak bad (or too foreign sounding) French can expect to be publicly mistreated. Please don't present the Palestine conflict as one with 'violence on both sides' without having the decency to point out that the israeli reply to a palestinian throwing burning garbage is to shoot them, it's like saying a person with both hands tied behind their back being beaten up is in a fight because he could maybe bite the guy, it's not a 'both sides' issue, the palestinians are being brutally murdered with almost complete impunity while the world watches, cheering israel on. I'm also not sure why we call them 'settlers' and not 'genocidal terrorists', they're extrajudicially murdering people to influence a political situation and are non-state actors, that's a terrorist by the dictionary definition last I checked. I'm not actually sure if there is any difference between what the people of israel did/are doing and how the Europeans dealt with North America/Australia, the natives weren't willing/able to be enslaved (this is why African slaves had to be imported, the locals in the Americas were 'less amenable', in large part because they knew the country better than the Europeans, Africans that escaped could be easily recaptured given a modicum of effort because they had no where to go, hence the Underground Railroad being necessary) so they were deemed worthless and all but exterminated. The main reason I honestly wonder if putin didn't actually murder him is because of how he's handling it, normally he wants it to be less subtle when he kills someone extrajudicially (I got to use the word twice!), it's not in the same vein as poisoning someone who's irritated you with polonium that cannot be found in nature (other than maybe in one of those naturally occurring reactors? idk), or having someone murdered via umbrella, an old KGB technique that was so overused that it's it's own trope. Blowing up a plane is a bit different, but it's possible he wanted to decapitate the wagner group? If he really felt he needed the whole lot of them dealt with, then this would make sense, it just seems to feel fundamentally different from how putin normally kills 'problem' people. I think it's safe to declare the Ukraine invasion to be an almost complete shitshow, and we all know how well it went for stalin when he wholesale cleared out the best and brightest from the soviet military, the USSR lost some 18 million in WW2 because of stalin's personal incompetence/fundamental inability to work with others, putin seems to have just crippled his most potent military asset, not sure how this doesn't make russia's position even worse. The russians have huge supply problems (mostly they have nothing left to go around), while the Ukrainians have regular supply drops. If putin plays his hand poorly enough I could see him not only losing this war, but losing territory to Ukraine, to say nothing of russia's loss of standing in the region. It's like russia had it's small success in Georgia and decided to just stop spending money on it's military 'because it's good enough', they still had supplies from a decade before that foray iirc. I loved how confused trump looked while trying to remember what to say about panama, did he have a few goes at it even and this was the best? He was almost vulnerable, because he was literally seeking approval, like a kid doing a presentation for a teacher.
    4
  140. 4
  141. 4
  142. 4
  143. 4
  144. 4
  145. 4
  146. I'm still waiting for Americans to realize that they're the bad guys, but I'm not really expecting it to click anytime soon. Capitalism is 100% built on exploitation, but the problem isn't just exploitation it's that the system is designed to reward the cruel and powerful for being as cruel and authoritarian as possible. There is no reason to make quality products when the system will reward you more if you instead scam as hard as possible. When the workers share got smaller over time and the economy started to collapse, the solution of the capitalists in the West was that workers should not only have to spend everything they earn to survive, it needs to not be enough to get by (meaning massive household debt), they need to be truly desperate or they won't put up with the poor treatment that is the true goal, human oppression in capitalism is the goal, not a side effect or drawback, it's the reason capitalists do what they do, it's about the power, not the money. If they just wanted money, they'd be like the rest of us that all want money, the difference is that they want power to mistreat others according to their whims. Corporations are not required to be ethical or moral, they are required to make money, and if they make more money by being less ethical, expect them to be less ethical. Capitalism is also why we have such pronounced generational competition, if the older generations all think they worked hard and struggled, they not only think the younger generations should similarly have to struggle, they incorrectly think (as is human nature) that their own struggles were worse, when they in fact had easier economic situations to grow up in by and large, economic mobility is much worse now than it was. People overtime exaggerate their own challenges/difficulties to make themselves feel more impressive, it's not intentional and it's hard to notice, but we all do it to an extent, and we're also very bad at realizing that we're doing it. Capitalism wants us to feel that everyone else is a crook that's out to get us, while paradoxically presenting 'hard work', a thing that statistically speaking never pays well, as what will save the poor.
    4
  147. 4
  148. 4
  149. 4
  150. The key to peterson IMHO is that he makes a point of telling people primarily things they already believe, he primarily reinforces existing norms, and thus not only isn't threatening, he's appealing to a less sophisticated audience that likes 'experts' that sound suspiciously like conmen. As such, he's very big on acting confident and waving around credentials rather than actually dealing with complex or advanced topics, let alone stuff from his area of expertise, he mostly blathers about stuff he's not even well informed about, because again, he only needs to tell the dumbest 25% what they already believe/wish was true to get rich and famous, he doesn't need to have academic integrity. There is no end to the irony of a bloody psychologist complaining that other academic fields are corrupt/unscientific, his field is notoriously bad at reproducing experimental results since people are products of their environments. This is why racists have invested so much energy in making sure that non-whites tend to cluster together, and that those clusters are the shittiest places to live for a variety of (business decision related mostly, but also government based fuckeries abound) reasons. If you don't have the same people, you likely won't have the exact same outcomes, calling the entire field into question. If you have the same people, but some or all have had traumatic experiences, you might get very different results still. Psychiatry is what you get when you add science to psychology, but as is psychology struggles (other than teaching abusers how to manipulate better) to add true knowledge to humanity, even compared to he humanities that offer little concrete. Yeah, we have a COMPETENCE hierarchy going on, that's why zuckerberg is one of the richest people in the world, because he's so competent that he wouldn't try to release VR that would have been clowned on hard *10 years ago*, obviously as peterson points out, all hierarchies are decided 100% by competence! Nobody could be that stupid, right? They would know that releasing a slightly better VR that still involves clunky gear (meaning it's not a shared experience with others in the room, which as the Wii should have pointed out is a key part of gaming/media, and it's why people watch other people game, we crave that experience of watching/gaming with friends) and looks like it runs on a Gamecube's graphics card. I cannot get over how bad the VR looks, I mean, the world 'reality' is right there, this looks several generations removed from modern tech, and it's less realistic than most Disney art, even the creepy early 90s girls that were wwwaaayyy too skinny. What I'm getting at if it isn't clear is that we are ruled by the most competent among us, and that there is no systemic problems in our reality, everything is exactly as it should be, and all hierarchies are just or people would have already overthrown them silly boots! Yessir, all hierarchies (even ones based on personal taste) are based purely on competence!
    4
  151. While I feel like Olivia tried to get more buzz for her movie via scandals, I also feel like male directors get away with some effed up shit, there is definitely some degree of double standard. I don't think I've ever seen anything she's been in, so I really don't have an opinion on her as an actress/director, but I think I'd rather wrestle an alligator than watch this movie (maybe just a baby alligator? they're cute when small) or watch another interview with her, I watched the Late Show one, she had less charisma than a moldy turnip IMHO, but I also think a ton of male actors that are very famous are abominably bad actors. I find it very possible to both dislike her as an actress/director/interviewee while also thinking she's being treated extremely unfairly. It's shocking how much people dislike Amber Heard, especially with depp being such a trash person for so long. I really liked his work when he was younger, but eventually he became more substance abuser than actual human being and he lost most of his charisma/looks, at this point I suspect most people supported him out of a mix of misogyny and sympathy for how far he'd fallen from grace. The whole trial coverage reminded me of when Taylor Swift had that stupid exchange with kk, when kk very much lied/mislead the public about their conversation, I still couldn't believe how quick people were to glomp onto that fakeass ass and not read between the fucking lines. In regards to Amber, I suspect her problem is the whole princess vs harlot dichotomy, where a woman can only be a chaste princess or a wanton slut, and society only values the former while heaping abuse on the later. Amber wasn't a perfect enough victim because she sometimes fought back, and the public did not forgive this despite it being self defense. Ultimately, I liked Heard in Aquaman, and I didn't think depp did anything useful for Pirates towards the end, and the first few of those were really charming movies, in part because he still 'had it'. He looks like he's had his soul drained and replaced with a mix of cocaine, meth and cheap liquor (actually, he looks like he drinks aftershave, not even cheap liquor). He's the Elvis of our generation that way, he was once the king of the world, now he's a depressing sack of crap. Markle gets the dumbest shit written about her, no idea how people fall for it other than just bitterness about her marrying into the royal family as a mixed race woman. I honestly wonder how the public would handle it if Charlotte were to marry a big scary black man? Probably badly, but I suspect there would be less abuse hurled at a more imposing figure, Markle isn't seen as threatening in the physical sense, just in the 'racism' sense. Honestly, every time I see a headline that drags Markle for the most absurd shit while not dragging the pedo prince makes me want to find the writer and... convince them they are wrong, we'll leave it at that.
    4
  152. 4
  153. 4
  154. 3
  155. 3
  156. 3
  157. 3
  158. 3
  159. I actually ordered a flat of Alpine strawberries this year, they're everbearing iirc, but they're very low yielders of incredibly strong tasting strawberries. We had one plant and I called it a 'faerie' strawberry, because it looked like a strawberry that a faerie would grow! I'm thinking of making jam with them, just freeze them as they ripen and make a couple tiny jars after I have enough? I could also make wine with them, but I don't know how long it'd take 12 plants (assuming they all live) to make 1lb of fruit, which is what I need for a small batch of wine, and strawberry wine is pretty hard to 'get right', you need a fair bit of residual sugar to manage the intense bitterness of the fruit (perhaps I macerate too long?), strawberries are so tasty I suspect because of the mixture of intense bitterness with a relatively high sugar content for a fruit. I had good luck with a mixed berry wine rather than straight strawberry. Also, you can grow strawberries in a greenhouse (I don't think they need winter per se), but the plants get old quickly and you need to keep replacing them, you get 2 or 3 years outdoors in this area, and even then you need to manage runners, I wouldn't be surprised if you have to replace the indoor ones yearly, or twice a year if you want good yeilds. I have some strawberries in my small greenhouse, they did pretty well over the winter, but they don't like to get warm roots (I kept them in an area where they always had cool nights, and they loved that, but now that it's spring that part of the greenhouse can easily top 120 degrees, so they're outside for now.
    3
  160. Erin, just saying, air might 'grow on trees', but air compressors do not! Not paying for air is weird in a way, but we ultimately do, it's just in the form of more expensive gas. Also, the number of times I make jokes and people just take it as straight talk is insane... I am genuinely funny, and the things I say when when I'm joking are objectively ridiculous, it's unbelievable. It's gotten to the point where I'm pretty sure people are pulling my leg a bit, but as you note, when you make a good absurd joke and it just goes 'woosh!', it's a bit disheartening. I think it started when I was in college, when I was younger people always got my jokes (but they weren't in great taste because I wasn't particularly funny as a younger man, I was too selfish to be funny). I blame all the laughing orgasms! Re: built in misogyny and the baked in assumptions that follow, I was very surprised to realize (after reading a number of books) that I felt women were generally better authors, this despite having mostly read male authors and at the time viscerally hating feminism (or what I thought it was). Things happened in books written by male authors, women writers had character development in ways that men struggled with (because men don't grow much as people unfortunately, society babies them too much). I'm not surprised that people assume women aren't funny, but I am shocked when that assumption survives into ones 30s and 40s, if not mid 20s. Women literally were selected by evolution to be funny because they had to be (see 'why women prefer to run into bears than strange men in the woods'), patriarchal men hate comedy because they know how bad they are at it, and that most of the comedians will happily mock their foibles. This is also why their is a whole patriarchal apparatus to promote terrible right wing comedy, it's not made because it's funny, right wing 'comedy' exists to normalize our society's bad traits, right wing comics just aren't funny (and never were), you need empathy to be truly funny.
    3
  161. 3
  162. 3
  163. 3
  164. 3
  165. 3
  166. 3
  167. When I was younger (and very naïve), a guy I worked for told me in complete seriousness that most of those really conservative people are weirdly kinky and just don't want to admit it publicly, and he made clear it was the religious ones that were the most extreme. It made me think of some people I knew, they were 'conspicuously' religious, they divorced because he was having affairs with anyone who would (he met people through his church work!), and the straw that ended the marriage was him trying to argue that he was entitled to having these affairs because, get this, a bunch of kings in the old testament used to have lots of wives! What most people aren't aware of is that these are usually symbolic marriages, meaning the king, for obvious reasons, wasn't banging these women, this was why their was the ever-famous trope of the harem 'not being adequately satisfied'. In the West women used to be able to sue for divorce if their husband 'wasn't satisfying them', and during the middle ages the reason people got angry about being cuckolded was entirely because it was assumed that if your wife was screwing someone else you were either hopeless in bed or impotent, and both were obviously humiliating to any man. Religious people aren't always pervy, but the odds are better the more extreme their beliefs are, repressed people eventually go nuts and start going to key parties (or worse). The 'bisexual conservatives still publicly hating gays' thing, it's a bit funny, because AFAIK lesbians aren't mentioned in the bible, and the bible is EXTREMELY EXPLICIT in the old testament about what constitutes banned sex, mostly man penetrating man, but also any kind of penetrative sex with an animal, because it was enough of a problem that they needed the proscription! You don't make a rule like 'nobody can shit in the blender!' until someone has shit in the blender!! How dare these conservatives act like we're more sinful now than people were in the dog-humping days of yore (I feel like there's a Yaakov Smirnov joke here), we're the same garbage, but we're more civilized garbage (well, some of us are)! I vote we find a team of paramedics to follow Mel Brooks everywhere he goes, I'm not entirely sure what dark magic he used, but afaik he still seems to have it, History of the World: Part 2 stood up to two watches (without a big gap!), I have so much access to content now that I tend not to re-watch stuff (we're doomed as a species!), but I wanted to see it again. The jackasses that complain about 'the woke' could stand to watch some of his comedy, most of which came out in more conservative times, and it tended to be pretty progressive on the whole. Progress isn't some new thing that was invented so that assholes couldn't call things 'gay' because they didn't like them, progress is the natural pathway we're supposed to be trodding along as a species, and get this, *all of the funniest people throughout history have been progressives*, their is a reason we don't have conservative satire (of liberals/progressives/anyone they don't like) as a genre. It's not just because the concept couldn't be funny, it's because anyone who actually thinks being bigoted is funny is inherently not funny, and thus the people who have these bad ideas tend to fuck off fairly quickly because they suck at their jobs. The comedians who 'red pill' are all terrible at their jobs, I never thought chapelle would sink so low as to try to make elno look cool, but I'm so glad he bombed hard! For the record, I'd also add Lewis Black to make it a list, maybe moments before they die aliens will abduct them, put their brain into advanced machines, and send them back to give us more comedy, we don't have enough angry progressives in this world, and that might be our actual biggest problem (I'm obviously the problem since I just live my life and scream into the void now and then) as a society.
    3
  168. 3
  169. 3
  170. 3
  171. 3
  172. 3
  173. I'm more of a paper pusher type myself, but I wouldn't say you're hitting a non-valid target if you target a propagandist, they are usually working very hard to make situations worse, making them often more of a problem than a thousand soldiers, and capable of causing more deaths than those troops as well. It was eventually decided that if you weren't personally shoving people into gas chambers you could still be held personally responsible for those actions if you made the scenario possible in some meaningful way, a propagandist is the same thing IMHO. If you're that big a part of the problem, you're a reasonable target. I would go so far as to say that functionally no conservatives actually have sufficient empathy to actually care about the Iranian people, they just hold the inexplicably bitter grudge over the overthrow of the Shah. It makes very little sense, but Americans lost a fair bit of money/clout when that happened, so they care about regime change and use the guise of caring about the human rights situation while they give literally no shits about the US's human rights disasters. I cannot believe that Biden made nice with the saudis, he had literally everything to gain by acting tough with them and making a pivot toward non-saudi oil, a thing the US can just do on a whim, the US depends on Canada much more iirc, and Canada has massive untapped reserves that probably could be made similarly green to the saudi fields (and have less risks from shipping it, since you're not using tankers you'd just use pipelines), all while allowing the US to buy oil from a country that has a much milder human rights record (as long as you don't ask the Natives I suppose). The US depends on the saudis for reasons that are ironically not very clear, they want the saudis to dump oil on the global market, but there is actually no incentive to keep depending on oil period from a national perspective, let alone pretend that only the saudis can dump oil. Anyways, mbs chose putin's hairy butt over Biden's, they very much picked a side and should face consequences for that. Throw a fucking embargo on the saudis for awhile maybe instead of just russia? If you think we'll suffer from a lack of trade with them, they'll literally just die, saying 'we have more leverage' is WILDLY understating the real situation. Let them import russian foodstuff, maybe they can trade them, you know, oil that russia already is desperately dumping on the global market because they can produce probably a magnitude more oil than they actually need/use, that'll be great, maybe mbs can trade some saudi oil to the russians for some of the weapons they are already so short of that they're buying from anyone that will sell to them, including Iran and north korea. I laughed my ass off when I found out that even pretty conservative economists were openly disgusted by the new British PM's batshit plan to cut taxes on the rich (an action that mostly inflates the stock market we now know, based on what happened in the US, the relative wealth of the rich skyrocketed in large part because of the stock market being vigorously fluffed by money that it's possessors literally had no other use for, and the rich own all the stocks), that was not a good plan and she should be pretty embarrassed by it's reception, even if she honestly doesn't understand why giving the rich more money when the poor are desperate is, technically speaking, the dumbest solution to the problem of wealth inequality. It's having a math problem of adding together two handfuls of peanuts and somehow ending up with a grapefruit, I'm not sure how a human brain manages to get that result to a simple question. It's fundamentally inexplicable, the kind of stupid you'd expect from an American animated comedy show. I feel that she needs to have already resigned somehow, or maybe have just not put her name in the hat?
    3
  174. Dang, I had a rough time with tomatoes this year, we planted them pretty late due to a hectic year, but we got enough that we have some canned, some dried, and some roasted in the freezer (makes a HECK of a red sauce, even if you add nothing but ripe tomatoes and olive oil, but I've also added onions, garlic, peppers, black pepper, salt, and it's all roasted on a big pan (I did two pans at once last time! Thank goodness for convection!), I bake them until the skins start to blacken on the few I leave skin up. After they cool I use an immersion blender to puree the lot and it's ready to go! SO MUCH EASIER than frying/boiling down tomatoes to make a sauce, and you get a much deeper flavor to boot! Apparently Bubonic Plague was transmitted by parasites carried by the rats, the real issue wasn't rats, it was that people weren't being responsible and this was the consequence of growing too numerous and not managing pollution (of their era), so rats thrived in great numbers and traveled with people all over. You know, I don't think I've heard someone argue that The Black Death was an example of human caused environment-related catastrophe, and I've heard some weird ones before! It does check out though. There are other ones, the Middle East used to be quite hospitable before humans destroyed huge swathes of it with ignorant farming practices (so far back ago that most people just assume that was always just desert). It's fascinating that there are people who DON'T believe in human caused environmental catastrophes when we've been causing them over and over, ranging from the ongoing mass extinciton that stared when we learned to make hunting tools to our obsession with making money SPECIFICALLY from fossil fuels (why does it HAVE to be fossil fuels unless you're actively trying to destroy the world?? It's too proven at this point for it not to be a deliberate choice, to slowly render our only home worthless, so some dipshits in suits and pretend to have more money. Yay capitalism!
    3
  175. 3
  176. 3
  177. 3
  178. 3
  179. 3
  180. 3
  181. 3
  182. 3
  183. 3
  184. 3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188. The irony of capitalism is that it only works if you have a viable, well remunerated consumer class, yet the system of capitalism actively fights against letting wealth trickle down, meaning the consumers gradually get fleeced for more and more over time, in order to support a growing class of non-contributing overlords, most of whom are untreated psychopaths with less empathy than a fruit fly grub. If you let capitalism 'do whatever it wants', you very quickly develop a brutally oppressed underclass and a wildly rewarded class of capitalists, this is because money doesn't come from nowhere, you can't ACTUALLY just make money, it's a representation of work, and as such if society makes too much fake money (crypto, fluffing the stock market so the rich can take bigger loans out on their assets to cover living expenses, the list goes on, any instance where money 'appears' in the economy when no work has been done to generate it), you get bad inflation, which is why we had a massive pile of inflation after trump childishly refused to raise interest rates (a thing that was needed at the time to keep the stock market from having a fluff-fest, where everyone wanks each other), though the crypto BS didn't help either (and no, crypto is not made via 'work', it's value is entirely arbitrary, it's not backed by either a colossal government that's 'too-big-to-fail' or made of something intrinsically valuable, there is no reason for it to be worth anything, it has less real value than my various collectables, which I can at least look at or play with). So, if they can't just make endless pretend money, where does it come from? billionaires are rich off of the share of poor people, which they are legally entitled to under a broken system. Having about 30% of the population absolutely destitute and forced to both live hand to mouth, as well as take any offered job is the preferred outcome for capitalism, and if that desperate and easily exploited underclass doesn't exist the capitalists will do things like, oh, say, buy up real estate when it makes no real sense, like has been happening for awhile now. First they went after farmers, 'consolidating' the smaller and less efficient farms, but also just scamming them without consequence as well, now the rich are trying to set up a new form of thralldom, where the bottom are serfs again, only with the trappings of tech. They wil own all the houses, and all the farms, and the poor will have to pay most of their income just to cover rent, which is happening now obviously. Meanwhile there are still jackass 'conservatives' out there who think the capitalists won't keep expanding that foundation over time, but the problem is that if they don't expand the upper reaches continuously, people will realize that they have no chance of ever moving up, and will refuse to be exploited. As such, they need to both create more poor people, and make the existing poor people more poor in order to funnel more wealth upwards.
    3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. The habit forming nature of these foods is part of how they work, if you've never had access to good vegetables you don't know how enjoyable it can be to eat them, and similarly, if you haven't trained your body to eat raw vegetables it will take time to get used to them, this is part of why children need to have access to real food, if a kid doesn't think good raisins (like flame or lexia) are sweet, they need to work on their palate, they're eating too much non-sugar sweeteners, because a lexia raisin is generally more than half sugar by weight. Because I eat primarily actual food, and even did as a kid, I've never been overly fond of fast food, I've always preferred actual home cooked food when I have the option. I remember being a kid and hearing other kids talk about how much they loved mcdonalds food, especially the fries! I couldn't believe it, we didn't eat it very often, but I had tried it, and while it was better than a 'bad' meal at home, we had almost no such meals, so mcdonalds tasted cheap and artificial. At this point I literally grow my own potatoes, garlic, onions, leeks, tomatoes, peppers, etc many of which get processed. As a side effect I eat better than most people period, regardless of their wealth, it doesn't hurt that I'm also an excellent cook, but growing a lot of my own food really changes things. I've even raised and processed some chickens, it's unreal how different the meat tasted and smelled, it turns out chicken has plenty of flavor if you don't butcher it when it's a tiny baby bird that's still putting on weight, we had dressed chickens that were well over 10lb, one breast could feed 3 or 4 people on a regular night, our food is a nightmare. The issue with peanut butter isn't actually taste, it's texture, pure peanut butter (made with nothing but peanuts) tastes quite good, but it is also relatively stiff, and it's prone to separation the more finely you grind it (and if you remove those thin skins, that's another big thing! the shell can go, but afaik the skins help with digesting peanuts). I know about this because we lived near a store that sold peanut butter that was ground on demand, from their own roasted peanuts. It was very nifty.
    3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. "Hip Hop is dead, long live Hip Hop" comes to mind. My problems with drake are mostly summed up by his seeming hatred of black women/unhealthy interest in underage girls (pretty sure he just hates women period, and it manifests differently based on how much he wants to bang them), but also that he's not at heart an artist, he's a businessman who makes art because he couldn't think of another way a man with his skillset could amass this much money and power, the whole thing is a business transaction. Also, did he have ghostwriters or what? Like what's going on now if not? I mean I clown on ye, but I also didn't love his older stuff (I encountered golddigger after I got into feminism, so that landed with a dull, damp thud and did not bounce, and his other stuff felt brutally overproduced and inauthentic, which is funny because we found out he liked hitler all along), from what I understand it's not entirely awful, if you dig the nazi stuff then it's the best music you've had since wagner, out nazis tend not to be very good at making art that isn't heavy-handed propaganda (but then we have golddigger, so yeah, the premise that it's a-okay for men to be only into women for their looks (with the understanding that they're out as soon as someone better comes along) but women being into men for money is SHALLOW...). Kendrick is more of an artist than a businessman, he's good at both but he seems to love the craft in a fairly old school way (just my views from hearing him rap on a few tracks, but also talk in public), and while Kendrick has baggage too, he's got less. It seems insane that drake actively took on Kendrick, but I agree with F.D's take that it was expected that Kendrick would crap all over drake, but it was NOT expected that Kendrick would make it the song of the summer; it wasn't just an all time epic roast, it was a roast and EVERYONE'S invited, and it's going on all summer, like an old Roman Triumph.
    3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204. 3
  205. 3
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208. 3
  209. 3
  210. The way I put Hu vs Xi is that Hu believed in the power of a committee to reach a useful (and probably better on a consistent enough basis to be statistically significant) conclusion/solution to a problem, while Xi is more interested in centralizing power. I'm pretty sure that Hu was a more successful leader, even if you ignore Covid, Xi just keep centralizing power more so he's more and more free of consequence, but the big reason Hu was a better leader for China was that Hu was better at trade and improving China's standing, Xi is increasingly coming across as a bully and interventionist/supporter of interventions like Ukraine. I think Xi is much more likely to get into a war with India and/or Pakistan, also Taiwan or Japan or Russia (because maybe China doesn't want to keep paying for resources, this would happen very swiftly if the West felt the need to 'intervene' in Ukraine and institute regime change in Russia (which would seem reasonable if Russia got more nuke-happy). Xi just seems so, so much more insecure than Hu, Hu didn't need to posture constantly. It's openly horrifying how soft even Biden has been with the saudis, they are 100% willing to tank the US economy for their amusement/benefit, as we're witnessing *again*, and once again the response is to kiss butt, not kick butt. There are other sources of energy, boycott saudi oil maybe, like the US does with iran? The US doesn't buy from them directly very much, but they affect the global supply which affects global price. I still say the solution to saudi arabia is a combination of developing Canadian oil as cleanly as possible (...yeah) and use that to develop green infrastructure to truncate future CO2 emissions. If the US used it's clout to discourage allies (the US still has a few that matter) from buying it as well. Yeah, bolsanaro IIRC also supports just removing (however) any Natives living in that forest they want to replace with soybeans/corn, in addition to the horrors he is all but demanding of his supporters to feed the industrialist overlords that hold his leash. I'm honestly at a loss at this point how someone can look at someone like thatcher and see that as a big success story, economic or otherwise, it seems rightwing leaders merely have to not kill everyone off to have been 'a pretty great leader', I have no idea how people just unconsciously lower their standards for them, but they certainly do. It makes me think of reagan, who was essentially incompetent (legally speaking, not just colloquially, that standard he likely met when he was first elected) by the time he left office, gets huge passes despite staggering levels of corruption and even war crimes/supporting the commission of war crimes, which should probably be treated similarly, he also didn't have a thriving economy compared to some famous (relatively) leftwing presidents, who get zero credit for their success. Yeah, I just read a smidgen of a summary, it suggests that thatcher was fairly indifferent in regards to the economy, while also keeping suffering high due to things like unemployment, which apparently was high (during a period of high inflation, meaning most workers were making less all the time). I wish we'd all stop huffing chemicals and wake up to the fact that we seem to have a pre-programmed bias to be conservative, it's like becoming a liberal, or god forbid, a progressive, is a process of change and growth, this would obviously explain why conservatives want to tank the education system (and make university 'just for the elites'), as long as their is a heavy conservative leaning propaganda that is most mainstream media in the US the masses will just gravitate towards their doom.
    3
  211. 3
  212. 3
  213. 3
  214. 3
  215. 3
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. I'd be shocked if belarus joined this war, the morale for those troops would be painfully low, even russian troops would rather do anything else, I feel like we're not far from mass surrenders if they keep sending troops in without guns, training or supplies, they'll just surrender because Ukraine isn't run by psychopathic monsters that will torture them for the heck of it. I feel like there might be a difference between 'offensive vs defensive' weapons in this war, but if russia is going to freely target civilians, we have to let the Ukrainians defend themselves better, and part of that defense is probably longer range strikes to russia to further cripple it's war effort. We're at the point where the US is going to have to make clear to russia that use of nukes will result in a military disaster for russia, there would be no impunity for putin, especially with huge swathes of the nukes being outdated if not completely defective, the biggest hassle would be knowing which nukes you need to address from their arsenal, with most likely not working. The putin regime hasn't actually been funding the military in the lead up to this, that's how incompetent the russians are in this conflict, they went into a war of aggression hopelessly unprepared and are being trounced, with the only remaining tools at their disposal when this troop surge does nothing is the nukes that will result in putin being removed from office by force. It's such a shit show, and I can't really see it getting better, you can't really negotiate with a lunatic that murders Ukrainian families to try to boost his bitterly unhappy troops' morale, things are really dark for the russians, they were bad when they were winning, they're horrible now that they're in retreat. I wonder if russia would have dared invade a Ukraine that still had it's nuclear arsenal, I bet Ukraine got some great concessions when they gave those up! Whats that, just some BS? Wow, bad deal! It was like they found the one person who was actually more incompetent and out of touch than old boris in liz, it is glorious watching the party that chose her because of her big tax cut plans now desperately arguing that these are terrible ideas, it's like a train wreck in slow motion full of people I won't really miss, these ghouls thought it was a good time to cut taxes on the rich when the government was badly strapped for cash, taking even less of the money from people who don't actually notice taxes in terms of lifestyle. It's just astounding the levels of hypocrisy coming out of these conservatives. As to risking offending the saudis, wake up, they did 9/11, why are you worried about offending your enemy? They literally sided with russia in this conflict, when russia not only invaded a peaceful neighbor, it has committed atrocities while doing it... I suppose the saudis are fine with both of those things, they have no qualms about intervening in their neighbor's business. Also, that moron needs to read some history books, the map of the middle east was pretty much made by Europeans for their own convenience, they put who they wanted in power wherever it was convenient. Much as I hate to say it, trump was a jackass but he didn't launch two unprovoked invasions of countries that are thousands of miles away (and filled with a very hostile populace), those were blunders that were arguably even worse than anything trump did (either of those is worse than anything he did arguably). The kicker is that bush probably pushed the button on those invasions because of his advisors, in contrast with trump who didn't invade anywhere because people were able to confuse/distract/lie to him until he forgot what he was talking/thinking about, trump would have been much worse but for his advisors (who were also very bad, just not as bad/stupid as trump). I do remember posting on a shithole online forum, arguing with a right winger and she brought up shells of mustard gas as proof that Iraq did in fact have WMDs. Even then they were not arguing in good faith.
    2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. The core nugget keeping peace from coming to pass between the Palestinians and israel is that israel has the upper hand and only makes efforts to gain impunity, and to achieve 'peace' through that impunity (which means giving up nothing, that the Palestinians capitulate further). The israelis listen to the right wing too much, and the only peace a right winger can understand is a terrorized opposition or a dead one, and that doesn't actually work as a strategy in the real world, so it keeps failing. The israelis keep having these 'freak-out' moments when the Palestinians inform them they don't have complete impunity, and can still lose citizens (that said, this conflict is so asymmetrical that wildly more Palestinians will be dying). Their are elements of 2 children who are fighting and each wants to get the last hit in, but one of the kids is 17 and 6 ft tall, and the other is a 4'6 12 year old, it's not a fair fight, and the near-adult party that you'd expect would know better than to keep going just keeps going full steam. This new mess has huge 'Oh no, now we have to step up the oppression of the Palestinians!' energy, and it honestly makes me extremely suspicious of who exactly was getting anything out of this? It seems to be impossible for israel to have missed this entire operation (seems is a strong word, I'd say it is impossible period), but it does seem really interesting that this happens when the deeply corrupt leader of israel is dealing with bad press/an angry populace, not unlike how bush Jr was only a 2 term president because of 9/11 (he'd have been laughed out of office after one term without the two stupid wars he started to keep power) I suspect this wasn't entirely a surprise to bibi, just like 9/11 wasn't entirely a surprise to the bush admin, and I suspect both were quite willing to let them happen (if they didn't actively contribute) because they would be politically radioactive for the left paradoxically (when you create chaos, it helps right wing parties, meaning right wing parties have immense incentives to cause chaos). Too many brackets, and too many conspiracy theories, but this attack has incredibly bad juju and I worry that 10-20 years later the other shoe will drop. Still, I think the person who had the biggest smile after this attack was bibi himself, he now has carte blanche to react as he sees fit. I have to say it's a weird angle to say that israel has no responsibility for this, self defense is a thing, if you hit me I have a right to swing back with even more force (assuming I am able), within reason. I think an adult should be able to say that what hamas did was awful, but what israel has been doing for decades was much, much worse. This is very much a 'kick a hornet's nest, get stung' territory at a certain point, they've been inhumanely brutal towards the Palestinians and the US has done everything it can to enable them. Can somebody give biden a history book about the American Revolution??? You guys were terrorists overthrowing a legitimate government by the standards of the time, you don't get to say 'we weren't terrorists because we won'. Terrorism is bad, but saying it's never okay is pro-establishment horseshit, and it's staggering hypocrisy from a country that funded countless terrorists through the world to overthrow democracies and anything resembling socialism to have it's president say shit like this. Stuff like this is why I argue the US is, in truth, a fascist state that relies on an staggeringly thorough propaganda network that enables the US to commit atrocities as it sees fit, both on it's own citizens (see the police brutality when people tried to argue that Black Lives Matter, apparently the police vociferously disagreed). I'm really glad you brought up that 1000:1 ratio for a prisoner exchange, the israeli right doesn't really recognize the right of Palestinians to exist, as such they would embrace such an opportunity to insult the Palestinians by publicly showing that hundreds of them aren't worth 1 israeli. This same philosophy plays into the extreme reactions from israeli, as any israeli hurt, killed or even inconvenienced deserves to have Palestinian blood drawn on their behalf, so a response is always needed, and it's always bloody. This is also why they seek out some sort of magical impunity (be it the dome, or a so thoroughly oppressed Palestinian state that it won't keep fighting, or something else), the right promises it over and over because it appeals to the dull among the populace who don't understand how reality works, but those promises only have appeal if the bogeyman can still qualify as a danger.
