@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

If you don't have a proper keyboard with all of the buttons then you shouldn't be allowed to use all of the available symbols.

"Afraid of the deadly global pandemic" is not something independent of government policy, but instead the product of government policy. If a government makes people afraid to travel by telling them covid will kill them if they do, that's still the government's fault.

This is something we could agree on, but probably won't: The chilling effect of both covid restrictions and ICE deportations is the direct result of government policy, not something that happens without. Yet for some reason you think the chilling effect of covid restrictions is merely an organic "desire not to travel".

I think you're completely off mark here and I will make the strongest version of the argument. People travel less to places when they perceive a danger, even if the danger wasn't presented to them by any policy or authorities. It seems trivially obvious to me that people can be afraid of things based on their own judgment, you seem to disagree. As a rough stand in for "People's unwillingness to go do things during a pandemic" you can look at the sharp decrease of domestic economic activity in Feb/March 2020 before almost any policies were in place. Furthermore cutting out 2020 because "Biden wasn't in charge yet" when 2020 had by far the lowest amount of travel and activity (and Trump was in charge for the entire calendar year), again showing that this activity is not steered entirely by the chilling effect of the government (Remember at this time Trump was saying the risk was really really low, it might miraculously disappear, and that most cases would heal in a day).

The fact that 70-80% of visitors to Las Vegas are domestic strengthens my point even if you don't yet realize it. The dropoff of 10-15% suggests that 50% of all travel from foreign visitors has been curtailed by these chilling effects - much more than even the most generous example you can find of vaccine rules.

You can A/B test this with the similar drop off of tourism to SEA during the 2002 SARS outbreak. The dropoff was about 40% despite no Coronavirus-like restrictions in place. The best I can find are some local quarantine orders in Beijing - who knows if they were followed or enforced - as well as Travel Advisories, the same kind which exist for like 70% of countries but don't have any real effect on travel because nobody cares about some government suggestion, they care about their own judgement and safety.

Not a comprehensive account of tourism restrictions, you need to also consider domestic restrictions that would affect the activities that tourists can do once in the country.

If you have an argument to make then make it.

Textual analysis on individual phrasings when it relates to online meme groups is haphazard because of the self-referential, ironic, and (sigh) even post modern nature of the discourse. People often use phrases meant to denigrate them (Think of mocking "Orange Man Bad" phrases used by Trump supporters). The Ciao Bella thing is a good example because it's literally a leftist/communist rally song but has been remixed and featured in Groyper playlists and youtube videos(Or so the reporting goes, it could be wrong like my above political donation claim).

Did he write it on his bullet casing ironically

Probably, yes. If you were arguing the opposite point you'd pick the example of "If you're reading this you're gay LMAO", does that sound like something a leftist would say? Did he write it ironically? Maybe he wrote some ironically and some not ironically.

I would guess that 98% of people who use this website are aware of all of the above annoying ironic quirks and you're probably being a little bit bad faith.

As to his political leanings, we know he dressed up as Trump (without any apparent animus, but as above irony is always possible) for Halloween. Complaints about spreading hate aren't really unique to any side with how gotcha-focused discourse is (especially online). Even in this thread yesterday you can find half a dozen examples of posters here saying this is an example of how leftists are the real violent terrorists not the right.

Pegging someone's exact political views is hard because a) people change over time b) people's politics are inconsistent c) reasoning and motivations can be opaque, but that all being said it seems very likely that he wasn't a garden variety leftist of BLM or Kamala or Joe Biden or I dont know Dennis Kucinich(obviously) or some transgender activist and so on. More details will come forth and I'm happy to be corrected where wrong, but the general tone and attitude of this thread yesterday seems to have been largely disproved.

Edit: I'll even take a more extreme claim and say that guy that got fired from MSNBC for saying that Kirk's own rhetoric about hateful actions leading to this violence ended up seeming more true than most of the upvoted opinions provided in this week's thread.

Just to update you on this bet, Las Vegas (the city that it's easiest to get tourist data for, until we get total numbers at year's end) has had fewer visitors in 2025 than 2023, an astonishing fact when you consider the earth's population has grown hundreds of millions over that time period.

Here's the source for the numbers

3.5 mil in 2023: https://news3lv.com/news/local/las-vegas-hits-highest-july-tourism-number-since-pre-pandemic-with-35m-visitors

3.1 mil in 2025: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/vegas-tourism-is-down-some-blame-trumps-tariffs-and-immigration-crackdown

My understanding is that a drop in Canadian tourism has hit northern cities the most, unlike relatively isolated Las Vegas.

