Lifting weights to build muscle is probably detrimental to long term longevity, particularly coupled with a high BW. If you care about that sort of thing.
Who's to say that some phenomenological aspects of being human aren't so complex that no one set of vocabulary is capable of describing it all? Perhaps some qualities of human minds/souls/whatever are ineffable, or so unique and subjective that one cannot help but create a new label for oneself in describing one's personality?
Obviously every individual is unique in a way that defies the ability of language to describe in a single word or phrase. But it's not clear what, if anything, this has to do with gender, or why, having staked out this position, suddenly it's necessary to invent a whole load of new terms to express the things that apparently can't be expressed. The 'demigirl' might feel less feminine (whatever that means), but does that actually justify the word rather than just describing her as an unconventional woman? Cut an arm off an octopus, you just get a wounded octopus, not a septapus.
Shucking and jiving outside your campaign bus or calling Repubs weird gets you somewhere with the faithful but it won't win over anyone who isn't. Kamala is going to be in fundraising mode for two months and only then will switch into targeting votes instead of donations.
America First is a sufficiently ambiguous doctrine that could cover a lot of things. It did not mean, and never meant, isolationism. Rather, it indicates a turn away from 'world policing', and the acknowledgement that there are bounds to American interests.
Secondly, there are downsides as well as upsides to fostering domestic enthusiasm for war. The bottom line here is that Americans will not simply line up for more military adventures on hearing the word 'terrorism', a fine trick while it worked but no longer. Americans must be persuaded that Taiwan is actually relevant to their interests, and a track record of pursuing those interests makes that persuasion easier. Just as a track record of anti-communism made it easier for Nixon to sell rapprochement with China, a track record of hard-nosed pragmatism will make it easier to sell intervention when the time comes.
The other thing is that for all this talk, Trump actually was President for four years, and neither Ukraine or Taiwan were invaded under his watch. Is that because he was construed to be a committed idealist?
It may be that some Blues think that the US would be better off if Trump was dead. But it's a nasty thought, and the kind that shouldn't be expressed.
At the same time, it's very silly for Reds to get so up in arms about political civility and politeness. Of course it is inappropriate to openly fantasize about the death of your enemies, but this is something that Sam Hyde (affectionately quoted in this thread) has been doing for years now. This notion that "now the gloves are coming off, it's different this time" is just not true. People will whip themselves into a frenzy, take some scalps, and then waste their breath explaining to others how it wasn't really their fault, the guy had it coming, whatever whatever. It's tedious and pathetic, particularly when their idea of "wielding power" is snitching on people to their boss. That's the plan, is it - call the manager? That's not wielding power, that's begging actual power to intervene on your side.
This "golden opportunity" will fade. Some libs will get fired. Most will not. Of the eighty million Americans that voted for Biden, maybe you'll get four hundred of the most replaceable and impulsive, and most of them will just walk effortlessly into new jobs. Maybe libs will be a little bit more careful with their speech in the future and not saying obviously outrageous things. Is that what you want? For libs to be nicer to you?
The issue with conservatives is not that they're cruel. You need to be capable of cruelty. Enforcing laws is cruel. War is cruel. Borders are cruel. It's that they're petty. This cruelty is not in service of anything but resentment that the libs got away with it for so long.
My flight to New Zealand is tomorrow. It's a monster, two 12 hour flights with a 7hour layover in China between. Any advice for getting through it?
Also, have a video of me deadlifting somewhat poorly. https://youtube.com/watch?v=e1sHeKR8KjU?si=vsioEZDvf4OLvR2V
I'm moving to New Zealand in 8 days to start a (potentially) 2 year working holiday.
I guess I should be happy and excited. Instead I feel listless and anxious. I have lots of stuff I need to organize and get sorted that I just haven't. Other than my visa, flight, and a short hostel booking I don't have anything. Worse, I can't evade the thought that I'm going there to escape the things I don't like about myself and my life, and that I'm going to take my same issues there and replicate the same problems.
Other than that, bulk has kind of stalled out at about 83kg, which is always where I start to struggle to gain weight. That said I have made some small strength gains.
I don't see that they're clearly required. When determining eligibility, the government doesn't have to consider due process - it doesn't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. And due process is to do with rights. There's no right to run for president.
The Georgist LVT is equivalent to the government owning all the land and leasing it out to the highest bidder.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but shouldn't we want land to be controlled by the people who can create the most value on it? How is that different to landlords owning all the land and leasing it out to the highest bidder?
I've never played the Souls games, so I'll take your word for it that they're not good. But if so, why are they occupy such a large cultural space? Obviously, because they are difficult - that extra challenge is clearly adding something that other actions RPGs just lack. I think it's that - there's a pleasure in overcoming an unfair challenge. And I think a lot of it is the unfairness. Other video games are difficult, but they play by Marquess of Queensbury rules - no sucker punches or surprises.
Depression, again
The question was posed in the last SSQ Sunday - what gets you out of bed in the morning? What gives you motivation or purpose? If unhappiness is not getting what you want, depression is not wanting. It is hard and embarrassing to write down the things I want. Embarrassing because they are shallow and venal, and because I am so far away from realising them. And yet by pretending otherwise, by telling myself I don't deserve these things and can't have these things, I am torturing myself and squandering my time.
