@4doorsmorewhores's banner p

4doorsmorewhores


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:39:06 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 223

4doorsmorewhores


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:39:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 223

Verified Email

This seems like a misrepresentation or at least to have some logical leaps.

My objections:

  • It's perfectly fine to hold those beliefs and still want accountability for a drug company that does bad things. Someone's desired counterfactual isn't limited to a binary.
  • "I think these firms should do less to limit beneficial healthcare and do more to prevent harmful healthcare" isn't some gotcha where you should object "Well do you want more or fewer free markets"
  • The tradeoff between good-quality tested opioids and sketchy street drugs isn't real. I can't pull them up right now but throughought the 2010s the economist had like 4 studies cited that showed about 60% of people dependent on street drugs (from someone else's prescription to black tar heroin) started out on prescription pain killers like oxycontin.

I'm also confused by this. She has an onlyfans which she advertises on her twitter and instagram, which are both just full of normie talking-point debates. This seems like 99% grift.

Wouldn't Charli be Blossom (leader, most well known) and Chappell be Buttercup (rebellious dyke)

You're attributing lack of travel during the pandemic to this? Why would people being afraid of corona virus disprove that there is a chilling effect? They're unrelated even if they possibly correlate.

This is a bait and switch argument. At first the claim was "The party has current problems because instead of healthy party politics deciding leaders, they anoint whoever has the most name recognition or seniority in the previous regime", now it's "After a somewhat rigorous and unpredictable primary process with votes and wins all over the place, eventually they coalesced around a candidate who they thought was best (And who did in fact end up winning), which proves he was anointed"

You can't do this to me on new years eve

This makes perfect sense if you've read Heideigger and Freud. The notion of the egg is easily understandable as the development of the id and superego as differentiable personality traits or development of the self, and being and becoming is basically a direct quote reference to Heidegger, lichtung etc. Reading this out of context without understanding the underlying work is like cracking open Topics in Orbit Equivalence by Kechris if you haven't read or understood Abstract Algebra by Judson. I'm not even a fan or deep-understander of this art movement but there is obviously some intellectual depth to the people who engage in this stuff.

Others have given good answers but you seem to be trending in this direction for a question of fundamental assumptions or what productivity or gain really makes. Try this:

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/page-one-economics/2020/11/02/examining-the-lump-of-labor-fallacy-using-a-simple-economic-model

I don't see the use in framing common disagreements between different groups as some sort of political contradiction. Wanting more government regulation of the border or guns, but also wanting fewer EPA requirements for food or DEI requirements isn't a contradiction or a gotcha, it's a valid expression of people's political desires. Similarly, wanting healthcare but not have addictive or unnecessary procedures or medicine pushed on you is totally acceptable. I reject the notion that it's just a matter of politics as a broad claim you've made. I concede there is a large amount of political finagling and ideology in many of these decisions (whether by doctors, congress, hospitals, the federal executive), but I also believe you could parse out 60-75% of policy as being harmful or helpful to individuals and have broad (over 75%) public agreement.

People get this causation backwards very frequently. The NFL isn't tricking you into arguing with people online less, or thinking that it's a spectacle, or giving you microplastics. It is downstream from the things people desire to watch and participate in. Consider that the National Lacrosse League has all of the same incentives yet you don't think of it very frequently. Maybe you think "giving viewers and participants something they yearn for" is immoral, but the intuition needs some workshopping, I would suggest focusing on the gambling arguments.

Probably that the animals spread disease and rabies and are more likely to bite their owners and have to be put down sooner or later anyway. Not sure though, the justification might begin with the negation that he was the right to own this specific property.

Animals are property.

He deserved to have his feral disease ridden animals taken because he is a degenerate pornstar and vain social media publicity seeker. This non story is total brain melting slop.

I'm sure every animal department has stupid policies where they needlessly kill tame housebroken foxes and let feral pitbulls continue to eat toddlers: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/

  • -23

Reddit-style forums like this have always felt bad for live update events since the multitude of nested threads and lack of strict chronology is hard to track

I don't understand the objection to posting and discussing hours-long interviews posted by a major journalist. Argument to moderation? But it seems proportional to me to have a bias towards sources which are disseminating the most information. You could similarly point out that 100% of themotte.org content is discussed on the internet, why not have an in-person or telephone portion? Because that's the medium that works.

They just replaced the word neckbeard with incel and carried on the same while never acknowledging the hypocrisy of either of them under the body/sex positivity movements they love or anything like that.

I don't want to be class reductivist. But no shit it's not a mainstay of warfare - because the methods and norms of warfare are set by the ruling elites and they obviously don't want to be in the firing line of reciprocal action. Do you think the 50,000 American guys that died in Vietnam would have preferred a series of assassination attempts on leadership or key figures to stem the spread of communism, even if it meant that Kissinger or William Rogers might have their cars blown up (I have no evidence or intuition that this would me more effective, nor do I intend to defend that position), or would the ungentlemanly breaking of norms upset them too much?

Is it really a culture war idea to suggest "If someone buys this company, they will try to monetize it over a shorter timeframe?"

In the same vein I'm finding it harder and harder to approximate the value of these good RBs. On a really good offense they are clearly force multipliers, dynamic runners and catchers that add points to every game. The convention wisdom is that they aren't worth a lot of salary because they're replaceable, and even on bad teams they do very little. I'm more skeptical of this these days, seeing the big drop off in effectiveness on the Raiders and Giants offense after losing Jacobs and Barkley. The flipside of this is a good blocking and offensive team that has a bad RB who is carried by his environment. Najee Harris maybe? Not a lot of examples come to mind.

Oh yeah my comment was for 2rafa thanks for letting me know I fat fingered it.

I can understand why you may have that impression, but I would suggest that a normal reading of this post is not complaining about the outgroup. The phrase "attached (my) own impression" is very dangerous, as a weasel phrase to me it sort of is a catch all for nearly all writing that isn't a technical drawing of a patent. The Wealth of Nations and Meditations and Persuasion are all the author's own impression. I think what I did was argue that the narrative structure of the article itself reveals something about the headspace and disposition of the author which is contrary to the apparent point being made.

Similarly, I think that a novel psychological breakdown of a historical figure through a new lens would be appropriate and engaging enough for this forum, even if all the thesis pointed to was "Yes, he is a bad guy." Perhaps you disagree.

Why would Mr Musk or any other owner be forced to sell their stake to PMC corporations and not other rich people share his goals or ideology?

By your logic

This is usually a thought-terminating phrase and should probably be avoided here. Arguing that because someone thinks X about Y, they might also think A about B, and since you disagree with A and B, they should reject X and Y has several problems.

  1. There are lots of other confounding variables (In this case London in the 16th century and Polygamy in Portland) that make the comparison meaningless
  2. We don't know anyone's beliefs of A and B, so framing the discussion is just your opinion
  3. People don't reflexively have consistent opinions
  4. The phrase itself connotes a negative stereotype of an annoying twitter or forum arguer.
  5. It's easy to dismiss your parable example and is therefore unlikely to be productive (Yes, London would've been a population sink if not for factor η)

What do you think being a second class citizen in the USA vs a regular citizen in the UK entails? Being able to open a bank account? Having a SSN?

I write to it exactly the same I would a work email "Could you please X? And consider Y as well. Thank you", since I suspect most of it's training data is illegally harvested gmails or something and therefore more likely to mirror it's operations