JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
17hr ago
Never driven a German one (I could pretend it's because I'm Jewish, but the truth it there are just better options in the price segment I'm usually looking at, and the segment where they start getting good I just don't see a point to pay that much for a car in general). So I've driven Hondas, I've driven Toyotas, I've driven Mazda, I've driven Hyundai, I'm driving a Subaru now. No complaints really about any of them, they got me from point A to point B, didn't break excessively, didn't cost too much, and in general competently did what I needed them to do. I got into a highway crash in a Honda once, which duly sacrificed itself for my benefit and except for some bruises, I came out fine. The Subaru I have now is not fancy, but is comfortable, driving nicely and except for the entertainment system having brainfreezes occasionally (turning it off and on again does fix it) I am happy with it. Before buying it, I actually had some free money so I briefly considered buying something more expensive, and test-driven a bunch of fancy cars, including some German ones, and ultimately decided it's just not worth it and a boring middle-class car is exactly what I need.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
OK, at least from my POV the magic implied there is not how it works, so I think we agree on that. I don't think people who believe otherwise are stupid, and I don't think this warrants a conclusion "prayer does nothing". I don't even think it's really my business to convince them otherwise, beyond sharing my reasons why I think so. But I don't think "if your AV system is not working, just pray and it will fix itself" is how it works. I mean, as a professional programmer that deals with stuff mysteriously not working despite my best effort literally every day, I wish I could pray and those things just fix themselves. But unfortunately that's not what I expect to happen.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
But it is no magic bullet
That's what we started with, remember? No magic. So we are in agreement here.
While there are a lot of addicts who find salvation to be the way out, I have to imagine there are many pounds of dead bodies who tried it and found it lacking
Yes, sure, it was just an analogy, designed to address your argument that "if only affects the user, so it doesn't matter". I am showing there are a lot of things that affect the user and matter a lot. That's just one aspect, so once we're done with that aspect, the analogy does not extend further.
Tell that to the Creation Research Society,
Why should I tell them anything? They want to win studies, fine. Maybe they are bad at winning studies, that's fine with me too - a lot of people are bad at doing something they try to do, why should it bother me? I am not responsible for how they find their path to faith - even if that path looks completely wrong to you and me, and they are really bad at convincing people that there's an empirical evidence for Old Earth theory, why should it be a problem for me, to tell them anything?
Obviously some winning studies would be exceptionally helpful to the faith.
That's debatable. If it was about winning studies, then it'd be the Unseen University, not faith. For some people, probably, faith is just a technology. But it can't be just that, because then there's no point in having a separate category called "faith" anymore. If there's some aspect that is not covered by technology, then winning studies won't help much for that aspect, because that aspect does not rely on studies.
Most Christians are tired of losing the battle against science by now.
Are they? I'm not a Christian, so I don't know, but it doesn't seem like they are tired that much - and in fact, many of them don't even see it as a battle. Why there must be a battle? Who said good Christian must yearn to destroy science, or good scientist must yearn to destroy Christianity - or any other religion for that matter?
I can't say I get anything out of knowing that prayer has no material effect on outcomes outside of yourself.
Didn't we just establish it isn't true? And didn't I just demonstrate even if it were true it wasn't a problem at all? I'm also not sure which theory you are trying so valiantly to disprove here. We already agreed there's no magic. So which other "plainly false" thing you are disproving? That there are many studies that show prayers are magic? Ok, there aren't. Anything else?
JarJarJedi
2d ago
It's just plain false that there is undeniable tangible evidence to anyone except the prayermaker themselves
Are you sure? If somebody prays and becomes a better person, father, wife, child, boss - it is only a selfish benefit or does it have a wider effect? If an addict stops being an addict, that's certainly not only a selfish problem - otherwise we as a society would not spend so much money and effort battling with addictions. Let's set aside prayer and assume we got a magic serum. If you are an addict and take this serum, you stop being an addict. Plain and simple. To avoid getting into the weeds, let's assume it's all true - every study ever done confirms this is how it works. Addiction just goes away, that's it. How much do you think such a serum would be worth? Billions? Would it have any effect on a society? Would you invest in a company that you know for sure is about to release such a serum? Would you reasonable claim "this serum doesn't really do anything" and not have people stare at you as if you have grown an extra head? Would you say "well, it's not really worth considering because it doesn't have any effect to anybody except the person who takes it"?