    2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. As a kid that was fairly fat I'm glad I was able to improve my relationship with food/activity, but it's an uphill battle. The thing that made the biggest difference (after losing almost all of my fat, I have incredibly wide hips but at my skinniest I fit in 32/36 501s, I was about 6'4 and 170lb, down from 350) has been building muscle mass. In my case I have a lot of 'space' on my frame, so even though I'm pretty close to 300lb I still wear 42/34 pants (and at the actual waist). Also, actual male sex symbols vary, but the most 'popular' archetype varies as women age I suspect, when they're younger they prefer skinny guys (and tall is a bigger asset), as women age that matters less and muscle mass is preferred, but not beyond 'well built', bulky muscles are usually seen as unattractive. The irony of course is that on the whole women care a lot less about looks than men, yet we have thousands of neurotic men who don't want to ask girls out that are angry they're still virgins. It's also a huge issue that patriarchy is very specific to both men and women about what is 'acceptable' to desire, and plenty of women (just like men) don't think for themselves, those women will prefer older men who have money, because that's what patriarchy (which is first and foremost about assigning the wealth of society, make no mistake) has gas-lit them to believe is 'attractive'. It's like how everyone had to pretend 'heroin chic' was even remotely attractive, because it meant we could have lazy people that were 'top tier' models, despite having little talent and no work ethic, it wasn't about having a healthy body and keeping it in tip top shape, it was about not eating because you do so many speedballs your bowels stop working. I've always felt that Tupac wasn't really a 'believer' in the thug life, he just knew it was an unfortunate necessity if he was going to make it big, being a badass meant millions would hear his rhymes and he could maybe change stuff. Very good point, why would anyone take dating advice from a bunch of unmarried men who give 'stuck in the closet' vibes, if you want advice ask someone who you actually admire AND has a healthy marriage as proof of concept. I couldn't believe how much effort was put in to trying to convince me to date, it's hard to explain to people that you don't really like dating as a concept, even if you're interested in getting married someday; dating isn't universal, and our culture trying to normalize it as the only way for people to be is deeply problematic. Its pretty hilarious what incels think is a hot man, I'm not into men but even I know that most women don't want a man that's even vaguely like that. The majority of women don't like bulky muscles, and way fewer women like extreme leanness (...if you're trying to date 15 year olds it'd help to be 'jacked', but much less so for adults), most find it repellent (also, people who are overly skinny often look way older, having some fat on your face is a sign of youth/virility). If you want to be more desirable, work on your personality way more than anything else, you know what MOST women find hot? A man that can make them laugh on command, way more women will hook up with a guy who makes them laugh (and thus makes them feel very comfortable) than a brooding mini-hulk. Oh, and smile more, frowny faces aren't attractive. If a woman can't have a good conversation with you the odds of her wanting to actually hook up with you are extremely low, so learn to talk to people until conversation feels intuitive. It's amazing how many guys think their habits (such as too much gaming) aren't part of the problem, if you don't have a few hobbies you can talk to people about that aren't into gaming you're more or less writing off everyone who isn't obsessed with gaming (and way fewer girls are obsessed with gaming, in part because of the incredibly toxic culture) from your life, also gaming is neither productive nor healthy as a rule, it's a thing to limit because they're very addictive to socially isolated people. Patriarchy commodified sex because it's a really powerful stick to hold over the head of people who might be refractory, 'play by our rules or nobody will marry you' is scary for many people, especially when victory is far from certain if you try to stand up for yourself. I still despise touch screens, mice are infinitely better, and a track ball has most of the utility of a mouse without needing a surface. They are convenient for a mobile perhaps, but you can't 'do' much with them IMHO. If you actually know how to type using a touch screen is like playing a piano with your nose. Touch screens are progress in the same way GUI was progress for personal computers... all it did was slow down the best to speed up the worst among us, DOS was a more efficient engine, throwing Windows on top of it actually slowed down PCs, so you couldn't run the same programs. Oh, and DOS programs were WAY more stable, because the whole thing wasn't held together with bubblegum and scotch tape. I need to start a petition to forcibly change his name to andrew taint (and you can't capitalize it). Also, is he related to trump, or is just the facts that when you're a big enough a-hole your chin just fucks off forever? I'm just asking questions. Also, there is no chance his career was remotely real, he can't take a kick to the face with a chin that dainty, let alone a hard one, let alone enough to have had a career as a kickboxer, he's a plant. For the record FD, it's actually very possible to bulk up in your 50s if your healthy, perhaps not to the degree the of the Rock, but I'm WAY more muscular now (at 40) than I was in my 20s and 30s, and I build muscle more easily, and I'm not even of Polynesian heritage (I think The Rock is?). From observing my father it seems you don't really start to decline until you're surprisingly old, provided you keep active enough and eat reasonably. Most people stop exercising and quickly start to decay as they age, but you don't necessarily have to.
    2
  258. The fancy autocorrect that is 'Generative AI' isn't anywhere near general AI, and marketing as such was a blatant scam, it's something that's confusing enough that gullible rich people will hand over buckets of money, and since it's so 'complicated' you don't have to follow through. Tech is so vulnerable to this because so many of the people doing investing only have a 'business' education, so most of them don't have any idea how anything in the world works, and as such they're incredibly easy to scam, and that's why tech scams keep on coming. I stopped using facebook when it started using it's algo more, I absolutely hated 'the feed', but since it makes zucky more bucks it was almost unavoidable. Also, it was very eager to shunt me off to a corner, at least Instagram has bots that like my stuff now and then. That said I wanted to throw my tablet when it started suggesting I DM people. I don't want to DM people on your platform my guys, I was well aware the 'feature' exists, and I'm well aware that 99% of the DMs I've gotten on your platform have been VERY OBVIOUS scams. I'm pretty sure instagram is going to crash in not too long (they keep pushing video content on a platform that is a worse video platform than Youtube was WHEN IT CAME OUT. It's like zucky hates making money or something, but the system keeps trying to give him more of it out of spite). VR is terrible tech, and the funny part was that people gave up on the Virtual Boy because it made people nauseous, nobody solves the actual problem yet they released the bad tech again. The metaverse was an absolute boondoggle, I can't believe how bad an idea it was, yet the implementation was actually even worse than the core idea. The whole thing looked like it ran on an OG Playstation, I will die a happier man knowing how epically that plan belly-flopped for this soulless robot. My guy, the right wing wasn't 'taking over' facebook, everyone who has power at the company was always right wing. The algo wasn't feeding people what they wanted, the truth was that it fed you *what the billionaires wanted you to see*, and it made the people that were convenient to the rich famous. Nothing about Web 2.0 was organic, I wish people would beat that zombie idea into the ground. The critical flaw for generative AI is that it's not creative on any level, all it ever does is guess what comes next based on what a plurality of the internet would do... you know, the internet, where everyone is smart and nobody ever lies! It's trash tech that only passes the smell test if you're not an expert in whatever topic is at issue. It's incredible that in 2024 people are still living out the 'Wait, PEOPLE LIE ON THE INTERNET?!" meme, and many of them are billionaires. It'd be adorable if these people hadn't been given the power of life and death over the world. All of the generative stuff I've read is actively trying to present itself as something it's not, and that's because it's been told to. AI, like most examples of 'progress' over the last few hundred years has had only one purpose, to further stratify society. We didn't automate factories to help workers, we did it so the owners of the factory would get more of the profits. AI is going to be used for the same reason, it's promise is to disempower artists, such that if they can still work their professional standing will be much lower, and you won't have to pay them much/treat them with respect. Never forget that the people a suit hates most is the creatives he has to pay, he can replace anyone else in the company very easily (and it's not a secret that most CEOs suck at their jobs), but the artists at it can be irreplaceable. it's as much about the suits wanting to have power over artists as it is about money, but we're very much at the point where money = power. When aliens find our dead planet I wonder what they'll make of our obsessive greed? We're desperate for proper satire to help mirror our madness for us, it's astounding that the same species that can be responsible for tech wonders also thought that throwing garbage in the ocean made it go away forever (and if an area didn't have a water source to pollute, humans bury their garbage so it'll pollute ground water, or burn it so it'll spread contaminants). Our society is designed to reward evil among the privileged class, and entry into that class is earned through evil acts, if you doubt this think carefully about what it means to have a huge swath of the country be against consequences for famous people, regardless of what they do. Now when you say 'I don't want to financially support rapists' people come out of the woodworks, hoping to badger you into giving your precious money to abusers, this is what happens when the capitalists get too rich, they start trying to set up fascism with all their money, turning that wealth directly into power.
    2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. DISCLAIMER: very long and written while more irate than is necessary, I actually thought it was an interesting guest and topic, I just have a visceral hatred of how most people handle this topic and it takes time for me to get past that reflex. Anyways, keep that in mind if you keep reading! While I feel like it's not really a thing, I also think experientially that it's a thing. I don't relate to 20 year olds because I'm ~twice their age, not because of 'generational differences' I'd argue, yet part of why I'm different is that I was raised in a different environment. I'd still say that there isn't 'cohorts' of people like society likes to describe, it was just something that sounded clever (and seemed obviously true because it appealed to 'kids these days are weird/useless' tropes). Your socio-economic background will likely have more to do with your beliefs/behaviors than 'your generation', but it's worth noting that those annoying celebs that make a big effort to mug at 'being normal', stuff like 'liking hotdogs', it's all to build false connection with a bunch of people they despise, not because of any real generational similarities, they're exploiting dumb people's monkey brain. Grouping people is usually stupid when you apply those 'group' characteristics to any individual, it's like how BMI is a useable tool (if not perfect or especially good by itself) when studying large populations but becomes completely useless when looking at individual cases. Normal people have almost no need for generalizations (it's a thing people dealing with large populations need to track), yet every moron thinks their generalizations are especially brilliant and truthful, generalizations are infamous for seemingly offering you a useful tool while actually offering you nothing but pathological preconceptions because you won't judge individual cases based on their merits. ...Yeah, mental health was way better in the past, when lynching was just another form of the judicial system, there couldn't be any way we could look at the historical record and see people engaged in openly insane stuff (and society was fine with it), clearly it was because they were more sane and well adjusted than us! Those witch burnings? Because of excess sanity, if we were more sane, we'd also be burning witches! Seriously, you have NO IDEA how underreported mental health problems were, and how socially acceptable it was to 'treat' your own mental health problems by traumatizing other people (it's fucked up, but it actually does make you feel better to ruin someone else's life for most humans, our default is to be selfish sadists, look at children), and that ignores that until very recently we didn't have any ways to treat mental health that were better than rest at home, specialists were usually dangerously wrong. The Left loves to yammer about how 'hurt people hurt people' without making the connection that people used to hurt others a lot more, and there is no way that didn't create countless complex (and crippling) traumas. Society values people who traumatize others in certain ways, it's mostly about who they target. It's not a coincidence that CEOs are selected for being amoral and free of empathy (aka psychopathic narcissists), the patriarchy likes certain types of the mentally ill a great deal because they are very, very useful, the other useful type is the 'big dumb jock' archetype, dumb but athletic men were easily corrupted by 'the system', and those big idiots then prop up the establishment that gives them tiny privileges they can lord over 'the lessers' (who they are intensely jealous of because they are smarter and otherwise much happier than the idiots). The big idiot trope isn't new, and that's because that's exactly how patriarchy took over generally, men who had wealth of some kind bought the services (as men they knew the dreams of stupid men, and could easily win them over) of naïve but strong men who felt great loyalty to the system that has given them more than their neighbor, and together the wealthy/influential and the strong oppressed everyone else. Our whole system was founded on making sure that big strong stupid people have lots of sex, and that they be indoctrinated to support the establishment with violence, and it hasn't really changed other than superficially. The establishment mostly laughs at us lefties, we're not organized (or even organizing in any appreciable way) while the right has literally trillions of dollars at their disposal, meaning they can bribe any judge, doctor, politician, etc. The war is long over, we've been in the clean-up stages since modern capitalism came about a few hundred years ago, the 'big strong idiot' trope has been expanded to include 'idiot with a gun', because they don't actually need to be strong, just dumb and loyal to the patriarchy. There might be more lefties, and we might be the smart people, but the evil people don't really care about mass starvation/technological collapse due to the mass-killing of the intelligentsia, that's the end game of the death cult that is the fascist right, killing off everyone smarter than them, and bribing those they need to sustain their lucrative oppression. Anyways, if it sounds like I'm saying people aren't suffering lots of mental health issues now, my point is that we've always had tons of 'crazies' in our societies, the ways we handled them has varied, and part of why we at present find 'more issues' is a mix of higher stress levels compared to post WW2 Western World standards and technology exacerbating our tendency to avoid social interaction. Also, we talk about how stressful modern life is, but boy are people in for a surprise if we have a big climate related famine, if you think having a shitty job sucks, not being able to afford food is a lot more stressful. Very few people have 'life and death' moments in their daily life, people used to have them often enough to get jaded, powerful nobles could die because their horse sits on them and they drown in mud, anyone could die of septic shock from a nasty splinter, life was VERY stressful in the past. Video games were fine when I was a kid, but they aren't really fun anymore, in part because people hack my games and in part because I just don't enjoy computer games inherently, I can make actual stuff, I can grow actual plants, why would I play minecraft unless I think reality is stupid? I get it that I have 'rural privilege', but people are way too eager to spend time in front of a screen when they could spend time actually doing stuff. I'd rather smell a beautiful smelling flower than spend time playing games that appeal to only 2 senses in a meaningful manner. Also, other than Nintendo I think gaming has been stultifying in sameness for decades, the West hasn't made an actual new game since the Xbox was new (I could be wrong here, I don't play as noted, but I haven't heard of much outside Indie games). Honestly, it probably helps that I've just done too much work now and can't play any games dependent on speed or coordination (I work with my hands mostly), so if all you could really play is strategy games you'd also get tired of them eventually. I mostly play skill based stuff that has tons of room for personal expression (in Civilization 1 I could name my cities and stuff and that was about it, but in Magic the Gathering's EDH format I can build my own 100 card singleton deck from 10s of thousands of cards and express my own unique feelings/experiences in a meaningful, collaborative manner), the higher the difficulty the better. I learned stuff from some of the games I played, but it's dangerous that they give you a feeling of accomplishment for doing literally nothing. I don't think any honest medical expert would support people recreationally using video games more than an hour a day, if not even less tbh, people shouldn't be binging for hours, you're just setting yourself up to fail. Americans pretend to value individualism, but their society historically had absolutely zero tolerance for any thinking other than what the establishment supported, remember those communism kangaroo courts you guys had? Remember when various weirdly far right positions are held up despite having zero legal basis, and how this stuff happens over and over? When are Americans going to realize that almost all of the things it's propaganda says about itself is said not because it's true, but because it gives it's establishment carte blanche to do whatever they want, here and overseas. You're not the good guys, and you very much never were, your country wasn't founded on freedom, it was founded on having slaves and not paying taxes, two of the most right wing ideas the world has ever known, other than 'if you don't do ______, then I'll do [something horrible] to you until you do.' Right wing societies do not like individualism, they actively try to stomp it out.
    2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. Re: ordering Panda Express, I don't eat out (or order in), but I also have zero responsibilities by the standards of most adults my age, so I have time to put effort into cooking numerous meals. My bugbear has become asking why isn't there any stammpot places? It's a hassle to make at home (like really good poutine, another food that can scratch similar itches, but this is MUCH better for you as it's got veggies), but you could very easily make huge batches of it; it's fried up meat, onions, maybe garlic, maybe some carrots, maybe some celeriac if you're really lucky, a huge amount of cabbage or kale (or both mixed), and various herbs if you're incredibly lucky, and after all of that is fried to perfection (I first fry the meat, then add onions/garlic/celery once the meat is starting to brown, most other ingredients can be added, but you add so much cabbage/kale that I usually add them last, but keep in mind cabbage cooks MUCH slower than kale, so cook the cabbage and add the kale), the final step is you add mashed potatoes to the pan (which should be turned WAY down at this point, so the potatoes don't stick), plenty of them, and mix it all up. It's SO GOOD, and if you use plenty of cabbage/kale it's also the perfect meal if you've got an upset stomach, especially with some herbs! It's a 'Dutch' dish, but similar dishes are made in many other areas, like Scotland and Portugal, with some variations naturally. I usually use sausage for the meat, but you can use almost any kind of meat you want, but whatever you use it needs to be broken up/chopped up reasonably small to make it 'my way', this is a meal you shouldn't need a knife to eat, it's very suitable to bowl and spoon, perfect for late night eating if you're so out of it you don't trust a fork!
    2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. The way ozempic 'works' on stuff like drugs, alcohol, etc, is that it messes with your body's ability to reward itself for 'desirable' behaviors. That can result in life being dull and meaningless for people, and the 'slowing' of the movement of food can be a lot worse than you're suggesting on here. Also, if you've got issues that lead to you developing an eating disorder and just take a drug that prevents you from feeling good (and have done nothing to address the pre-existing issues), it should be obvious that it's like patching a balloon with a stapler. I used to have a huge problem with mindless eating (because it felt good to eat), solving that wasn't just about exercising more or 'eating fewer calories', it was about changing my fundamental relationship with food. Part of the problem with bariatric surgery is that people often have no ability to improve the quality of their diet (because they can't eat enough food after bypass or something), you're better off being 10-20% overweight if you're eating a much healthier diet than the skinnier person that got surgery now has a tiny stomach. My heaviest was around 350, my lightest was 170 (in clothes), my waist went from well over 50 inches to fitting properly into 32/36 501s, I was probably a bit healthier at 170, but if I'm honest it was obvious to me and everyone who saw me that I wasn't at the correct weight for my body, even though 170lb at my height was in the 'medically ideal' range. I fit in size 42 pants now (these are more vanity sized than those 501s would have been), so while I have gained weight it's not like I 'gained it all back', and I lose that weight in my early/mid 20s, and I did it almost entirely through diet and exercise, the key is to change your lifestyle, you can't live the same way and have an improving outcome, that's not how life works. Haha, yeah, if you're losing weight and not actively exercising you lose a LOT of muscle, that's how weight loss works, and that's why those with weight that doesn't fluctuate much tend to have more muscle mass overall. It's also why doctors get people coming to them complaining that 'they can't keep the weight off', because each time they crash diet they lose more lean mass. In truth our society would probably benefit more from people taking up resistance training vs taking hormone therapy to lose weight, building new muscle not only helps burn tons more calories, it is itself hormonally active in a beneficial way. Failure to engage in resistance training as a senior has incredibly bad outcomes, much worse than being a bit overweight (and ironically people who have done weight lifting for years will end up heavier due to having more muscle mass/denser bones, yet they will always be healthier by almost every imaginable metric). Taking ozempic will not have any of the benefits for seniors that taking up resistance training will provide, and any doctor worth their salt should be telling patients to lift heavy (for the individual). The biggest problem with talking about 'weight' is that it's not really 'weight' (as in the number itself) that is a problem, it's the things that are associated with it: people who are heavier tend to eat less healthy, exercise less, drink more alcohol (which is relatively fattening), their are still doctors who don't understand that BMI has zero relevance when treating an individual. The issue isn't having too much lean mass (in almost all cases), the issue is people who weigh more are more likely to be fat than strong. People who weigh more can be less healthy, but it's almost never the fact that they consume too many calories, it's that they consume junk food/alcohol and don't exercise enough that results in worse outcomes. Same calories with a more active lifestyle and you have no problems! Some people at my height look obese when they're around 230lb, others are designed to carry more weight and look fine in the 300 range. As some experts say, as a doctor you can get much more useful data from using a tape measure than using a scale (which tells you literally nothing without more data), the ratio between your waist and height, as well as your waist to hip ratio are more illuminating than your weight, if you have a big waist it doesn't matter if your weight isn't 'high', you're still probably too fat/carrying weight poorly, and will have all the associated problems of obesity, and if your BMI is too high but you have a relatively small waist you're unlikely to have symptoms of obesity.
    2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. I remember when I actually lost a lot of weight, how awkward it would be when someone wanted to talk about it. I didn't mind giving advice, stuff that had helped me, but when you actually lose a lot of weight you realize that it's not what it's made out to be. It's not really hard to be very skinny (even if you're biologically meant to be quite large), it just eats up a lot of your time, meaning poor people can't do it, but rich people can easily spend hours a day improving their body composition. It's hilarious that trump would brag openly about losing such a paltry amount of weight, especially on a body so corpulent (he could easily lose that much in a week or two with dietary restriction, but he has no self control and can't do that), it'd be nice if he'd just say 'I'm on all of the ozempic they could fit in my fat ass' and be done with it, but then he'd be telling the truth and his tiny head would explode (ever consider that he has that stupid hair to make it look like he doesn't have a tiny head?). It wasn't just the dumb electoral college, it was pretty much a perfect storm for a dumb populist to win 2016, the US was coming off 2 Dem terms, the Dems put forth perhaps their least electable candidate, the repubs had a huge field of entirely dead wood in it's primary, the media gave trump endless free air time and normalized him to the ends of the earth, and finally the FBI showed it's true colours and publicly announced a sham investigation into 'hillary's emails' almost immediately before the election. Some similar efforts have been made for this election (biden isn't a very strong candidate, in part because the media treats him terribly, similar mostly terrible candidates competing in the primary for example), but I don't think trump will be able to overcome how incredibly unpopular he is with the majority of Americans, and while people don't want to vote for biden, it seems likely that they will hold their nose out of disgust for what trump represents and vote against trump in record numbers once again. The thing here is that trump can't afford to lose anyone since most people still hate him.
    2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. I'm not surprised to hear that israel is pretty willing to commit more war crimes, but it is unfortunate. If I was israel, I'd be concerned about the flanks, because when you murder a bunch of Arab civilians, you are going to agitate your Arab neighbors. I think I agree that israel needed to have some manner of reaction to this, but it's hard to see how this served anything. If you ask me the solution (if they wanted good results) was to root out hamas with their vaunted intelligence forced over a decade or so. It isn't a secret that the US military has had remarkably little luck in achieving foreign policy goals, but the cia has an embarrassingly good one for efficiency and effectiveness. Treating hamas like a state's army is insane in the context of what it truly is, you don't tackle a fly with a bazooka, even if it's a malaria mosquito that could ruin your life, it's just not how you deal with the problem for a variety of reasons. The only good thing about kissinger is the Monty Python song about him. Worth a listen iirc, but I haven't heard it for awhile. I think I have their song book kicking around, it was in there I think. I wouldn't be shocked if there was an interest in getting iran as irate as possible, hence the double dealing. The deep state still harbors fantasies of violently confronting iran, so it's something that has to be watched out for with republicans somehow remaining (somewhat) electable party, the political arm of the conservative deep state, if they gain power you can expect them to antagonize iran further.
    2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. Just saying, but if you leave men in charge of the entertainment, you eventually end up with chariot races and gladiatorial games, things designed to cultivate cruelty and violence in society. The Romans already knew (as most people do) that watching (and thus in a sense participating in) sadistic violence would make more sadists, and embraced this as a cultural good, in contrast with hollywood's strange urge to BS about this exact concept. The World Wars have nothing to do with cinemas urge to be cruel, it's baked into the men who chose what films would be made, and how those films that were made would be presented. That said, it's entirely possible that until WW2 there just wasn't as many working class men bothering to watch movies, but that beggars the imagination a bit. Also, modern cinematic actors aren't real actors, and treating what +90% of them do as a 'craft' is an insult to real actors. Are their exceptions? Sure, but nobody confuses actual actors with hollywood play-actors. It's worth noting that if Method Acting was invented by said russian, it seems the americans were bastardizing it early on, and it was again bastardized into the whole 'damage your flesh and pretend it's art so people will give you praise/money', which was then rebastardized AGAIN into 'don't just be hard on yourself, be an asshole to those around you too!'. Being an asshole isn't remotely a part of being an actor, but it's the entire constituency of being an asshole. Ironically, these bad actors are also bad actors, and many should have faced legal repercussions for their abusive behavior (and the guy starving himself should have been institutionalized obviously. The movie was neat though I guess, maybe? Mostly creepy if we're totally honest, I doubt I'll rewatch The Machinist). It's like these psychopaths forgot how to be psychopaths, and are just doing the self-aggrandizing asshole part, not the superficial charm angle.
    2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. Yeah, and it's extra-great how those poultry workers, who are doing that already decidedly horrific job, have to pay for diapers from their disappointingly low wage. Just fucking swell. Why is it even remotely legal for an employer to have a bathroom policy, let alone a draconian one? In trade work, our rule is we go when we fucking need to, and the boss and go fuck a drill-press if he thinks we're not going to, and they, realizing they won't have workers otherwise, accept it. In some shops the bathroom is pretty gross, but it's there, and if there isn't, the boss can expect a well pissed on car. What I'm getting at is that the average worker in the US has less rights than a low-skill trades worker in other countries, and the US has judge's that decree that workers have an obligation (a *fucking obligation*, not the ability to choose to be an idiot) to die on their companies behalf. Edit: Yeah, about those fixed fines? Those were designed that way because it was a given that they'd become hopelessly obsolete, and the corporations were well aware that the US political system is so fucking dysfunctional that no real updates would be forthcoming. While ~4k was once a not insignificant amount of money, even to a fairly large corporation, it is now less than nothing to one. This is also why I hate using fixed fines in the legal system, all fines need to be based on the party involveds ability to pay. If a multi-billion dollar corporation has an fuck up that was preventable and shows an astounding lack of empathy to have allowed, the actual management involved in the decision making process, as well as the company, need to face consequences, and since they won't be sent to actual prison ever (they'll at best be sent to the prison where you get to meditate all day, not actual prison). If a trillion dollar corporation has a million dollar fine, they are literally going to be laughing about it, make that fine in the billions and they might notice.
    2
  314. Childcare is incredibly important, and it sure was convenient, I wonder why women had to stop caring for their own kids and start going into the workplace? The reason that women had to go out into the work force in the first place was to significantly reduce the wage pressure on companies by flooding the job market with relatively low skill workers (and if women got skilled, they weren't paid accordingly, and still aren't) who will tolerate poor treatment because society has forcibly raised women to be meek. This was how the big corps fought back vs unions without people even realizing, the US went from being able to afford a home and family on one relatively average income to not being able to afford a family with two average incomes, all because the work force became immense (and all the good paying manufacturing jobs were moved overseas, where unions could still be violently busted). Since people can't afford families they are trying to have less kids, this was undesirable to corps who needed a constantly flooded market to depress wages, so the fight moved on to the 'take away abortion/birth control' so the poor will have to have lots of children or have weird and unsatisfying sex lives (ymmv obviously). None of the shit that happens is an accident, our trends are curated carefully to manipulate the populace, the establishment is willing to use any means available to achieve it's ends. The irony of all this is you can have a constant flood of eager workers if you just let people in (this is why the repubs don't actually want to solve this problem, corps use a lot of illegal labour, but they also can't be honest about it because their base is REALLY RACIST), immigration solves a great many issues. Our society has tolerated racism for so long we are all being punished for it by repubs that are rolling back rights and entitlements, and are running on doing more of the same.
    2
  315. 2
  316. I varied from a complete joy to the worst student imaginable, I was usually a good student when young but I stopped putting effort in as I got older, I really hated school by the time I was a teenager, I really would have been better off as a kid if I would have embraced trade work at a younger age, so I wouldn't keep forcing myself to go to school. I did learn stuff at school, but I still consume news in this age and day, so I'd have been learning either way. I will say, at least I can do critical theory to art now, the irony being I was the worst critical theory student most of my profs ever taught, so yeah, who knows how you'll turn out. I think that vegetarian hotdog you're describing tastes exactly like a hotdog? They taste and smell bad, and you shouldn't miss them, but as they say 'nobody chooses what tastes good'. I can see missing bacon or fried ground beef, or good sausage, but hotdogs just seem so weird to miss. I can't eat gluten, and I mostly miss things like phyllo dough, which are pretty hard to make gluten free. I'm disappointed that hill turned out to be a pos, but I'm not exactly surprised. As you guys note, he went out of his way to find someone who didn't like his expectations and then bullied her into adopting them anyways. It's about the abuse for this kind of manchild, throwing in a 'or else I'm leaving you' is textbook abusive behavior that men complain about from women, why is it suddenly great when a manbaby does it? So glad this all came out, and hopefully he won't be in anything I want to watch otherwise (I've watched just about nothing of his, I could never stand the guy, but he at least seemed to be 'trying', at least half-assed, at being decent). But yeah, textbook creep turns out to be a textbook creep.
    2
  317. Here's a nice tip for you: If someone criticizes a problematic group (such as racists or bigots, which are problematic because they harass and kill people), and you take it personally, then you're the problem. Not directed at anyone in particular, this is just a general comment, people will judge you if you take 'racists are bad' as an insult. They didn't name you, the Star Wars twitter didn't say 'all Star Wars fans are racists!', they said 'Don't be a racist', and guess what? It's not only okay to say 'don't be a racist' to anyone at any time, it's also a good thing to say in a context in which people are being racist. ...It's not about Kenobi? Wtf are you talking about, he's on screen almost the entire time, and we have a real taste of how shitty life became for Obi-wan immediately after the Jedi were outlawed. He lost almost everyone he knew/was friends with, had no resources and was an outlaw from right then until New Hope. We also get an idea of why Leia would be so damn eager to go find Obi-Wan after Rogue One, even risking her life to do it, I do agree it was a huge asspull to put Luke in the trailer so prominently and then not really see him, but this is normal Star Wars behaviour, it's not like Attack of the Clones wasn't named to make people expect a clone army to, you know, attack the Republic and start the Clone Wars of the old EU, right? It's not like they reacted to our complaints that Anakin was an overly emotional crybaby in the prequels by making Kylo be so emotional that he is probably suffering from a self-induced mental health problem. It's not like they 'listened' to the complains of the people who hated Last Jedi and made Rise of Skywalker (and named it Rise of Skywalker knowing people would hope it's about some 'next step' for Luke, and not that Rey will inexplicably declare herself a Skywalker) to annoy everyone, both those already irritaited and those still on board. Star Wars has always loved annoying people, I suspect it's also why it's not really considered Science Fiction in the classical sense, it's Fantasy set in a very soft high tech universe, this will appeal to kids and later annoy them as adults when they learn more about how physics works, and how absurd Star Wars is. Also, in what fucking world is a story 'about' an antagonist? Kenobi is the protagonist, Reva is the antagonist, it's not complicated stuff. You want both in a good story, and they both need serious screen time or they will feel empty. Vader is not the antagonist at this point, he may be later (and that'd be cheap/shit IMHO, since he seems a bit childish in this, he's over 30 ffs), but if Reva is going to be it, she needs lots of time to be an actual character people will care about/potentially sympathize with. Not to be rude, but it's normal behaviour in a mainstream American movie for male characters to break rules/procedure as needed and never face consequences, it's extremely rare exceptions that are usually used for story purposes anyways. It doesn't stop being normal if a minority does it, it just stretches the immagination a bit, since minorities tend to face more consequences. Is it wrong to try to piss off racists and bigots? Nope, it's actually the right choice, and any self-respecting artist is going to be eager to pander to the much larger less racist demographics that aren't okay with people shooting people because they aren't white.
    2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. It'd be nice if the media didn't completely ignore trump's myriad flaws, faults, and defects, choosing instead to glomp onto even dubious criticisms of biden by bad-faith participants as if they're widespread consensus, I cannot believe how many journalists are outright conservatives in the US, it's almost like they won't hire you if you're not. If you want to fix your politics, stop letting billionaires own all of your media, that's literally step one, nothing is more serious than letting those selected for being the least moral among us dictate what we see and hear from the media. As long as you don't have a free press (and you definitely don't, your press is enslaved by the wealthy quite openly) you'll never have a hope of having a free country (a thing you've never been close to having yet btw). Having only for-profit press that is owned by billionaires means you never see anything the rich don't want you to see (ever wonder why media keeps going under? It gets bought by rightwing assholes who then make the media more rightwing and are shocked that the interest wanes sharply, only for said media to be bought by even worse people who further mess up the product. The problem here is billionaires don't need their news empire to make a cent, they have billions remember, so they can afford to print stories that only the billionaire class want to see printed, and the dumbest amongst us have a weird attraction to that propaganda). I feel like nobody serious can suggest Kamala take over for biden at this point, and even if Biden died/was rendered incompetent I don't think she'd make much sense to run, unless you're trying to get the orange diaper baby back in (which I still say is why they put up both hilary and biden, two extremely weak candidates to make sure trump wouldn't just get dumpstered, like he would have vs Obama (which was why he didn't run vs him, and Obama knew about this and publicly mocked trump over being a cowardly old turd)). That said, a LOT of high up dems seem to do a lot to empower republicans and conservatives in general, so I don't think we can expect to see a real candidate from the dems anytime soon, in order to let the repubs run moronic clown-babies and still win sometimes. I think the dems are going to continue to be a non-competitive party as long as they keep in their center-right lane at the top, the country doesn't want a far right party and a center right party anymore, it is desperate for actual progress, and as stupid as it sounds, the far right is the group that's talking the most about making 'progress' (which to them is making life worse), and they really do steal voters by telling the unwashed masses that Diaper Don is going to help the little guy. Maybe educate people more so they won't make decisions based on the same heuristics that causes us to install monarchies in most of the world, for most of recorded history, even though they didn't work well anywhere, ever? But no, the establishment dems hate funding education almost as much as the repubs, they are just quiet about it. Also, someone tell Dark Brandon to only ever refer to him as Diaper Don... it's the perfect insult for him because he so badly wants to be seen as dapper, but with his huge fat diaper butt nobody can respect him.
