@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

That's what the French and Indian war was. If there had been continued resistance, terrorism, and guerrilla fighting by the Native Tribes after the 19th century. Which year would it have gone from righteous to not righteous? 1935? 1970? 2001?

Yeah there is, there are like 4 clinic patients that fit that type of characterization. Have you even seen House? It's unabashedly Pro Doctors Know More Than You Do What They Say.

I'm seeing more like 10 a month discounted to bring your own device. You presumably still want some sort of new phone every ~6?(4?8?) years, so add the extra cost in divided by that period, and the extra cost to always have the newest phone seems still fairly marginal.

I strongly disagree with the assertion that it's a re-framing of issues for me to say "The party will achieve these goals" in spite of your insistence that 'Some other arbitrarily-chosen goals are more important'. But fortunately for us the aforementioned convention is now over. It's also wrong to assume that the preferences of single-issue voters for example don't matter, and that a political change is only worthwhile if it's sweeping (Good the enemy of perfect etc etc). If literally the only difference between 2 major parties was the guns, that still represents the loss of lifestyle, tens of thousands of (Canadian) dollars, food procurement, etc. If only difference between the GOP and the Democrats in the USA was that the Democrats wanted to ban all cars, would you have a pithy expression for people who rejoice when they are allowed to keep them?

Anyways based on your tone I'm presuming you are preoccupied with culture war issues. In that case the CPC affirmed their intent to ban trans medical procedures for all children. Getting rid of diversity hiring practices, keeping freedom of speech. Pretty much all of the main culture war threads.

Other users feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I've found that the most economical choice is actually to buy new iPhones whenever my old contract ends. Simply because I can sell the old one for 500-900$ and use that to pay off most or all of the cost of the new phone (which is usually discounted when you sign a 2 year data contract). I have found that the resale market for 2 year old Android phones is not as active (1 exception being the Galaxy series which are typically more expensive and feature-laden than iPhones)

I think it would violate the forum's rules to explain to you that a party has to win the election to enact it's platform. The next Canadian election will be next year or the year after.

I would not characterize things like changing the retirement age to 67 instead of 65 as a sweeping reform, or changing the makeup of certain tax benefits or models, or giving a comment about church burning. Almost everything else listed were explicitly in the last platform. The listed bills, MAID, immigration, families. Expect them to be there going forward as well.

Which sweeping societal reforms do you believe the LPC passed? Mostly they are just corrupt with ineffective or misguided tax policy and virtue-signalling feminism.

Why do I care about voters of the party having their preferences expressed through the party they elect? That is the entire point of the system we've agreed upon. Someone asked what will happen if they win, I pointed to something, and let him know we're figuring it out at the convention this weekend.

I don't understand what your issue is with this. The goal of the party is to pass a few laws, enact what their voters want, create some jobs, etc. This is what happened under Harper. If "The party will do things their voters want" isn't enough for you then perhaps electoral politics isn't for you. Do you want me to point to some zeitgeist I think will occur that lines up with someone's wonkish substack because a different party won a majority for 4 or 6 years? That is unlikely.

So that Canadians can continue to freely own guns.

And do what, specifically?

Repeal Bill C-21. For other specifics the party convention is this weekend. Feel free to follow along: https://cpc23.ca

I think this is sort of close to my central skepticism or complaint. Re the culture clash

  1. Is that established?
  2. Is it even true? It's bad history to think that all of it was "women are property, they can get raped freely, and can never say no to sex" many medieval societies were not like this, many accounts contradict it directly. It's a pedestrian trope and stereotype-laden contemporary impression.
  3. Insofar as it is established, what is the interesting idea that is demonstrated or invoked or compared between these societies? It doesn't read like someone from Pathfinder-world being dropped in a Costco, it sounds like someone who is as present-centric as any of us trying to critique the world we all know.
  4. The writing style is independent from the content. You could have something non-scientific or non-historical or frankly vapid, but which is still written well. This is written (as many others have pointed out) wooden, it's bad writing.

I - understand - you both have bad time with church. I am sorry that you did. I do not know enough to say more about it. And I have no guess if Jesus alive or no. But I think Christians good and cool. I believe you that my life easier if I pretend this. I no going pretend it

This doesn't strike me as someone from a different religious tradition understanding modern churches. It sounds like an inoffensive faux-empathic rambling. There are 6 separate ideas but each one is an orphan, they're not explained or developed. She just jumps from 3 different ideas about the church, and couched within that are TWO separate disclaimers, but they don't sound like a woman out of time learning about a new culture, it sounds like someone from today giving a "I don't want to contradict your lived experience" speech. That's what I mean by a bad author stand-in.

I haven't nor do I intend to read this fanfiction, nor have I played Pathfinder, and I don't know some of the terminology used here beyond a google search ("Isekai"). That said, I have problems. Someone from the Pathfinder universe (especially with spell training like a Paladin) would probably be familiar with food preservation magic since it exists, I also find it very personally offputting to shoehorn into a story about a child (admittedly one who considers herself an adult) about how actually most of the time when people get raped, they didn't actually get raped since nobody had a knife to threaten them. There are probably a dozen examples like this where her being from Pathfinder doesn't actually mesh with the story very well. Again, haven't read it, other than the excerpts here, but if there is nothing interesting between the comparison of her Medieval-ish world or her oath as a Paladin and our modern world, and it's just a generic medieval fish out of water tale, why is she a Paladin at all? Is it an in-joke between the Pathfinder player author? Does it mean anything?

