4doorsmorewhores
No bio...
User ID: 223
4doorsmorewhores
4mo ago
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?
4doorsmorewhores
2mo ago
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
4doorsmorewhores
4mo ago
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)?
4doorsmorewhores
1mo ago
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.
4doorsmorewhores
1mo ago
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.
4doorsmorewhores
1mo ago
Oh so the government will make gun-style bombs but not bomb-style guns? Figures
4doorsmorewhores
2mo ago
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.
- There are lots of other confounding variables (In this case London in the 16th century and Polygamy in Portland) that make the comparison meaningless
- We don't know anyone's beliefs of A and B, so framing the discussion is just your opinion
- People don't reflexively have consistent opinions
- The phrase itself connotes a negative stereotype of an annoying twitter or forum arguer.
- 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)
4doorsmorewhores
2mo ago
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.
4doorsmorewhores
2mo ago
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.
4doorsmorewhores
8mo ago
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.
4doorsmorewhores
8mo ago
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.
4doorsmorewhores
8mo ago
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.
4doorsmorewhores
8mo ago
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.
4doorsmorewhores
8mo ago
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
4doorsmorewhores
7mo ago
"Arabs don't have a right to start armed conflicts" seems like quite the broad claim. Could you explain your reasoning? Did Saudi Arabia not have a right to provide aid and intelligence to fight against ISIS?
As for the treaties, that bypasses a perceived issue of state vs non-state status. Lots of the people in question aren't meaningfully bound by a treaty, because they're from a different tribe, because their tribe wasn't organized enough to sign one, etc. Is a miqmaq obligated by a treaty signed by cherokee and anishinaabe? Presumably not, based on our understanding of how these work.
4doorsmorewhores
8mo ago
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.
4doorsmorewhores
8mo ago
Kobe chose his own nickname
4doorsmorewhores
2mo ago
I'm hesitant to engage with these year old necro comments and am skeptical of any productivity, but I read slightly more of this terrible fanfiction after the original comments and am more affirmed in my criticism.
Litigating the specific fact claims back and forth are kind of meaningless, obviously either of us can easily pull up sophistries based on one weak line, a misuse of a phrase, or technical issue etc. Others have also done that well and you can read it.
The reason I dislike it is because the dialogue is wooden, cliche-ridden, hackish, frequently offputting, and the characterization is inaccurate or implausible at different times.
Many are familiar with the tropes and discussions around the phrase "The Curtains are blue" speaking to over-analysis by literary critics [or their lower-functioning cousins, proponents of 'Media Literacy'] of minute and unimportant details, and there is also push back by those who think Blue Curtains complaint style discourse is thought terminating and glosses over real meaning. But in either case that's close to the level of intro literary review you would do in an literature class, you find symbolism, explain what it means, and then maybe relate it to the pacing or tone of the story or experiences of characters themselves, some will go further and map it to the social and historical circumstances of the author to learn about what it says about 1820s Spain or Russia for example, and that follows into Death of the Author discourse which has also become more popularized. A more advanced literary review will likely move past the symbols, and try to mesh out why and where they were used to specifically understand exactly what the author was trying to say when they picked them. [Most university undergraduates will never move to this stage and beyond]. You also have some people who evade this, and are more simulationist [to borrow Pathfinder terminology] and err more on the side of explaining what would likely happen in their interesting fiction, but not trying to tell you what this means for you, albeit still likely being colored by their personal beliefs or historical circumstances [Think Brandon Sanderson's worldbuilding]. Here's Tarkovksy on Symbolism:
Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This is terrible! An artist doesn't have to answer for his meanings. I don't think so deeply about my work - I don't know what my symbols may represent. What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be. If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it. Take a watch into pieces, it doesn't work. Similarly with a work of art, there's no way it can be analyzed without destroying it.
I apologize for that long sidebar of how I perceive the modern state of literary criticism. But amazingly the writing of this terrible piece sidesteps all levels of it entirely. The characters just speak cliched platitudes, never having any depth beyond the most cursory, nor any satisfying growth or understanding of eachother. A modern person encountering someone from middle-earth or wherever would have more preconceived notions because of our media tradition, similarly if Superman was real, people would have an easier time digesting it since we have 100 years of Superman media, as opposed to if we had none at all. The prose makes Ayn Rand look like Shakespeare. It is barely half a degree better than something like
#1: I prefer social democracy because more people can get what they want
#2: But they might want bad things. That would be bad
#1: I don't think so
4doorsmorewhores
3mo ago
Teeth of the Tiger wasn't written by Tom Clancy, it was ghostwritten and published under his brand along with 50 other books.
4doorsmorewhores
4mo ago
I don't think that social law is true. With the frequent siloing of groups and their members, most people won't interact with the vocal advocates, and 'most people' drive public perception. The most fervent socialist or gun-rights advocate in an American context are probably tucked away on twitter or youtube or possibly a university or thinktank, the public bases their perception I think from people like AOC or Wayne Lapierre.
4doorsmorewhores
6mo ago
Hard to read this post re: grammar errors but the numbers don't back what you think is happening in the market.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/QQQ
The highest QQQ ever was is 392, it's currently at 362. It's impossible to go bankrupt on this stuff
Here's Meta specifically: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META
Where are you going bankrupt and not making a comfortable profit over a 15 year period like every other investor?
4doorsmorewhores
6mo ago
Yeah I would've. I love misdirection and anti-humour as much as I love making fun of ugly people.
4doorsmorewhores
8mo ago
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.
4doorsmorewhores
8mo ago
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
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?"
More options
Context Copy link