If it wasn't, all kinds of religious organizations would be falling all over themselves commissioning study after study.
You are assuming winning studies is the only goal anybody could reasonably pursue. For some people, it could be true. But it's certainly not true for all people. There's a lot to life beyond winning studies.
but there's only so much placebo can do for you once you know it's placebo.
There's only so much anything can do for you in general. It's not like you have a magic genie in a bottle that is ready to fulfill your every desire but a bunch of assholes around here try to convince you to abandon it and use the much inferior option instead. If you have something that works much better for you, sure, use that thing. If people claim there's a thing that works for them, you certainly can disbelieve them and think they are just stupid. But at some point you'd have to ask yourself - what exactly you're getting from believing so many people are stupid? Is that working well for you?
JarJarJedi
2d ago
What do you mean by "does anything"? If you see the prayer as an ATM, that you put the right card in, type the right code, and the stuff you asked for comes out, that most certainly does not work and can not work - that's called "magic" and you can read about it in any number of fantasy books, but that's not how our world works([citation needed], of course), and even more, as far as I know, most Abrahamic religions at least kinda frown on such things. Clearly, it's not intended to be the ATM.
If you are asking whether a prayer changes anything in the world at all, e.g. if the world post prayer is identical to the world prior, or you can observe something different anywhere at all, then obviously it does, there are multiple people who could testify to that. Is it just a subjective phenomenon? Maybe yes, maybe not. What knowing that would give you? If your answer to this boils down to "magic" again, then maybe that's not the right way to deal with the issue. You won't get magic from it. You can't just pray for winning the Powerball and become a multimillionaire (at least not in the sense that you can get $100 from your bank's ATM). If this issue bothers you, maybe the more productive approach would be to consider what people are getting from it, and what you would want to get from it - i.e. if it "did anything", what kind of anything would you want it to do? Is it magic ATM? Is it Prozac without side effects? Is it imaginary best friend? Is it something else? Maybe that's what people find in it.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
The two work in tandem. The first premise (or, in Dem's hands, anti-premise) is about when Dems are in power - they then would just ignore the immigration law completely and mass-import as many migrants as they can. The whole "illegal" thing loses its meaning because what's the point in the law is the government is refusing to follow it and the courts just shrug and stand aside? It's not a part of legal system anymore, for any practical purpose, just a mockery of what the law is supposed to be.
The second part comes in if Dems temporarily lose some amount of power on the national level. Then they fall back to the local level (there's such thing as "state rights" and contrary to popular - among Dems - opinion, it's not just a mindless Nazi slogan!) and ever if the law tried to reassert itself by temporary slowing down the intake and deporting some of the illegals, they would obstruct it on every level possible. The law is sacrosanct if it serves the Party's purposes, and completely ignorable - moreover, must be ignored - if it contradicts them. In other words, if they don't control the law and it's execution, it's not worth having. Of course, this must be accompanies with demanding the other side to follow every letter of the law (and some that they'd invent on the spot just to make it harder to follow) and exhaust every possible legal delay and perform every triple-checked verification before they take any action.
Taken together, these two parts form a ratchet, which make it very easy to move the policy and the action on the ground towards open borders, and next to impossible to move it to the opposite direction. Little wonder is the Republicans aren't exactly happy with this state of affairs.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
A good slogan should go from the ears to the mouth smoothly, without stopping in the brain. That's what Orwell called "doubleplusgood duckspeak".
Democrats are unwilling to accept any policy that might require being mean to someone.
