100ProofTollBooth
No bio...
User ID: 2039
100ProofTollBooth
8d ago
Some of the best examples of this are the Millenial/Gen-Z Catholic YouTubers who post video monologues with clickbait thumbnails and have been cycling through the zesty topics of Porn, Exorcism, and anti-Feminism recently.
But I guess they have a point - The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius mostly involve sitting quietly for several hours. There can't possibly be an audience for that
100ProofTollBooth
8d ago
Some of the best commentary on dealing with (especially) old Testament literalism is from David Bentley Hart. The long and short of it is that the Old Testament should be read similarly to how The Odyssey and The Iliad are read. It's a highly stylized, almost poetic epic tale that uses vibrant language and imagery to convey its points. It's not a blow by blow catalog of facts. Add on top of this the translation-upon-translation issues and you can account for the fact that 900 year old men were popping out kids left and right when they weren't running away from Rapin'Burg after the Slip-'N-Slide from the sky overflowed.
100ProofTollBooth
8d ago
I mean, n of 1 here, but I became religious slowly over the course of years and it all started by getting deep into analytic philosophy and rationalism in an attempt to merely "be better at thinking." I'll spare you my superhero internet warrior origin story, but my path to Christ started in a firmly modern, PMC, intellectualist garden.
The ironic part is that I also agree with you. Use whatever version of "no atheists in foxholes" aphorism you want, but it is true that a lot of people turn to religion in types of trouble. You can cope by gesturing at placebo and self-serving cognitive biases if you like, but doesn't it remain knee-slappingly silly to imagine the idea of someone shouting "I"D BETTER UPDATE MY PRIORS" when they're on a plane with two blown engines.
100ProofTollBooth
8d ago
QuantumFreakonomics's comment did the most to influence my thinking. The car analogy is a good one to ponder.
Implement of mayhem aside, the issue of concern in my book is another small step forward to "lock up the crazies fast" but now expanding to the indirectly crazy - the parents.
Ever since the Virginia Tech shooting (possibly earlier) a steady mid-brow point has been "people with, ya know, really bad mental health problems, shouldn't have firearms ... and maybe knives ... cars could be bad too ... maybe we should commit them." The obvious slippery slope there is (a) There are plenty of well adjusted people who have mental health histories - what's to stop the state from arbitrarily deciding they are now a threat and (b) The obvious market adjustment that those with new mental health problems will simply conceal them and not seek help because of the risk of deprivation of basic rights. Where this gets especially dystopian is when known associates of any individual start to use "hey, you know he/she is really crazy right!" in vindictive personal lawfare. The best existing example of this is the weaponization of mutual restraining orders in divorce proceedings to try and secure an advantage in custody. I can see an easy early version of this in parents who, exasperated with a rebellious child, decide to inform "the authorities" that their angsty teen is, in fact, super coconuts and should be sent to one of those padded wall spots (while Mom and Dad enjoy some childless stay-cation time).
With this case, the message has been sent to parents of "troubled teens" that they might want to consider severely restricting their child's access to myriad things/activities/privacy/independence and, perhaps, even to begin involving "counselors" and other semi-state apparatchiks all to avoid personal liability in the event something drastic happens.
OR
The message has been sent to parents to not at all engage with their child's problems, and essentially hope they go away. But its important to maintain that plausible ignorance - again - to avoid personal culpability.
Being shitty parents has to absolutely remain 100% legal. If it becomes illegal to be a bad mom or dad, we're directly on the road to State-As-Parent, the elimination of privacy, and the enforcement of current political majoritarian monoculture at the nuclear family level.
100ProofTollBooth
17d ago
I'm with her
100ProofTollBooth
19d ago
(I should write the full story about this)
I once had a similar situation, except all of the info had to be filled out by hand on paper for every iteration of the same visitor parking.
At the time, I was dating a stripper (decisions were made!). She would roll over to my place after work, so 3 am on Thurs, Fri, and/or Saturday. Having to pretty much fill out an insurance survey every damn time got old for her.
Her solution was to flirt hard with the front desk guy, who proceeded to cut her visitor parking passes without so much as her first name filled out on the sheet.
The flirting involved what one could call a "free show" in the package room of that particular apartment building.
Everybody got choices, that's what I'm trying to say.
100ProofTollBooth
21d ago
Awesome. Thank you for the well articulated reply.
One more piece of anec-data to take or leave; It seems to me that my strength training (heavy compound lifts, think Starting Strength protocols) directly improve my runs as well. I'm sure there's a frontier to these when additional weight starts to retard progress. However, as of now, it feels like a free lunch.
100ProofTollBooth
23d ago
anec-datally, I worry about multiple decades of Long Slow Distance as a training base for running. So many lifelong runners end up nearly unable to walk. Joints just ... go.