I want to have a relationship. A loving relationship in which I can both receive and give love. Ideally a romantic relationship with a man, but at this point I would settle for a non romantic one with a biological child or a cute animal like a dog. For the most part, society tells people who are lonely or have depression that they should give up on love, that they don't deserve it. I don't really want to accept that. This is something pretty hard for me. I don't really enjoy sex and am generally pretty shy. I also find gay culture unappealing, on top of my neuroses and horrible self esteem.
The other thing I want is a great body. Despite going to the gym for some years I still feel very dissatisfied with my body and the way that I look, and it makes me feel like I'm lazy or undisciplined that I don't look as good as others. I guess it's pretty shallow and vain of me to express a value like this. But it's the proximate source of a lot of my negative thoughts.
Right now, I feel unbearably neurotic and negative. I'm not beyond pleasure or joy. But it feels ephemeral. I am currently standing in one of the most beautiful places in the world on a lovely warm sunny autumn day. I have no responsibility, no problems. But it leaves me cold. Sometimes I feel like I'm walking around like an idiot zombie, or about to burst into tears. I see the pleasure of others and feel vile and worthless. And I drift aimlessly around without really seeking out the things that might change my state of affairs.
Anyway, thoughts/opinions/perspectives welcome
Humans are neither hyper rational utility calculators nor are they blind rule followers. Everyone uses both rules and a consideration of consequences to help them make decisions. But it's my impression that consequentialists are much more resistant to this idea.
It's a typical consequentialist trick to conjure up some idiotic thought experiment, as if it means anything. It doesn't.
Person goes to hospital with cancer. Is stuck in a bed having their bum wiped for them. Loses muscle mass. Dies. Clearly they just needed some whey and squats. Or hospitals cause cancer.
Actual weightlifters have bad life expectancy outcomes, on par with athletes that get punched in the face regularly.
It was always dumb of DeSantis to try and beat Trump. Trump is like 90 years old, just wait for him to die.
Some things are nearly identical (I couldn't identify the difference between store brand and Uncle Ben's rice, for example) but other things, particularly processed foods, do have a noticeable gap. Offbrand cola is disgusting, for example.
I remember reading some accounts that Bill Clinton had an uncanny level of personal charisma that people who hadn't met him just didn't get. I think it's probably a more general quality of today's rigorously competitive political world. Maybe that's why politicians so often come off as incompetent or fake, that they're selected so strongly for personal charisma it leaves no room for other qualities.
Tbh, I find the 'is he natty' debate to be pretty uninteresting. Does it actually change the ground reality of what he's doing or what he's saying?
Also though steroid use is more widespread than ever, it's still, like, illegal. I don't know how strict things are in the US, but I think people are reasonable to choose not to talk openly about it, if you could get arrested, lose your job or your place at college over it. Sulek has never claimed to be natty, and at the end of the day isn't selling training programs or boutique supplements or diet plans under the promise that others can get the same results. He's not selling anything except himself... But it's worth asking if that makes it better. The pressure to look good, to be big and strong, to earn the respect of other men, to be accomplished and confident and popular are still there.
Well, that doesn't solve the problem - the emergence of a semi permanent rentier/leisure aristocracy. Personally I'm inclined to say that this sort of thing is possibly unavoidable in any kind of complex economy with a free market and for various reasons our economy wouldn't allow too many people to do this.
If you're low functioning enough to struggle to maintain housing/job, that makes it easier to move, not harder. We're not talking about people who have an established career path or a mortgage or are pillars of their community. If you just lost your burger flipping job and are getting evicted and don't have any friends... Nothing is keeping you anywhere, other than inertia! Pack a suitcase and get on a bus.
(This is, of course, how a lot of people end up in California in the first place.)
I mean, there is a pretty obvious principled line between adult homosexuality and pederasty. I'll give you a hint - it's the same one straight people use.
This is meant to be taken as a thesis, and as a start of a discussion of what conservatives actually want to achieve rather than soap-boxing.
As I've pointed out here in the past, conservatives do not actually want to achieve anything - they don't have a grand utopian vision that they want to realize. They are perfectly happy to do nothing, so long as nobody else gets to do anything either.
I don't really see what's weird about this. Of course you dress conservatively when you're in court.
Because it became easy to do. If your phone dispensed cocaine we'd probably see a lot more addiction to that as well.
Did he pour the drinks down her gullet? Yes, alcohol impairs your judgement. And yet you are still responsible for the choices you make, wise or foolish they might be.
The idea that Putin and Russia are not under threat from the US axis is I think, not on solid ground. That's been demonstrated several times over the past twenty five years. Iraq, Syria, and Libya were not under threat from the US, until suddenly they were. Fundamentally, the US believes it has the right to direct the affairs of all the world, simply waiting for crisis and opportunity to strike.
This is not to say that Russia's aggression is justified. But the notion that the West is just minding it's own business is ridiculous.
More options
Context Copy link