Correction: "might require being mean to someone who isn't on the list of group identities that are allowed to be subject to being mean". They are just fine being mean to the deplorables.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
we got extremely close to compromise with immigration bills, but they all failed to pass
I am pretty sure at least 2/3 of the population and probably even 2/3 of Republican voters would be fine with pretty wide immigration and even amnesty, if certain conditions are satisfied:
- Whatever rules we set up, we actually enforce them and not make mockery of them immediately. This includes getting rid of clown shit like "catch and release".
- Shit like "sanctuary cities" which low-key secede from the nation and choose which laws they are going to follow and not follow stops like right now. You don't like the laws - vote for people that will change them, just ignoring them whenever you like should not be an option.
- People that follow the rules get it easy, people who do not follow the rules get kicked out (details debatable, but the principle must be kept)
- Current illegals suffer some consequences for jumping the line. Maybe not deportation, but something. Maybe like 10 years of permanent residency before they can apply for citizenship and voting rights, maybe fines, I dunno. Something.
- Anybody illegal with a criminal record GTFO. I'm not talking parking tickets, but any violence or other socially detrimental crime must be hard disqualifier, and it shouldn't take 9-0 SCOTUS decision to deport each one, it should be quick and automatic. They got the due process when convicted.
- Some kind of filter on the entry that at least has some chance for selecting on alignment with US culture and societal mores.
None of these sound crazy or extreme to me (obviously) but I don't see Dems agreeing (and honestly implementing) this kind of compromise, unfortunately. What they seemed to be offering was more of "we keep the current shitshow maybe with a tiny coat of paint and some money thrown in the general direction of Border Partol budget, and in exchange for that you get mass amnesty for pretty much every illegal that is not on death row for murder right now". Not sure how that'd be a working compromise.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
Thanks, Atlas Obscura sounds interesting, though sometimes outdated - noticed some place there are actually closed or inactive. But certainly helpful as a starting point.
JarJarJedi
4d ago
It's not only the voting base. The census counts illegals too (Trump tried to change it and lost), and with thin margins of current Congress majorities/minorities, two more/less seats for California or Texas may decide who controls the House. It is also budgets - leftist NGOs were getting literally billions of dollars from the budget for "immigrant services". You need to have a crisis to get billions for "helping to solve" it. Plus, of course, there are a lot of businesses who wouldn't mind cheap labor force not covered by the myriad of regulations Democrats introduce - which is fine with Democrats, since they get less pushback from businesses for introducing those, as businesses know: in a pinch, they can always hire illegals. And, of course, this population now needs welfare/social services coverage, which means expanding welfare state programs (and attached NGO networks, again) - a dream for every Democrat. In addition to that, on the ideological level, the colonial powers need to pay for their past sins, and accepting unlimited migration is the prescribed way to do that. The West stole everything from oppressed people, now the oppressed people finally get to enjoy it. There are many factors why unlimited migration aligns well with the governance model Democrats are embodying.
JarJarJedi
4d ago
Love aquariums, but not all cities have decent ones, and ones that do I've been to them already a couple of times. May be worth another visit though.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
Due to various circumstances, I sometimes (about 6-8 times a year usually) find myself traveling to various cities in the US and having a free weekend afternoon with no plans. I usually just went for a walk in a park, or to a museum, but lately my walking capacity has been diminishing (after an hour or so I sometimes start getting various unpleasant feels) and with the museums the ongoing wokification is starting to get on my nerves. So, I am looking for new ideas - what could be a fun way to spend an afternoon in a new city? I am an introvert, and the free afternoon usually comes after several days of interacting with a lot of people (that's usually the reason why I got there in the first place), which means my social battery is near depleted and anything involving meeting any new people and talking to them is just too much. And unfortunately I am completely indifferent to most sports. Obviously there's always spending the whole time reading or watching some movies, but I can do it at home too, so I want somehow to leverage being outside in the city. Any fresh ideas?