I don't really think The Motte is the place for literary criticism, since it's a largely non-rational practice. But god, the writing here is just bad. Maybe if you're a direct person who likes it when characters spew forth punctuated idea after punctuated idea it's the right pace for you, but these paragraphs are a hard read. If you want worlds-colliding or a reflection of modernity fantasy fiction, there is lots of stuff you can find with enjoyable prose. Try /r/fantasy. I don't get the giddy appeal of having the author stand-in character give a "glorious" "refreshing" look at our modern age. I've seen dozens of posts here with better rundowns of how things operate and the problems and virtues with society. This strikes me as midwit-tier.

I don't think the design was fraudulent or the researchers stooges, but the reporting of anything will become trivial if you add enough conditions and disclaimers. Obviously if you give some people thousands of dollars, /some/ of them will be /some/ degree of better off. But the bridge between the magnitude of that benefit from the study to "And that's why this would be a good policy for governments to implement" is weakened by every one of those conditions and disclaimers which reduce the level of generality the study is good for.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-ubc-covers-for-bad-science-in-homeless-cash-transfer-study

A major university (in Canada) published another one of those studies where they give homeless people money and see if they spend it on crack or job applications. Mostly this was met with admiration and joy by the journalist class. The more right-leaning publication I posted above is more skeptical, pointing out of some of the potential problems with the study:

Unfortunately, putting a thumb on the scale was almost the first thing the researchers did. 732 possible participants in the study were screened. The UBC folk didn’t want their sample to include the long-term homeless, so to be eligible, participants had to have been homeless for less than two years. Also, they rejected severe drug and alcohol abusers and the mentally ill.

...

Note that the researchers didn’t even consider including the tent-dwelling, park-occupying homeless: merely by working with shelters, and with the people who prefer to sleep indoors despite some filth and danger, they were giving themselves an enormous implicit advantage. The study, having kinda announced at the outset that it’s garbage, goes on to describe how 229 people were chosen from the screening sample to provide the experimental group for the study. Alas, of the 229 people who took $7,500 payments, half (114) of them disappeared from view and didn’t complete the series of questionnaires and tests they had supposedly undertaken.

This isn't that interesting, it's just a bad study done in Vancouver, what I found interesting was the writer starts with a brief summary of the replication crisis, to an audience that is presumably not intimately familiar with it:

You ever hear of a guy named Daryl Bem? Bem is a social psychologist from Cornell University, now retired at age 85. In the ‘90s, after a long conventional career as an experimenter, he took up the cause of establishing evidence for human extrasensory precognition, and did some studies that seemed to confirm it exists. This set off a war in psychology as critics descended on Bem to nitpick the flaws in his studies and citations of psychic phenomena. Article content

In the end, the consensus about Bem’s research was mostly not that he used mainstream tools of statistical analytics improperly. He had mostly coloured within long-established scientific lines and followed his training in hypothesis tests — everyone’s training. Article content

Bem is now widely regarded as a weird sort of antihero who inadvertently demonstrated flaws in classic hypothesis testing, and whose late work was ground zero for the current “replication crisis” in psychology. It is not that humans are psychic: it is that you can prove the absurd proposition “humans are psychic” by very lightly abusing the received 20th-century scientific method.

There has been and is lots of discussion here about relaying rationalist concepts or ideas to outsiders or average random people in Mottizen's day-to-day lives. With the rise of culture war divisions, and especially the political rhetoric surrounding the Coronavirus Lockdowns and other policies, I'm wondering what approach if any you use when talking to acquaintances or friends who skew liberal, who broadly are happy to have the inertia of universities or the intelligentsia on their side, that you often reject social science research or findings unless personally having vetted them, without sounding to them like a low-IQ backwater hick redneck science denying flat-earther. I suspect that this is impossible.

You may not remember grade school, but they don't give euphemistic grades for tests, if you got 9/10 right that's 90%, nobody is pretending to hide that percentage and say you 'Exceeded'. The majority of the curriculum is like painting a diorama or collecting bugs on a hike or whatever the fuck. Most classwork a 9 year old does will not translate meaningfully to a percent or number grade

Kobe chose his own nickname

Exceeding/Meets/Improving/Unsatisfactory isn't nebulous at all. Do you think the average person (or a random teacher with a degree in Gym Class who lives in Moose Jaw Saskatchewan) can explain to me the nuance between a 78% and an 84, or why the average should be 75 vs 50 and if it should follow a bell curve or be splined with respect to year over year outcomes? Great/Good/Not Good/Bad are perfectly fine and not obfuscatory

Yeah that's right SUNY* not NYU. The counter point I made in brackets is that America is a much more elite-heavy society. If Yale and Harvard and the like exploded (in minecraft) next year, all of the kids would just go to *Insert elite public schools here *, and they would still end up the CEOs of fortune 500 companies, senior government officials, partners at elite law firms, and the like- because someone has to fill those positions, and it's going to be from that same elite socioeconomic class most of the time. The class would exist even without some of the university apparatus surrounding it.

UBC Toronto and McGill aren't comparable to Ivies in prestige or outcomes (Admittedly some of this is driven by the intake, if you took the top X% most affluent Yale undergrads and made them go to McGill they would probably end up as economic and political elites at a rate more reflective of their social and economic upbringing than their new Canadian-college cohort but alas). They're more like good big state schools (Which they are). Think of UBC as similar to UW in Seattle, or any other good state school, Michigan, UCLA, UT Austin, NYU, I'm sure that if you lined up the best state schools in the 15 largest states (Analogous to British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec), the proportion of student size would be similar to the 3 you summed up.

What do you mean graphic sex scenes? We don't see any full frontal nudity or really any butt. We see some tits a few times and that's it.

Why does a bunch of subreddits going private for a few days prove that it was a good decision?

I feel like that style is spot-on for appropriateness of the audience. I'd wager that over 70% of the people here are here because of their tolerance for reading long quirky substack articles during work hours.