    2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323. It's worth noting that humanity is in a situation that is already untenable, we are going to need more arable land, while also needing to reforest significant amount of arable land (both to deal with CO2, but more importantly to restore the water cycle we've been disrupting by clearing forests), as well as somehow find a solution to massive and widespread soil degradation, which is rampant and means our existing land is almost universally getting worse, some considerably. Just food is going to be a huge issue unless people eat dramatically differently, yet people are instead cutting down more forest, including some of the remaining virgin forests, and doing so to grow oil palms and soybeans/maize to feed the population bubble. What people don't realize is that we're heavily leveraged in terms of the environment atm, we are using wildly more water than replacement brings back while the glaciers feeding the rivers disappear through the world, which also raises the sea levels, affecting most of the world's population (and again, arable land/fresh water supplies) with flooding. Then we have the massive desertification occurring in several places in the world, while almost none of the opposite is occurring. The US's food basket is pretty much all going to turn droughty, with the present crown jewel, California, losing all viability as an agricultural center as it simply runs out of water, and the Great Plains AFAIK are likewise expected to dry out, while the Midwest is expected to be impractically wet/hot, and making agriculture there more complicated as well. There is no land that I know of in the US other than Alaska that will improve (look up how much food the US exports if this doesn't seem important), and Alaska is still going to have short seasons that are hyper-sensitive for planting timing, if you think it's touchy elsewhere, if you only have a short blob of eternally sunny Summer, you can't plant at all late, so any bad weather or late frosts would be disastrous, so you can't really move things that far north without serious headaches. We're lying to ourselves when we say the Earth could handle more people, of course you could physically put more on it, but we're already beyond sustainable, such that we're actively worsening our planet's long-term carrying capacity by maintaining 7 billion, even with many of them kept in abject poverty. It is a fallacy to think that literally having more people will result in better solutions magically forming, we're not missing great swathes of potential ideas, and advancements are steadily occuring already (and not likely to be sped up short of just having more researchers and labs, which is more an issue atm of funding than available workers), so how exactly would adding more stress to an already desperately overburdened ecosystem improve our odds? If just having more people resulted in better solutions, the world would look quite different. Many of the more successful countries are that way specifically because they don't have an especially large population to maintain, and can trade a great deal because everyone has actual wealth/purchasing power, countries where purchasing power is too thin are at a gargantuan disadvantage economically, people who are dirt poor can't spend as much as they need, while people who are overly rich can't spend as much as they need to not be an economic burden. People in the middle class tend to consume a great deal and effectively drive the economy, being both more skilled on average than poorer workers while actually spending most of what they bring in, not hoarding resources like a billionaire does by definition. Having too many poor people AND too many rich people limits our planet's carrying capacity more than anything.
    2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. You get issues like 'political violence' when the police don't enforce the laws vs their preferred clique, which is right wing assholes at this point. Their aren't a bunch of left wingers assaulting spouses of republicans with hammers for example. I won't forget watching the capital police in DC holding one another back, carefully doing nothing significant to impede the rioters that sacked your most sacred institutions. Here in Canada we had long, obnoxious, and obviously illegal 'protests' and the police literally did nothing for weeks, the same organizations that have no hesitations when it comes to Natives doing actual legal protests, lethal force is pretty much expected in those situations. Those protests not only embarrassed our country by making us look like a bunch of brain damaged hicks, they cost billions of dollars. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. The police did literally nothing (many police were openly supportive of the 'protests'), and now corrupt judges are trying to pretend that open harassment of random citizens is a valid and protected form of protest, and that you can endanger locals freely if you're right wing enough. This country is rapidly turning into a shithole because it's legal system protects the wrong people, and we still have jackasses campaigning for 'better treatment' for ex-cons... Oh, you have no empathy and everyone knows it because you committed a horrible crime, and now you can't find a job? I honestly don't give the least of a fuck. The system does absolutely nothing for victims, and instead enables the worst among us to do whatever they want. Of course if their is any kind of 'crackdown', it won't target the actual problem individuals, it'll target minorities, for some reason we never crackdown on rich assholes breaking the law with abandon. The problem here is that our society has been actively selecting for assholes for thousands of years, and putting the more awful among us in charge, you can trace just about every systemic problem to this. This is how capitalism works, you reward the people with the least scruples and punish those who refuse to exploit, so it's not even like this wasn't an intentional thing. On the plus side, at least we look like we'll die out pretty soon as a species due to our staggering hubris/stupidity of our leaders, maybe choosing people who despise us to be in charge was secretly a bad idea??
    2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. Curious looking at your list of 'traits for domesticated grain', but it does make me think of how much corn in particular was changed by human selective breeding, taken from an inedible kernel to a highly starchy grain, but it has so many advantages over other competing grains. it's going to be scary when the already warm areas of the world get even hotter, and cannot grow corn anymore in those pervious key areas, and must switch to other grains like sorghum, which as I understand do not yield anywhere near as heavily. The list also makes me think about amaranth, it certainly lacks several of those traits, but the domesticated versions are quite different from the wild ones, including in seed size and quality, as well as plant size and consistency. A thought did occur to me as I watched this, if someone wanted to breed maize back then, in an environment where maize is native, they'd have had to weed it out locally, wouldn't they? This might explain why you don't really find wild maize anywhere, if it was exterminated to prevent contamination of their superior mutant maize? That sounds like an astounding undertaking, but I can't see how else it would disappear without the domesticated also dying out. I was always interested in how many different 'grains' were grown in the New World, with many of them being healthier to eat, but it's also interesting that maize can be prepared in such a way that it is healthier to eat. The New World may not have invented the wheel, but it did invent a hell of a lot we still depend on.
    2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. There will be no jobs that can't be better performed by AI/robots, it's just a question of whether the poor will realize that we're all going to be obsolete soon enough, and use knowledge to enforce equality, but the reality is that people don't want to do that hard work, they'd rather just be progressively more cruelly exploited and abused if we keep getting bad music and movies to entertain us. The 'rulers' are actually going to be just as obsolete as the workers, but people stupidly look at rich people and see someone smarter/better, not someone who's really good at exploiting people, so we're probably headed towards the bad outcome. AI isn't going to be like bad sci-fi, where it's 'uncreative' or 'dumb', it'll be faster, smarter, stronger and tireless, if we're honest AI generated art isn't really worse than actual art already, look at how much NFTs were briefly worth, the world of pricey art is a huge scam, and has been since modern taxes came to be. Thinking that robots will be slow or dumb is like looking at an 80s PC and declaring that computers will never be adopted by the masses due to being too expensive and hard to use, because the machines then were expensive and very hard to use, but the thing is machines/computers keep getting better, and will keep getting better in various ways. Our brain isn't magic, it's a gloppy mass that runs on electricity and calories, the difference between us and a machine is 100% in our head, the sooner we 'wake up' to this fact the better off we'll all be I think, there is no 'artificial' or 'natural' in a meaningful sense when it comes to intelligence. There is also a 3rd option, that the world 'goes fascist' and abandons tech by and large because fascists are shockingly incompetent and don't like having an educated populace, so only the elite would get educations, workers would be trained instead, over time the workers lives would become less and less technically advanced even though it's cheaper and easier to better educate and equip them, they are more useful tools if they're kept dumb and desperate. Fascists would very much support big business, but only if those businesses support the fascist cause, but as we all know very well, fascists have no qualms about shooting themselves in the foot if your foot is under theirs. Why would the fascists keep the workers around at that point? For one, you need people to look down on, and keep in mind fascists aren't actually big on making sense, it's why their propaganda is always emotion based, they are incapable of proper logic because their positions are always illogical. It's like how the world is in the process of dying, and Brazil nearly elected an openly corrupt lunatic that was running on the platform of stealing more land from natives, clear cutting it and then planting even more cash crops, all while Brazil slowly turns into a desert (the average temperature goes up several degrees when you clear rainforest, and the land cannot hold anywhere near as much moisture/is actively drained, meaning there is going to be considerably less rain over time, and far more evaporation), it boggles the mind how eager fascist are to kill the entire world out of mindbogglingly arbitrary spite.
    2
  343. Dogs do have an intense sense of territory, so you're not quite correct to say that they don't have a concept of personal property, dogs are competitive AF because they're so badly designed they'd die in a generation if they weren't that way. Cats are ironically a lot less catty if you have a group of them. I felt really, really weird about Oppenheimer, mostly because it has the 'blatant American propaganda' thing going on, and it completely ignores any and all context. If you point this out you get morons coming out of the woodwork arguing 'it's about Oppenheimer, not consequences', an argument that ignores the fact that we didn't need such a movie, and that consequences and context are at least as important as 'the thing'. Going on ad nauseum about the atomic bomb and then glossing over the fact that it was only ever used vs civilians (and lots of historians aren't sold on why it was done, their is a TON of evidence that the bombing of civilian targets was done 'as revenge', because it served no military objective, it was just about 'teaching the Japanese a lesson', that they were 'lesser' people that could be wiped out by the whites if they became an issue. It is peak privilege to look at the history of the atomic bomb and think the movie we needed as a pro-America propaganda fluff piece that's about as deep/substantive as a shallow puddle. Oppenheimer feels like the movie equivalent of making the world's best hammer, but you insisted on making it so small it can't actually be used by a human hand, the movie has lots of great actors and the director can do good work, but they're hamstrung because the medium they are forced to work in is 'bad American propaganda movie'.
    2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. It's been fascinating watching the US not just drop the ball in regards to African development opportunities, they keep throwing the balls at people, only the balls are bricks. It's insane that any country in Africa would look at the ongoing disaster that is the russians and say 'that's the side we want to be on!', it's giving me serious 'how did the brits ever conquer India if India had more money, soldiers, and was relatively advanced?'. The answer IMHO is that the Indians were too oppressive of their own people, India was so wealthy that if it paid it's poor fairly there would have been zero chance of the British making inroads via bribes and promises, the misery the powerful created resulted in the downfall of their nation (and you could morbidly argue that the oppressed's willingness to be oppressed resulted in them being oppressed truly horrifying ways by the british, if they had fought for better treatment from their native overlords they wouldn't have fallen to the brits). Anyways, the US had the money, power and endless time to make progress in Africa and they instead invaded random countries, and both ended in disaster. Are the coup leaders also asking china for resources? I know they used to dump relatively large amounts of resources (compared to what other countries were spending anyways, not large compared to the needs of the people) in Africa, maybe I missed it? In terms of disposable income, you can't compare russia and china in any sane way, one is a sprawling yet sparsely populated country that depends almost entirely on primary industry, the other has 1/6th of the world's pop roughly, with a huge diaspora, and is either the number one or number economy in the world, the chinese might fluff their numbers, but I'm confident the americans do too. Seriously, I wish more people would have pointed out that the 'duterte method' was just murder whomever is inconvenient and then make up some shit about drugs. When you have extra-judicial killings that also have no follow up there are going to be endless abuses. The especially messed up part is that the country then elects the son of it's most corrupt leader, not really sure how you fix the effects of colonization's deliberate infantilization of the populace, but I sure hope we do, because we're turning the poor into something closer to colonial subjects, people who have no political power or influence, and who's labor does not benefit them very much, who are deliberately infantilized to make them easier to manipulate. The education system is literally being turned into a right wing indoctrination process by more than half US states, while even in blue states there is staggering corruption in the education system, look at schools in poor areas vs in wealthy ones, neither party seems to want the general public to be able to think critically, and those reasons are certainly not good.
    2
  352. I'm going to make this concept a bit different to explain why I don't think they qualify as life forms. Say an implant was developed that could more or less hijack parts of your brain and influence your behavior, such that you now mostly want to make more identical high tech implants and implant them in other people. Is this machine alive? No, the human being is though. That's what a virus does to a cell, it's not a whole lot more complicated I think. Virus' are completely inert pieces of information that happen to fit into our cells and as prions show, just fitting in can cause immense problems, the data itself is almost meaningless (just like the pile of viral genetic info we each carry). I think you could also compare a virus to a book, a book can convert someone to another viewpoint, even make them spread the same information, but the book isn't alive, and nobody sane would say it is, even if it's author was alive. Data/information (IE a virus) isn't alive, but it can have huge ramifications anyways, and I don't see what other discipline you could use to study virus' than biology. I think it's worth noting we mostly study the affects of a virus, not so much it's physical shell, it being far too small, and usually hard to damage while in a host. I think the fact that they have limited/no biological process' also leads me to question whether they qualify as alive, no metabolism of any kind is a deal breaker for me, let alone having individual cell division. It doesn't eat, or change/age, it only will literally decay away/be destroyed, and you could remove all but the genetic information and likely allow it to function fully as a virus, most of the material is there to protect it/get it into a cell. But seriously, if you consider virus' alive, I think you have to accept that machines can be an artificial form of life and adjust your world view accordingly. I actually think a machine could be much closer to life, despite having no biological processes, at least it'd have processes.
    2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. Not sure why this is hard for some people, tipping as a concept needs to gtfo, it's just a way for society to reward assholes, they get cheaper service because they don't care that their server is going to go to bed hungry. Capitalism is 100% the problem here, it's not a coincidence that you give a tip after service, meaning it's very easy for an asshole to get great service and have a laugh when they stiff the worker who went the extra mile. How is it I can figure this out having never worked in service AND having almost never eaten out?? Oh, right, because in construction if you treat people that badly you risk having a load of bricks 'accidentally' dropped on your head, when you stiff a service worker you just have a laugh and leave. Most countries don't like the idea of tips, and pay workers living wages accordingly, if fast food in Scandinavia can pay workers living wages then actual restaurants here definitely can. Also, the entire purpose of the 'gig' economy was to allow large companies to have workers that they can treat even worse than is normally legal because of a variety of stupid loopholes that were built into the system. Nobody who has more than 2 brain cells thought the rules should have been different for uber than for cab drivers, yet they were despite the two DOING EXACTLY THE SAME THING. It's incredibly evil, and it's how capitalism works... John jokes about finance bros trying to 'capitalize' (read: enshitify) orphanages, we joke about it but they'd do it in a heart beat if they could, they enshitified prison and care homes, to say nothing of schools, it's not like they'd feel bad about ruining the lives of orphans. The suits don't lose sleep over children being coerced into working in meat packing plants late into the night, society has no consequences for business people who do objectively awful things in the name of raising their own wage. Ever since reagan their has been a huge push to lionize the rich in the US, it's a combination of the poor needing to pretend we live in a meritocracy (and thus their shitty position is ultimately justified, and the lofty ones of the rich assholes is as well), and the rich literally investing billions of dollars collectively to gaslight us into worshipping them. If we don't wake up as a society we're going back to feudalism (and the fascism needed to maintain it). Also, unless you're physiologically unable to, LEARN TO COOK. I'm not even saying you need to learn how to grow your own food, just learn how to cook, do not be dependent on restaurants (fast or otherwise) for most meals, prepare your own food from raw ingredients. If a company knows that you don't know how to cook, they know they can raise their prices and you will still have to pay (or find elsewhere to eat), the rich want the masses to have as few real skills as possible, as little spare time as possible, and as poor as possible. The rich don't want you to know how to cook, just learning how to boil rice and fry an egg is STICKING IT TO THE MAN! DO it people! Then, start learning some other skill that the rich don't want you to have, like making art that doesn't support our corporate overlords, or learn to build stuff! The less you are dependent on corporations for the better of you will inevitably be, and the less dependent our collective society is, the better off the majority of us will be. Ever wonder why all of our mainstream TV and movies present communes as being hippy-dippy bullshit? it's because corporate America was losing it's precious WORKERS to those communes, and it needed to demonize them, having skills is cool, being an asshole is not; it took me until the 3rd grade before I figured out that most of what made a kid 'cool' was essentially sucking on corporate ass, at which point I stopped trying to be cool, I wore hand me down track pants to middle school, and they had repairs! Being what corporations tell us is cool fucking sucks, joining together with your fellow workers? Now that shit is COOL!
    2
  371. I feel like age difference horror is mostly a function of how young the younger person is, if they're under 30 you're a garbage person if you've got a big gap, and if they aren't even in their 20s you're literally a predator who should be publicly castigated if you're over 22. I don't like big age gaps more as I age and realize how big of a deal age really is, it's very much a thing that matters, and if a person pretends it doesn't they're either an idiot being exploited or are an exploiter, neither is a good role to fill. By the time both parties are 40, I really don't care anymore, a 40 year old knows that they're getting old and that it sucks, a 20 or 30 year old truly doesn't, and I say this as someone who was always older than their age. I feel very, very confident that no 40 year old can have a healthy sexual relationship with a 20 year old, it's always exploitation in my eyes, and it's gas lighting to argue otherwise IMHO. I've heard that until you're in your 20s 3 years is a huge gap and should be the max (IE 15 and 18 yo is skeezy but acceptable, 14 and 18 is actively creepy and should be frowned upon), if you're in your 20s it's probably 5 years, and if you're in your 30s it's about 10, anywhere beyond that who cares. I don't care if a 40 year old is marrying a 90 year old unless the 90 year old is senile, because that's exploitation again. These aren't quite 'hard and fast rules', but the thing people should keep in mind IMHO is that those are the limits, IE where you're already creepy but aren't doing anything so bad as to face real consequences. Glad folks immediately mentioned gender in the age gap discussion, I feel way skeevier about the inevitable men in their 30s that feel okay dating teens, if you've got a big gap you won't have as healthy of a relationship. By the time I was 25 the idea of actually dating a teen was openly horrifying to me, and I will admit I was surprised when people seemed to expect me to try when I was older than that when I went back to college, it didn't help that I'd gotten into good shape and worked on myself, so people were really invested in me trying to have bad relationships for whatever (probably illegal if we're honest) reasons, but if you're in your late 20s, you're looking to get married, not laid, and a teen or early 20s girl isn't interested in that, 'they want to have fun', and by my late 20s I was about as fun as a stick in the mud. I suspect you could more healthily switch the two, having a younger man and older woman is less of a problem by virtue of at least having someone who's mature in the relationship, girls don't seek out mature men when they're young, they seek out toxic morons. I'm one of those weirdos who's actually nauseated by big age gaps, they literally make me feel sick sometimes, it's like people obsessed with their partner having no body hair/looking youthful, if you're trying to get your partner to shave off all of their body hair maybe you need therapy to get over the fact that you're not aroused by adult bodies that have hair/wrinkles? I mean seriously, why do we let media normalize this kind of stuff, it used to be super-embarrassing to have to annul your marriage because your wife had hair down there (Lewis Carroll did this so he could try to 'seduce' a child instead, until the parents got skeeved out by him wanting to see their daughter naked). People need to stop letting media dictate what is normal, it's driving us to our doom. I will point out that I have zero relationship experience, but I'm also pretty content with that most of the time, I am very much not a promiscuous person and do not admire the trait in other people, so the idea of marrying someone because they're 'young, hot, and moldable' is pretty revolting, you should be marrying for love or not at all (no shade to people being coerced into marriages, it's not your fault, but I hope those forcing young people into marriages should fall into a wood chipper while vinegar and iodine are being dumped in, feet first btw, I want to hear them scream). People don't fall in love with people with a problematic age gap, they might get sexually infatuated but they can't love someone that is that contradictory, your interests will be too different/your natures too opposed over meaningless things. People who are mentally unstable often like to have liaisons with bad partners 'because the sex is better', but part of being an adult is understanding that it only feels good because it's going to feel bad later, proportionately so. Edit: Don't you use bourbon for proper vanilla extract? Probably don't use cheapo stuff, good bourbon is very nice, bad just gives me bouts of rage (I'm a scotch person I admit). Edit Again: Around the holidays, wine is a good pick, I feel like the key is knowing in at least the coarsest terms what a person is into, if they like sweet, acidic, or dry, and whether they care about aging in wood. It's hard to go wrong with decent port, comes in white or red (with some variations beyond) and it's enjoyable and accessible as long as you like at least somewhat sweet wine, it's often quite sweet, strong, and thick, even the white I've had. If that's not sweet enough, I'd go with either an Ice Wine or Sauternes, both are fairly similar in price in my area, with the ice wine being local so it may vary elsewhere. If they like dry, I just had a bottle of Amarone, which was delightfully dry while still having remarkable body and thickness. I also think people underappreciate mead and fruit wines, so I've been making my own fruit wines (some with honey, though that batch is taking an ungodly amount of time to finish fermenting, thank god it's 17% yeast and can handle the extra time no trouble), which seem quite delightful. The raspberry wine I made was particularly pleasant, but they've all be fantastic so far. I'm hoping to make a bigger batch of 5 gallons this winter, I saved up a whole bunch of different berries, just have to decide which I'll use, though I've also ordered in some wine making raisins, so I might use a bunch of those as well the ~3lb of grapes I picked from my one plant, I think if you make decent wine (if it's from a kit, try for one that isn't from concentrate, but some kits taste fine) that's also a nice gift, but make sure other people who know about wine (at least somewhat) agree that the wine is good before you gift it! I can't wait to bottle up my latest batch, which will be ready pretty soon I hope, it's a mix of 5 parts blueberries, 7 part blackberries and 12 parts strawberries, I was able to bottle the pair of smaller jars which were slightly more diluted and only sweetened with sugar. These taste strongly of strawberry and made an excellent wine, I almost worry the main batch will be too thick and potent, but then I remember that I like port and I worry less, it's very hard for a wine to be too thick, rich, sweet or potent for my tastes. The main batch was sweetened after primary fermentation with honey, my first mead product I've brewed up, so I'm extra curious if it'll be good.
    2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. I honestly can't believe we live in a time when there are not only still endless MLM scams, online casinos that are obviously scams, and two simultaneous tech bubbles going on. AI and crypto are both essentially bullshit, crypto doesn't actually do anything new (other than make it easier to launder money), and AI is bad at everything it does, it's not at all creative it's literally doing shitty collages, the issue is that so many of us have terrible educations and thus are very easy to manipulate/can't tell good from bad on a fundamental level. I feel like if you trained the AI on the internet's shitposts you're going to have a ton of output that is just going to be bullshit, garbage in garbage out they say. I'm not sure (other than obvious scamminess) why people call these predictive models AI, it's not really AI as anyone else would have described it in the past, yet here we are, saying a program that guesses the next word (based on looking at a lot of writing, much of it riddled with inaccuracies and lies if it's online) is 'intelligent'. I don't 'guess the next word' when I write, not sure if everyone else became really stupid when I wasn't paying attention? You say these AIs aren't as smart as a dog, they're probably not as intelligent as a nematode yet, saying they are dumb does the stupidest person you've ever heard of a great disservice, it's exactly like saying a calculator is 'good at math', to say it requires a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works/what it does.
    1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. I don't think I'd agree trump is funny because he's not. He's not witty, he's not erudite, and he's not clever, so no, he's not funny. I hate to be mean, but none of his 'quiet parts' speak to anyone with a conscience, he essentially has appeal to people who enjoy cruelty for it's own sake. All of his jokes are clumsy/dumb personal attacks, and the only times they work is when it's just so juvenile that it sneaks past your defenses, specifically 'Meatball Ron' worked, but only because desantis has the mental acuity of an actual meatball (and also looks like a meatball made from pork belly), so it has 'kid speaking an awkward truth' energy, which is very much the best trump can do (and he probably has writers giving him these 'jokes). But seriously, right wing comedy isn't funny, it's just mean and appeals to patriarchy at best, and politics at worst (right wing politics are deeply unfunny if you're poor), the patriarchy stuff is popular because a large percentage of men (and a not insubstantial portion of women) are misogynists. Is misogyny funny? No, but your inner idiot will like it because it's part of the problem in society, and we all have a part of ourselves that has been put there by those in power, which is why Americans just knee-jerked to support afghanistan (which any armchair strategist could have told them was an insane goal, even with numerous allies) and then the iraq invasion (which literally made no sense in context at the time, iraqi leadership despised Islamism openly). I hope that's not too confusing, I am a lunatic after all!
    1
  390. 'The brain is resilient...' actually means 'We don't really understand how some people recover from some injuries, or how some people can continue to function at all', because the brain, like most of our systems, is designed to have fail-safes for when things go awry. In the brain's case, it's other parts of the brain that try to do work that another part is designed to do, with varying levels of success. My grandfather had a farm accident that put a metal spike through the side of his head, an event he arguably completely recovered from, though he couldn't handle cold very well after, due to the metal plates presumably. I guess it's like how if you lose your favoured hand, you'd eventually get quite good at using your other one, until you became about as good with it. That's also rewiring your brain, and it's probably part of why athletes and musicians have cognitive advantages, they are usually much more ambidextrous than an average person. More wiring in the brain is a function of more areas being used to seeing use, and your brain using itself in a way that isn't intuitive, like using your 'off' hand in precise tasks. More complex is better than bigger, when it comes to brains, but you usually enlarge the parts you use, while the neglected portions will tend to atrophy, just like muscles (only considerably worse for you!). In regards to the premise, I assumed this would mostly be about physical force, and the high likelihood of concussions (almost guaranteed if you are knocked out), which are often bad things to have long term, more so if you have multiple ones. Using drugs to knock yourself out is usually not without side effects either, especially if it happens very often. Using something highly addictive acutely to aide surgery is very different than using it chronically to get a buzz... I would expect any lesser opiate would be almost unnoticed for an experienced fentanyl user for example, though if a drug worked completely differently (ignored that part of the brain) it could still knock you out fine. Having read about the difficulties people had with early analgesics, I think I'd prefer to have not numbed too much of my brain to too many substances.
    1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. I more or less reached the conclusion that we don't really have free will as we understand it from a scientific perspective in my early teens, when I concluded that we make decisions based on data, experiences, heuristics and biology, and thus, we are essentially a complex machine. This isn't really 'bad', its just what we are. I established for myself that regrets were literally insane, because you could never have done other than what you have done, disturbing and horrible as that may seem. Does this mean people who do evil shouldn't be punished? Fuck no, because the existence of actual, enforced deterrents will have an impact on people's choices, we know this, even as we also have learned that infinite deterrent is not effective, such as the brutal anti-drug campaigns. There need to be reasonable consequences for people who do wrong, and there need to be incentives in life to do good, and interestingly, our own biology (in most people) works this way, to encourage us to do and be good, kind people, especially to those we consider 'on our side'. Unfortunately, we also get the same enjoyment from doing evil to those we consider 'on the other side', as ghastly as this seems to a species that is probably the least genetically diverse species to have taken over the planet's systems. We're very much same, each human, and yet we divide each other up, because we're programed to do so. As a religious person, I more or less accept the existence of some manner of soul, but even that has issues, as my religion dictates that all humans are fallen and corrupt by nature, again denying us free will. I like the idea of God ultimately granting us true freedom, and I think freedom is what Jesus was teaching in a way (certainly from sin and death!), how we can live more liberated lives, by denying our worse nature, and embracing God. It is interesting how few evangelicals these days embrace one of the key facets of the Old Testament, that God desperately wants his faithful to be happy, even to be joyful. A key teaching in the Bible is that God will tend to reward not just the faithful, but also the happy... he'll give more to those who have plenty, for example, is a strange teaching, but makes some sense this way. Joy is so paramount that his son's first miracle was to create wine, because the party ran out of booze. I'm pretty sure God didn't create us to be assholes to each other, and both Testaments agree on that I'd argue. TLDR: Science can prove free will is mechanically impossible, but it can't prove that all things are mechanical by definition, because if it cannot interact with something, it cannot prove or disprove it's existence, and it is thus not a relevant topic to science.
    1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. I'm always amused that there are people who think the algorithm has no motive programmed in other than 'show person X what they will keep watching', not only is left-leaning media much harder to find on most platforms compared to right wing, you get different ads on left leaning things, ads that are extremely obnoxious/odious like scammy online gambling ad (or a lottery ad, which is about as dumb as gambling online, you have similar odds), on politically neutral channels I get normal ads, go figure. At least I'm no longer as inundated with alcohol advertisements, but I expect I'll have plenty during Lent. I consistently get vids suggested that are similar to other videos that I've hit with 'don't show', the algorithm isn't listening because we're the sheep, and sheep don't get to choose what they look at, they just get to watch what is shown. Actually, that's a terrible analogy, but it's funny to imagine farmers caring about keeping their livestock entertained, I guess we can at least feel like we're pampered livestock? Our output btw is productivity/money, one way or another some capitalist shill is going to be getting your money, and the less your put back into the economy, the more frustrated they become. Too much saving going on? Time for some inflation, which mostly hurts the poor because stocks more or less rise faster than inflation, as does real estate that is in demand (be it farm, industrial, commercial or just houses being bought up after the previous homeowner was scammed out it, because since every poor person needs a house, the solution is to make them all tenants that can easily be forced to work as they'll never have the cushion of a house or generational wealth). Arguably the only things that go down in value with inflation are the things poor people have, stuff like cash or savings, both tank hard. It's pretty obviously fucked up, but that's by design, and that's why the algorithm is designed to shape us much more than we shape it, it's about telling us what to watch while giving us the illusion of choice.
    1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. I think the previous US regime left a considerable vacuum in global power structures when trump convinced the americans to shove their head up their collective ass for 4 years, and it was inevitable that China would use the opportunity to improve it's position in it's fast growing sphere of influence. For the record, it's not a question of if China will be a super power, it already is. By some metrics it surpassed the US economy many years ago, but it should be noted, they have some very weird projects that probably approach the cost difference between the Chinese and US militaries, so both countries are decidedly fluffing their economic numbers with empty spending (rather than just giving people better lives). The Chinese seem to have realized that they aren't going to have much success just conquering territory (though the world let them have Tibet to avoid a bigger war), and instead have leaned hard on using trade to create political leverage. At this point, China is a major supplier of most things to most countries, and they have the worker capacity to more than double production, even without using higher cost technology that the US uses by default, so they aren't likely to be going anywhere. Most of Africa and Asia has a serious beef with the US at this point, so China actually scores some points in these countries just by not being the US. It remains to be seen if China will squander the goodwill they have, as the US squandered so much. China's biggest weakness at this point, if you ask me (and you didn't!), is the overwhelming machismo and misogyny that is present in the culture. There is at least 100 million extra men in China alone, and if you think that isn't going to create some problems, then I'll worry about it for two, because that is a scary demographic. China also has a desperate need to save face internationally, not unlike how a cat hates it when you notice it stumble, being aware of it's own imperfections, yet desiring that others ignorantly see only their best aspects. Things like women's rights struggle to progress for many reasons, but the pervasive culture is a big reason. This limits the value a country can derive from it's women workers, and countries that do not effectively utilize as much of their population are eventually reliably outcompeted. China also has tons of extreme poverty, and although the US seems to be trying impoverish more of it's own middle class, the Chinese do seem interested in decreasing poverty over-all. Persistently it still remains a big issue, and as poor people can't be consumers, and China wants to have it's own consumer culture, those poor people need more money, while the US seems to think 'give all the money to the billionaires, because they're all great people and will solve our problems because they are nice' is a good plan. I hate to say it but I'm pretty sure China has the better plan on this, because giving more money to the rich just means more money gets squirreled away, or the stock market gets more bloated (IE shows growth despite having gained no real strength, a huge problem under the previous US regime). Poor people like to spend money, and that is a good thing for an economy.
    1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. Using a stroller for your pet is insane if it's a dog. If it's a cat I think that's fair game, assuming you're not somehow forcing it to ride in there (the reason it's more okay for cats is because they're WAY less likely to cooperate while suffering than any dog). Cats aren't great for long walks, it's not how they get around, I have had cats that followed me on short walks, I usually have to carry them as they get winded and can't keep up (I don't encourage them, they just liked to come along once in awhile). If you've ever seen a cat pant from trying to go on a walk with you, it's adorable. ...Anyone comparing PLOWING A FIELD to posting on social media needed to do more farm work as a kid IMHO, that's one of the worst comparisons I've ever heard, specifically because plowing fields was an important necessity for survival (and in some areas is still done today, though rarely with horses), posting on social media does not produce VALUE, even if it can make you or other people more wealthy, it can never create value. You're not making things, and you're not providing people with actionable (and thus valuable) information, so you're not generating value for your or anyone else. Value generation is a very different thing than wealth generation, if you can't understand this I hope you never have any influence! If you want to compare using pets to something from the past, maybe compare it to how we actually used animals. Dogs weren't always pets; plenty of dogs (and cats) were only kept around as long as they could earn their keep, meaning those animals were LITERALLY slaves that existed purely to add value to their master's assets. Using our pets as surrogate children is much more humane (except the horrifying forced breeding programs), but primarily because we don't require our pets to add value the way historical dogs/cats had to. Also, there are literally endless stories of how much humans used to love their service animals of choice (be they pet dogs, hunting hounds, or a fancy horse, or whatever), so the whole surrogate child thing isn't entirely new, to the point where it's a trope to show how awful someone is when they care more about their animal(s) than a human of lower status. You can't have a chimp as a 'pet' it's 100% a slave, just like elephant training, once they're adults they are too strong so they break them when they're very young. It should be illegal. Their is double value in portraying hated humans as animals, it also devalues animals in a sense (because you already hate those scapegoats), meaning it's ALSO an anti-environment message snuggled up to the racism, so you can be evil while you're being evil.