JarJarJedi
5d ago
They don't give a shit. Their social circle is other pensioners, and what's gonna happen if they make a drunken ass of themselves in public? They're not going to be fired, they're not going to be shunned by their social circle, they're not going to deny themselves future opportunities. They basically can do whatever they want (within limits of the law, presumably) and not care. So they are doing that.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
I got to the middle of Use of Weapons and I am kinda doubting if I'm going to finish it. I've pretty much guessed the main reveal already (it became so painfully obvious at some point that I broke down and checked it and yes, it was exactly what I thought) and the story is somehow not that engaging for me, and in general the Culture kinda looks pretty assholish to me at this point, not sure if it was the intention of the author or my biases. I know a lot of people like The Culture series, would you advise me to persevere or try another book or just look elsewhere entirely? I read Player of Games before, and it was kinda obvious how it's going to end (I mean you don't set up the whole thing to lose at the end, right?) and there also were a reveal which I thought was kinda meh but overall it was ok, not super-excellent but also I didn't feel like I need to force myself to go on. With this one, I am kinda struggling.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
After watching the series and reading all the books I can definitely tell the books are better. Some cliches are there for a reason, I guess.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
I feel like I am being gaslit.
You are. It's not a theory, conspiracy or otherwise. It's not a political argument. It's the reality. There's a war going on - an informational war. The one side is the governments, the deep state (of any nation), the "elites", the press, the academia, the entertainment complex, the "opinion makers", the "fact checkers", all that crowd. On the other side, there are people who want to take informed decisions by themselves, based on their own values, desired and goals. They former do not want to allow the latter to do that. For their own good, of course, because they consider themselves smarter, more educated, more moral, more progressive, more... everything good, so it's only natural that they would take the decision making power from the rubes. This is what you are witnessing. It's for your own good. If you disagree, well, welcome to the other side.
JarJarJedi
6d ago
No, the revenue was higher - around $40bn. Moderna also got a lot of public money for vaccine project. I am not sure what cash has to do with it. Profit and cash are completely different things - you can make a profit on X and then invest it in Y and have no cash at all or negative cash flow. In fact, a lot of R&D-heavy companies operate in exactly that manner. Or you could just distribute all the profits as dividends and have no cash on hand at all. I am not saying these things aren't related at all - if you have a lot of profits, you'd usually have some cash, but there's no direct relation between how much the company makes in profits on specific project and how much it has on hand in cash at any given moment.
As for market cap, it used to have 180bn market cap in 2021 at its peak. I'm sure there were some events happening in 2021 that are much less happening now that could explain that, but I am having hard time remembering what could it be...
I admit some of these figures may be inaccurate, there aren't official number of how much profit they made specifically from COVID, so I had to assemble the information from pieces lying around, and make some assumptions (like about what exactly generated their profits in 2020-2021 and doesn't in 2025 anymore) but I am pretty sure even if I was wrong it's not by an order of magnitude. So the original point still stands - they have enough money to do what they want to do. Of course, if they can get money of my pocket for free (with the taxman serving as the delivery boy) and then pocket all the profit, it's much more lucrative. But I don't see how comes I owe them that.
JarJarJedi
8d ago
Denigrating people who disagree with you
I am not denigrating you, but also you are not just "disagreeing" with me, in a matter of opinion. You claim widely known facts do not exist. How else am I supposed to describe it? And to be honest, it's not like your party haven't been habitually throwing this exact word at literally every person disagreeing on it on any matter, fact or opinion. So you can't really claim it's some particularly bad word that is taboo from being used. People have been called "denialists" for questioning dozens of things that are completely legitimate to question (and often these very people were found to be correct or at least not less correct than the opponent), so you have absolutely no leg to claim "denial" is some special insult that can't be used in a polite company and out of place in a political discussion. In this particular instance, its usage is entirely appropriate, as it concerns claiming that things that evidently happened did not.
subpoenaed his bank accounts and repeatedly found nothing of the sort
And the concept of a person holding money in an account under the name of different person or a corporation had not been invented yet. Seriously. I mean, surely the personal accounts needed to be checked, just in case Joe had been brazen and dumb enough to just put money right there in plain sight. But if he was not, that doesn't prove much. Most people are smart enough to do that, especially people that run a large corrupt enterprise for years.