To decouple the chilling effect from the desire not to travel during a pandemic is quite simple, just compare the total decline to the specific decline in places with legal restrictions, the difference will tell you approximately how many people didn't travel because they were banned, and how many didn't travel because they were afraid of the deadly global pandemic. A good example seems to be Egypt, a country that is a tourist destination, centrally located, and had very light corona virus requirements (Between August 15th 2021 and June 16th 2022 you just had to show a negative test within the 3 days before arrival). You can see the numbers drop off a fucking cliff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Egypt#Statistics

The same is true in Mexico, a country that apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) had zero corona virus travel rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Mexico#Statistics

Based on this data it seems virtually impossible that you can attribute the massive drop off of tourism to a chilling effect, but we know that since last year the Trump border stuff is leading to a 10-20% decline.

As it turns out, the shooter in this case was a Trump supporter at one point (with donations to boot. Edit: Fake claim, it was actually a guy who lived on the same street and had the same name), and was posting groyper or /pol/ or /k/ memes. Preemptively assuming he was probably a lefty seems like a pretty big stretch. You should update your argument and assumptions given this new information, no?

Right on red intersections have like 30% more pedestrians run over by cars, I'm not sure that's a good example of a pareto improvement. Did the prof have legs?

thank you 25 patrons

What's her twitter username

How could you extrapolate from what you've seen (As a lawyer? As a politician? Have you ever worked in politics? Have you ever been to a legal society meeting?) to a country with a different legal and political culture? Why not just ask these politicians why they support what they do, they will probably just tell you. You can glean from interviews that he sees Israel as a strong military ally against a number of nearby states that the USA is hostile towards. Why is that less convincing to you than a conspiracy theory?

If that's true then what's your explanation for the drop in sex, number of sex partners, marriage, dating etc since the advent of highly engaging and digital entertainment and social media?

  1. 3 kilometers
  2. 1 kilometers
  3. 19 kilometers, dairy
  4. 2 kilometers. (This is a Canadian station but the Amtrak line from NYC 'Adirondack' runs there, otherwise a station owned and operated exclusively by Amtrak is 109 kilometers)
  5. 6 kilometers
  6. 18 kilometers

Not to bury the lede this is downtown Montreal

But the guy who wrote that even flagged that those pointless degrees "Don't pay.", am I now to take that the men in this scenario are poor because their potential girlfriends have psychology BAs and work at Starbucks? What's the connection here, beyond asserting that it's evident? The number of undergrad degrees as a percentage of young people has been increasing steadily for decades, and women have been earning them at a greater rate than men since at least the 80s (People who are now likely out of the dating market or irrelevant). Where's the link in this argument? It sounds just like vague outgroup complaining "Those idiots with fake degrees/who control HR/ who don't want to date me" etc

I don't understand this response. What do spurious degrees, the failed debt forgiveness plan, or "cartel-like" (????) behaviour of HR have to do with the dating market? Are you confusing the real economy and market with the dating market? I don't think this engaged with Prima's question about why women would settle for poor stupid smelly boyfriends

Lawyers and judges and legal societies will just make it illegal for a layperson with a skilled AI(Or who hires an Indian paralegal with a good AI assistant for $35 an hour instead of 300) to appear in court, file, argue, represent and so on.

I don't think "turnabout's fair play" applies - in most people's minds - to two situations between unrelated individuals who have never met or interacted with eachother, but are instead ascribed some value in the racial side of the culture war by too-online commenters.

One of my friends with the last name Dong was dating a guy with the last name Beaver for a while. A match made in heaven.

Celibacy is no marriage, chastity is no sex. Don't worry even Catholics get it wrong a lot (and rise of the incorrect term Incel has furthered that misunderstanding)

The Expanse novel series fits this description very well.

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.

That might be true for you, although I'm unsure about the vagueness of "a lot of people." Obviously we're talking about larger trends for the general public - if you think that a travel ban for some small number of people for a year and a half will have had more of a chilling effect than all of the news hysteria about the recent ICE detainments then you aren't living in reality.

What about June 2023 to November 2024?

Couldn't you just go in June 2023 or September 2021?

For most of English history a full English breakfast was considered to be kettled fish and some other gross shit, the recent changes are more present in our minds - living in current year - but broadly speaking if you ask a person from a random year in the last 1000, they'd think of English as fish-eaters, I think. Edit: Also Kippers

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.

Literature as we mean in the common sense only really began in the mid 1800s and you could argue it peaked in that 1890-1920 period, or 1940-1960 period, or that it hasn't peaked yet, or is peaking now. This claim seems very fuzzy to me. Do you mean novels?