    1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. I dunno, I always felt like Star Wars: Attack of the Clones was the biggest troll among things I was a fan of. The name fit with the old EU concept of what the Clone Wars were, where as in the actual movie, the clones are actually saving the day. I mean, sure, they are attacking the droids, but when we see a movie called 'Attack of the' whatever, we expect to see people being attacked by those things. It was a pretty big change from what some people were expecting (which was clones to rise up and go berserk or something of the sort, creating a massive war), but it was largely ignored because the Clone Wars were not remotely fleshed out, just referenced. Still, calling a movie Attack of the Clones, and having the clones save the day and be the good guys? Epic troll at the time. You can see a long, proud history of trolling in Star Wars, and it's like everyone only noticed it for the sequel trilogy, which everyone hated? I mean, how is it not trolling to make Phantom Menace blatantly a kids movie, and then throw in a soggy political/economics theme to 'spice things up', because that is like trying to 'spice up' a meal by adding boiled potatoes. Even earlier, Return of the Jedi makes Leia hang out in a metal bikini, utterly gratuitous skin, in the same movie that also had the bloody Ewoks, which are appealing to what, 8 year olds at the oldest? Those utterly inappropriate things are trolling the audience just like pulling out a bazooka is. Heck, you could easily argue that Vader not detecting through the force his 2 children, only to be completely certain in the 2nd movie that Luke was totally his son, along with having been explicitly told Vader wasn't Luke's father. To top it all off, tons of people adore the space battles in Star Wars, so do we get big, flashy space battles? Nope, we get nothing that felt like Endor since then, the closest feeling like in Rogue One, which was again a bit of a troll, killing off literally the entirety of the characters just to make sure nobody could complain that we don't see them after the movie.
    1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. I was briefly into the VS stuff, but I was also literally certifiable at the time and was not in good shape by and large (but like all things, 'a broken clock is right twice a day', so my weird obsession with pop culture that lead to nothing wasn't completely free of insight), at the time the pageantry and 'fun' appealed to me, but even then I didn't think their under-roos were especially practical because they looked good on lingerie models (and I have no idea who did, but many clearly did). By the time I was watching it it was quickly collapsing, I think it shut down after a couple more years all together. It definitely felt brutally exploitative, the pay is openly bad for a job that is that particular/controlling, but at least you also get to be treated like trash by world class assholes, because once you work with VS you get to deal with more acute sexism, since you're now an achievement for the various privileged men who feel entitled to your body. If you think average girls in the aughts had pressure to slut it up, the modeling world is so much worse. By the time I stopped following it I felt pretty bad for the women/girls involved, so I was glad to see it go if it couldn't change things up. I could never really tell if the actual top models from VS even liked the job, many of the bigger names did really well financially, but if you weren't one of the top 10 names you were lucky to bring in rent money in a big city, so I'm sure most of the lower tier names hated it but needed he work/hoped to get more buzz from it. The pressure on girls and women to be skanky to be 'popular' was deeply fucked up, I think my generation (I'm early/mid 80s) fell very hard for that stuff. That said it's never been okay to be a male prude, even if women could gain some points for being 'hard to get', men are just losers if they aren't sluts, and that hasn't changed at any time in my life. Apparently I felt like whining for a bit, because life is harder for women and it always has been, as long as a loser isn't actively anti-patriarchy he generally got married like everyone else, those who don't kowtow to the oppressors get zilch, but women who don't kowtow are treated considerably worse.
    1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. I can think of a lot of words for putting a dumb looking fake bandage on your head to emulate a dumb looking (and almost certainly unnecessary) bandage the Dear Leader has, but clever is not on that list? Nor are any synonyms, but lots of antonyms are? It's the kind of stupid that makes me honestly wonder whether if trump jumped off a bridge the whole faithful would line up and take their own turn. The entire edifice that is the modern republican party was flimsily built on an anti-education foundation, only actual morons would vote red, but republicans figured that out more than a generation ago, and have been sabotaging it ever since. Bots are incredibly samey, often have errors/gibberish somewhere, will have pictures that look like they were taken 20 years ago (because they were), likely have other significant quality issues, often feature people who's photos were selected because they seem 'plausibly attractive' to the human monkey brain (too hot turns lots of people off), and often are hypersexual in nature (because sex attracts attention). On social media they're usually incredibly obvious, but it's quite possible to have bots on a message board that are much harder to spot now, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of content on facebook, twitter, and instagram was computer generated stuff, it's just done with a lot more care and competence so it's much harder to notice (it might not be clear what it's trying to sell us, or even that it's trying to sell something, lots of bots are used for disinformation campaigns, twitter was always bad for this). Lots of online news is bot/AI stuff, it's almost like that was an actual goal of the internet's a-hole finance types, to kill off proper journalism so the billionaire class can do whatever they want.
    1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. Here's a little 'heads up' for you, HR isn't BS unless it's serving corporate interests over employee. True HR is incredibly important to the betterment of workplaces. For the record, most work today is openly BS work, even manufacture and construction is designed to only make things that will wear our/fail relatively quickly, because then you need to buy again. Most major appliances seem to last way less time than previous versions (though there are fallacies at work there, I'm mostly counting the 'extra reliable' old models, not the ones that were absolute shit because they didn't last and I never saw them, but I remember when Saskatchewan had a fridge 'turn-in' thing, where you exchange your old fridge for a rebate, and the oldest fridge turned into gets a free fridge, well guess how old the oldest one was? It was apparently an original commercial model (first generation!), extremely old obviously, but apparently still functional enough that they actually used it), at least cars seem more reliable than they used to be. But seriously, look at modern infrastructure, it's designed to be replaced multiple times within a given human lifetime, that's absurd if you have any goals other than 'make-work projects' designed to keep the poor under the ever-growing thumb of the rich. The Romans could build structures out of concrete thousands of years ago that can still be standing today, and they could do it to a level of precision that would be impressive today for some projects. Our roads are unsafe after a decade, there are still standing (and safe to cross) Roman bridges extent. Just saying, we could be doing better but for some reason the powers that be won't let us live better, they want those on the bottom to be tormented (if not tortured) for not 'choosing' to become an exploiter like they did, for not selling out. Then again, nothing threatens a world view like having someone else live very contrary to it and be much happier, that tends to discredit it pretty well, if another one just works better. I think the most productive work I've ever done was probably growing and preparing my own food, and I wasn't even self-sufficient. I wouldn't be able to grow my own food if I hadn't been 'encouraged' to work at a tree farm while a teen, replacing a migrant labourer (I still ache haha) for the summer at a job grown men generally won't do. it was better than the minimum wage most people were getting, and I got to work more hours than I wanted, so the pay ended up being 'reasonable', just not per hour or 'per suffering unit'. Still, the work was enjoyable as I like being outside and getting dirty (as well as being physically active), and it taught me useful life skills like how to dig a hole, or how to not get heat stroke and die (I did get heat stroke, but fortunately didn't die, so at least now I know what to look for, and to maybe look for a new job if the boss requires you back the next day for a full day when you're out with what can be a life threatening condition).
    1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. The weird thing about Canada's conservative party is that it's run by people who are pretty far right, only to perennially struggle to market leaders that would be right of many presidential candidates in the US, even with your pretty far right window atm. Canada's present conservative loon is actively parroting American conservative talking points, this despite the fact that most conservatives lose elections for being too socially conservative (because we also have the 'cult of the right', where all economic problems are caused by leftists, and all solutions come from right wing 'free thinkers' who are unbound by pesky morality and ethics. It's stupid but it works unfortunately, even a further left country like Canada). I'm not sure if Trudeau wins the next election, but if the conservatives wanted to win they sure didn't show it by putting up a guy who looks like he's a scrawnier nerd cosplaying meatball ron, more noodle than meatball, I think when poilievre has to stand next to Trudeau the staggering charisma deficit of the conservative makes it hard to take him seriously as a candidate, why didn't the conservatives just paint a face on a mop and run that instead? At least it wouldn't put both feet in it's mouth almost daily. I could be wrong but I don't normally see a bunch of indian people on here? Clearly some real 'roots' on that grass, just out of this world! Everyone who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together can see modi is a fascist and hindu nationalist, neither of those things are good or remotely defensible. If it was left up to him he would be allowed to exterminate all minorities in india, and it's probably only a matter of time before he tries (there are genocides going on in india right now). I read modi for shit when he kept fucking over the farmers, nice to know that I was very right. Also, 'no proof'??? Are you guys on crack? Nobody is going to tell their proof to the public, only a disingenuous turd would make such a bad faith argument.
    1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. It's mindblowing the people think trump 'appears' less old than biden when he can barely form coherent sentences and is quite fat for his age. By any metric you can look for biden is more youthful and has more vitality, trump looks like death warmed over, that's why he paints himself orange. It's deeply embarrassing to be the same species as the morons that support trump when he used his first term to do nothing but shit on the poor and suck up to dictators. It would be one thing if this wasn't a clear cut thing, trump was literally the worst president of the modern era, an unprecedented disaster that holds great personal responsibility for the insanity that is the market. The stock market never made sense technically, the problem is that the rich have learned how to exploit the inherent flaws in the stock market to not only rake in exorbitant returns on investment without any actual growth in the economy (they use the market to generate fake money for rich people), they then pay no taxes on any of that money, and neither does the corporation they own. This generation of fake money is part of what lead to inflation, all investors wanted to see returns like the rich were getting so they whined until the smaller corporations raised prices on everything. The 'market' did 'well' under trump as long as you don't actually look at real growth, and also if you ignore long term stability, because the choices trump made (especially interest rates being kept artificialy low) overheated an already boiled pressure cooker. In contrast biden has been a fairly middle of the road president who has been hamstrung by a party that doesn't want to do anything remotely progressive. The party will just designate a fall person as needed to hold up legislation, this is why elections have to be REALLY close, if it's a solid majority you have shit-shows like when the dems wouldn't let Obama do anything despite having complete control of the US government (which looked ridiculous), I feel like we'll never have another blowout and both parties want it that way.
    1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. I honestly don't want to be mean, but seedless watermelons make me sad, they tend to have bad to no taste compared to an old fashioned melon. Try growing your own someday, the difference is amazing! Also, it's incredibly hard to tell when watermelons are ripe, so try not to overwater them when they're getting ripe. Grapes have been seedless (in some cases) for thousands of years, and I think we got really lucky that some mutants make really tiny seeds. If you're curious, the way you get more seedless grape plants is that you clone them, we've been cloning grapes for eons! The oldest known example of us cloning a plant (because we had to) was the fig. Watermelons are expensive in Asia in part because you have to remember that land is harder to come by, and melons use a ton of ground per plant, and they're finicky plants (especially compared to cash crops, they need plenty of rice/barley in Japan), so you might end up with a poor yield through no fault of your own. IIRC in Japan they even grow some melons in forms, so that the melons are square. Grading must be a nightmare! I grow a bunch of melons, even a few musk melons (can't let one bad musk ruin musks in general, right? well actually, it's like a whole Adam's Family of creeps, but yeah, do an episode about elon's creepy Adam's Family family, they're all so bloody weird!), but I'm a big fan of kajiri melons, which are really fancy looking melons from India IIRC. They are orange with stripes on the outside, and bright green inside, and a great size for 2 (I happily eat a whole one on my own though).
    1
  458. 1
  459. I had a shitty experience on a plane the last time I flew, we were on the return flight and always my mom wanted the window seat, I still wanted to sit together so I was stuck in the middle seat. Guess what, the plane was full, so even the seat next to me was taken, and this shit-weasel thought it was fine to try to *force me off my half of the middle armrest*. I didn't go over the line even, and I'm a pretty big guy, I was a 280lb construction worker at the time, so he could wedge both arms together and try to push, I wasn't going anywhere. He gave up, and when he did he just deflated like the bitter old man he was. Guess what the turd-saraus wanted to watch while he was flying? It was fox news, but even he hated it and couldn't keep it on for more than 15 minutes. He vacated the plane EXTREMELY quickly after landing, which was great, because said incarnate hemorrhoid also didn't wear a mask (I wore one obviously, because I was flying and it was cold/flu season on top of everything an Covid was definitely around). I think the guy literally couldn't tell how big I was, I don't really look very big when I'm sitting down, I have long enough legs that a plane is already brutal to go more than 4 hours, so I probably looked like an average joe when seated. I did have my farmer's cap on, so I'm guessing he wasn't from a farming area, city people are puff people. I hate flying and agree that people shouldn't try to stink, I had people put on perfume while on a long bus ride (it was about 8 hours I think?). On the plus side we saw a black bear while driving, it was just hanging out, but yeah I felt vaguely nauseous the whole time. If you're going to put on perfume in an enclosed space it had better be very expensive stuff!
    1
  460. 1
  461. It's nice that the Catholics have come out in favor of us not going extinct, but I'm pretty sure we're already officially screwed, it's like deciding that you don't actually want to hook up with a girl after she gives birth. We're in a new world because we've disrupted the existing climate systems that perpetuated our existence, meaning that even if we stop emitting carbon it won't matter because nature is already disrupted sufficiently that it cannot correct back to 'what was', we're going to lose most if not all glaciers and most if not all deserts will grow larger and hotter, and we will lose species that are adapted to having winters (which tend to be in very dense biomes btw, the Grand Banks used to be some of the best fishing in the world because of the arctic, while the west coast of Canada features perhaps the densest terrestrial biome in the BC rainforests, which are fertilized by salmon pooped out by bears, good thing we've depleted the salmon and hunted down most of the bears!). Also, the whole 'climate denial' thing has two facets IMHO, people who lie because they care about money (and are making money via fossil fuel subsidies because those business models no longer make financial sense), and people who lie because they think it'll hurt the global south way more than Europe/NA (and they're wrong, all continental climates are going to become hellish in the near future). Nobody with a modicum of sense disagrees with the science, which has been settled for many decades (around 50 years I think? maybe more?), it's either unfettered greed or racism.
    1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. The reason you struggle to see examples of decent men on dating shows/on TV/movies in general is because patriarchy has a huge vested interest in keeping the standards low for men, if women were remotely choosey (women are expected to 'give a man a chance' for some incredibly arbitrary reasons, and women initiating relationships is considered gauche, again for arbitrary reasons) most men would be considered unfit for mating and die virgins (unless they are rapists). Most men suck and having even the shittiest man produce several kids that go on to have more kids has resulted in the Y chromosome being in truly awful shape, our willingness to oppress women systemically has resulted in men have ruined their genetics, it's like karma or something. It's not a coincidence that patriarchy also protects rapists, because again, if women are threatened with rape if they're 'too choosey' then less women will be choosey. It's deeply fucked up and it's not an accident, but it's also unfair to men because it encourages men to go through life with minimal emotional development, while women are expected to be responsible from a young age (Western society is VERY willing to 'punish' 12 year old girls for 'dressing too slutty', or 'leading men on', keeping in mind that a surprisingly large number of men are essentially pedos and need no leading on). You say you don't think 'the caliber of women is much higher' on these shows, but the average woman is way more responsible and has far more life skills than the average man of similar age, a shocking number of men not only have no traditional 'manly' skills (because their is less demand for them obviously, so not the biggest deal), but they also have no other skills to make up for the lacking. This is a much bigger deal, being the generation that probably has the most free time since we were hunter/gatherers, we seem content to use our time for nothing but garbage news (which is a term I use to define 'news' that is so trivial that it literally doesn't matter if it's true or not, at least actual fake news can matter, this is the celebrity stuff about celebs that have no following, or stories that are smuggled into 'world news' and they are just a really weird bit of local news used to fill airtime) and video games... I'm not surprised that people mostly use the internet for porn and trolling one another, but it would be nice if SOME people used humanity's greatest educational tool to actually progress as people.
    1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. I'm not actually sure most people are actually willing to change their principles, especially evil people who have embraced personal profit/pleasure so highly, it takes something pretty profound to change them. An absence of consequence is not going to do it I'm quite confident, but I'm also confident that corporal punishment by itself isn't remotely beneficial. The goal has to be decreasing the rate at which society produces victims period, and part of that is holding people to account for their actions, it's just very hard to set laws that are universally relevant, IE some people will happily murder a person they hate enough and go to prison for it more or less happily, others will not, so just having a consequence like 'life in prison' if you're a poor person that murders someone isn't going to reduce victimhood, society needs to stop rewarding perpetrators and punishing those who are victimized, and that includes the legal system that is very good at protecting those it doesn't want to 'trouble', not unlike how life used to be, when the nobility did whatever they pleased until a revolt happened, then they either wiped out the revolt with brutality or were beaten and things changed in a miniscule way for the better. The rich haven't been this rich compared to the poor since the feudal era I suspect, when massive swathes of wealth were held entirely by the local lord, and people lived at their sufferance. The average person has so little money compared to those in the top 1% it's actually laughable. Since they can pay the admission fee, the world is their playground, and we're the entertainment. Anyways, I enjoyed your video, and I think if the world would embrace even just the concept of universal victimhood to any wrong we'd be happier by far... I appreciate the concept that 'any wrong done to one is done to all', humans are not individualists as a species, and we need to stand by those who are wronged, not make them pariahs for it.
    1
  490. 1
  491. Many US companies, and in particular restaurants pay terrible wages to lower rung workers, and the work is unpleasant in the extreme potentially. It's one thing to wear out your back doing hard work, but to do that kind of work, for that kind of money, DURING A PANDEMIC*, just seems like a big ol' nope. Things haven't been 'good' that long in the US, and there has even been findings that vaccines do not grant full immunity, meaning people are worried things aren't quite over yet, even if they are clearly headed that way. Economically speaking, if you work 12 hours at minimum wage in most of the US, it is worse than a struggle to support children, one of human beings great drives/needs, and that is if you magically don't need to pay for childcare, healthcare, etc. That isn't a living wage, and if 12 hour work days at an adult job (one that is probably more stressful/unpleasant than business jobs at, contrary to popular belief, as being coddled all the time and *REWARDED FOR FAILURE REPEATEDLY is not stressful, yet dealing with violent anti-mask nuts is) can't support a family, the pay is too low for that job. It shouldn't even be legal to pay that little is the idea, because what recourse do we really have if all the companies just decide to (and they have already, years ago) stagnate wages for the lower class, then shrink them even? None, because we need money/work, and if nobody will pay you fairly, you *still need the money*, and have to work for *unfair pay*. Wake the hell up.
    1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. By 15, and very sober (I'd tasted wine, but that was about it, I also hadn't yet orgasmed), I had already realized 'free will' as a concept was fundamentally absurd because of the thought experiment 'in the same precise scenario (identical variables) you would always take the same action', meaning that you didn't really choose that action, the situation chose what you did, it's just what you do because of your nature. You very much don't choose your nature, it is what is regardless of your choices and decisions. This doesn't contradict the legal system because having consequences does help reduce crime, but it's well proven that excessive penalties do not deter poverty related crime. ...we're DEFINITELY not the only species that understands that it's going to die, elephants have graveyards, and ants clean up dead ants, all manner of species have awareness of their being, rats groom a spot in a mirror and all that, pigs have surprisingly interchangeable organs and can get out of almost any pen, the truth is we're not that much smarter than animals in many ways, animals are IMMENSELY limited by their biology, humans have the least limitations on what they can do with their biology I would argue, combining strength with precision to a degree that no other species has (their are much stronger and much more precise, but the combination of both is unprecedented, and it's how we use tools). Self-awareness is a weird thing, in practice it mostly means you make sub-optimal choices, but the truth is that over time those sub-optimal choices becomes better than the situationally optimal choice; plants love situationally optimal choices, and they store immense amounts of incredibly precise data, such that they can predict the weather better than any machine we've developed, the lowliest weed is literally better at predicting spring than our computers today... hint hint, calendars were developed to allow the powerful to bypass the truly wise, those that could read the signs and just tell everyone when to prepare for planting better than any calendar, but a calendar is easy to control! ...part of why you choose to do an evil act is because you've weighted the risk vs the reward. If society has very minor risks/consequences, the reward weighs heavily on the scale, because many instances of being evil are very rewarding to an evil person. Rich people eagerly abuse the poor because their are no consequences for doing so, and at this point our society is so askew that it rewards rich people for being corrupt and evil, and it punishes poor people for the precise same behavior, and the reason we do that is because doing those behaviors feel good, and our messed up society wants rich people to feel *more good*. It's a bit nuts, to say the least. ...It's not your genes that generally determine when you get mad, that's your environment. If you've had a very low stress life, it takes very little to aggravate you, if you've had a high stress life, it takes an awful lot to meaningfully move the needle. People should remember that plants are incredibly capable of diverty, even with identical genetics, why is it so hard for people to see they both didn't truly choose their choices, yet need to be responsible for choosing choices let they choose worse choices over time? The secret to obesity is that obese people were supposed to be doing extremely brutal work for the tribe, they were the heavy lifters, the people who grappled with the big game while the smaller tribesmen stabbed it with spears. This applies to people who have large frames mostly, which is generally obvious. Today obese people should be doing weight bearing exercise to build up muscle, because their body is trying to build muscle and is going nuts because of not being able to build muscle. This doesn't apply to all obese people, but people who struggle to maintain a 'normal body weight' probably should be building muscle, because their body will be content with pounds of muscle, and if it doesn't get it it'll keep pumping on fat. My understanding of 'free will' is that we have a sub-routine running that is our 'consciousness', and that is a separate process that is capable of using knowledge to bypass biological feedback. This what allows humans to progress technology (assuming your biology is capable of helping you along, ** you dolphins I guess?) is our ability to use our memory instead out our biological feedback, lots of animals can do that same but lack either childhood or our dexterity/power combination.
    1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. I know it was just the weird 90s, but back then chicken was seen as a less than masculine food. People could like it, but 'men' were supposed to obsess over beef and pork. Weird that they're acting like ice-cream isn't one of the most beloved food items in the world (I occasionally buy Asian ice-cream, usually 1 tub of red bean and 1 tub of ginger, both are very good), and that chicken is suddenly 'manly'?? This is what happens when society is expected to pretend that trump isn't an open moron that has weird thoughts and feelings about women, such as having to ask multiple friends of his if they thought melania was 'hot'... they're not marrying her my guy, shouldn't you be finding her hot or not?? At this point he's just so damn weird that they can't make him seem normal, them trying to normalize his lunacy just emphasizes it. It's so hilarious that they're chained to this human anchor, but it's glorious watching the conservative 'movement' try to keep him from sinking. Of course they're all drowning because it's impossible for people swimming in the ocean to hold up a big useless anchor, even if you've got millions of them and they have endless money (literally because the rich just print money via the stock market, Seth himself pointed it out!), it's just not a task humans can achieve, it's no longer possible to make trump seem sane, normal or relatable, he's so alien/weird and so stupid that empathy just can't work. Him going out and buying chicken to show up biden should have been unthinkable, and in what world is it weird to be seen eating ice-cream?? Was OG Bush the last real republican leader the US will ever know? His son invaded two countries at random and both were incredibly expensive disasters that tanked a booming US economy (but made a lot of a-holes even more wealthy, so you know, that's a good deed in the US I think?), so he doesn't count, and trump is the definition of a RINO (he believes none of the tenets of his party other than the ones about giving more money to rich people), and I think trump is in the process of killing his party, like you guys will need a new conservative party to displace the republicans because they'll have devolved into nothing but capitalist BS and conspiracy loons (we're more than halfway there), and nobody sane will ever vote for them again after they wake up from their pro-trump delusion.
    1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. IMHO people who argue that truth doesn't exist (as in it's an impossibility) are either intellectually dishonest or they're a fool. To me it's an extension of the belief that lying is inevitable, but the truth (ha) is that it's simply harder to tell the truth all the time, it's hardly impossible. Dumb people can lie all the time and they'll get away with it often enough that it feels like a good strategy, if you're actually smart you can tell the truth in a manner that it's well received and will always extract more advantage over time by being scrupulously honest. That said it's really funny to me when people think 'tell the truth' means 'put yourself in the worst light possible', all you're doing is telling on yourself because you've done something you're embarrassed about. I have no idea what this jubilee horseshit it, but I am in no way surprised that it's just a front to put incredibly toxic opinions out as 'alternative facts', it's not about generating clicks it's about getting the dumbasses to vote for the leopards to eat everyone poor's face. Merely presenting batshit misinformation in contrast with flawed/imperfect defenders of basic decency/reasoning will tend to make people equate those two things, literally everyone knows this and has said 'don't compare _____ to ______', it's an ACTUAL universal belief, in contrast with those two outright psychopath philosophies you presented. Seriously if anyone tries to argue 'but if we do this objectively immoral thing DEMOCRATICALLY it becomes a good thing!' I'm going to start a new political party around them personally eating shit, because if EVERYONE thinks they should eat shit I guess they should just eat shit and die? It's such a non-serious position, yet this site is presenting like facts, I wish it was shocking. Democracy is just a form of government, it's not even inherently better, it's actually inherently worse than dictatorship, but the problem is the only people who want to be dictators are terrible at it, the people who would be qualified would rather grow their own cabbage and potatoes, and it's always been this way because only an idiot lets someone else grow their food!
    1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. I worked a bunch as a farm labourer, it was fun/satisfying work, but it paid abysmally and literally ruins your body. Most of what I did was Nursery work (trees/shrubs), but I did farm work on the family farm since I was pretty young (you don't need to be very old to hoe beans). My area isn't as hot as the US gets, but it's more humid than most of it in the summer, so it was quite brutal. I only got bad heat stroke once (I could barely lift my feet by the time I got into the work van to be driven to wait in the shade until I could get a ride home at the end of the day), but agricultural work is not suitable for most children, and even those it 'works' for will face long term issues because of it. I will say this, my jobs were hard, but at least my bosses treated me with enough respect to allow breaks as needed, including being allowed to take a water break whenever I felt like it (within reason obviously), the migrant labourers I worked with had horror stories of other bosses, where we worked there were tons of racist whites, but at least the farm's boss wasn't racist, so they were treated like humans, but that isn't universal. It's even worse in the US I guess, where racism is more institutionalized. I feel like it's not a coincidence that the repubs are fighting to get children stuck in wage slavery that will interfere with their education/development while also fighting to seal up the southern border... they know the corporate exploiters will need a new workforce if they close that border up, and no adult wants to do this work (at the insulting wages being offered), so their plan is to just create a new underclass of brutally exploited workers, where the adults will be free to either starve or keep doing the borderline slave labour work, neo-feudalism sounds like such a great time, because centuries of economic stagnation (you need to have consumers to make an economy work, serfs are too poor to be good consumers) and regular famines/plagues worked out great last time!
    1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. I'm sure someone else has already pointed this out, but the increasing IQ scores over time might be (in part) a function of lower lead levels, lead noticeably lowers IQ, especially when you are exposed while your brain is still developing. It's also why people are getting somewhat less violent, lead exposure also increases people's violent impulses, totally a coincidence that the US gov was really blasé about lead levels in impoverished communities, aka people they intended to funnel into the prison system to better exploit. This trend would latter drop off as the baseline IQ returned to normal (the drop off from when lead saw heavy use in gasoline to 20 years after banning it was very measurable). IQ is funny, but a big part of it is having to struggle in life, if your life features very few challenges, you're going to be way dumber than if your life was a tougher nut to crack, rich people understand this very quickly and work to ensure that their progeny, who are generally vapid, can use 'connections' to find jobs rather than using tangible skills. We have countless millions-per-annum jobs that are literally make work projects for rich kids, where there are actually multiple people employed at making them feel useful, so that they won't develop pesky mental health problems when they figure out their job is literally less important than any low wage employee, even the biggest slackers on the janitorial staff at a union factory work harder than these kids. I say kids, but plenty of them are much older than me, this has been going on for thousands of years, it's part of why civilizations that avoided heritable rule tend to perform a lot better. Put simply, it's really easy to find one smart person, but even if they have 20 'suitable' heirs, it's quite possible that none of them will have an appropriate skillset or temperament, it's rare to have more than a few good kings before you have a truly horrible one. Rome arguably had less than a handful before it started having Emperors that were dangerously/dysfunctional despotic (and possibly insane, see the lead thing above, Romans sweetened wine with lead apparently), I think the first official Imperial dynasty of China gained power mostly be having a series of competent rulers, something none of it's competitors could claim (as I said above, getting one or 2 good ones isn't too bad, getting 5 in a row was a huge deal). The whole heritability of IQ thing I understand is actually pretty tenuous, we known for certain there isn't a 'smart gene', there are many genes that impact the brain and thus intelligence. From what I read, all children have a tendency to be more normal/typical than their parents (in terms of intelligence), be it smarter or dumber, most exceptional people are the product of a great deal of randomness, and your actual upbringing/mental development opportunities make a huge difference how most testers would rate you. If you read a lot of books, you will tend to come across a lot more ideas, even if you're just reading novels, they always have more going on than just the core story, so reading a lot is usually associated with higher intelligence when tested, but it's hard to know if someone is getting useful knowledge or just turning pages without absorbing anything until you do testing, a thing people are very leery of. I think watching actors in action rather than reading is wildly less mentally stimulating, it requires a lot of mental effort to 'get into' a book compared to just watching a TV show, but some videos can be informative to an extent, it's just incredibly slow to communicate by speech vs how much info you can dump in a book that's hundreds of pages.
    1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. ...Imma just make a list. 1. Who the fuck is going to go to your hotels/casinos even if you open up your state?? They are laughably more capacity than you need for your own population, so they can't support it alone, that'll just be huge losses for these businesses. 2. So the plan is to get lots of people to go to Nevada from all over, and somehow nothing will go wrong??? With a hugely infectious pandemic disease that is simmering away, barely under control in your country specifically? 3. I love she basically laughs when Cooper accuses her of being obviously corrupt. Nobody is accusing you of being a private owner of a casino you moron, they're accusing you of being a corrupt toady. 4. HAHAHA. Yeah, making sense is not a question of opinion, it's a 'thing'. If you're talking out of your ass, even if you're a mayor, you're still not going to be making sense. 5. Touting personal fucking responsiblity when the lives of other people are on the line, not just your own, is a fucking shitty position to take. 6. Oookay, so when the government lied to the people and said nuclear tests were safe (when they really weren't), that was bad, but when she lies about the safety of reopening (she is lying because she has no factual basis for this position, and is presenting it as fact, which it is not), that's good? 7. The state needs to help people, so the only obvious solution isn't to give them money to get by on (which the state can afford, since it fairly taxes the hilariously profitable casinos/hotels during the ever-present boom years, and doesn't just let them keep all the profits), allowing them to stay safe and survive, instead it is to force everyone else to go back to work, when no experts are saying this is a good idea. 8. Okay, so she's saying quarantines are bad, because Typhoid Mary being quarantined, uh, saved lives? What the ever loving fuck?? Someone can be asymptomatic and still infectious. 9. What the hell does West Nile, a disease that has an easily controllable vector in mosquitoes, have to do with COVID 19, which is readily transmitted between people who don't even touch? Oh, right, West Nile was largely a non-issue after mosquito control was used, while COVID will go away with quarantining, so we shouldn't quarantine? 10. It is very clear she neither understands how legionnaire's disease occurs (which is mostly neglect), vs this disease. This is so painfully ignorant it makes me sad that people voted her into office. 11. So, your office is pristine and people wear masks... Does it use air conditioning by any chance? I shake my head. 12. I don't think it's a good plan to go into detail about how much the casino owners are hurting and then in the next breath claim you are talking about not disease, but 'life'... when people will be literally dying due to her stupid ideas, if they are allowed to come to pass. Of course she fucking talks to the casino owners every damn day, they own her, and have to give her orders it would seem. Ghastly corruption. 13. Again, she's talking about the suffering of the people releasing workers, who are usually, you know, kinda rich, and who the banks tend to protect more than 'high risk' poor people. Good god, it's like someone turned off her ability to lie here and their. 14. Uh, what the fuck does the flu have to do with this? Also, if people did previously get infected, it would be easy to, you know, verify this with testing before reopening. But lets not do that, that'd be sane! 15. Just a general observation in the trump era, but politicians that try to talk over their interviewer to try to change the subject or bullshit need to get their mic turned off so they can shut the fuck up already. This is stupid. 16. All those dead family members? Yeah, that's your tragedy, the real tragedy is apparently that her rich casino owning friends aren't profiting atm, even if it could cost tens of thousands of deaths easily. 17. Uh, you can't use science to defend reopening, arguing that your state's poor are the 'control group' because they is what is called 'very, very fucking unethical', and would thus not qualify according to our modern definition of 'doing science'. Please actually try to learn about science before talking about it again. The fact that she's laughing about this, that she's trying to condemn thousands, so rich people can make money now, rather than just make it later. 18. It's not her job to talk about testing, it's her job to talk about how everyone was magically already infected and is now immune and everyone can go back to work without any testing?? This is so bat-shit it hurts my head. This is just a few things that stood out. The US needs to start electing people based on them having an actual, funcitonal knowledge of how science works, because this kinda shit is getting a lot of people killed. The US has a pretty crazy disease load for it's population, it's almost like not closing earlier was a huge mistake that cost tens of thousands of lives already, and likely will cost many more, even without reopening, with the new case count hovering around 'pretty fucking high for a country that's mostly locked down', so talking about reopening at this point is proof that these people are unfit for office.