To that end, a lot my cardio is based around doing the long duration stuff in low impact activities; swimming and rowing machines. But, I intrinsically like running and so pretty much only do intervals for it. N-of-one-personal-report, this has resulted in an increase in all of my short and middle distance race times.
Am I off base, tho? I truly would enjoy input.
100ProofTollBooth
23d ago
Unfortunately, I think there's strong evidence that, until the 20th century in the West, the overwhelming majority of sons were failsons.
The stat is common enough that I won't take the time to cite it, but something like 70-80% of human ancestors are female. This makes all the sense in the world when you think about hypergamy especially before the true institutionalization of monogamous marriage (and, in many parts of the world, including the west, its continuation today). Warlords and kings ffffuuuccckkedddd and most soldiers, peasants, military-age-males did not.
The fact of the matter is most men in history failed to reproduce. Now, you can make some arguments (with which I would agree) that that doesn't necessarily make them automatic failures. If they led honorable and virtuous lives, if they died fighting for a worthwhile cause etc. But inherent in all of that is a lot of value judgements that could shift based on the viewer. Something like passing on your genes would probably be close to a human universal "he done good!' criteria. I am open to disagreement here. I'm just trying to establish as objective and discrete threshold as possible for fail/urenot-failure.
I lean towards the idea that having a whore daughter at least feels intrinsically worse because of the inherent value placed in women. Things like dowry's exist across hundreds of cultures for a reason - sexual and reproductive access is important.
But there may be a little trick here. How many women, across history, have a "ho phase" followed by decades of monogamy and legitimately good performance as a mother? You can adjust "ho phase" sensitivity by time and culture - anything from "Mom spent some time as a ... waitress ... on the sunset strip in the 1970s" all the way to "Lady Kingsbury-Hampton-Bottomtooth once spent an unchaperoned weekend in Marseille. London society was quite atwitter!" The point is if we're looking to designate "whore daughter" with some sort of discrete event or events the same way we are for failson --- you might have a higher number of qualifying applicants than you'd like.
Porn and OnlyFans are a different spectacle altogether. People do things in private, enjoy them or don't enjoy them, and adjust their behavior and values accordingly. When you broadcast intimate acts to literally the entire internet'ed world it really smacks of a lack of awareness or a deeply narcissistic tendency that, to me, is far more worrisome than the dick coefficient of your life. And here's where I'll beat my favorite deceased equine; the sexual revolution made whore-dom cool and passed it on to young women utterly incapable of making sound judgement calls on actions that will impact them for the rest of their life. I'm empathetic to a teen girl who is angsty with her Goldman Sachs dad (yo, but, like, can you maybe slip him my resume lol?). If she decides to go off for a few months with the town badass (barbed wire tattoos, somehow got sent both to and home from boot camp, "knows a guy who can get us illegal fireworks") that's fine. Or, rather, that used to be fine. Now it's ... not enough? Now "sexual expression" is .... FacialAbuse (dot) com (don't google it, save your soul).
100ProofTollBooth
24d ago
I'll admit I may have written my comment with a little but of antsy in my pantsy. I'm only human, after all.
In general, if I ever throw out "Satanic," one can simply substitute in "perverse" or "inverted." It's not about being literally Of The Devil (i.e. the touched-by-an-angel christian boomer concept), it's about a sort of self-defeating backwards logic that also profoundly damages things around it. To put it in another context, I'd argue that the hardcore transcult logic goes along the lines of "we need to protect the children from possible emotional discomfort over all things. If this results in permanent physical disfigurement and sterilization, we will have accomplished our goal"
100ProofTollBooth
24d ago
Is there some sort of tactical school of thought on the efficacy or even purpose of early morning raids?
My suspicion has always been that the cops use them to literally catch crooks napping, but as @2rafa points out, it seems like the potential for "WTF IS GOING ON" violence really goes up.
I assume that surrounding the domicile would probably result in too many barricade events?
100ProofTollBooth
24d ago
Which generator (DALLE, MidJourney etc.)
And would you be willing to share the prompt? Fucking rad as hell, dawg.
100ProofTollBooth
24d ago
Perhaps I'm just becoming the new Hlynka
If you come at the King, you best not miss. Phrase different: Them boots ain't fit you.
I accept media animal welfare concerns in society because they are a good signally of generalized empathy. I believe it's safe to assert that anybody within the larger bounds of "normally functioning emotions" would be distraught to see a cat, dog, horse, other common domesticated animal be seriously intentionally hurt. And that's a good thing. It's a great signal that you would get really upset if a human (esp. a child) was similarly victimized. I draw the line at any sort of jail time for animal welfare offenses (perhaps with some exceptions around truly egregious cases that point to latent violent impulses).