Joe gave excessive leeway to his son Hunter
I'm sorry, "excessive leeway" is when you let the kid live in your basement rent free, poach on your beer in your fridge, drive you car and not fill it up, leave the pizza leftovers on the couch, smoke the weed indoors, that kind of thing. It's not when you allow him to sell access to you, President of the United States, to foreign powers, including China and Russia, and get millions of dollars in exchange for it. Biden may have been non compos mentis by 2025, but in 2015, when it all was at its peak, he surely was sane enough to know it. It's not "leeway", it's RICO. He didn't "close his eyes" or "put blinders" or any stuff like that. He knew everything, he couldn't miss it, his family knew everything, everybody knew everything and participated in it - that was the family business. There are witnesses and testimonies for it. And they got as brazen as invent those "Hunter artwork" scheme - which was selling nicely while his father was the President and turned out completely worthless the second he was out. Again, how naive can one be here?
That’s consistent with a father who keeps family and state separated on paper
Oh sure, on paper I am sure Biden never signed a contract with CCP saying "I will help you do stuff and you pay me through my son Hunter". Nobody is ever that dumb. Hunter just told them "I will be your conduit to my father, and to prove that, I will talk to you in his presence", and Joe knew exactly what is going on, and participated in it. Not once, not twice, but many times over many years. And he for sure knew millions of dollars are changing hands in connection to that. The fact that there's no paper saying "I, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., got this sum of money from CCP as a bribe and confirm it with my notarized signature" is not a big clue you pretend it to be - there's never such paper, nobody is so dumb as to make it. People have been taking and given bribes for millenia by now, and there are many ways to give and take bribes while avoiding creating such papers, and I am sure Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. can name a few of them.
the most histrionic Dem attacks weren't true.
And by "most" you mean every single one of them. At least as it concerns the "Russian collusion". And nobody still admitted anything or suffered any consequences for brazenly lying about it. Moreover, they keep mentioning it as if it's somehow a counterexample to corruption coverups under Biden administration.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
if we really did have a deeply corrupt politician in office, how would I know?
That's the whole point - you're not supposed to. At least you're not supposed to decide it on your own. That's the whole point of journalism reorienting from informing to indoctrinating - they tell you who is corrupt and who is not, and you accept it. That's what they are trying to do. If you want to do something else, using the corporate media for it is not the right tool. It's like asking "how do I use a symphonic orchestra to build a sea-faring ship?" You're not supposed to use it for that. The corporate media is not there to help you become informed, they are there to establish control over you and manipulate you into arriving at certain conclusions which would be useful for them. You're feeling that they are manipulating you and you can't trust them because that's exactly what is happening.
So you'd ask "ok, what tools do I use instead?" - and that's much harder question. Right now I can't name any system or solution that completely covers this need. Journalism as the profession seems to be basically done for, except maybe on a local level reporting on potholes being fixed (or not fixed) and new burger joints being opened. There are certain people (some of them coming from journalism, though most of them now working outside corporate media) that I trust to some measure to keep me informed, but that's specific for me and I can't really recommend it to other people. It's a jungle out there.
Hunter was obviously corrupt, but there wasn't a link to Joe.
Right. Joe Biden knew his son is a corrupt degenerate who is selling access to him, and let his business partners, who Joe knew expect benefits from him and pay his son for this, to meet him, but he totally wasn't in on the deal. And this kept repeating for years on and he wasn't even curious about what's up with that. And for some reason Hunter, in private communications, felt the need to falsely complain about having to pay Joe off because he foresaw all of it being published one day and wanted to create a false impression in advance. And also he somehow convinced other people to lie about it, for absolutely no benefit to them. And the partners, getting absolutely no benefits from Joe and actually nothing at all as a return for their money, kept coming back to Hunter for years, and paying him enormous sums, because he was just that good. Because that's how bribes usually work - you give somebody a bribe, he does absolutely nothing for you, you give another one, same thing, and then more and more people come and give you millions of dollars, for nothing at all. Just how dumb do you think one should be to buy it? I'm afraid I can't.
but far worse was the pardon he gave his son
Dated from the date he started dealing with Burisma (and Romanians, and Kazakhs, and China, and Russians, and...). Come on, man. I mean, you can in as deep denial as you want but I feel very uncomfortable being expected to seriously address stuff like this. It's like trying to prove the Nigerian prince doesn't really want to share his wealth with you. By this point, if you want to believe he is, I really shouldn't.
