@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

I don't think that's anywhere near the standard to which (especially top level) comments are held. A short comment without any context or analysis, and a response of suggesting I read 2500 posts by someone to figure it out, the totally unfounded assertion that nobody else needed a summary (Based on what 7 replies? Your comment was posted at like 3 AM EST and I asked my question 8 hours later), and finally "If you don't get it, just minimize it and move on?"

  • -13

I don't understand the basis of that determination. We have lots of good comments or posts which don't provide context or an argument, but just themselves. Like this jolly little story for example: https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/e5odim/the_barbarian_and_the_711_clerk/

Would it be a problem if I painted a picture (Think like Where's Waldo not Ben Garrison) of my view of some present issue, or a song, if I didn't provide context and explanation for why I think it's interesting to have a picture instead of a comment thread? Where is the dividing line that I can intuit?

  • -11

who is hlynkacg? can i get a summary of who he is like any top level comment would be expected to give? this seems oddly vague given the standards we expect from people posting a link to their blog for example

That's why I bring up the art analogy. Obviously by and large we all recognize that lots of AI content is meaningless slop, but for all we know this guy put in a few hours of work crafting response and questions for the chatbot for this specific output. Is the post only worthwhile if it's an explanation of that process(which I recognize is very unlikely to even have occured)?

Obviously very very few people think your school will brainwash your kids into mutilating themselves but you know you can just home-school them right?

What does this person's melodramatic blog post have to do with any sort of Culture War?

You think Louis CK is highly highly talented? Go check out his first comeback special after he got cancelled. It fucking sucks. The middle of the set joke sequence starts with a Pascals wager joke about how it would suck to be wrong about god existing, then to "jesus wasnt christian he was jewish how would he feel about the cross?' and then finishing up with 72 virgins. After that it's "I hate being the only person in a small restaurant/store" and then jokes about how words like Retard used to be more socially acceptable. These would all be hack bits in like 2008, but in 2020? You can find most of it on youtube if you want to confirm how bad it is: https://youtube.com/watch?v=q_TZWxihabc

Analyzing the data you linked, the phenomenon you described is just a result of democrats as a whole being more centrist - so that an 80th percentile most extreme-left Dem is about the same distance from center as a 40th percentile-right GOP. Dems have a single rep with a score of over .7, whereas the GOP has half a dozen people at least .8[You can approach this multiple ways, there are 30 democrats at greater than .500 from center, but 109 republicans]. The specific example of speakers reflects this, Pelosi is at .49 from center, and McCarthy is .454.

I have no doubt that a for-profit plastic surgeon has an attempted viral marketing campaign called yeet the teat, but I googled that (in a private tab) and the first result is her saying that gender surgery isn't the same for everybody and some people won't ever need or want it: https://tiktok.com/@gendersurgeon/video/7168239778415103278?is_from_webapp=v1&item_id=7168239778415103278

Is this an example of a coordinated effort by millions of gay adults and teachers and community-leaders to manipulate children into acting trans and gay and then have sex with them or just a questionable surgeon profiteering off a trend?

The rotted tissue hysteria is similarly underwhelming: https://lolcow.farm/snow/res/1703905.html (first google result again)

It strikes me as very bad faith to compare a large number of well equipped and trained soldiers having a large advantage if they were to fight a smaller number of armed militiamen to a situation where the existence of large city-destroying bombs nullifies the use of individual arms. It does not contextually demonstrate the value of combined arms or tactics.

A nuclear warhead isn't a big gun, it's a big bomb. Bombs explode roughly equally in every direction. Bullets travel in a forward line. That's their main distinction.

Comparing Fauci to a lawyer that has a fiduciary duty to his client suggests to me that you don't actually understand the responsibilities and law surrounding what the poster you're reply to alluded to. These two roles are nothing alike.

Do you mean to say it's unjust? I know lots of families in my community that home schooled their kids and they seem perfectly nice.

"Women as a population group also hate football. They hate guns. They hate cars. They hate physical competition. They hate bitcoin. They hate woodworking."

Do you have any evidence of this? These seem like outdated stereotypes unfit for our humble rationalist community.

Oh so the government will make gun-style bombs but not bomb-style guns? Figures

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)

Of course "He isn't the sharpest pencil" doesn't mean he's literally a pencil, it's a negation - it's saying he is not.

These are medical definitions on which our personal opinions have no bearing. Vegetative state means a specific thing - if someone's view is "Biden is too old and dopey to be trusted to be president" then say that.

Thank you. I was and will continue to do so

Obviously. It's a large financial and time commitment as any when it comes to kids (one of the largest time/"lifestyle"/financial changes your life will ever have) but the guy posting above said despite being anti-gun the idea of schools teaching his kids makes him want to go shoot dozens of people to death, if he feels that strongly about it I think it's a good reminder he absolutely has the option to take them out of school.

What do you mean by in/voluntary invaded? Forgive me if I'm missing something but I assume that refers to immigration? But it seems to me that either way you address it it's not a voluntary invasion. If you want someone to come, it's not an invasion, since there is presumably a notion of mutual benefit. And even on the other hand, there are lots(majorities?) of people in areas that care about too-high legal and illegal immigration, they are doing something about it physically, legally, etc. So in that sense it's not a voluntary invasion either, they're doing lots to resist it. I suppose you could synthesize the ideas to the political reality that /some/ people want it, and /some/ people don't but at that point could say every time a country's ruling or military class did something in history that the majority of the middle and lower classes opposed. In that sense you could probably point to the population and cultural changes(opposed by Anglos and Saxons but not Normans?) after William the Conqueror became king of England.

I don't think that's an accurate characterization of how it was used here or how it's typically used (Which is often the inverse, e.g. 'Oh republicans want to save unborn babies? then by their logic they should also support free universal healthcare for everyone ;) ') At the very least the total population of London vs the surrounding countryside is not an apt comparison to the portion number of people in LA or Portland or wherever that practice a certain lifestyle, and is certainly not a demonstration a formal logic syllogism.

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.