The other line I draw, however, is any discussion of "honoring" animals or trying to devote serious financial resources to attempting to stop x species from dying. To me, this is a path to eugenics.
If you don't believe human beings are special, sacred, and/or divinely appointed in the universe, then I can't see how you stop yourself from taking these EA ideas to the extreme and eventually spouting things like "well, maybe we shouldn't breed as much so that kangaroos won't feel encroached" ... or something. If humans aren't a distinct class, does it not stand to that (satanic) reasoning that we ought to try equitably distribute resources and rights with our inhuman brothers and sisters? I don't know how this circle gets squared without the starting axiom of "humans are different, better, and more important than all other species. period"
So, again, if you're a cat person who desk-flips when you see a video online of kids terrorizing them - I'm with you and I agree.
If you think that we shouldn't build more hydropower because it might delete a turtle population - you're a killer.
100ProofTollBooth
26d ago
I buy pants with those exact same dimensions and they are literally too skinny to barely fit my arms?
I know this is a typo, but it's a fun mental image. "Ahhhh, why don't these fit?!" as you shove your arms into teen girl sized skinny jeans.
You can get good results buying basic shirts online. Tee-shirts, polos, henleys, casual button ups. These can be bought size unseen.
Full on dress shirts - you need to figure out which brand / size / fit works best by trying a bunch on in person, but then you can reliably order direct from that brand online. Same for pants.
If you want to look good you have to do two things:
- Look good naked. i.e. be in good shape.
- As comment below says, tailoring. It isn't exactly cheap, it isn't exactly expensive. It's always worth it.
100ProofTollBooth
27d ago
I will read the rest of your post if you can confirm that you’ve understood why you are incorrect per the above
I'm far too dumb to do that.
It’s not always possible to drive with an open cup of water in your car, depending on cupholders and road conditions
Is this why my pants are wet?
100ProofTollBooth
28d ago
This is the way.
Relegation would also help to reinvigorate old rivalries that have been demolished because of TV contract led conference realignment.
100ProofTollBooth
28d ago
This just evades the point, try again but for soda
He "evades" the point by offering directly contradicting evidence to your assertion? And then you literally move the goalposts by shifting the object from water to the substance that is single most responsible for the American pre-diabetic and diabetes epidemic.
This isn't just poor argumentation, it's a lack of understanding of the nature of consumer demand and vendor supply.
McDonald's continues to exist and generate profit because American (and foreign!) consumers really enjoy, and therefore demand, their product. Every time I hear someone go on about "the corporate overlords" I get a strong suspicion they've never worked in one of these large corporations. They're bureaucratic, slow, with pockets of poor management everywhere. Often, they're coasting on brand recognition and incumbent advantage. Sure, they may still have top line growth, but they're not innovating outside of buying potential challengers (see: McDonalds and Chipotle). The idea that there are these Gordon Gekko greed machines with incredible ability to manipulate the public is laughable. The lizard people don't exist.
The sad fact of the matter is that McDonald's CEO is a former soap salesman who did the handshakeful path of Harvard Biz School to Big Consulting. This is the kind of dude who looks forward to "networking with the family" for 45 minutes of Christmas Eve before diving back in to the sweet sweet womb of quarterly reports. He is a business nerd.
But you know who aren't business nerds? Construction workers getting their morning coffee, single moms too tired to cook, stoned teenagers, and (years ago) my drunk ass at 2 a.m. And we all like the convenience, predictability, and location density of McDonalds. And so we spend, together, billions of dollars on their product.
It would be more efficient if, for super-sized corporations, an agency stepped in and “auctioned” off the corporate positions and ownership according to who will do the job for the least amount of money
An auction. Yes. Like, perhaps, at a market. Like where people would buy and sell assets they own - their "stock" you could say. A kind of "stock market" if you will.
If that’s too much government interference, then allow the employees to form powerful unions.
So we solve government interference by creating organizations that are intrinsically tied to the government.
primitive capitalism
What does this even mean?
we should have some kind of Honesty Regulation
Tell some undefined "truth" or you're committing a crime? George Orwell would like to see you in the hall.
But in an intensive competition what they do is compete over psychologically manipulating the vulnerable
This is just outlandish and I'm beginning to think I'm being trolled.
Agree with other replies but will offer one counterexample; to the extent they still exist, actual cowboys tend to have almost comically good physiques. The buff-but-not-puffy bodies to maybe "just" extremely wire-y (I.e. very trim or cut with ropey muscles).
My theory is that the specific nature of range work means that cowboys can't afford to tote around extra weight all day, so they naturally develop a leaner body composition, yet, the power / strength activities of handling livestock also mean they don't fall into marathon runner levels of non-muscle.
More options
Context Copy link