For the Trump-Russia investigation, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and Roger Stone were all engaged in a bunch of shady stuff.
That's not what the claim was. The claim wasn't "certain people in Trump campaign did some ''shady stuff''". The claim was Trump personally is a Russian asset, who was in direct and active cooperation with Russia, or as members of Party of Civility and Decency pungently expressed it, "Putin's cock holster". And multiple prominent Democrat figures swore they personally saw ample proof of that, with their own eye. They all brazenly lied of course, there was no such proof in existence (and none of them by the way suffered any consequences for it). Manafort et all may have been a bunch of shady assholes, but the claim wasn't "Trump sometimes hires assholes". That claim would never fly because everybody in politics sometimes hires assholes. Democrat operatives ranks are full of ginormous assholes, as are Republican ones. But the claim was Trump campaign and he personally has been directly collaborating with Russian government - and that was a very specific claim, not some vague ill-defined "shady stuff". And that claim has been completely false, and literally every single person involved in its creation knew it was false from the very start - we now have evidence that describe how this idea to create this claim was originated and who and how produced the whole show. It wasn't some honest mistake that they thought Trump is bad but they got carried away. They created the whole thing on purpose. So please do not motte-and-bailey me here - it wasn't about Manafort's "shady stuff".
JarJarJedi
10d ago
Moderna profits from COVID vaccines alone is estimated to be over $20-30 Billion. If their research is as promising as they claim it to be, why they need governmental funding? They have more than enough cash to fund, and I am sure there would be a lot of banks willing to extend them a loan. Why everything in the world must be financed by the US taxpayers?
JarJarJedi
10d ago
and several people under the President were up to no good
Come on. Literally his son met with his business partners in his presence. He also complained privately about having to share with Joe. Sure, there's no fire. The whole family lived off this grift for years, and it's obvious to any non-partisan observer. I mean, why the heck did Burisma paid Hunter, for his artistic talents? What could he deliver to them but the link to his father? Please, live in denial as long as you want, this is really not the case I'm willing to spend any time on, it's just ridiculous by now.
analogous to the Trump-Russia investigation, i.e. there was plenty of smoke,
Nope, in that investigation there was no "smoke" beyond the infamous Steele dossier, which as we know now was wholly manufactured and paid for by Clinton campaign and promoted by the same campaign operatives, either official or de-facto. Trump has some dirt on him (like Trump University, or $TRUMP, or some of other deals which can reasonably raise some eyebrows) but the whole Russia thing is a pile of pure shit. And, as I said, these things eventually come out - we now know who invented this shit, who paid to whom for this shit, who promoted this shit and who operated the whole shit farm. We will, eventually, also know who operated the shit farm and who paid to whom and how much for the Biden RICO family too. Until then, feel free to deny it.
JarJarJedi
10d ago
I wasn't trying to bring new evidence. If the mass of evidence already widely available on the topic did not convince you, it's the matter of choice, not the quality of evidence. It's like O.J Simpson looking for the "real killer", or Jussie Smollett still claiming MAGA thugs assaulted him. It's not about quantity or quality of evidence by this point. More evidence will inevitably appear, as it always does, but nothing prevents people who do not want to believe it from rejecting it too. Frankly, I do not see any way available for me - or anyone - to convince anybody who has decided on not being convinced. There must be a voluntary act of opening oneself to this possibility.
Depends on where it is. If it's like middle of nowhere and no chance of encountering The Law, then about 85-90. If it's in an inhabited area, probably around 75.
More options
Context Copy link