    1
  564. While I'll never not find it funny when someone goes through all the myriad hoops to get famous only to realize that being famous secretly sucks (unless you're an actively evil person who wants to have freedom from consequences, celebrity offers that in spades), it would really suck to have people feeling that entitled to you. It'll also never not be funny when people want all the upsides of fame, and expect there to be no downsides to having good things, it's the same entitled BS you hear from rich people 'I want good things and no drawbacks because I'm a special snowflake!!'. Someone below pointed out that they feel different depending on whether a celebrity has 'talent', well guess what? Being good at being famous for being famous (aka being evil) is a skill all it's own, paris hilton had a skill, contrary to what everyone believed (that might be the only non-negative thing I'll say about her, ever). You can cultivate a craft or skill and not seek fame, those are unrelated things, and as soon as someone tries to capitalize on their hobby (instead of working a 'normal job') they're choosing to chase fame, whether they like it or not. Feeling bad for these people is like feeling bad for people who refuse to practice any kind of self control in their self-destructive tendencies, because seeking out fame while not wanting any of the baggage of that thing is STAGGERINGLY juvenile. I'm pretty sure I have a better voice than almost anyone who's famous-famous for singing, the difference is that I don't want to be famous so I don't try to capitalize on it, being good at singing has very little to do with being a famous singer. I'd argue it's been a long time since we've had someone who's truly famous for their singing, the way the great singers used to be, this is because 'the business' wants people who aren't especially talented to be celebrities, the whole point is them being relatable; just about nobody can relate to singing like Julie Andrews, so that level of talent isn't actually marketable anymore, if you can sing like that you just go into Opera or something similar wildly lower profile (and that doesn't pay all that well), the suits want young dumb marketable stars that are relatable because they're not especially talented, if Elvis was born today he'd probably never make it because he was too good at what he did. Heck, people CHOOSE to listen to auto-tuner BS when Sinatra exists (he was an a-hole but he could), I blame people getting 'into' grunge (most of which was bland and awful music from a purely technical perspective, it was bad music for bad music's sake) in the 90s, listening to too much grunge/nu-metal/rap-metal stuff from the 90s/00s does to your ears what smoking does to your tongue... if the only 'art' you'd ever seen was Bored Apes, what would you call the best piece of art you've ever seen?
    1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. According to Civ 1 the solution to global warming is to use things like mass transit, cleaner energy, recycling and large numbers of citizens that are employed as 'maintenance' for infrastructure/to clean up pollution. If you let pollution get carried away you get global warming, which destroys coastal infrastructure and even turns dry, arable land into various wetlands, leading to huge starvation problems. The wetlands can be drained, but again, you need a colossal workforce to do it. Fortunately for us we have a large number of people already doing meaningless 'keep-them-busy' jobs, but most of them would balk at doing lots of fairly physical/dirty labor, but if that's what needs to be done, then what else is there to do but train 1/8th or so of the population to be construction workers that work to mitigate the effects of climate change, while everyone else finally starts doing their part instead of 'what-about' BS that everyone pulls now. Finally, we need to limit further population growth, we're already way over the earth's long term carrying capacity (especially if we all lived as people live in the West), meaning we actually should look at reducing global population over the next centuries, until we're back around a few billion. Part of this could be people moving off earth, but who knows if that will ever be practical, let alone scalable? If we let the capitalists be in charge those places will be hell for the majority, but the world is moving towards fascism atm, meaning it's more interested in pushing the concept of 'superior people', you can't have fascism without 'supermen'. Fascism is obsessed with the semiotics of what they have arbitrarily determined to be the 'ideal', to the point where it's a source of cognitive dissonance when the world doesn't support their beliefs (as in their 'ideal men' aren't actually superior to others). I think this dissonance is a source of the madness all fascists eventually manifest when they have too much power, they fantasize about controlling reality but are merely mortal men, and thus their power is mostly a façade compared to their fantasies (this is also why fascists are often magical thinkers, they fantasize about power of all sorts).
    1
  588. 1
  589. Well, it's hard for a government to crack down on the people who give them huge bribes I guess? A LOT of politicians even trade stock ffs, many of them likely benefited from their own tax cuts under trump, I'd say your government is a racket, but so it Canada's (and people's knee-jerk is to vote for ol' Skimmed desantis himself, weenie poilievre). ...it's very easy to land on your feet when people keep giving you new billions to spunk up the wall on idiotic business ideas. It takes a very special kind of idiot to try to sell vodka when he's publicly a teetotaler, their are reasons workers ABSOLUTELY hate it when engineers who've never worked in the field design 'solutions'. Throughout most of recorded history, the people who managed the workers made a point of being among them (modern race-based slavery was actually what caused this to change fwiw, the workers were supposed to be their own 'caste' in the 'new world' the capitalists were building), to actually see what the problems were that needed solving. trump is exactly one of those engineers who's never been in the trench who designs a tank that gets stuck if it tries to cross one... this was a huge problem in WW1, look up some of those tank designs, they'd be adorable if they weren't designed to kill and maim, everything is tin-plated and full of shot traps, people could shoot through tanks with especially big rifles, and many tanks had so many crew that people risked dying of heat stroke to serve in one. He doesn't understand anything because he's never actually worked in any field, yet he thinks because his daddy inherited a bunch of money he only has good ideas.
    1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. Thank you for making this so I don't have to, I'm very sick of hearing that these morons either A) have skills/talents B) are intelligent objectively speaking when both are obviously false. They are all incompetent, it's just that each is amoral in just the right way to profit enormously, and there are enough people obsessed with the premise that money makes you a 'superior person', IE that it's proof of competence/intelligence/moral integrity, yet we all fall for it to some degree because we're hard-wired that way. Most of these jackasses either are straight up conmen (sbf, musk, and most to some extent if we're honest) or stole one or more great ideas and marketed them really well (most that are considered 'geniuses' tend to fall into this category, they just take their idea from someone else much smarter but importantly too saddled with a conscience to utilize said 'great ideas' like facebook or DOS and ran with them to the end of the race). These aren't great people, they're literally our modern equivalent to the scum of the olden times, the asshole aristocrats, these are people we should all despise. It's a weird coincidence that these folks all seem to be pretty far right on the spectrum, I guess it makes a lot of sense that people that got ahead by not being ethical prove eager to put their own interests ahead of others, which is what right wing ethos are all about, the right to hurt or inconvenience others because you are higher status for whatever reason. I still try to use Instagram, but good god is it ever a hive for bots and the reels seem universally despised, they are videos with none of the critical functions of a video, you can't readily pause/stop them, you can't fast forward, it's super-easy to miss how long the stupid things are, and the quality is almost universally pretty bad. The only ones I honestly enjoy are the cat ones, unless it's one where the cat isn't moving and it's either dead or drugged or something, maybe I'm just paranoid idk, but reels are horribly implemented. Crypto was obviously a scam, but yeah, I do feel at a certain point you got hosed because you're incredibly stupid, and that is what the world is designed to do, screw over stupid people in favor of smarter people, and unethical behviour is only a bad idea what there is legal enforcement, but our government is often very eager to pretend that they can't tell how Uber is identical to a cab service (and should have had to follow the same bloody laws), or that crypto, which literally couldn't do anything you can't do better with an existing bank account/credit card other than launder money, was a scam. Our government is designed to allow new idiots to move up now and then, and they will just ignore the laws with the stupidest pretexts imaginable because they choose winners like Tesla/Space X all the time. NFTs are actually so stupid it made my head hurt, they are literally a link, which you likely don't have direct control over, meaning someone else can just post a new pic, IE one of you straining hard while on the shitter, taken via your phone's cam which you didn't disable well enough. People dumb enough to buy NFTs might not deserve to have money, but I will admit I am totally addicted to Magic cards, which is also a scam (but a better run one, and one you can play a really sweet game with), so I really should shut up at some point! The new 'meta' stuff looks very much like the art from a Gamecube's renderer, I have no idea how they managed to make it look so bad and yet run so poorly at the same time, it's absolute shit, Nintendo had better stuff with the Wii than what meta is peddling. Unless he's literally using this VR BS as a way to embezzle a staggering fortune that even putin would notice he's actively the stupidest of the lot. Facebook was a money making dream, one that people in many places continued to join, but he had to push his stupid rightwing politics on us all, even at cost to his platform. He aided and abetted trump until trump went cuckoo bananas, and he's offered a free platform for rightwing governments and causes, including feeding into various genocides attempted and realized. If meta's VR stuff is intended to be a competitive product I think most of the upper management needs to be fired on principle alone, anybody who agreed to an idea this expensive and stupid should be fired, if not sued by the shareholders.
    1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. ...did a business shithead just try to argue that 'loans are supposed to be repaid'? WTF about all the staggering levels of corporate malfeasance, let alone the colossal subsidies the government hands out to the already rich who don't need the help, dude can get fucked with a shovel. I do spend a lot of my money on healthy things, but a decent chunk goes towards various addictions/crutches, but saying 'people shouldn't use crutches' fundamentally misunderstands that crutches have purposes, and that's why people use them. If I had to admit to my most embarrassing expenditure it's probably Magic cards, I derive immense joy from fiddling with cardboard, and I think I can see why people call it cardboard crack. I'm almost completely certain that debts predate currency, the Egyptians had to pay their taxes via labour (or if they were rich sending a bunch of slaves to labour on their behalf, but most skilled workers paid with said skills), because there wasn't money yet. This is part of why they Egyptians made so many stupid monuments (most of which seem to have been built by very healthy/cared for people from the remains we've found, suggesting that these monuments weren't being made by brutalized slaves), there was only so much infrastructure that needed building/maintenance, and Egypt was relatively wealthy so it had lots of workers. Having to pay taxes was in those days (like today I guess) very symbolic, so even if nobody needed your abilities, make-work projects like pyramids would be needed. Modern American Christianity is closer to worshipping the Biblical devil than the Trinity, that's how far it's moved from God's teachings. Most of the bugbears of the evangelicals in particular aren't Biblical, or they're taking some throwaway passage and ignoring the countless parts that contradict that idea elsewhere in the Bible. AFAIK there is nearly no mention of abortion in the Bible (it was a thing in the past too, look it up, it wasn't as good but it's not like prostitutes could barely work because they were always knocked up, people had solutions thousands of years ago because having an unwanted kid sucked SO FUCKING HARD), other than men being told they are supposed to pray for a spontaneous abortion if they think their wife cheated on them, and if she did miscarry she was a guilty harlot or something. I guess we can be grateful that there are even weirder parts of the Bible that the weirdest among us haven't studied up on yet. Not just trillions spent on the military, it's trillions spent on a military that pretty much sucks in actual practice, it's almost like it's designed to fail and get stuck in drawn out conflicts. Never has a country had such a big advantage in so many conflicts and consistently had it's ass handed to it. Apparently in the Middle Ages knights and other nobles would take loans out from Jewish bankers (because no Christian could give a loan in those days, it was forbidden) and when it came time to pay they'd accuse the bankers of being money lenders. Apparently anti-Semitism was already that strong that this was generally looked at as being a clever solution.
    1
  599. Just pointing out the obvious here, but modern agricultural crops are all dependent on chemical support, be it fertilizer or pesticides, and most of them will do much worse than a 100 year old variety if you take away those crutches. You'd have to raid an old seed bank or something. Also, most people today have zero usable skills if they live in a city, they can't reverse engineer a spoon, let alone a complex machine. People that work in service industries would only coincidentally have technical skills necessary for rebuilding from a serious catastrophe, nothing in their job skillset will prepare them for anything but chatting people up unfortunately, and that's a huge number of people. Then you have people who only have computer related skills, which will also become largely irrelevant if society collapsed. You don't see as many gardens out in the country these days, maybe it's just my area, but I hear that researchers in England found that bees had to travel further to find nectar in the countryside vs in heavily developed London. I'm not sure if they accounted for their being a likely much higher number of hives out in the country, but the point is that most agriculture today is not especially helpful to bees, and there wasn't enough gardens in the country to make up for the difference. I garden a lot and even I don't think I'd do especially well if society collapsed, so much of my garden requires external inputs, you just can't have a high yielding organic farm overnight, and that brings me to the final point, most commercial farmers don't know anything about organic farming, and plenty of organic farmers aren't successful because it's so hard to pull off, so I really think you're giving us way, way too much credit. Most of our jobs are make-work projects, just like the primary purpose of public education is presently babysitting so parents can work, specifically both parents. If we suddenly had to reverse engineer an EV we're going to be very boned I suspect. The big exception I suspect is people who have actual technical know how, and actually can fix or make things, but that's a tiny portion of the population. I'm not looking forward to the US invading Canada over water supplies, but it's going to happen, Canada is a big ol' bowl full of water, and the US is turning into a giant desert in the areas where they love to farm. At least I didn't support any of the other US invasions during my lifetime, Afghanistan and Iraq were both complete scams. Environmental collapse is scary.
    1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. I liked it more when they just called it 'late stage capitalism', when their is officially better incentives to scam than their is to do actual business. We got their before in the 19th/early 20th century, when slavery went away because that meant the owners didn't have to actually worry if you had your necessities met, they could just fire you if you were too hungry to work and hire someone who wasn't able to work yet and thus hasn't used up their visceral fat, if your slave starved to death you actually had to buy a new slave, I wish people would realize that our capitalist overlords main complaint about slavery is that *the slaves have to be treated too well*. If you want to have some nightmares you could read up about how the enforcers of capitalism were given freedom to do stuff like committing rapes, both for fun and punishment, as well as just open brutality, to keep workers in line (and morale high among the enforcers). Their was a good long period when workhouses preferred to hire women because they were easier to bully then men, so you'd hire men to be foremen and then they'd hire women they wanted to take advantage of, their was a huge issue with VD spreading because of this. The poor either need to grow a spine and actually fight back... or else our planet is finished, our species with it. With all the information available to the poor at this point I have a LOT less sympathy for our modern poor than I do for the poor of old, but we're being set up for even worse conditions than people used to have, so I think I'll have to save some sympathy up for the future, because it's going to keep getting worse.
    1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. Normally mugging for gambling trash is a huge no-no, but in our capitalist patriarchy I suspect it's pretty hard to get anyone to put money up for a topic like this, so yeah, I'll leave the pitchfork alone. In my extremely limited experience strip clubs are revolting places frequented by less than stellar clients, but a lot of those problems come from the strippers being dehumanized, and their workplace tolerating/encouraging it, so I think a union is probably a good idea. Heck, I've been at places where there was no employee watching the strippers work (they faced the wall), it's like they were using the fact that the strippers didn't want to have the security ogle them to make them vulnerable to harassment. Haha, young people are often terrible communicators, most of what improves that is work that involves social skills, you learn to talk to people by having to talk to people, and talking to other kids is very different than talking to another adult, talking to kids doesn't actually prepare you for it I'd argue. Better social skills is an interesting perk to being a stripper. Very funny to me to hear the argument (in so many words) that strippers are mostly being paid for the package of 'womanly support', where the sex is just a small piece of the interaction, and the emotional stuff is the more important part. It's depressing that in this age and day most men are still completely dependent on women for their emotional development, but at least some women are getting something out of the deal, rather than just getting trapped in a loveless marriage. It's fascinating that purely because they had an advantage in terms of physical strength that men took over our society, and that now when physical strength means less than ever it's still being put on a pedestal, since those who have gained power historically have no interest in giving that power up. Good for you guys for picketing for better conditions, it's really messed up that capital can be shitty with abandon, but if you call people not honouring the strike scabs you're crossing the line, that's just unreal, but it's impressive that you could find way to get past it and start winning!
    1
  612. 1
  613. It's a very valid point that some manner of midwifery had to exist long before we had almost any other tech (otherwise we wouldn't have survived), but it is also true that humans ancestors were EXTREMELY precarious until we got serious tools, we had an incredibly small population and individual groups probably died out regularly. It's always been weird to me that people think people used to be dumber (I mean, our ancestors weren't quite as smart as a well fed person born today, but they had MUCH HIGHER stress levels than any modern human, so their brains had to be very 'sharp', mistakes were deadly then), they had very similar brains, and a similar brain is not altogether different than a similar computer, each will have peculiarities but they can run similar programs and give similar output, so people would have figured out very quickly that birthing was risky for both mother and child. HA! I wasn't sure if it'd come up, but yep, men have way more genetic vulnerability (Y-chromosome has very little information on it, the X defines the man much more, even if I almost certainly inherited my balding pattern from my dad and his father), and it's long been known that not only do women live longer than men, eunuchs live longer than 'intact' men. Male hormones aren't good for you for a variety of reasons, high levels of testosterone make for shorter men who get in more fights (and are thus much more likely to be killed, either in a fight with someone bigger and stronger or because the tribe is sick of dealing with a violent asshole), they are more likely to handle stress poorly (more prone to addiction), carry excess weight very poorly (concentrated in the gut, the worst place, unless they are physically active enough to build muscle), and on top of all of this other men are more likely to murder other men for fun and profit. Men have higher rates of mortality almost regardless of what cause you look at, I have a theory that more patriarchal countries like to see women die in childbirth/at the hands of angry husbands out of jealousy at their longer life spans, the US would have no trouble halving it's maternal mortality rate, it's mind-boggling that the conservatives solution is to make up some shit about God and then more or less define 'God's will' for him as being natural selection, make up your mind christo-fascists, is it natural selection and improving our genetics that is your end goal with not providing women basic medical care, or is it 'God's will' that we be gifted with the intelligence to medically intervene and save lives, yet shouldn't because (apparently) God giving us this capability was a mistake??? Anyways, if the US didn't hate women a lot less would die before, during and after giving birth.
    1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. Pretty sure the whole thing is just a scam to distract us from the world dying around us. The US makes up shit about 'other counties aren't going to do their part!' while the US is the richest country and has produced an ungodly amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (and is still dumping more than other countries by leaps and bounds, especially per capita), the US could have solved climate change by itself in the 90s, instead we get the same lines. The US isn't unique on this, most of the world is deeply full of shit when it comes to environment protection, and the more money and power you have the more full of shit you end up being, in part because the people who end up with stupid amounts of money are the greediest and most selfish pieces of shit you can imagine, meaning the people who have the power to change things would rather just condemn our world to uninhabitability 'because someone will solve it later'. Well, it's later and we're no closer to solutions, and the world is past the point of being able to manage climate change due to the great northern bogs and forests finally thawing out and rotting away, even if we literally released no more CO2 as a species the balance has already shifted. There will never be progress until stuff like COP stops letting oil money in, this includes not letting OPEC and allied countries host. What we have now is a counterproductive game of charades that only keeps us distracted from solving actual problems. Literally doing nothing would actually be better, because then people would know that literally nothing is being done, this misleads people into thinking the issue is being dealt with. There is no reason to believe that carbon capture via machinery will ever be meaningful, it's another of those distractions from actually solving the problem of releasing too much greenhouse gas. AFAIK all of the attempts to make this into a tech have been unmitigated disasters, wasting both money and usually producing more CO2 than they got rid of, because the idea is fundamentally a bad one. Heads up, if you have a non-binding commitment from an entity, you have absolutely nothing. Any and all climate 'commitments' mean less than the fart of an single ant, they are ephemeral as wet tissue paper. Complaining about chinese coal plants when the US is still subsidizing dirty energy as a policy (and actively hindering the adoption of clean energy) is a very bad look, it's like a kid arguing they can't clean their room because their sibling's room is a mess. The US is the world's paramount wasters of resources, the next biggest polluter (or worse, it really depends who you ask, it's like how the US doesn't have a corruption problem if you ask American politicians and media, but it clearly does), china, is more open to green energy than the US. Interestingly enough both the US and china can be the problem together, and both use each other as an excuse to do less (or nothing at all in most cases). I know Kerry is clearly trying, but for the love of God, the answer isn't 'more capitalism!', it's turning our backs on the entire philosophy the US embraced when it rose up against the brits (when they didn't want to pay their taxes). Selfishness is a terrible tool when you're trying to solve complex problems, and people keep insisting that it's through our selfishness alone that we'll find the Magic Bullet to solve all our climate problems. It's magical thinking, but our species is notorious for this when it runs out of solutions, it just assumes God will solve the problems/they'll just go away. If we don't stop being capitalist our species is doomed, be it now or tomorrow. Anyone looking to the youth for a solution (to anything other than issues that solely impact youths, ) should be, and I think this is how the youngs say it, 'yeeted' directly into the sun, hopefully while screaming. Don't ask the powerless to solve the problems the powerful are making for their own profit, our masses need to find their pride again (if you doubt people have lost it then you don't know why fascism is resurging everywhere). You're lucky if your kid is remotely useful, I was almost completely useless until I was into my 30s, I played a lot of video games and I managed to be REALLY BAD at them still, I shudder to think what kind of worker I'd have been. Counting on 'the kids' is insane enough that people saying it out loud should be asked if they're off their meds again. It's 100% the people who have power that need to use it to make things better, not just for their own pleasure.
    1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. Machinists often use mills or lathes, but have a huge range of allied tools like drill presses and threadmills. Their job is to remove stock in a very precise manner, resulting in a good finish within tolerance. In a really modern shop most of the equipment is quite safe, but older stuff can be pretty dangerous. Long hair is a huge no-no though, but you can always braid it/put it up under a hat/down your back. Machinists do sometimes lose stuff, but I think getting caught in the spinning stuff is more of a fear, a big mill can turn your arm into putty very quickly and painfully, they churn through solid steel at an incredible rate due to large powerful motors. I think farmers tend to have more dangerous work, (PTOs have maimed and killed a lot of people) but farmers usually have less direct supervision and can set their pace better, machinists often have a foreman that might have too high expectations. You know the 'firefighter' program in Cali is deeply, deeply fucked when you find out that those convict firefighters couldn't be hired as actual firefighters of any sort once freed, they were allowed to do a job while actively incarcerated (and having not satisfied society's lust for punishment/debt to society/whatever) but once freed were now 'tainted' and couldn't do the well paid version of the same gig (and I am also confident that they sent them on shittier jobs). Personally I think it might be fun to do that kind of work to an extent, but you know they are going to have brutal hours and the worst conditions because they're getting the jobs the high paid firefighters don't want, the real grunt work (which is probably digging small ditches and clearing brush, which involves hand tools and is soul-crushing labor that sparks joy in my heart but is horrible to most). While I think unions are a good thing, I feel like there should be some manner of oversight, but the problem with that is that corporations are very good at buying politicians. We need to make Unions into a religion and have inquisitors! Worked great for the Catholics, right? (I kid, but Unions need to be relatively transparent to function properly) Solidarity is everything for Unions, if Unions don't support one another the rich will divide us up and easily conquer us.
    1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. We could equally call this new breed of republican 'anti-social', not in the lone wolf sense, but in the clinical sense of 'consistently destructive to the social fabric'. Weird works too, and is getting a rise out of them so keep at it I guess? Had to lol a bit at 'welding hat', you use a face-shield in most welding tasks, but I've started my hair on fire enough times to consider some kind of head covering also wise (I'm pretty bald at this point so now it's a sunburn issue I guess). We don't see trump glad-handing/interacting with the public very much because he has no social skills, also he smells terrible so if you get physically close to him you might not vote for him because of the reek. If Kamala makes "Say it to my face!" her moto I think trump would actually cry, which would be awesome to see? I mean, if he's too tough to laugh at himself, we can at least make him cry a bunch? Could you imagine his caked on orange slop running down his face?? just lol. He's such a coward when he's confronted by a black woman, he just folds immediately. There is no situation where a debate would ever go well for trump, he's slow-witted and mean-spirited, neither fairs well vs an opponent who's actually trying to win the debate. He can't just stand behind Kamala like he did Hilary, and he knows it, and unlike Biden Kamala can fight back just fine. Oh, and Kamala might have more experience trying to sway a hostile audience from her previous work, trump is a nepo baby who's still learning what the word 'no' means, and he's damn near 80.
    1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. Not just the SC, that was also the purpose of your senate, to make sure the congressmen/president didn't do anything that hurt entrenched wealth/power. The point of the constitution was to create a new aristocracy for the US, one that like the one in the old world wouldn't pay taxes and would receive the lion's share of public services (which is exactly what happens now... people talk about 'we can't afford socialism!!!!!' while the world dumps trillions into bombs in an era where war literally doesn't make sense anymore, the weapons are too effective, and many require too little training in order to be effective, this means insurgents are WILDLY more effective than they have ever been historically, guess how scary a rebellion of 10000 peasants in sackcloth armed with pitchforks is when you've got 500 armed and mounted knights, along with a thousand archers and various footman? When firearms became available, it became VERY costly to fight vs any locals that had them, making firearms better AND much easier to use has made the problem worse. Also, your country was exclusively founded on the rich not having to pay taxes, and only the relatively wealthy were empowered by the OG constitution, there is a reason you have a mess of amendments to cover everything other than 'everyone has to help the rich get richer'. I think one of the very few things your founding fathers did that wasn't openly self-interested was to fight against theocracy, yet the far right keeps yammering about 'the christian heritage' while they're talking about a state founded on secularism.  @LuxLucidOfficial  You really can't see how entrenching capital's power over more than 200 years has resulted in a huge systemic power imbalance after the same SC ruled that 'money has free speech', aka 'poor people don't have free speech'? I wish poor repubs would read between the damn lines, the purges don't stop once they start until you change who's in charge, for example if this 2025 BS goes through eventually the Irish and Italians won't be considered white enough, same with anyone Slavic (well, any Eastern European really). Unless you're nordic in background I wouldn't vote far right, if they don't liquidate you quickly, it'll be your descendants after you're not the perfect enough.
    1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. Yeah, we're all being infantilized by capitalism because it makes a lot more money if we're all stupid and gullible enough to consistently spend more money than we have. Children don't understand much, but they love to buy shit, so it should be obvious that all the corporations are eager to have us be 'adult babies'. The leading source 'babification' in our society is probably social media, but tech in general is designed to make us dumber and easier to exploit. While getting old mostly sucks, it's better than being immature forever, I hated being young, at least I'm not quite as stupid as I used to be, as long as you're improving age isn't a thing to be feared/hated. Very good point that guy had, if you don't have 'normal' fantasies/dreams, people will abhor you as a freak, part of why I hated being young is that young people in particular seem obsessed with 'fitting in' and policing whether other people have swallowed all the crap and also try to 'fit in', they work to make other people miserable because they made themselves miserable first by abandoning their true self, and our society is completely fine with it because corporations want people to be interchangeable/unidentifiable in any meaningful manner, because interchangeable people are really easy/cheap to market to. This is also why we have our stupid 'culture war' bullshit when both US parties are solidly right of center, there is no war but if you embrace 'culture war' you become really, really easy to market to (especially if you're right wing, but both groups are really easy to target compared to more neutral people). It never ceases to amaze me that there are still broke idiots that support right wing causes, but if they conform to that bullshit feel like they can 'look down on the libs', despite the actual liberals generally being wealthier, happier and healthier than maga chuds.
    1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. I'm pretty confident that this polling stuff is manufactured to help normalize an objectively terrible candidate, simply hearing other people think he's a reasonable candidate will make some people much more willing to vote for him, I don't think his polling is actually improving, nobody neutral is looking at this and siding with trump. It's more that his control of the republican party (which has very poor odds for the next election, barring some big change) strengthens because the party has actively courted 'single issue voters' (aka people who will sell-out their own family if you let them be mean to unwed mothers and minorities), and trump is one of those single issues. If they don't give exactly what those single issue voters want, they lose those voters, which is why the party has endless paradoxes, such as having to cling to profoundly unpopular anti-choice arguments because a solid 20-25% of the US is violently opposed to allowing women to make their own choices, but even in pretty red states, outlawing abortion is intensely unpopular, again, media coverage is designed to normalize the anti-choice cause, so we get more anti-choice people radicalized. The whole thing is going to explode in a disastrous nova eventually, but until it does the republicans have a base of ~35% of the population (not all of whom will vote obviously) that will vote for them because it is their new religion. It's not a coincidence that trump is both very popular with this base, and has rallies in which he is mostly an incoherent old man trying to repeat buzz-phrases to his base of morons, they want a bumbling idiot who will be a tool for the fascists behind the curtain. The base isn't really listening to what he's saying in a literal sense, they are listening to 'vibes' he's pushing, which are racism and oppression for everyone who isn't a billionaire, as well as general fascism, everyone has to be like them or 'suffer consequences'. It doesn't matter that he literally told his followers to drink bleach, and that he helped make COVID 19 as bad as it could be for the US and the world, him doing a bad job is fine as long as he also targets the groups his racist base hates (mostly minorities and people who have sex but aren't rich, apparently conservatives think poor people are only allowed to have sex to reproduce or something, but if you're rich you're allowed to have sex whenever? Their aren't words for how stupid conservatism is, it's what happen when you raise humans to adulthood but don't educated them in a meaningful manner so all of their beliefs are either programmed in or are superstitions, most people are barely capable of critical thought). I also strongly suspect trump is illiterate, the way he signs his name really, really suggests it, but we also not only never saw him read anything above a 4th grade level as president, he insisted on having pictures/graphs to transmit all his briefing info, presumably because if he can read at all, it's very rudimentary and embarssingly slow. He also needs glasses and doesn't want to wear them because he thinks they make him look like a dork, yet he's too clumsy/impatient to put in contact lenses (you really have to steel yourself the first few times you put them in, you get used to them quickly but he's not strong enough as a person to touch his own eye), so he's got terrible eye sight, hence his constant squinting that makes his already small eyes look even more piggish. He's a shockingly stupid man who is lauded and praised exclusively because his psychopathic racist father was really rich and really evil. That's why conservatives like rich people btw, you don't get to be a billionaire by having ethics, scruples, or morals, you get there by being very, very evil but having just enough self control that you're able to understand who you're allowed to fuck over and who you're not allowed to. This is why trump wouldn't pay contractors, but will grovel like the most pitiful of bitches (an actual dog with no self respect in this context) before anyone who has more money. He only ran for president because he had to, pretty sure that was a condition on his various billions in loans (to cover up his ineptitude/support his expensive lifestyle of conspicuous consumption). I will always be a bit horrified at how happy the poor are to not only support a wildly out of touch billionaire, but to decide that, against overwhelming evidence, this rich POS who was raised in one of the richest households in the US, and who was given billions of dollars after he kept failing at everything he tried (he's incredibly, almost implausibly stupid and shockingly bad at managing things), is 'one of us poor oppressed masses'. I've heard that governing people is hard because so many of them are so incomprehensibly stupid that 'idiot-proofing' barely covers things. Did you know that if you make roads too easy/safe to drive on people have more accidents than if you have some touchy stuff? People get lax and don't respect the road on freeways because they are too easy to drive on, and a significant portion of the population is dumb enough to think that they can put on mascara or watch a porno while driving on a highway at 100km/h. How do you plan around that kind of stupidity, that if you make things to easy for them they screw up *more*? Apparently if you're a republican you take advantage of it to get money out of the rich. I do find a bit of dark humor in the fact that the people who are funding the republican party with petty cash (the money they spend on politics is nothing to them, our politicians are bought for stupidly low amounts of money, they're corrupt for the equivalent of money you'd find digging in your couch/have sitting on your nightstand in change) made a lot of their money off of making that exact republican voter base so miserable, the base literally turns to the people who have made them miserable in their (manufactured) time of need, it's insane but also 'funny'. I guess there will be decades for 'I told you so you dumb bags of shit', but I'd really prefer it doesn't come to that.
    1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. The US was always pretty fascist in case you didn't notice, it's just now open rather than 'wink wink nudge nudge' doublespeak. Fascists love doublespeak, it's very much their thing, because they fundamentally despise honesty. The other issue, beyond just 'they were always fascists' is that the mainstream media has been bending over backwards to normalize far right BS, to keep moving the window further right of what we think is normal. If all of your trusted authorities tell you something is true, you tend to embrace that as truth even if it doesn't make sense, especially if you did not get a very effective education. It's not a coincidence that the republican party loves to sabotage the education of it's voters, because they know ignorance breeds fear, and fear leads to worse decision making, resulting in ignorant people voting emotionally for the republicans. Not really saying voting Democrat is really a huge improvement, we all watched biden do everything possible to avoid being progressive, and reversed shockingly little of trump's dark sabotages of the US, only to still be declared 'a dangerous lefty' when the Dems haven't elected an actual 'lefty' in my lifetime. The Dems are there as an option that's 'less openly abusive', but it's really two sides of the same coin, one that tells you kind lies, and the other that is openly hostile to anyone that they deem an 'other', a definition hat changes constantly to supply new scapegoats. If you aren't a WASP btw, don't support this BS because they will happily kill you off eventually. It might take 50 years before you don't count (and they take away your rights too), but it'll happen. If you've got any infirmity, again, don't support this shit. If you're smart and not eagerly evil, don't embrace it because again, you'll be targeted eventually. Nothing like the stupidity of a white man refering to other white men as 'legacy Americans'. You weren't here first tucker, your and other white men's legacy is one of being eager to commit genocide and environmental destruction on an unprecedented scale, hooray us, we killed more of them than they even tried to kill of us. We could never have done it if we weren't so willing to also kill the women and children, and then destroy the bison population to starve out the remainder (we did that on purpose) that happened to survive somehow.
    1
  690. 1
  691. When I've accidentally stepped on my cat they always run away for awhile, but tend to quickly forgive, same with sitting on them. I think I feel worse than they do, especially since cats seem to want to be underfoot (at least if they haven't been stepped on for a bit). I find cats are more bothered by self-destructive behavior in their human, I think it's the same reason they try to stand right where you're about to step, they have a stronger connection to their person than a dog does. The only time I really worry about cats is if they are kittens (and stepping on them would be pretty bad!), but I was worried I'd kill my cat when the hammock I was on (with the small cat on my chest) flipped, fortunately I could catch myself and didn't squish the poor guy! As an adult, I would like to point out that your cat is, if healthy and strong, probably quite a bit tougher than you, I've had to remove wolf worms from kittens, and even kittens are pretty calm while you're working, and all but one recovered quite quickly and well (the first one we didn't know what was going on and caught it too late I think). Obviously be careful with your cat (they have vulnerabilities for sure, and need to be in great shape to survive), but they are tough critters in my experience. Part of why cats are so athletic is their high pain tolerance, they can exert their muscles much more severely than humans, so if your cat isn't very athletic, keep in mind it's probably not as durable. If you want to hear a crazy cat story, when my dad was very young, his family had a cat that liked him, and eventually the cat got pregnant (and somehow nobody really noticed). When the cat's time came, she had her kittens on his bed, while he was sleeping. My oma wasn't happy to have to deal with the remaining mess, but it's an awful cute story. My two siblings (and my mother) are very musical, and we lived in a townhouse in the city while growing up (so my siblings could attend a much better funded school, we moved after they were done), and after our long time next-door neighbor moved out, we kept having new neighbors move in... something about having an upright grand piano on the attached wall (with 3 people who played pretty much daily), a baritone player (almost daily), and a trombone player who probably practiced ~3 hours a day made people move out! Go figure. I suspect you could hear the trombone in the house next to our neighbor (if you think a saxophone is loud, a trombone is much, much louder). Oh, and when they weren't practicing, they would listen to loud classical music on decent stereos! Can't leave that out... It will never not bother me when we don't treat awful people openly horribly. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of humanity I think, if someone is a violent offender you are not ever going to get them to stop by just telling them not to. If there aren't really horrible consequences for actual evil people they will just 'do what feels right', which is to commit crimes. My issue is actually that the people who deserve to face consequences the most face the least (the rich who commit crimes with impunity by and large), and that increasing consequences will not cause their to be consequences for the actual bad actors; in our society consequences are for the poor/minorities, not for rich people who want to have fun abusing poor. In my experience, the only people who learn from receiving kindness are people who are kind deep down. It never ceases to amaze me when progressives argue 'their aren't evil people', because holy shit we're ALL BORN EVIL... Kids are fucking horrors, and it's consequences that cause them to grow up and stop being trump-esque (yep, I'm saying that if trump's cooler older brother had been encouraged to dump more stuff on his stupid little head he'd have grown up smarter and better, you get someone as useless as trump when they don't have consequences for wrong choices). Ultimately I don't know what the solution is, which I think means I've probably gotten a decent grasp on the problem, such that I don't think there is an easy, simple solution, and that's because society has made this into a paradox in order to protect the establishment... we need punishment/re-education/to isolate dangerous people from society, yet any attempt to use these results in all of these consequences falling on scapegoats instead of the those who deserve them, short of changing society into one that believes everyone is equal... take a look at how well having consequences for celebrities has gone, about 1/3 of the world's population is approaching 'eat their own face to 'treat' their insanity' as their conservative brains require them to defend awful people without admitting that the only reason they support those individuals is because they are abusers. It doesn't help that almost all media is owned by conservative assholes, which is why conservative politicians have their scandals ignored or quickly swept under the rug. Their was a shitty clip of that dipshit newt on Pod Save America, and in it he (hypocritically) argued that it wasn't appropriate to ask him about cheating on his wife after he made a huge circus out of the clintons (bill is awful and always was, but newt is a true bottom feeder), and when the moderator had this fae pushback to his reasonable question he just folds like a chump, the whole thing is 100% a question newt was warned about and prepared for, that's why he had a snappy (and stupid) answer ready, and that's why the mod didn't push back, because that was what his job was, set up a t-ball so newt didn't have to look bad because he's a feckless roach. Conservative controlled media is a dumpster fire, that's why I still get endless (obvious scam btw) gambling ads whenever I watch your vids, this isn't what youtube wants me to watch apparently. I cannot wait until we have some laws about these gambling ads, but that won't affect the web.
    1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. I actually loved Ep 7, it was one of the better Star Wars movies IMHO, Ep 8 tried some new things that greatly improved the Star Wars universe/made it fucking grow up a bit, it's the most mature Star Wars movie ever made I will argue, Andor was way more mature/grown up (mature being used to describe porn is objectively insane), Ep 8 finally made physics exist in important ways, ships running out of fuel for example, or visiting a casino where most of the people who are there got inhumanely rich off of the suffering of others, and that's made clear in the movie, most Star Wars movies are infantilizing. The childishness was probably a big part of why my old psychiatrist preferred Star Trek, it wasn't media directed primarily at children. Anyways, Ep 9 was about as good as KOTOR 2 was when it was first released... aka you literally couldn't play it without patching, and even after patching it still barely ran, the graphics were embarrassingly bad, and the whole last chapter was bugged beyond words, so much so that you couldn't follow the story's conclusion. Ep 9 wasn't a finished movie and they decided to release and see what would happen, especially since it was such a beloved IP, and one that people would flock to just to say they saw it on the big screen. I really wish Disney had had more respect for the fans, but Ep 9 was a symptom of why so many people in Hollywood need better contracts/general treatment, the people making Star Wars movies want to make us great movies because many of them are going to be fans. I think I rewatched Ep 9 exactly once, and it wasn't worth doing so despite plenty of interesting elements that COULD HAVE BEEN AMAZING, but ended up devolving into garbage like 'each Star Destroyer, which is literally just an upscaled model because we're that cheap in a BILLION DOLLAR FRANCHISE, has it's own superlaser, even though the Death Star had to be ginormous to do the job', the movie was a disaster and burned up so much good will for the franchise, and a large part of it was because of the backlash to Ep 8, mostly from right wing shut-ins on the internet whining that an Asian woman was 'hogging the screen', I think if I had the power I'd try to get a Rose Tico show, it wouldn't have to be high budget even because she's not a flashy character, even just a few episodes so we can learn more about the interesting character (also because Disney fucking owes her big time). Part of Star Wars' problem is that it doesn't offer a very varied menu, just 'openly for kids stuff', 'teen stuff', and 'family stuff', even Ep 7 was just a complete rehash of Ep 4, it was almost an homage, but it was done rather well so 'it worked' and most people were happy with it. The Prequels would have been epic flops if they weren't in an already established and beloved franchise, who in their right mind makes a family (and we're being generous, that was a kid movie) movie with the central plot being a trade dispute that needs to be argued by a senate?! Also the stereotypes were a bit much even then, I was not very old when it came out and even I could see the various racial groups being stereotyped. Anyways, if they had released the prequels first they wouldn't have made Ep 2 (which was, until Ep 9, easily the worst Star Wars ever conceived, and the movie literally had Natalie Portman in a ripped up outfit, this wasn't quit Slave Leia level pandering, but in this context you could argue it made even less sense) and the series would have been a disaster we all joke about. TBH though, we all clown on Star Wars now.
    1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. A jar of apricot!? Yikes. My dad had a running joke when he did our family's cooking (he was briefly unemployed), if food wasn't eaten it was 'going in the soup', because he liked to make huge batches of bean soup (which tasted good enough tbh) and we always had soup on hand (including huge amounts in our freezer), a good cook will intuitively be able to guess the types of flavours that go well together, but a bad cook will 'experiment' to find out what works. You can start out as a bad cook and end up a good cook eventually, but this is why recipes exist, so people don't try to reinvent the wheel (and we end up with wheels that have corners 'so they won't roll away on us!'). I have never been on tiktok, but I'm on instagram and I get tiktok cat videos in my feed, but I don't really see a lot of food stuff, even though my instagram has a LOT of posts that are nothing but food. The most revolutionary thing I make now is pan or oven fried cabbage, it's a real treat, even if it's way easier to just grow kale I like cabbage too sometimes (cabbage fries down to a sweeter flavour than kale, unless you use kale that's had frosts at night). I found out about pomegranate syrup and I mostly liked it on potatoes, especially fried ones. I think I switched to eating mustard with my fried potatoes to save calories. I may have to try it in some other stuff, it's a decent flavor. I do like balsamic vinegar, atm I have some really sweet vinegar that contains wine must, it's very nice in some recipes where you want some fruity sweetness, like in a bitter kale salad. I garden pretty extensively, last year we didn't buy potatoes, and this year it looks like we won't have to again, though we do eat non-potato meals. I love blackcaps, but I have a TON of berry bushes of various sorts, today I should pick some blackberries, I've already picked about 4kg, and there are still more coming. I also grow a fig tree outdoors, I live on the shore of Lake Eerie in Ontario, so I need to protect it in the winter. My 'suddenly it did stuff' for this year is my Tayberry bush, which actually made quite a few (and VERY DELICIOUS!) berries, normally I get none. I got a fair bit of serviceberries, normally they are all eaten by birds (they taste good and are very nutritious, so birds love them), my Haskap crop continues to improve (they make a truly stupendous wine), and my gooseberry grove had a bonkers yield this year, more than double most years because there wasn't a mass droping of berries due to dryness. I had quite a few huge strawberries, 40g wasn't unusual for 1 fruit (that would be 11 fruit to 1 lb, which seems nuts). Oh, and I fertilzed the heck out of an already stretched out tomato plant (it had probably been given too much nitrogen at a young age, I gave it a huge dose of phosphorus and potash), it rewarded me with a shockingly early crop of tomatoes (most people barely have any yet, this plant is threatening to finish up it's year already, so I gave it more nitrogen, fingers crossed!).
    1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. We almost always boil eggs by the dozen, if I'm working hard I'll often eat several for lunch. I used to boil 3 at a time when I lived alone, so I could bring them to eat, boiling one seems like going for a hair cut and only trimming 1/12th of your hair! I usually like to carry some cash, but you shouldn't carry more than a small % of your total cash assets, unless you're a pimp, they need to carry a bill roll iirc. Wait, is Coco a pimp!? It's a bit of a moot/dumb point, but I think it's worth remembering that the colonial powers did not need explicit slavery to exploit a local economy completely, the real issue was that they restricted those countries ability to invest in their own infrastructure/future, as well as restrict very heavily all trade that wasn't with the parent country. I suppose I shouldn't leave out that the colonial powers also made a point of playing the subgroups of their colonies against one another, not unlike how the modern right uses racism among the poor to further empower the wealthy, borders were deliberately set up so the locals would always have an 'other' to hate, as well as the horrific brutality designed to traumatize whole cultures for centuries. Those things resulted in brutally stunted economies that by definition cannot ever catch up to their former colonial oppressors. People seem to forget that one of the reasons we got rid of slavery was that it's an economic depressant, mostly because you have a large number of workers who aren't consumers (that you have to provide for btw, you can literally pay people sub-starvation wages under post-slavery capitalism because it's the workers problem that they're too hungry to work, the capitalist can just find newer, more desperate workers), with that extra wealth being piled into the coffers of the already wealthy, were it is never used for consumption, meaning it's economically non-existent. Ironically, as capitalism got more and more exploitative, the workers couldn't continue to consume without going into debt, hence the massive debt crisis as workers struggle to maintain their standard of living. As wealth continues to disappear into the coffers of the ultra-wealthy it is happening again, the solution the right in the US has is to move back towards slavery step by step, ignoring that doing so has been killing their economy since the 60s, when it was unthreatened in it's global hegemony. Arguably the US economy has never recovered from the incompetence of regan's 'feed the rich/starve the poor' policies, it's infrastructure is now badly outdated/crumbling and the government is simply too poor to rebuild because of tax cuts to the rich. I remember hearing about the spongey concrete issue in the UK, so I guess you guys have similar concerns, since you also don't tax your ultra-wealthy enough.
    1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. Did you guys ever do a really eviscerating video essay thing on gambling, so I can watch it while I get nothing but gambling ads (or if I'm really unlucky, it's lottery ads, these have much higher budgets but are even more insulting to my intelligence... I know I'm not the smartest guy around, but one of the few things I can take pride in is understanding mathematically how stupid gambling is, to say nothing of the infinitesimal odds of winning the lottery). No part of me understands why it's legal to advertise gambling and yet I can't just go to a shop and get a speedball injected for a fun afternoon. You know all those rich assholes do all the drugs they want, they just don't want to let us poors have fun! BTW those speedballs would be less addictive than gambling, their aren't words for how dumb of a practice it is. Ha, just got a Disney+ ad while writing that, a service I already pay for. I'm not sure if that's how advertising works, but who knows, maybe this is why ad guys make the big bucks, because they show me ads for things I'd already use? Apparently there was brief cooperation between white and black slaves when white people could be indentured, and it was this cooperation that lead to the outlaw of indentures for whites. It was necessary that the poor whites look down on poor blacks, if they didn't the whole system would fall apart because the poor majority would rise up. Racism is an important tool that the powerful use to maintain their control, and the worse you treat the lowest tier, the lower the bar goes for *everyone*, it's kind of ironic punishment territory how the active racism of the poorest/dumbest among us makes their own lives measurably worse.
    1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. There are actually lots of compounds that make cannabis work, THC is just a really obvious one, but if you're an experienced user you'll have come across some strains that seem relatively potent despite not having especially high THC. CBN for example is also made, and it's a great sleep aide, still can give a bit of a buzz if you use enough, there are other compounds that we'll find that also have an noticeable impact. It's also worth noting that the terpenes can have benefits of their own, both as edibles and to smell. Marijuana is actually a pretty good source of terpenes, so there may be interest in the future in engineering the plant to produce even more terpenes, and you can already breed them to produce very specific ones, and in specific ratios. I've definitely heard of people trying to fight the use of the term marijuana, it's just that it's so used that it's hard to get people to switch. I think we now have people using extremely high purity THC, and they do so at pretty heavy rates sometimes, I'm guessing we'd find out more about side effects, but from what I understand a big one is psychosis if you're an extremely heavy user, especially if you have an otherwise sedentary/inactive lifestyle, CBD seems to act contrary to this, and if a person feels that stress is leading them towards a psychotic episode, use of CBD in moderation can help improve the body's processing of stressful things. Note, for both stress (and excessive dopamine levels due to heavy THC use), exercise is one of the best ways to improve your situation, but since THC stays in your system for a very long time 'drying out' is not quick or easy, this is probably part of why people don't have serious withdrawal, in contrast with the serious dangers of ceasing alcohol consumption after years of heavy use, cannabis cravings might make it harder to sleep for a few nights, but if you're not a problem drinker you can just have a couple beers instead to help you sleep, and if you can't have beer you can just suffer a (hopefully) brief period of insomnia before you're back to normal. I think if your insomnia lasts more than 2 weeks you should go to a doctor, but a few days without proper sleep is merely unpleasant rather than dangerous to most.
    1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. It felt like the first two Deadpool movies were trying REALLY hard to win me over, even including a bunch of my favourite characters (Juggernaut was finally done justice, but also had his butt electrocuted), how could the third one be bad? The most obvious flaw would be not having Domino and Cable back, because Domino stole the second movie. It's incredible how doing sus stuff is the norm for the US (and it regularly sucks at being half-way decent to it's own citizens), yet like a drunk frat boy it won't stop loudly proclaiming to everyone else around them about how awesome they are. It's very hard to get rid of oppression by white people when we keep elevating people because they'll be oppressive (capitalism is the processes of rewarding the most evil in our society, as long as they don't offend the already powerful class they'll be joining). IMHO the reasons the trump assassination thing was such a flop was two-fold, the first was the guy was right wing that did it (so the media has to explain it away), the second was that trump didn't actually appear to be in any danger judging by how incredibly laid back the secret service was after; I'd love to know how they knew that there could only be one shooter around, and that trump was immediately in no more danger and could stand around for a posed photo (which again seemed incredibly staged)... I'm saying it was a flop because the whole thing came across as deeply phony, and when the right makes mistakes like that the media covers for them (because they're all owned by the rich), if the left had botched something this badly we'd hear about it for months. The real question is why did the media let trump fake an assassination attempt like that, and what the hell was the secret service doing helping out with it?? Makes me think of how Biden's dog HATED the secret service....
    1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. Yeah, that family is deeply messed up, even by the standards of messed up rich people. Also, the irony of the people who least need to reproduce being obsessed with reproduction is not lost on me, it's like they have the same voices in their head that guide everyone else just fine, but they hear the opposite of what it says. It's hilarious that if elno would have kept quiet and a lower profile he'd be much richer AND people would (erroneously) respect him much more, his astonishing ego forces him to constantly brag/take credit for other people's accomplishments. It's been great watching everything he touches turn to shit for years now, yet it's been simultaneously frustrating that the government and other billionaires keep dumping money on him with big trucks. It doesn't matter how badly his companies fail, money just keeps being poured, it's insane (and exactly like trump, it turns out the rich don't like it when the dumb kids of rich assholes lose their money). Remember when Twitter was a thriving company and was considered one of the most prestigious social media platforms? Now it's just nazis and pedophiles and it can't stop hemorrhaging cash, but for some weird reason none of the oil scum that loaned him those many billions are worried, it's almost like the point of the investment wasn't to buy Twitter so much as tank it, to take away a platform that people used to criticize those very rich assholes. Also, didn't he mess up his body by abusing HGH/steroids? Also how can a man be this rich and have cosmetic surgery that looks this bad? He's so insecure, I'm not sure why he worries since he just uses IVF anyways (I think he's scared of women or something).
    1
  771. 1
  772. I don't think online dating was working well before either, but it sounds like an absolute shit-show now. The very brief time I tried to use the 'technology' it was full of bots/fake accounts, the tech bros 'move fast and break stuff' moto should be translated as 'break stuff that works and rebuild it to make assholes more money, regardless of any/all other factors, to the point where the product literally doesn't work anymore because it's been so overly capitalized (that's late stage capitalism in a nutshell, nothing actually works because it's more 'efficient' to just run grifts). I don't like breaking rules (unless they are profoundly stupid/counterproductive), so I don't like scamming stores, but I generally expect very good return policies from big corporations, their profit margins are so high they can easily afford to deal with a high rate of returns, but a small company can't handle that. I don't support buying stuff (and using it) if you intend to return it, it seems shitty, but it's definitely true that most companies exploit both their workers and suppliers as vigorously as they are able, to say nothing of screwing over consumers, so while I wouldn't personally want to do it I wouldn't likely judge someone doing that now and then. I used to be strongly anti-piracy (after having being neutral and pirating a bit of stuff in the aughts), now due to the fuckeries being done to consumers and workers in the movie/TV industry I am WAY less concerned about it as a practice, if shareholders want to put a bloodsucking ghoul incharge of every large company then they can expect consequences for their bad choice. If Disney wants to fuck over their workers by taking Willow off their streaming service they can expect some blowback, and Disney is hardly the worst for this kind of BS. Another great example, Nimona was a very good movie, and it was fairly progressive, in no way shape or form did it being progressive make it 'suck', and we almost didn't get to see it ever because Disney was worried it was too 'woke' and would scare away audiences. Just yikes, you know? In no world is netflix a progressive company, at what point did it become okay for a company to throw away money because they want to pander to a small audience of 'unsophisticated' (best euphemism I could come up with) assholes who want regressive 'art' to be forced down everyone's throat? If I was a shareholder for Disney I'd be pretty pissed at the mouse throwing away something as promising as Nimona, I hope it wins some flashy awards to really rub it in.
    1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. It's worth pointing out that if the communists somehow did take over your existing money would likely be worthless immediately, a core tenet of communism is that everyone's assets get pooled and redistributed according to need, not according to how much paper money you have. Only someone who knows nothing about communism would try to argue that they'd stockpile money for that, it's like stockpiling rock salt in preparation for a drought. Even us communists know this kind of thing. Also, if you're trying to get out of the country the cash is literally worthless if there isn't a US government to guarantee it, it becomes fancy Monopoly money if their is a revolution. It'd be nice if the dems could do a public inquisition and root out the various conservatives that are ensconced in the democratic establishment. Also you guys really, REALLY need some kind of party whip mechanism, how are there no consequences completely abandoning party lines in a partisan system? Why does the party let these scumbags use the party name to get elected? Most of them would flounder immediately if they didn't have the support of their party, dipshit manchin didn't run as a republican because he knew it'd be easier to get in as a dem, which is revealed by him betraying the party over and over on key votes, he votes red and steals the state's ability to elect an actual blue senator. For the record the keel of a ship isn't actually under water for it's whole length, you generally have a keel stick out at the bow (and possibly stern depending on the ship), and that's a spot that's pretty hard to see from aboard the ship without actually climbing down (which is pretty dangerous/a huge hassle on a big ship). I see people pointing out that they probably hung out on the rudder, so it could also be that, but keel doesn't just refer to the part of the ship that's underwater, it's the spine of the ship, running from the tip of the bow the stern. The US is too eager to suck up to modi because he's a nascent fascist, and US business interests always choose fascists if they can, so I don't expect much push back. I suspect part of why dogs don't need to pee the same way involves them not sweating iirc, humans sweat constantly so our ancestors needed to be paranoid about being thirsty, our bodies run way too warm, if dogs get too warm they can just go somewhere shady, humans need shade and they need to find water ASAP or they'll die of dehydration. It's a wonder our ancestors survived at all, but until we got tools we were not a dominant species.
    1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. I feel like it's not a coincidence that ye was a corporate darling, and was also a quiet nazi from WAY back apparently, I think that played a major role in his 'success'. My problem with wrestling isn't that it's fake, it's that it's too stupid, all the subtlety has been removed and what's left is all bald tropes being shoved in our faces: my problem is that consuming wrestling is like using ketchup direct from the bottle as your spaghetti sauce, it's been processed beyond recognition and has no value left, but it's disguised by modern science to taste like food still. I lost interest as wrestlers I had been a fan of started dying off, and it seemed like they just kept dying younger and younger. Also, I noticed it didn't seem associated with good traits in people, it seems designed to bring out the worst in the masses, much like the (similarly kayfabe) gladiatorial games, or their WAY more popular competition, the chariot races of ancient Rome. I've heard from multiple sources that most pro 'combat' sports are kayfabe, and I don't think you need to watch most of those things for long to notice that they're not selecting them because they're the best, they're selecting them because they 'look believable', all that stuff seems really fake. The way it works is that if you don't play along and throw fights they put you up against the ACTUAL best and they 'have a weirdly good night' (they have no problem with taking regular loses from worse fighters to keep appearances up) and just murder you in the ring. You can't have stuff be unpredictable when so many millions are riding on individual fights, and it's WAY too easy to fake a loss, more so in MMA than boxing where a person can just take a kick to the head and go down, it's not hard to sell that kind of thing, especially if contact is made, and you do indeed see stuff like that, and you don't see the plethora of injuries you used to see when the sport first came out (part of it is better fighters, but I'm sure part of it is rigged competition so people don't risk ending careers early). Also, ye was 100% doing kayfabe the whole time, it might not have dropped by the time this was out, but apparently the nazi phase wasn't a new thing, he'd just start talking about how much he liked hitler (in weird contexts), obviously everyone told him to just play it as a babyface so he did. I have no idea (other than Get Out stuff) how they'd convert a guy like him, but I've read psychosis can lead to racist beliefs (because we're hard wired to think people of different 'races' are different, the more different looking the more different they must be, we're a dumb species but this is why people dress to fit in for example), if he's not serious about medication (and it sounded like he wasn't but I hope I'm wrong, even if I don't like the man I'm not sure he deserves the hell that is a full blown psychotic episode, not from what we've heard, he's just said appallingly ignorant things over and over (and I never loved his work). I like to wonder if there is a world where they ended up with Wyclef or Lauryn instead of ye, filling the same niche somehow in a comeback. Also, seeing as he was doing kayfabe and knew that he could face consequences for the stunt (meaning he has doesn't really have convictions, in the sense that he knows bush didn't give a shit about black victims, but the problem is he agrees with bush and doesn't want to offend that crowd, so he's worried about doing this stunt. It might not have been his idea, who knows?
    1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. I love your point, but the US has been fascist as long as I've been following politics, and definitely before that things were even worse. How anyone can look at 50s US and not say 'yeah, that's extreme fascism' boggles the mind. It even spawned a revolution of sorts, so great was the disaffection with the inane restrictions of the 'Golden Age', and we all know damn well things weren't perfect for non-whites back then. Fascism has a long, storied history in the US, and if you even scratch the surface of most libertarians, you quickly find their philosophies in practice tend to be 'freedom for me', rather than 'freedom for all', and libertarians are a relatively harmless form. Even the founding fathers were lying when they claimed to love freedom, instead embracing quite heartily all the fruits to be had of slavery. The US is a country that has long fallen for it's own propaganda (note, like all fascist leaning countries, the US has a very large, prominent propaganda wing in the media). Ever notice how preachy kids shows are these days? Well, they always were, you just didn't notice what they were preaching, IE GI Joe and all manner of war fantasy, trying to get kids to adopt a conflict based mind-set, an 'us and them' mindset to be easier to manipulate as adults. Ever notice how preachy movies used to be back in the olden days? Well guess what, they still preach, they are just subtle about it now. Pretty much every studio movie is propaganda, even if it isn't directly government created. You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a mainstream US movie that doesn't embrace conflict and violence, it is seemingly intrinsic to US art. Pacifism, communism, socialism and many other things have been extensively demonized by the US media until the people utterly embraced what they were given.
    1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. I've talked to a bunch of people who really hate Trudeau, so I'll list off a few reasons why people complain. One reason a lot of people don't like Trudeau is his persistent need to tax not the ultra wealthy, but the mildly well off, hitting farmers with the carbon tax when most of them are producing food in one way or another seems batshit when almost all of the carbon is being produced by industrial manufacture, one way or another, and farmers do not make a great deal of profit per year, their real gains are in equity over time in most cases. Farmers should have instead been rewarded for making green choices, rather than being punished for just doing business. Now I guess they're adjusting capital gains to start pinching people at relatively low wealth levels, again missing the whole point of 'eat the rich' because 'the rich' are his personal friends and allies. That brings me to another reason he's not very popular, because Trudeau can be pretty smarmy, and is very ensconced with the wealthy elites. People know who he's personal friends with, and most of us wouldn't be willing to piss on those people if they were on fire. I think the final (and easily the biggest) reason is that Trudeau supports LGBTQ rights somewhat vocally, while Polly will definitely not, regardless of what he says (I'd be happy to be wrong, but I can see what similar conservatives do elsewhere in Canada if given a majority), and a LOT of people still hate the LGBTQ movement, and find public Pride displays to be salt in the still raw wound of merely having to tolerate these superficially different human beings. I personally don't particularly like Trudeau (and wonder if he should step down before the next election and give someone else a proper go, rather than drag the party down with him), but I don't think he was as bad for Canada as harper was in a plurality of ways. Why is it the Conservatives can't run another Joe Clark type?? While I didn't think mittens with the string through the sleeves were cool as a kid, I now understand and kinda wish I had something like that, so I think everyone's biggest complaint about his type is now done, why do we have to run creepy looking guy who's so far right? Canadians don't want far right, and they've been clear about that, but the problem here is the party is run by the far right and it's money, so they keep choosing candidates that are incredibly far right and losing to centrist Trudeau. Run a center right smart guy who's nerdy enough to wear his mittens on a string through his sleeves during the winter, I want to see sensible footwear and comfortable and decently cut (if not exactly stylish) suits, not more far right guys who look like they were adopted as a child by a far right Think Tank and raised on a steady diet of propaganda.
    1
  799. 1
  800. Keeping in mind that step 1 in founding a cult is finding gullible people, I doubt you'll ever find any new ones that have any philosophical merit, let alone merit on par with any major religion (and even most non-major ones). Cult founders look for people the same way an online con artist does, they look for people that will ignore evidence in favor of agreeing with you, which is why those online scams are usually really, really obvious, so that the scammers won't have to waste time on people that won't ultimately fall for the scam. If you keep the original scam really, really obvious, you remove all the people who will accept contrary evidence over your word. It's sophisticated in the way that any form of predation will be, since it's designed to exploit a population that probably would prefer not to be exploited, but it's not really all that clever, and it probably hasn't changed in a very long time. Thus, cults aren't usually very complicated, and the leaders aren't usually terribly smart (though I suspect most are more intelligent than average, they don't tend to be 'exceptional' in terms of actual accomplishments), because being overly clever would be counter-productive. If they served actual doctoral thesis level philosophy, very few would be willing to sit and listen, and even less would be able to engage with the material in a meaningful manner. It wouldn't 'change their life', just like this level of philosophy doesn't change most people's. It thus came as no surprise that this cult was no exception, and I'm a little embarrassed for the people that bought into this, but maybe he's really convincing in person or something? Glad he's going to prison, hope he never gets out, because he is shockingly unethical.
    1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. I don't really agree that the US has 'isolationist' tendencies, studying it's history it was mostly expansionistic, manifest destiny BS is still believed fervently by the dullards, but there are a TON of stupid people and they each get a vote. The US's foreign policy can mostly be boiled down to the fact that it doesn't want to ever help anyone, period, that's where it has 'isolationism' down pat, but it loves to do interventions and invasions if they'll make money for the well connected (like resource extraction companies that made serious bank in iraq, and were going to in afghanistan but the US couldn't even half-ass conquer the place). It's the same reason people are 'supposed' to have guns in the US, we all watched those Westerns, which are treated by right wing nutjobs like they are documentaries about the Wild West, staring all those big name academics like John Wayne, and there was never anything wrong with solving problems with gun violence, because the good guys always win, right? Nobody, not even the police (especially not the police) have to help them if they have a gun, if they have a gun you can pretend they are 'self-sufficient'. It's the same reason you guys don't have healthcare for all, and everyone poor is just fleeced by the system (they pay very high rates for very bad treatment in a ton of cases), and the rich are pampered endlessly. The US doesn't believe in help as a concept, the dislike of helping foreigners is just an extension of this pathology. If you really think about it the US was literally founded on the rich not having to pay taxes, and the civil war was fought because southern shitheads couldn't figure out that it's wrong to enslave things, at least the region is still being punished economically for being dumbasses, much of the South is dirt fucking poor, and with the worst government services in the country. Why didn't the rich want to pay their taxes? Because it would help others by redistributing the wealth they have (and thus deserved to have, in their view), to this day many right wing Americans think progressive taxation (or anything that taxes the rich at all) is 'punishing success', and that's why they fight for lower taxes for people who don't have to work for their money. I guess what I'm getting at is that the US is more or less an evil country, and that is why trump beat clinton (narrowly, and only after the FBI director, a staunch conservative, publicly announced a BS investigation against her just before the election, one of the few really great examples of the deep state in action btw, and it's pro-repub). The US likes to vote for presidents they think are evil, because if they elect an evil person they assume this person will be 'strong' because evil people literally think evil is strength. It's like I was born into a cartoon world or something, with a literal 'evil country', and the whole country is pretty near blind to it. The right thinks if you elect someone compassionate the country will 'lose', because only evil people win (technically evil people do tend to do better in the US, because it selects for them. Did vivek-loser get hit in the head really hard before this talk?? Can anyone explain how a war the US isn't fighting is going to turn into a republican started war that the US is fighting???? I know republicans don't actually have to make sense anymore to appeal to their voters/base (it's why trump can ramble incoherently for 45 minutes and the dumb chuds all cheer), but this is too stupid even for them. ...and he closed it off by more or less saying that even if we knew the holocaust was going on (which we did, and didn't really care about by and large), we wouldn't be justified in doing something about it? Also technically by vivek's brainwormy argument you also can't defend yourself? I know he's a feckless coward (they all are, every fucking republican is a coward at heart, it's why they are conservative, their brain's fear processing is overactive), but seriously, how can anyone argue 'there is no politically correct war' and not be laughed at? Also, trump 'doesn't want to say' is code for 'I'm owned by xi, putin and the gulf dictators and will do whatever they order'. If china invaded Taiwan there is zero chance the US intervenes if a repub is in charge, and even Biden probably won't actually intervene militarily, I feel like if they wouldn't do it for Ukraine vs russia they sure as shit won't do it vs china, which is a much, much scarier opponent, we hear a lot about how incompetent the chinese military is, but the US hasn't had a proper win in awhile (not sure if the first Gulf War counts or not, it's a very sketchy war and lots of war material wasn't accounted for after the war), and has actively lost quite a few wars since WW2 (which was very much a team effort btw!), I think Biden has to say he'd intervene, but there is likely very little interest in risking American lives vs an army that is more than 10 times the size. Then again, I could see trump being incredibly cozy with modi (they both hate Muslims and can bond over both of them getting brutalized by the oil states, many of which are Muslim), but it's incredibly hard for india to invade china to support the US on this, the only country that probably could invade china to help would be russia, and they are presently pretty close to china (closer than they have ever been in history perhaps). It seems likely that the US will talk a bunch and send a bunch of carriers and subs, but I doubt much happens. I've certainly be wrong before, but seeing the world mostly say 'you're on your own' to Ukraine was scary.
    1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. I would like to point out that misinformation is very useful to the right wing, and especially to the far right, because the more misinformation there is the more chaotic reality is observed to be by the common man, and when times seem chaotic the common man votes assiduously against his interest and leans into the far right populists of their day, no matter how buffoonish they are (in fact them looking like buffoons helps present them as 'outsiders', when they are in fact as far up the ass of the corporate world as they could ever be, and yes I'm saying right wing populists are a bunch of shit eating tapeworms). I'm actually pretty sure people are being actively paid to just churn out BS news stories, I keep getting stuff in my feed that is either wildly misleading or completely wrong/impossible. If the 'ai' bots are busy gobbling up the internet, I hope they have enough brains to avoid the rampant fake news that the algos actively push on us suckers... Also, when are people going to wake up to the fact that algos don't at all show you what you'd choose if you knew everything that was available, they suggest things that the algo wants you to watch because it serves corporate interests. It's like how I get nothing but shockingly low budget gambling videos on left leaning videos... at least it gives me something to get angry at, unhealthy emotions are healthy, right? But seriously, it's like youtube is trying to punish me for choosing correctly, it's all both very weird and very annoying, hopefully everyone who runs an online casino is (very slowly!) dissolved in acid while still alive (gambling is humanity's actual worst vice, gamblers would gamble away their children and organs if they are allowed, to say nothing of their own life, drugs are downright safe in comparison).
    1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. The 'you can't criticize if you don't have an alternative' is dangerously stupid thinking for an adult to cling to. Criticism is incredibly important, and just being tolerant of difficulty does absolutely nothing to bring about actual change. Stoicism is an important philosophy when it comes to maintaining the status quo, that's arguably it's core flaw, it teaches the adherents to be content with less rather than try to make meaningful changes, and those with power in our society are very happy to keep things on their present trajectory. IIRC the last movie I saw in the theater was Black Panther 2, which I enjoyed a fair bit. I'm now a bit annoyed that the actor for Namor has a pile of controversy going on, and that's not even the only example of a terrible casting mistake of late in Marvel (obviously they need to recast Kang asap, maybe don't cast the actor who's only 'believable' when he's beating the crap out of Ant Man??? That stuff really stands out in Quantumania). The writing is generally getting worse it seems, coupled with people getting bored of 'samey' movies over and over should be plenty to explain why those movies are 'getting worse', the execs have all the power, and since they want 'more profitable movies' and won't cut exec pay (and cannot cut star pay meaningfully), they have to cut the pay of the little guys over and over, or just never give them a meaningful raise. You don't get $100 dollars of labour by paying a worker $50, and they're doing exactly that. This is why other unions should consider solidarity strikes, because this is a national (well, global) issue.
    1
  825. It's been weirdly disappointing (but not really unexpected) to see india elect a right wing populist who hates farmers and any sort of minority (in a country that is better understand as a subcontinent, it, like china, is somewhat like if you had all of Europe in one country, with all the baggage that would come with), be they racial or religious, and the US just glomps right onto his fascist self, they can't resist a brutal fascist for some weird reason. On topic, xi seems to have the foreign policy of a perpetually embarrassed murder hobo, so it's not a surprise when he alienates other countries that his predecessor had better relations with. Remember xi's reaction to people pointing that out? He tried to publicly shame his predecessor, an act of such stupidity it is on par with getting one's head stuck in a honey bowl. I think china makes more sense if we think of xi as their trump, a populist with strong fascist leanings who is constantly trying to appear more capable and confident than they are. It'd be nice if he could learn actual diplomacy (china used to be good at the stuff, and was in process of gaining major clout in the world because of it) rather than just machismo and posturing. He's also not enough of a feminist, china has a serious habit of under-utilizing (a bit under... see, that's why feminism is important people!) half of it's citizens potential (and has rampant harassment it seems). Note, if women are happier they are more likely to be willing to risk having a baby, if they are miserable they only have them for reasons beyond their control (lack of choice, desperation, poverty etc), xi is very concerned with the birth rate, yet he allows women to be treated as an underclass!
    1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. Not to be rude, but the nepo babies issue isn't even mostly about famous people, it's about how *all of the well-paid jobs go to people with connections*, it's a bit of an absurd complaint because it's how it's 'always been' but it's also awful and has literally killed untold millions just in the 20th century's World Wars, most militaries in the world assigned ranks based on connections, not on competence, and this resulted in militaries that appeared to be functional forces but were more or less useless on the battlefield and cost millions of lives doing brilliant things like trying to take machine gun protected bunkers by crossing a mud-filled stretch of hell in broad daylight with plenty of warning for the ensconced opposition to be ready. Nepotism is one of our worst traits when we're outside the family unit, and most humanity has been living in larger communities for thousands of years, but we still fall for the whole 'well, he's related to someone so maybe he's 'like them'' argument over and over. Nepotism literally kills. I'm a nepo baby too, but my connections meant I got to do farm work as a young child until I managed to work my way up to construction (the hard, brutal kind). If you don't want to live long it's a decent life, but yeah, most people get their start in the work world via connections, some never have to go beyond that, the issue here is that some people are born with connections that are really useful, and others like me have connections that will put them in an early grave potentially. If you can't see a difference between getting to be a CEO because of family, or being the guy loading the cement mixer with 50kg bags, then I despair for our collective future.
    1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. I'm shocked there was any actual chicken tissue in your chicken bullion, buy cheaper and you won't have this problem I think (not so cheap that you're buying coloured salt/wheat flour blocks). Also, tofu is way less weird than drinking milk/eating dairy, I'd feel really weird about explaining that one to an alien, maybe I'd have them drink some of the highly addictive yeast-waste I like to drink, people often love to converse while consuming yeast-waste! Surely some yeast-waste and bacteria-pooped-out-dairy would convince aliens that we're actually sane, that we're not monsters for harnessing life-forms as slaves and then treating them like they're soulless automata? Yeah, just had a thought, how do vegans feel about alcohol or leavened bread? Both obviously use a life form that's definitely not a plant, which is pretty much slave labour only we eat the slave's poop? It's a weird relationship if you think about it too much, but I'm saying maybe vegans can't philosophically drink beer or eat bread, because you're abusing yeast, which isn't a plant? I used the Mediterranean diet to lose weight, a key element of which is eating a lot less meat, and that seemed to work pretty well to manage my weight, and as I pointed out to my sister recently; all of your worst meals were so bad because of meat being in them, thus meat doesn't really make it easier to cook, meat is actually incredibly easy to screw up and tastes godawful when you do. If you disagree, I challenge you to eat 1lb of fried chicken wings, then try to eat 1lb of boiled chicken wings (like right after, so you can still taste the fried chicken). Trust me, it's way easier to screw up meat than it is to screw up a potato or rice. Anyways, lots of vegan stuff is fine to eat, but I still eat a lot of cheese, and I generally crave eggs when I'm working hard, so I'm no vegan, but if people don't go out of their way to eat less meat, it's going to continue to be a huge problem, but I feel like if you're at least doing physically demanding work, you probably need some meat or you're going to suck at your job (dairy and eggs work too), thus office jocks need to stop eating meat all the time, save it for me!
    1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. For me, reality TV was hate-at-first-sight, and it still is. Actually, that's not quite true, I liked 'pro' wrestling as a little kid, and that's very, very similar to a lot of 'reality' TV that is popular. I'd rather watch amateur improv than watch heavily scripted reality TV. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the proliferation of reality TV shows helped speed up the radicalization of our world, since it glorifies conflict for conflict's sake, most reality shows present conflict as potentially quite profitable, no matter how stupid. It also encourages petty bullshit, I don't think it's a coincidence that republican hivemind thinking is obsessed with gamification, this is why it's presented as a 'strategy' to 'own the libs' in and of itself, it doesn't matter if they shoot themselves in the foot if they've put their foot on top of yours, they're not trying to win in a traditional sense. The closest thing they can achieve is to make their opponent's suffer, their is no way to 'win' when your goal is to magically turn back time (this is why they don't worry about global warming, they're magical thinkers that think because trump was allowed to get away with every awful thing he's ever wanted to do he has magic powers. Fascists are very, very stupid because they never grew past their childhood development, which happens when life is set on ultra-easy mode for you) to a more fucked up period. While I do hate reality TV, I do think it sounds objectively hilarious to watch americans who suck at meeting people/have rudimentary social skills go oversees and try to get hitched, just like it'd be funny to watch people try to drive spikes with a tack hammer: none of these people are bringing the right tools, and the disaster that ensues will probably be amusing, if in a dark way. That said, there are some people who don't fit in in the US that would fit in far better elsewhere, the US has some pretty shitty standards for 'what is cool' in my experience. Not surprised to hear to say that these 'reality' shows are designed to showcase things like conspicuous consumption, hustle culture, substance abuse, racist tropes, sexist tropes, and just general right wing shitty-ness, it's like these are also propaganda or something.
    1
  849. I think what you're missing is that these people aren't doing things other people couldn't or wouldn't do, it was arbitrary that they were the ones that got rewarded to an absurd degree. If Gates or Bezos hadn't been born, someone else would have made a similar company, made similar products, and had similar wealth levels, and we wouldn't have been waiting long for the replacement, if at all. If these billionaires could arbitrarily only have made half as much money, or even 1/100th, they'd have still done just as much and worked just as hard. There are much harder working people then them, they just don't make much money. It wasn't hard work that made anyone a billionaire, and it generally isn't smarts (very few are especially smart), it's dumb luck that they happened upon the right thing at the perfect time, and could capitalize on it properly. Capitalism without regulation is insanity given time, I just hope people recognize this before things get too much worse. Aside, it seems to me that stories like Bezos are trumpeted so much because they give the working masses 'hope', that the 'american dream' isn't dead, when they are freakish aberrations who's rarity actually prove the dream has been long dead. The poor in the US in particular don't seem to be sharing in the good times, and still get hard in the bad times, meaning they are getting poorer. Yes, the poor in many developing countries are moving up a bit, but the developed world is now just a cow to be fattened before the slaughter.
    1
  850. It's perhaps the best of the lot, but it's not exactly the deepest pool to wade into. It did have flaws, but the issue is mostly that it's a bit extreme, but that's also why I watched it so how can I complain about that? The lack of dialogue was a problem, but there isn't a ton to be done about that, it's an action movie, wherein what happens is mostly action. You can't have people explaining things when the point is you're supposed to watch how stuff works, that's part of why action movies were explicitly used for American propaganda. For the record, in a hunter-gatherer society it was generally okay for a person to go off for a bit, especially provided that the individual is somewhat (or extremely) self-sufficient. People had chores, but they weren't onerous by modern standards on most days, it was very different back then. They didn't have fields to plow and weed in that area, let alone land to clear for said farming. Dude, you can't call out Prey for handing people the plot in key points for them to connect into a narrative (with plenty of payoffs for each point), this is how action movies work, it's not a drama, or did you not notice? It's not supposed to explain what will matter, it has to show you what matters. Both of them had found LOTS of what almost had to be blood from the Predator, so it made sense to say 'if I can bleed...', because they are finding blood/SHE SAW IT BLEED. Just saying. I do agree it was a problem that all of the boys from the Comanche were kinda assholes, the French being awful is more or less what the people were for the record, that was why they were massacring bison, it was to starve the natives out as much as generate wealth. As for her combat matches, she's supposed to be very skilled, and very aware of her personal limitations. She can't take big hits, so she is cautious in the movie, I don't think her being injured less than whatever you expect is a problem, though I agree that her hatchet thing is openly absurd, it's like if you were reading a comic or manga, but that is what it's supposed to be. As far as overcoming flaws, she blatantly shows how she has learned to be far more careful after first the lion, and then the bear, such that she was literally primed to face the Predator, which she beat not so much with strength or even speed as much as cunning, which is befitting of a hunter if not a warrior. Anyways, glad you liked the movie, I also enjoyed it overall. Nice to see a female protagonist in a movie like this, it's still unusual.
    1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. I always enjoy your vids... I agree men have serious systemic problems like male on male violence, but the key part is that even if men are the victims more often, you fail to mention that men are wildly more likely to be the victimizer, and thus are obviously the real issue. Women's power being described as 'soft power' is very appropriate, because it hints at the lack of real leverage that women actually have, as men are as a rule physically stronger (and have much better earning potential, and apparently if not poor can mostly rape at will), and thus in scenarios where their is a conflict between the two, the men very often has a big advantage, and it's not like the cops will be teleporting to the conflict, so women are forced to use 'soft power', and use it vs ACTUAL power, and that is why wife beating is way more common than similar husband abuse. The whole thing I think boils down to that though, that women have 'theoretical' power, but men have 'actual' power, in almost every way. Men's Rights supporters tend to ignore the huge advantages that the average man has (to say nothing of ignoring the daily cruelty many women endure), and just talk about anecdotes where a woman 'wronged' a man... These men are so used to their various and many privileges that they are blind to them. The use of anecdotes is essentially forbidden by science, yet these supremely logical men cling to them, to their own detriment. Their is a problem today, because their are many men who are not only unwilling to make themselves attractive to women (due to entitlement), but they also feel injured by the women that refuse them, while they are likely not asking out women that are, well, appropriate for them. Men seem to be hardwired to marry as far up on looks as they can manage, and the easy availability of porn, movies featuring very beautiful women, and ads featuring beautiful women (and social media featuring, again, tons of beautiful women) seems to lead men to believe that beautiful women are relatively common, that they can't just find another man, but of course in reality any decent looking woman is practically tripping over the constant offerings of dick! Most men need to realize that they aren't above average, and the average man that is a social outcast needs to realize that they are not even, as far as relationships go, average, and thus they need to be seeking non-average women. I am still vaguely astounded how many incels are both worshiping beautiful women, while despising the very women they could be boning if they put even a tiny amount of effort into. Odd thought as a cis hetero man, but I felt like you should have used makeup to emphasize your jawline more in the robe scenes. I'm not an expert (or even remotely competent I'd say), but it was what seemed missing from the 'glam hottie' look I think you were largely pulling off. Obviously too much emphasis is a problem, but assuming you've already shaved your jawline down, why not do what other 'hot' women do when doing the look? If you didn't, you certainly don't have a 'man jaw', I can't see you being able to fit wisdom teeth in their for example, so you don't need to be insecure, embrace your beauty! That said, it wasn't a bad look, just a suggestion from someone who has basically never used makeup, and thus is not even vaguely qualified to criticize. You do you girl, you're killing it! Keep up the good work! You're doing God's work IMHO, illuminating reality to the masses.
    1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. My guy, Swiffers and Swifties have one thing in common, they clean shit up if you catch me. Very good call to try not to stomp on their toes for no good reason, as a person who listened to some Taylor Swift I wasn't offended. I feel like diagnosing children with ADHD is incredibly touchy (well, mostly medicating them weirds me out, don't @ me I've gotten 4 or 5 COVID shots and enjoy many benefits of modern medicine, but I just think messing with brain chemistry in children should be an absolute last ditch attempt), just like any other mental health issue is hard/impossible to properly diagnose until the brain is 'finished', but pretending nobody has learning disabilities is a non-serious position. We've all known people who were good with words but not math, and vice versa, does he think they're just lazy, and that's why other people learn the same material in a fraction of the time (and with a fraction of the effort)?? Humans are messy creatures, but by definition if you're marrying someone primarily because you think they're hot you're asking for trouble, this is more true if you're dating someone of a different background because your knee jerk reaction during conflict will be ugly (hence the high divorce rate one supposes). I feel like anyone who's only into a specific ethnicity/background is getting problematic, but it's a million times worse if you're into a different one, not because it's wrong inherently, but because that's not how the human brain works and you might need therapy, people are into people, we're wired with most of the same mental machinery of 'lower' life forms (most animals aren't choosey, neither are healthy humans), we've just got a whole heap more built on top of the rickety foundations.
    1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. You talking about the whole 'making things up about reproduction because they'd be convenient if true' makes me remember that conservatives fundamentally don't understand how reality works, they honestly think that it will adapt to their whims (they're all magical thinkers), and this is why they are always angry, because they're constantly being confronted with a reality that has zero interest in accommodating their stupidity. This is why they love scapegoats, conservatives fundamentally don't understand that a scapegoat doesn't actually solve the problem, hence needing to keep finding new scapegoats. Conservatives are what happens when you let your animal self run the show (usually because you haven't developed higher order thinking), if you think of them as children most of their behavior makes a lot more sense, they might have a high IQ, but they're still saddled with the emotional maturity of a toddler, and just like a toddler they love to throw tantrums because those who have power have always catered to their whims. Fascism is basically the enshittification of conservatism, all of the foibles that conservative bumpkins have their fascist masters have learned how to exploit, meaning if you have fascists in power they have this weird habit of naming their opponents as the scapegoats, like when the nazis demonized communists and socialists as soon as they had opportunities to do so. Any and all dumb beliefs that conservatives collectively develop (they're all sheep, remember me saying they let their animal do the thinking? Well, humans are herd animals that like to run away, this is why conservatives are all inveterate cowards at heart and only attack from a position of overwhelming advantage) will be exploited and magnified, because angry people are incredibly easy to manipulate, as long as your goal is to make them angrier. Also, once people are angry (for good or bad reasons), it's really hard to calm them down other than by placating them, this is why the republicans are eager to get their base as angry as possible, the angrier conservatives get the more the democratic party tends to bend their way, not necessarily on the granularity but in the general sense, which is why the Overton window keeps moving further right, everyone getting more angry = everyone leaning more towards freaking out and clinging to a populist leader, because populists lie about having all the solutions.
    1
  878. Yeah, people it's a real surprise that the assholes among us come out and attack the 'evil' concept of facing consequences for abhorrent actions. Some (most?) celebrities seem to feel that they should be allowed to do whatever they want, and that people should just 'deal with it', because they don't want to deal with consequences. The irony of all this is that the rich don't face consequences, almost ever, unless they 'go against' the establishment in some way, and lean left. If you are a leftist, expect to have actual consequences, while the right wing ignores anything you do as long as you'll support their anti-science positions. Even then, most of them are allowed access to the teat again, though if you're a nobody it might be permanent. Consequences are an important thing in life, and if people don't face them, they'll keep committing egregious offences until they do. If someone never faces any consequences they grow up to be like trump, and think it's appropriate to grab strange women bodily, and even lies to himself that they 'like' it, or will tolerate it for reasons other than unadulterated fear. The problem in the US is that the justice system is designed to pamper the powerful, and be sadistically cruel to the poor/lower class people. Poor pedophiles in prison have melted sugar dumped on their faces, while epstein is allowed privacy to kill himself, as long as he doesn't betray his co-abusers, and that was only because the public at large finally found out about his previous sham trial and wrist-slapping. Any position that argues 'people shouldn't face consequences because literally any consequence of any kind is too brutal' is bullshit. Victims deserve to be supported, and abusers deserve to face consequences that may not be legal in nature (yet shouldn't be illegal/vigilante in nature). Is someone who's willing to actually make amends facing consequences still? yes, but if there is nothing but words, some people (like some children) will abuse the situation further, because they won't suffer for doing so. Telling the victim to listen is DEEPLY DEEPLY FUCKED UP, and you should fuck off with that noise. All that said, I also tend to think some manner of restorative justice is important, I just don't think that can solve all problems all the time. Words are very, very cheap (free even), while actions aren't. Minorities are very familiar with BS restorative justice where a party just makes some shit up (and that's it), and that isn't what we need right now.
    1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. It seems you could write a good thesis about the fact that there are arguably two main psychological types of people, those who prefer to contribute, and those who prefer to exploit systems over contributing. Contributing people get normal jobs and are productive people, while people that prefer to exploit find ways to make a living that do not involve contributing, but instead allow them to benefit from other people's contributions. Ultimately, people that contribute have a drive to do productive work, and suffer stress if they are unable to do so. Exploiters have no such issue it appears, and actively seem to enjoy benefiting from others. Ultimately, the issue seems to be for humanity that we value people who exploit much more highly than people who contribute. If you make a communist system, you will still have a heap of people who prefer to not contribute, and will find a way to get a 'job' that involves exploiting the workers, and when there is no oversight on the exploiters (such as during any authoritarian government), they get very out of hand very quickly. Modern Democracy seems more about tricking the contributing people into believing that they are valued, when they are financially not remotely, and have progressively less political voice in most countries over time, as wealth concentrates further, and brings power with it. In a modern Democracy, the exploiters have to be very cautious, and not open about using their power, though in the US, this no longer seems as true, and they are pretty open now. I'm not an anarchist, so I do believe in having a strong central government, but I think the present system of wildly rewarding 1 individual who 'founded' a company, while their workers are little better than slaves, is fucking stupid to support. The american system of letting the wealthy dictate the politics of the country is pretty much insane as well, but both parties have done a good job of convincing huge numbers of people that the status quo is serving them well, because their quality of life seems to be improving over time, because of the benefits of unprecedented technological advancements. People pay exorbitant amounts of money for tech goods that have not only been designed to wear out quickly, but also have hilarious profit margins that traditional manufacturing can only dream of. Compare the mark up on an iphone and a consumer compact car for example. People haven't been using computers long enough as consumer goods to value them correctly, so companies can still charge whatever the fuck they want, because of price fixing, a thing the government isn't even pretending to give a shit about. In the end though, all those trillions people spend on phones, TVs, consoles etc is going to be completely gone, and the obsolete tech will have to be 'phased out' for a marginally better version, because the average person refuses to look up what obsolete really means from a technical perspective, rather than their colloquial version (for the record, obsolete means it can no longer compete effectively, so your old phone isn't obsolete so much as no longer supported, which is VERY DIFFERENT). The consumer treadmill is what the exploiters use to control the workers now in capitalism, and because life seems to get better due to better tech, they don't notice that all of the actual money is going into a tiny number of pockets.
    1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. It's not just MSG that uses facial recognition to ban/refuse entry, wasn't the big ticket monopoly company found to be doing it to people literally just to be mean? Like people who complain that they're an evil monopoly that try to go to concerts might get refused for 'breach of contract' when you bought the ticket... because contract law is 100% designed to protect the big fish from the small fish, not the other way around. The more messed up part than thinking it's okay to marry a teen when you're 40 is that many of them are fine right down to 12, 'because the old testament says that's fine'. The goal is lowering the bar in general so that our corporate overlords can treat us even more brutally/pay us even less... you don't have child labor because your working conditions are really good, you have them because you have a very real exploitation problem. Yeah, to be polite I am not down with huge faceless corporations trying to prude-shame women... if men don't want women to lean prudish, give them good reasons not to, being terrible in bed is a great way to make women not want to date. Weird thought, but is the real reason trump and his followers have 'the big lie' (about the election) that in the US it's usually seen as the ultimate humiliation to lose the presidency after one term, and as a rule candidate have one 'serious' chance, if they lose the election it's usually the end. Thus, the issue isn't actually that they believe that he won (very few people actually do, regardless of what they'll tell you when asked), it's that the whole apparatus knew that if they ever admitted that he lost the whole house of cards would fall apart because trump would objectively be a loser at that point, and as we all know, the US hates nothing as much as an election loser (because all American elections are popularity contests, maybe all elections everywhere? hard to say).
    1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. My favorite right wing movie is probably Wolf Warrior, but most good martial arts movies are openly right wing conceptually, and who doesn't want to have a few beers and watch a guy annihilate some baddies? That said, I hate to break this to you guys, but almost everything that Hollywood churns out is, deep down, right leaning propaganda. Hollywood exists exclusively to keep the masses distracted and reduce the likelihood of a major revolution, and you don't prevent a revolution by making actual progressive media the norm. The more 'entertaining' a movie/show is supposed to be, the further to the right it's symbolisms and messaging will be. I noticed this first as a kid when I realized all the left wing kids shows were unwatchable preachy trash (that was actively designed to demonize progressives), and everything right wing was designed to be 'fun' (it always appeals to our worst nature; conflict is solved through force, peace is only achieved through violence, and is maintained thusly). It wasn't until later that I realized the reason it was so important we all lean right was that our social order (of rich exploiting the poor as brutally as they can, and protesting it is criminalized harshly... we live in a society run by right wing assholes that were selected by the previous members of the ruling class and then assigned as many billions as necessary to ensure their empowerment) is propped up by Hollywood's extensive propaganda network... with a huge side benefit of causing a constant influx of desperate migrants to the US who are eager to fill the bottom rung... not because others moved up, but so the social order can go deeper down, nobody is supposed to move up, just more tiers on the bottom). Those migrants are driven by the promise of Hollywood, that the US is 'the land of the free', when it's literally doing everything in it's power to reinstate feudalism. I wish an economist would compare state debt to the debt of wealthy people. I think your guest is right, state debt is nothing like household debt, and part of that is because household debt is predatory, while debt for the rich is an asset in every way... rich people can borrow money, invest that money, and then borrow more money based on the debt they have accrued, then pay it all back off of the earnings of all their debt. Meanwhile a household that has debt is positively hounded for having it, poor people are brutally punished for debt, the rich are heavily rewarded for identical behavior, and the pressures on a state are much closer to those on the rich than those on the poor. Heck, just compare state debt to corporate debt and even obtuse people should be able to recognize that the state is infinitely closer to a giant corporation than it is to the average worker. I think Krugman described some of these right wing bogeymen ideas as 'zombie ideas', things that everyone knows are dead but get up and come after us because something unpleasant is animating them, and that thing isn't logical/reasonable. People don't actually think immigrants are taking away their jobs (they create more jobs than they take because they work so hard), they just don't want to see so many brown people, paranoid people have a visceral reaction to people who they think are 'different' so it's really beneficial to a politician to demonize immigration, it's easy voters that otherwise don't care about your platform, hence it being used by the various populists funded by the right wing establishment. I still can't believe the UK didn't throw johnson out of the country after he both sexually violated a deceased pig AND trampled small children that were playing ball... also, how do you look at that hair and think 'this guy looks like a PM!', he looks like he's too cheap to buy a wig and uses an old mop, it's trumpian level bad. Oh, and seriously, he abused that dead pig, isn't that weird?? What is it with right wing people and REALLY FREAKY shit that they insist they want illegal, only they're super into it and just want nobody else to be allowed to do their fetish? Except the child marriage for girls thing, the right likes that unless it's brown people doing it, than it becomes bad.
    1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. The content algorithms exist primarily to move the general populace further right wing, it doesn't push left-leaning stuff the way it desperately pushes right wing stuff, even to actively progressive viewers (I still get right wing shit, though atm I can more tell that they think I'm watching something progressive because it shows really scammy adds for gambling. It's almost like it's not neutral, and it's not neutral because it was designed to not to be neutral, it has a strong right wing bias, even as more and more people are more and more progressive. It's not about the money, it's about the *power*, and it's not accidental. AI is going to obsolete every job we have, and I don't think it'll take that long, guess why the rich scumbags are so desperate to get as far ahead as possible, regardless of the cost to humanity? It's almost like they all know they have now to take as much money as possible, both to live comfortably during the climate crisis, but also to accrue power while they can. It's not like elon is talking about Mars because he thinks Earth is doing great, the rich just don't want to cause chaos before they can leave, they want us workers to keep on until the bitter end, and then for us dumbshits who didn't scam our way out to inherit a rapidly dying world. ...Um, actually, the imperialism of the past and the 21st century have been pretty similar, with the 'major powers' being quite eager to invade country's with no provocation, IE Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, various parts of Palestine that keep getting 'settled' by Israel despite there being people there already, living in houses their family owned before them, etc, I actually thought this stuff would have changed more as it became dumber economically speaking, but all of these events have ulterior motives, and that is why this form of imperialism continues, it's about exerting influence over other countries/peoples, to expand a country's area of control, not so much about winning. In the US it also funnels billions into the grubby hands of weapons contractors. Yeah, go for the lowest hanging fruit, 'the Soviet Union was bad!', nobody is saying it wasn't, funny you don't seem as concerned with the atrocities and war crimes of he US and other Western powers?? This wasn't a Good vs Evil scenario, it was two sides that both lied to their populations to cover up their abuses, the russkies were bad at it, the West had less moral scrupples to get in the way, our propaganda literally plays into our greed, theirs played into their good natures by and large. We weren't the good guys in the West, even if all our dumbshit propaganda very clearly insists we were/are, millions of unnecessary Cold War deaths can be laid on our doorstep without question. Also, it's not like the US system is/was 'working', it's mostly 'working' because the poor are brainwashed by a shockingly corrupt education system to never complain/work tirelessly for nothing, and we only ever ask the rich if things are working/going well, and they only care about the stock market, so guess what, things have been steadily uphill as long as we've been using those markets, yet life for the poor has gone sharply downhill for many decades, despite increased worker productivity (ie worker pay in our capialist society has nothing in truth to do with worker productivity, it's only based on how much money it takes to find the minimum number of workers, anything beyond 'will get warm bodies in the building' is now considered to be overpaying workers by big business). Our socio-economic system in the West is a slow motion train wreck, and we mostly deserve our fate for having been awful when we had the power to be different, before we gave it to the billionaires, it's very hard to compare the West to the Soviets and say we were better/more moral/more ethical people, or that we have been less imperialistic.
    1
  933. Watching this after having taken classes on Roman life and history in uni, and later read the Lives of the Twelve Caesars, leaves little doubt that while the poor were generally expected to be morally upright, the elites could get away with quite a bit. We also learned in Ancient Greek Athletics 201 (more or less, it was an 8:30 class that had many shots of naked men, just ugh) that the pederasty thing is partially a misunderstanding, sometimes men would put their penis between the thighs rather than actually do anal sex, such that anal sex was 'relatively rare' according to my prof, as it was seen as demeaning (for obvious reasons I suppose), thigh sex was seen as reasonable though. Again though, wtf moron would try to have thigh sex with a relatively lean boy rather than a woman that has actual thighs??? I will admit I have a fondness for 'classical civ', but they did some odd stuff. I also read the OG Thieves' World stuff, which starts out as a very old city, and eventually becomes a later medieval one, though it's worth noting the Romans, if not interrupted, would have done shocking things scientifically in another century or two, there was the odd thing that was really advanced, even if the average Joe's life wasn't especially impressive (there was a lot of concrete that needed to be agitated, which IMHO sounds like a sadistic job, not quite salt mine, but pretty damn close). Now I want to play Civ 1 again, not sure if I'd go Roman or Greek, Greek is probably better, Alexander isn't a chump, even if he's not Genghis Khan.
    1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. I'm sure someone mentions it in the comments already, but the nose picking connection stems from people who have already experienced cognitive decline being way more likely to be nose pickers, and it's one of the early warning signs because people who are mentally healthy are horrified at the idea of being caught picking their nose in public, it's a paranoia thing for normal people. In truth everyone does it at least occasionally, it's just that most people do it in private. It's a correlation doesn't equal causation thing IMHO. My dad can't really pick his nose because he has a normal sized nose and has incredibly wide hands/fingers, I have fairly bulky hands but have smaller finger tips and can. I should look up this Brothers Sun thing, I used to watch a lot of Chinese movies, doing so caused American hollywood to make so much more sense as the primary propaganda wing of the American establishment. The difference in choreography between those early Marvel movies and same era Chinese action movies was bonkers, it really highlights how complex actual fitness is, it's very hard to get a guy who looks like the bodybuilder-esque Marvel Superheroes and have them be fit enough to do real impressive action sequences. Asian action stars tended to be more functionally fit, hollywood was too obsessed with bodybuilding. I was just talking briefly about this with my Mum, remember when American Pro Wrestling featured diversity? Like, some of it was racist AF, but now all the wrestlers kinda look the same, smaller Hulk Hogans because getting that big needed too many roids, and everyone heard how messed up his body was. One key difference, wrestlers didn't use to be very skinny, getting big enough to manhandle a 250lb man in a flashy manner without access to steroids meant just bulking up naturally, it's a shame kids don't get to see natural bodies anymore, just the same cookie-cutter mini-hulks. Maybe I'm biased, I'm a pretty bulky guy, but I'm not especially lean (I have pretty normal bodyfat levels of a man my age, I'm just tall and do construction/farm work, and have done so for decades now so have a lot more muscle mass), so my body type used to be the norm in wrestling.
    1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. I'm more concerned that Hollywood really wants us to watch bad art made by bad artists that are also bad people. I still can't believe that top gun got nominated for anything (yes all of Hollywood is propaganda of a sort, but most of it isn't QUITE that heavy handed), cruise is still the world's biggest supporter of a pedo cult that doesn't even do charitable work (because it teaches that if you have a bad thing happen to you, you deserved it and if something good happened to you, like being selected to star in tons of bad movies that the public will be forced to watch, you deserved that good thing, you can say a lot negative about Christianity too, but it's not a raging garbage fire from a philosophical perspective). Dude, blurred lines literally lifted it's hook (it's only redeeming quality) from another song, it's depressingly similar and has no redeeming qualities (also, it is and has never been a banger, you just had bad taste when it came out). ...seriously my dudes, do you not hear words to songs while they play??? Good lord, if a song has toxic ass words it's not a 'good song', and it sure as shit isn't a 'banger'. Also, just a rule of thumb, pop art isn't legit art and you can't use legit art metrics to judge it, nor is there any need to make the slightest accommodation for such producers of product. There is a fundamental difference between Wagner and hitler, both were awful humans who would personally be fine with shoving human beings into a furnace with very little prompting (especially if they were Jewish), but only one of them made actual art, the other was a hack that failed for patently obvious reasons (bad realist paintings are painful to art critics), and as such we can't talk about hitler 'as an artist' in a meaningful way. Pop art is like that, they are people making a product, but that product is art only in the sense that a bonbon is food (it has calories and nothing else, if you eat mostly bonbons you will quickly get sick and die). Pop art = almost poison, will kill in large doses, but it still has it's place because it's lots of fun in managable doses. Anyways, if you make pop art and are a bigot, you don't deserve even a partial pass and nobody should consume your pablum, there is a literal endless supply of talentless idiots willing to mug for crowds in your place, and they won't make me feel scummy for giving money/brain space to garbage people.
    1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. I would describe modern capitalism as 'the system that has funneled the most resources to the smallest portion of society, based mostly on ability to exploit workers/motivate exploited workers'. Still short, but you're leaving out the actual main purpose of capitalism, which is to create an 'economic' elite, which will somehow be more 'legitimate' than our old God-Kings were (because only the best and brightest can succeed in capitalism! haha), even though we chose both for the same criteria (which is why people favour men for leadership despite terrible track records). Not to be rude, but all of the BS capitalists say about billionaires 'doing good' is complete BS, their charity is more of a scam than anything, done as a combined tax shelter and way to dole money out to friends/connections, it's not about helping anyone but their kind. Meanwhile, these useless money-sponges then bribe government officials (who are not even breaking the law in many cases while doing this, our system's corruption levels are staggering) to rig things further in the favour of billionaires, IE they use the money they steal legally from our exploitation to bribe the officials we elect to screw us over on another level. There is nothing remotely ethical about capitalism, it's inherently unethical because it's entire premise is that greed is a good motivator that somehow will bring about good ends, because we all know that famous expression about how bad means are always justified by good ends or something? Yeah, it was something like that, people all seemed to agree that it's okay to do horrible evils if you lie that you're trying to 'improve' the world, that's called the ends justifying the means, which is obviously a good thing. Saying capitalism isn't unethical is like saying that mercantilism wasn't unethical, it very much was, and it's effects continue to ruin the lives of billions worldwide. Both systems were fucked up beyond all worlds in actual practice, because there was no incentive to give a shit about anyone (or any other population) other than you and yours.
    1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. Lots of US churches still have armed members of the parish present for services, in case they have a 'shooter situation'. This is a 'white church' thing afaik, no doubt in part because most black people are concerned about carrying a firearm in a country where the police are very eager to shoot black people on any pretext. I feel like modern US anti-gun control attitudes stem mostly from the eager consumption of american propaganda, especially the pro-war and 'wild west' stuff, both of which present the gun as a means to achieve heroic status and do good, specifically it's presented as a necessary 'tool' to kill 'bad guys' with guns. 'Bad guys' used to mean 'non-whites and whites that didn't want to conform to society', but it kinda still does I guess? It's almost like the founding fathers believed that people should have access to firearms, but only for specific purposes, including racism, hunting/sport, self defense and national defense, but I can't help but feel like 'in a well regulated militia' is a clear statement that the law should be expected to enumerate significant gun control, at the least forceful interpretation it is strongly implied by the 2nd amendment that some manner of gun control would exist, but that the specifics can't be dealt with in that document as things like technology change drastically over time. Because they weren't stupid enough to just work a page or 2 of soon to be outdated gun control laws into the amendment (which wouldn't make sense tbh), the republicans get to take the position that the key context in which people are to have unimpeded firearm access was for regulated national defense, not hunting, not sport, and not self defense, is meaningless fluff-text that should be ignored by everyone. Not sure how it's remotely defensible to argue that the 2nd amendment reads 'everyone gets a gun!', either from a moral standpoint or from a legal one, it's not even complex wording, it's like how they ignore the entire New Testament in so, so many right wing churches, and they're all internally fine with it because turning the other cheek really sucks, and giving away all your wealth that you've gained in large part due to advantages from systemic racism over the centuries is a big old 'Nope!' to them too. I feel like the 'killing 9 people and wound +20 in seconds' is part of why invasions are getting harder to do. If there is a reasonable supply of arms, the locals can hold out for a very long (and very expensive) time, which can easily make the operation cost prohibitative or impractical due to loss of lives/material. Even if you've got 50 armed soldiers, if one civilian surprises them from a roof top with an old (but functional) AK, he can mow down a few before he's shredded by the returned fire. It's not like when that disgruntled man was a peasant farmer who had a shovel that swings at a passing knight, maybe injures him (probably doesn't), at which point he's probably captured to be publicly tortured to death. It simply matters more now if people are disgruntled, and they are usually disgruntled because they are entitled, generally white male and right wing leaning.
    1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. Dude, the establishment looked at china (when relations thawed with the West) and saw cheap labor, and they saw literally nothing else. Rich assholes saw a way to make more money by shipping jobs from here to there and then selling those goods (that won't last as long because the manufacturing workers are less skilled there) to us anyways, at a slight discount that is more than offset by the fact that the average working is making less money, meaning their actual buying power was going down without them noticing, they couldn't pull that off without a china that wanted to build factories for Western interests. It wasn't about some 'great dream' of 'making china a stakeholder', because nobody wanted an empowered china except china, even russia used to be anti-china, it was 100% about making money for the already wealthy. It's not a secret that policy in the West adheres closely to what the wealthy among us want, they didn't want another superpower that can threaten Western hegemony. The tarifs similarly were put in place to protect Western wealth (in particular that of elno himself, because he had zero hope of competing with the chinese on EVs), and it is entirely at the cost of the American public, who will have to pay more for everything they buy that COULD have been made in china, all while wages for the majority aren't really going up. Banning tiktok was done to try to convince the chinese to sell it to Western billionaires, chinese billionaires don't cooperate with those from the West the same way all Western billionaires work together to protect their own from oversight (and the consequences oversight will bring). There is no real difference between modi and trump, both are vile racists who are trying to win by appealing to the worst aspects of human nature. I assume it must feel good to just get angry and use a minority as a scapegoat (if you have thoroughly perverted your empathy, such that you derive pleasure from harming others), because the voters are shooting themselves in the foot to spite their Muslim countrymen. Again, this is just like the majority of trump voters who derived no benefit other than watching other people suffer during his reign, and many of them will still vote for him after he was objectively the worst US president in living memory (if not history in general). I also was not even remotely surprised to watch the US make a huge push to improve relations with india, apparently modi was far enough right wing that the US 'felt they could trust him', just like pinochet and his ilk.
    1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. Also, she needed to reload her shotgun because she didn't kill it cleanly, this woman is nightmare fuel, and not the good kind of nightmare (like a Nightmare Hippie Girl). I've heard of farmers killing puppies and kittens that they don't want, but those stories are from 'back in the day' at this point, out in the sticks you can usually sell any unwanted puppies for more than you spent on food for them (no questions asked too), kittens are a bit harder to home but it can happen too. Killing a hunting dog because it killed a similar animal to what you were trying to get it to hunt seems to fundamentally misunderstand how nature works, this woman is incredibly stupid, and the goat thing was probably criminal animal abuse. You can't torture your animals to death because you get off on it, that's illegal in our society. If you don't know how to shoot a gun it's your responsibility to know it and have someone who knows how to shoot your unwanted animal in a humane fashion (such as it is). I had to chase away a wild racoon that was trying to sneak around our house, I don't know how to use a gun so I don't have one, instead I got a long implement and the critter got the message without me getting too close. It's not fair that racoons are such nice looking animals, they're real nuisance creatures in many areas, but the moral of the story is if she didn't know how to use a gun, she shouldn't have risked it. She's stupid and is embarrassing her state and political party. I used to love arguing and debating, eventually I got older (and much better at it), now I hate doing it over stupid or frivolous issues. I am still reasonably outspoken, but I don't care as much for the back-and-forth if it's not something I actually care about. I 100% agree that george santos would be less problematic if he was a drag performer, most of what he did would be fine in that field, right? People love messy drag queen drama, the cattier the better, and surely we can count on Kitara for that?
    1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. The most likely to actually kill us is just plain old overpopulation leading to various problems... climate change is 100% a population issue for example. People in cities are mislead into thinking that they have a small impact on the world in real terms, meanwhile almost every city is built on prime arable land and are surrounded by endless acres of farmland, most of which is used in a non-sustainable manner leading to rampant soil degradation. Arguably we're already well over our planets reasonable 'carrying capacity' for humans, such that we're permanently damaging our planet to sustain too many of us, most of whom serve no purpose other than consuming resources to fuel our capitalist delusions. People seem to have remarkably poor ability to see issues from a longer term perspective, our collective understanding of the question 'how many people can live in _____' is more or less as many as you can physically house. Look at how many people live in places because they are 'sunny but not humid', and they try to find the most arable land in those deserts/almost deserts to lay down asphalt for their cities. I guess you could argue our stupidity is a bigger issue than our sheer population size, but it's also true that one person camping in a forest can just dig a hole to poop in, while a whole city doing that would be disastrous, scale matters a great deal, and people don't seem to care very much about that if they can personally be kept in relative comfort. Another thing that might well doom us is the conservatives among us that insist on trying to move backwards in time, the more we progress the less likely we are to kill ourselves off violently. A significant portion of the population is far enough right wing at this point that they see few issues with taking others rights/opportunities away, and from there it's a short step to 'voting to take your neighbor's stuff/life', left wing people's great danger to us is that they are vulnerable to deception (mostly by right leaning leaders ironically), right wing people are in contrast actively malicious, seeing it as not only reasonable to climb over others toward personal gain, but they actually think it's unethical to not screw over others to get ahead. Right wing people see no problem with doing the wrong thing if they've seen or heard of someone else doing it, you don't need to be very bright to realize why such people are an inherent danger to society, if they'll profit from pollution or racism or mass production of weapons they'll eagerly do so.
    1
  998. You say roads, but the US is desperate for a huge increase in high tech rail systems. The subways that exist are not sufficient, and the trains that exist are generally old and slow, making them an undesirable choice. Rails are a more advanced system IMHO, and finding a solution to commuter traffic that isn't ever wider roads that still get jammed would be nice. Regarding military spending, the saddest thing about it IMHO is that it isn't doing anything useful anyways. Many times when the US military has tried to intervene have not gone terribly well, despite apparent early success due to overwhelming air superiority. Arguably, the last effective use of the US military might (other than disaster related stuff, which could be done cheaper by people dedicated to it I suspect) has probably been in the former Yugoslavia. Afghanistan has proven pointless, Iraq perhaps disastrous, and various other interventions haven't gone well either, like Libya. It's a bit ghastly, but compared to what the CIA did with it's budget, the military is hilariously pointless for foreign policy interventions. The CIA overthrew many governments, and installed whomever they wanted, while the military managed to, with help, achieve nothing in two countries with limited standing military forces. Gah. This isn't complicated stuff, and I was a kid that was obsessed with all things army related, eventually studying weapons design of various kinds, but as cool as the military is, it's silly to spend this way on it.
    1
  999. 1
  1000. Apparently that population boost might have had a lot to do with the introduction of a super-crop from the New World, one that the Old World had despised even more thoroughly than tomatoes, the mighty potato! You guys should try and do a video about the origins of the modern potato, it's incredible how much 'money' (so to speak) that the Natives invested in their agriculture, none of the European grains had to change nearly as much as corn/maize or potatoes had to to be useful staples, but because of the unsung labor of those we called savages, everywhere potatoes where introduced the population always boomed. I've been keeping potatoes for years now, but last year used primarily saved potatoes to plant, and harvested enough potatoes to eat, and this year I have even more, so it'll easily be enough for another year! Compare that to growing oats, or barley, potatoes are far better. It's quite clear that we have a massive overpopulation issue (especially as we're unwilling to adapt our lifestyles away from 'do whatever makes more money for rich assholes'), so dropping populations are usually a very good thing. The big issue of course is the high standard of living of the wealthy/wealthy nations, which aren't sustainable long term, but can be maintained via exploitation of overseas labor/environments, but since it's a closed ecosystem the destruction of nature 'over there' will affect us all. I'm not sure why you're saying 'china will lose workers' like it's a bad thing? They still have huge overpopulation issues there, they have hundreds of millions in poverty because their aren't jobs for them or their kids, if China had less people it would solve a TON of their problems and they are well aware of this. Infrastructure decline is mostly an issue because taxation of the rich has dropped dramatically, so our governments are all broke AF because they're stuck trying to get more money out of the poor schmucks. If wealth was distributed relatively equally we'd have no issues maintaining infrastructure (which ironically exists entirely to enable the already rich to exploit us better, and now they want the poor to have to pay for it!). 7:45 ...Yeah, because it's not like the West has literally done everything in it's power to ensure that the '3rd world' was kept in abject poverty and constant chaos, that'd be MEAN if we did that! /s But seriously, one of the primary mandates of the CIA in South and Central America was to create chaos so that their would be a constant stream of desperate refugees that corporate America could exploit, hollywood did it's part of course by painting the US in an utter BS rosy palette, and the European powers did the same to Africa and the Middle East.
    1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. You can't blame the rich??? WE AS A SOCIETY!? Are you serious? It's not exactly a coincidence the laws shelter them, the rich have actively arranged for those loopholes over the years. I wouldn't say that this was something society as a whole asked for/agreed to, it was done very much behind closed doors. Then again, a lot of people voted for reagan, and more voted for trump, both blatant conmen that campaigned on cutting taxes for the rich, so maybe I'm full of shit here, and American as a whole is just fucking stupid or something, and will vote for an actor over an expert. Not sure if that's stupid or gullible, but at some point people have to realize that experts are the people you want running things, not charlatans. As for taxing wealth, that's how it was historically done as I understand it. Tax collectors went around counting shit, then they'd tell you how much of that stuff you had to give to the king for 'protection' (and limited services). There were techniques employed to try to trick the taxman, because he'd actually have to know about stuff to count it, or you could bribe them potentially, but the system by and large worked. We have far more advanced systems than this now, we're beyond having guys in robes go around with a papyrus and scratching out numerals, most assets have a considerable digital trail at this point. Even bitcoin transactions can be traced apparently, I would be very surprised if certain branches of government could check quite quickly (and fairly accurately) what someone is worth, without breaking any laws to do it. It would be a big change, but I think this stunning revelation, of how painfully little the rich actually pay to reap the colossal benefits of the world class infrastructure to make their fortunes, will be the needed push. Walmart would have been much harder to start up and grow in rural Africa for example, same for Amazon, Microsoft, all those big companies benefit from the US having had a strong tax base for so long, with the most onerous burden always carried by the poorest, with the rich not even noticing the loss of their share. The poor shouldn't have to suffer to have roads and educations when there are people so rich that will live no different due to their tax share, that just doesn't seem right.
    1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. This kind of weirdness reminds me of when I was learning about cold working of metals... apparently distortion itself can convert austenite to martensite, which is pretty bizarre, but the mere existence of 'retained austenite' might be the clue... this occurs when the material cools in such a way that there isn't enough energy left to convert the austenite to martensite, even though the metal 'should' have made martensite, as it's the lower energy state: you need to have energy for something to actually 'freeze'. It would be like if you could somehow cooled a sample so fast that some of it wouldn't have enough energy to actually freeze, even though 'in theory', the phase diagram would suggest you'd have no liquid in those conditions. Thus, I'm guessing this effect requires very specific conditions to actually be observed, suggesting that in most situations the effect isn't very big/strong. Obvious point is obvious, but you can re-use the same container for the hot and cold trials. You don't need to do all your trials at once in separate containers, we can make sure the conditions are otherwise identical in an expensive enough experiment. Also, I suspect you could, with enough expense, easily get a container to a high enough precision that there aren't especially good nucleation sites... if we could build the Large Hadron Collider, that level of precision sounds laughable. Establishing exactly how this works could be relevant for study of outer space, where extreme temperatures/conditions compared to Earth are very common.
    1
  1008. Obviously a key part would be that Europe had considerable power over the world, and it's colony system was incredibly exploitative, and set up the countries to fail when they left, which covers a great deal of landmass in the warmer regions. Note, in areas where white people could comfortably work and settle, like North America, the colony system looked quite different from that of the warmer, less hospitable areas. As for how they gained this advantage in the first place, it was because they happened to come into a period of scientific growth (based heavily on other culture's science, math etc, which they had themselves discontinued. Science interest seems a cyclical thing!) at exactly the right time, and gained access to key technologies, and in the case of NA they also had diseases to wipe out most of the native population for them. In Africa, by the time Europe was founding colonies, they had a hilarious tech advantage, and while much of Africa is incredibly hostile to Europeans (diseases ironically are much nastier in Africa than Europe for example, and Africa gets crazy-hot), they could control the populations, and use them to enrich the European country. The locals got limited to no education, designed to make them unable to overthrow their oppressors, and Western workers were brought in deliberately for skilled jobs to ensure that there wasn't demand for educated locals. Thus, when these colonies abruptly threw out their oppressors, they were left without the necessary skill sets to be an immediate success. Note, disease issues are still a problem for the locals in Africa, with malaria being incredibly expensive for example, so tropical disease also may play a role in the less financially successful warm areas. I also think the hassles of living in an area with harsh winters that required considerable firewood/food storage likely gave a long term advantage, at the cost of eons of hardship for the locals. Even with mechanical splitters and chainsaws, making firewood is a lot of work, doing it all with muscle power seems pretty incredible. I've tried doing some of that type of work in my free time, and you'd likely need to be very strong, and still put in nearly a month of work to ensure you have enough firewood to cook and heat with, and that isn't for a terribly large house. Anyways, once you gain access to cheap coal, you now have an extra month of time to fill, and a willingness to work incredibly hard, so couple more free time (due to less wood chopping) with more demand for workers due to manufacturing, and you have a happy situation for a big European growth spurt. Interestingly, the filthy conditions that Europeans lived in were a key reason why their disease load was so devastating to the much cleaner Pre-Columbian Americans, meaning that living in cold, dirty hovels literally gave us a massive competitive advantage over healthier, stronger, better fed people, one that enabled Westerners to take the entirety of North America, and take a lot of power in South America. It might be that the prolonged use of the common chalice also contributed, by forcing everyone in the community to share their diseases, and add in those of visitors periodically. Kinda disturbing to think about, really.
    1
  1009. 1
  1010. Satire doesn't need to be funny at all, but it DOES need to be ridiculous/absurd... it wasn't funny (nor was it meant to be) when Swift suggested the rich start eating Irish babies, but it was satire. It's consistently enlightening to remember that the further to the right your political beliefs the more people seem to relate primarily to the villains in art. They love Star Wars because they fantasize about being Vader (and were INCREDIBLY offended to find out how shitty Vader's life was, including having (almost certainly) had his junk burned off after he lost his remaining limbs in a duel (that he lost entirely because of his incredible arrogance, not because his opponent was the better fighter)). Heck, people were so angry about Vader that now we have 'fast Vader' in stuff like Rogue One, where his suit is mostly an asset, not a huge liability that was forced on him by the Emperor. The Emperor knew he would lose disastrously to Obi-Wan, but he needed Vader to be extra vulnerable to Force Lightning or he'd 100% kill the Emperor and replace him, this was the Emperor's solution, and the shittiest part is that by the time he's in the suit Vader 100% KNOWS the Emperor set him up to lose this way, including for him to lose his junk. Vader in the OG trilogy is very physically strong, but he's slow and awkward because he's so mechanical, and the parts weren't top notch, Vader vs Obi-Wan in EP 4 made perfect sense when you realize that Vader knows he's not fast enough to just kill Obi-Wan, so we have the weird pecking thing (I know the swords weren't durable as well), where Vader is trying to stay out of Obi-Wan's reach, and notably Obi-Wan throws the fight to get Luke to run. In Empire Yoda trained Luke to be fast and agile because if he tried anything else Vader would just steamroll him, but even with all that speed and skill Vader didn't actually need to fight him with his lightsaber, he could just fling everything around him at Luke until Luke was beaten, he fought him to test him. Even in RotJ Vader fought like a slow and clunk mechanical man, and like Obi-Wan it's very possible he threw the fight to help Luke in the end. So yeah, not surprised that the right REALLY likes the villains in Warhammer, that's the norm for them.
    1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. I refer to my farm cats as 'boo', but even when I'm talking to a cat I try not to be that patronizing, they'd probably scratch me if I was that rude. It's one thing to accidentally step on one, but to be deliberately rude is just unacceptable, they'll never forgive that. I cannot imagine a politician doing that, but his base probably thought he was being smart, like you guys say, they don't judge anger the same way, male anger is sacred and justified, female anger is 'being shrill and catty', stuff they will tolerate if the woman is good looking, and otherwise it is to be met with a nasty reaction. It's a really weird world when the older generations that are still republican, who are all brainwashed (and most of whom are aware of if to some degree), are fighting to brainwash the next generations. It's 100% 'I had it _ bad, you have to have it at least that bad!' BS and people into it need a shovel to the dome. It is pleasurable to 'bust your rage nut', just like any sort of significant emotional release. You even get a big rush of hormones, it's a big part of why serial abusers are serial abusers, it's extremely pleasurable for them to belittle others. For me, listening to metal is something that releases a lot of anger, so while you're really angry while your doing it, you're completely burning out your ability to be angry about minor shit after, so I think a lot more people should listen to metal that have actual anger issues. When it comes to losing my temper, it's usually because someone else has lost their temper with me, especially if it's not justified, I don't like attacking stuff, I'm more interested in creating things than tearing them down. I'm usually pretty good at telling someone how I feel, even if it's incredibly rude, but I don't need to be angry to push back against an asshole, I ultimately don't fear or dislike confrontation, even if I'm not particularly good at it (which is why I tend to drink in private, not only are other people more abrasive when drinking/actively looking for trouble, I'm loud and dumb when I've had too many, and I like to win arguments, so it's a bad combination).
    1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. I suspect that less educated people expect to have 'their opinions' put on a pedestal, as they are used to from mainstream conservatism infantilizing them, and when these Leftists not only don't pander to them but are openly disdainful of things they consider basic tenets. They aren't even their own opinions, the right literally teaches it's followers the opinions they are supposed to have. It's my view that the less educated a person is, the more effective/pernicious the propaganda the media spoon feeds us is, smart people can watch a dumb action movie and be aware that it's complete fantasy, but a less sophisticated audience instead learns from it, that's why actual smart people often have a leery view of truly toxic art, even if they love free expression they know how stupid ~40% of the population is. For the uneducated, the closest thing they can get to an education is to consume media. This is why dumb people all share a tightly knit culture of ignorance and actively punish anyone who doesn't conform to their mores, they aren't critical thinkers, they just take the propaganda in and make it part of their identity without questioning it. These aren't secure people who can listen to a podcast of people who literally know better than they do tell them the truth, it disagrees with their beloved propaganda so it must be lies/propaganda. This is also why they have to break stuff associated with 'traitors to the cause', which includes going out and buying stuff to destroy, ultimately meaning they give more money to the businesses they hate, you can almost taste the stupid as it flows freely from their paradoxically empty skulls.
    1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. The problem with capitalism is that it eventually has to enter 'late stage', when there is too much wealth at the top and not enough resources allocated to sustain the poor. This leads to economic collapse (we're in it atm, this is why scamming has replaced many business models completely, in capitalism the only reason to not scam people is the threat of consequences, if there are no consequences then you get many scams, be they AI or NFTs or something even dumber coming down the pipeline), and it's an inevitable facet of unrestricted capitalism. Modern capitalism is founded on two principles, picking winners and rewarding the picked winners, nobody becomes a multi-millionaire without connections in this day and age, if you don't quack the quack then they don't assign you wealth. It's like how there is a weird coincidence that male popstars are all seem to be rapists, it's a feature not a bug. You talk about people knowing since the 1800s about penicillin, but people have been making poultices (designed to create natural antibiotics) for as long as we've had the materials. The problem is that during industrialization the 'modern' medical system systemically eradicated natural medical knowledege wherever they could, and it was the abandoning of old ways that lead to way more suffering before people got around to rediscovering basic medical care from millennia ago. Capitalism has been QUITE BAD at advancing human quality of life, and central planning is resposnible for almost all advancements we enjoy. Capitalism is notorious for catering to the needs of the wealthy and nobody else, and the bigger the wealth gap gets the more extreme that behavior gets. Capitalism eventually turns into oligarchy, and oligarchies are not known to be efficient or competent, there is a reason most governments used to care about things like monopolies (they still do when it's not old money at issue). Capitalism didn't give us anything but bills, central planning is what keep capitalism from devolving into dog-eat-dog chaos. The reason the US developed it's big tech edge after WW2 wasn't because of for-profit corporations, but because the US government used central planning to encourage research and development of newer, more advanced tech. The Soviets in contrast had far fewer advantages and advanced their country way, way faster than the West did, same with China, same with Vietnam, arguably the same with Cuba (though it has advanced mostly in social programs because no trade because capitalism hates proof that their are better ways), all of these countries developed incredibly quickly, and part of why they could do it was because of the use of central planning by relative experts rather than relying on random uneducated rich kids to make all the decisions. Also, big ** off with your whole 'but north korea is shitty!' argument, that isn't a communist country in any meaningful way, it's a violently authoritarian pariah state that almost nobody trades with, it doesn't concern itself with the well-being of the people (a big part of actual communism is redistributing wealth, not just giving it to the autocrat's weird kid/grandkid to spend as they see fit, there is no definition of communism that that fits, other than the ones made up by right wing propagandists). That said, even with no money/resources they've ended up with sufficient weaponry to be an actual issue in their region, despite having their country bombed into dust by the West, and having almost no help rebuilding. The West has spent billions and billions making sure that lots of countries are really shitty to live in, mostly for the profit of Western business interests, AKA we have your vaunted capitalism to thank for countless authoritarian states all over the world. The worst government the world has ever known, nazi Germany, was notorious pro-capitalism, to the point that their actual greatest fear was leftists, not jews. All the mighty corporations dumped money on the nazis, and they still lost because they, like all extreme capitalists, choose people based on adherence to party ideology rather than ability, you could take any CEO from pretty much any US company in put them in charge of any other large US company and you'd notice very little change, yet these morons are paid endless millions and we act like there are no other cocaine treated psychopaths that could do the job. Part of the reason it's more profitable to fuck over the environment is because of capitalist laws that allow governments to be bribed by fossil fuel companies, and this has resulted in HUGE subsidies on fossil fuels in NA. We're being coerced into using it and they're lying to us about it being cheaper at this point, it's insane. We're well past the tipping point now, now we're finding out what Mother Nature is going to 'do' about what we've already done, it doesn't matter if we stop polluting, we have runaway climate change going on, natural cycles have been disrupted and the result is that huge amounts of CO2 are being released, us stopping now doesn't matter, the bogs of the north are thawing quickly, and the deserts of the south continue to grow while we deforest our remaining rainforests. It's fascinating that our ancestors turned the middle east/north Africa into one gargantuan desert and we've learned nothing from it.
    1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. Presenting this stuff as solid evidence seems openly insane to me, Kyle Hill had an interesting video about the overwhelming bulk of the evidence (possibly all) being artifacts from repeatedly recording videos over and over, especially similar types of videos, such that you can end up junk data that looks like data and can be 'hard to explain'. They're actually really easy to explain if you know how computer storage works, this is also why it's hard to 'truly delete' stuff and you should just junk any hard drives that are too old to use, drill a few holes and it becomes very, very hard to get anything usable off of it compared to leaving it alone. I think as long as we let people go through life without a true education you're going to get conspiracy nutters, I think their foundation is mostly skepticism of experts, and as long as you have no idea what someone is talking about it's very tempting for low intelligence people to just decide that you're making stuff up, because if you weren't making it up they'd understand it, because they think they're not stupid due to inbuilt narcissism. The frustrating thing here is that it's not just about teaching people a series of facts. Education is achieved when the individual's mind has been *put into motion*, a state of being that is difficult to stop, and is signaled by the individual self-teaching, including applying critical thinking to novel situations/concepts but also the ability to lean and apply concepts learned primarily from practice/experience, ie get better at things they are doing because they are able to understand them better the more that they do them. Education is when you can (and to some extent will whether you want to or not) apply the process of learning independently, and that you can derive value from doing so. Once you have an education, it is technically possible to learn enough about a subject (quite possibly on your own, using books/videos/internet/whatever research) to progress, such that if it's important, you can learn enough about a complex and advanced subject that you understand what the experts are saying, and possibly even know why they are saying it, it's much harder to be skeptical of experts when you have learned why they are right.
    1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. I think it's hard to understate how much of an advantage English society gained from it's collection of colonies... if you're stealing trillions from the world, it's very easy to have a peaceful and wealthy country, poverty leads to revolution over time. The reason the world seems to be 'pushing back' against progress is because the billionaire class if funding a movement to make it appear that way. This is what happens when you give dumb people too many billions, they try to dictate to the plebs. Anyways, the whole movement includes huge bot networks, most of the dictatorships in the world, most of the billionaires (if not all at this point), and almost all of the career politicians, the issue they had was that nobody else agreed with their repugnantly self-interested ideas. Now they hire people to mass produce propaganda, all of it right wing, and naturally nobody is saying that they were paid (one way or another) by a billionaire to fight for the cause of capital because who would listen to them after? Anyways, the 'backlash' isn't grass roots and isn't organic, it's what he billionaires wanted and they put MANY billions of dollars behind their desire. I remember seeing a graph about how much money people have, and how much their wants end up impacting society, and unsurprisingly the richer you are the more you desires are reflected by societal action. Tax the wealthy or this will keep getting worse, the ghouls won't change until the pitchforks start to show up. It's not knowledge workers that are well paid, it's people who have connections/are already wealthy, most smart people are wealthier than average, but it's not like billionaires are a billion times as smart as his worst janitor. We don't make people billionaires because they're smarter, we do it because they're more evil, that's our criteria. Our society rewards conmen and scammers, not hard work or intelligence, and it selects for people who are already in the 'in' crowd. That's it, it has nothing to do with the kind of work you do, it's the fact that you do work at all that means you're irrelevant to the wealthy. You're right that biden has pretty much fought tooth and nail for workers, but the workers are all so racist (on the whole) that they don't care about their actual life, they care more about 'owning the libs'. We're screwed because spite is one of our primary motivating factors as a society, and spite is not known for it's ability to reason through problems. You're also right that the singular problem for our society is capitalism, tradition and everything good falls by the wayside when it comes to an a-hole making a buck. As a collective we were all fine with the rich making money by squandering our world's resources because we all felt we were getting a share, even if it wasn't fair we were getting enough. At this point though the rich, who have 90% of the stuff, don't think they have enough of the stuff and want everyone else's 10%, they're never going to be happy because we've selected for the worst characteristics, we reward avarice and are shocked that all our leaders are greedy and corrupt. ...of course you're a fan of soulless rishi, I mean I should treat that as a given at this point, but holy crap is he ever bad at his job (he was married for his looks, not his brains, makes me think about how there is no end to the irony of trump, an openly stupid man with actively bad genes, marrying women entirely for looks, it's just like when the kings of old wanted to marry their cousins/sisters to 'keep their blood pure', resulting in progressively more inbred offspring, hitting boys especially hard with their one X... I think between trump and his sons they only have one actual chin, and that's on eric?). I couldn't believe that the reaction to the disaster that was truss (who was entirely too right wing, even for the business ghouls) was to find someone even more rich and privileged to head up the party. We talk about a 'rightward shift', but it's not really organic if it's just the parties are constantly choosing the more conservative candidate whenever they have the option. At least in Canada we have two progressive parties at the federal level, even if neither will ever have any power they still have influenced things. The US electoral college system is beyond broken, it's morally bankrupt to argue that candidates that convincingly lose the popular vote have any democratic mandate to rule. Also, people were angry in 2016 specifically because the entire system that was supposed to manage the presidency instead did everything it could to enable trump. He was given a golden opportunity to go down in history as one of the truly great presidents, but instead he did nothing but enrich himself and the scum that donated to him. His corruption was so blatant that it's almost mindboggling, in an actual democracy he'd already be in prison for what he did while in office, now the vaunted US supreme court has started to wear it's shoes on it's head and has ruled that trump has magical powers that make him immune to consequences (may they be perpetually eaten by worms in you-know-where). I think you're not quite right that the world had a 'rules based' system post WW2, it was very much not that, unless you think having exactly 1 rule (do whatever the superpower says) is a rules based system. If countries 'went too far left' (according to batshit senile old reagan btw) they were overthrown and had puppet dictators installed. The US did this so often in South/Central America that we started calling them 'banana republics' because the real power in those countries was the American corporations, and they committed numerous atrocities (and frankly continue to). The US did this for a few reasons, but one of them was (incredibly ironically) to ensure a constant stream of truly desperate illegal immigrants that could be brutally exploited by US corporations, the West literally ruined thriving countries so that the people would be miserable, and so that we could have even easier lives. The US and Britain essentially went over to Iran and poked everyone in the eyes a bunch of times and then acted offended when they were throw out of the place, the system was deeply dysfunctional post WW2 for the MAJORITY of people, and I'm not even talking about 'the communists', I'm talking about how we treated our 'allies', the system of US hegemony doesn't survive because of the efforts of the Americans, it's entirely due to the rest of the world propping it up in exchange for keeping the russians at bay, the US' currency is so important because EVERYONE ELSE uses it, not because the US uses it itself, if the rest of the world stopped helping the US it would crumble overnight. YMMV I guess, but the power/money flows into the US from the world, not the other way around (if it did obviously the US would be broke and the rest of the world rich, so it's obviously not that). Final point, I think you might want to do some more research into the history of democracy, afaik the idea was first practiced in Persia, and like most good things the Greeks had, they took it from the Persians (who they then mocked and belittled for not being Greek... at least the Romans held the Greeks in high esteem after they stripped their culture for parts). It's not really a Western idea, the West has always been a kakistocracy, and it always will be because the little people want to believe that someday them, or their descendant, will be the one shitting on everyone else, so they have to keep the hierarchy in place. It's like how capitalism works almost exclusively because the people on the bottom are so astoundingly greedy (and now have to be because they've become so impoverished), people on the bottom wholeheartedly believe that someday they'll be rich, even though the majority of people are never going to be rich, nor are their kids or their grandkids.
    1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1