@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

I don’t know why gun rights advocates don’t just admit that yes, if all guns were confiscated and a very strict licensing regime was put in place gun homicides would likely drop substantially.

Because the way politics works in the US, all the nuances and caveats you listed (and which are a key part of your overall point) would go completely unheard by people. We live in the country of the soundbite (not that we are necessarily unique in this, of course). The instant gun rights advocates said "I admit that if all guns were confiscated, murder rates would go down", every single gun control proponent would be writing editorials that said "even gun rights advocates admit gun control works". They would run campaign ads that go "Senator so-and-so admits gun control works (insert sound clip here). Yet he voted down these measures every time, blah blah he is the devil vote for me instead." In short, it would be a complete disaster for gun rights and for the careers of those who advance them. The latter outcome is probably the bigger of the two, of course, since politicians are pretty much the most self-serving creatures in existence. But even people honestly considering the cause of gun rights would have some concern about the former outcome.

It's kind of like when Scott Alexander writes an essay about some controversial topic or other. Every single time, he includes a million lines trying to say "yes, if you take this one sentence out of context it sounds bad but that's not what I'm saying and you fail at reading comprehension if you think that". Every single time, there's at least one person who is unscrupulous enough to take that sentence out of context and use it to demonize him. And every single time, Scott is caught off-guard because he made the mistake of believing he was dealing with people who are acting in good faith. Or at least until he stopped writing about controversial topics (which is probably the right call for him).

So yeah, that's why gun rights advocates don't do what you're suggesting. I'm not saying that's praiseworthy of them, or even that it's merely acceptable in a "I don't like it but I understand" kind of way. Just that's why. The gun rights people are playing politics, and politics is full of flat-out evil people who will twist your words into a weapon against you the instant they can. So they prioritize not giving those people ammunition.

I would be all for defunding the ATF, and I mean that in the literal sense (not the "oh we just meant reforms" motte that the defund-the-police movement fell back to). So far as I'm aware, the ATF doesn't accomplish a single positive thing for the people of this country.

If anything, this is reason not to do it imo. Deleting posts just because they got downvoted is terrible behavior.

It's just- no, you fools. What do you think you're accomplishing by removing yourselves from a seat of power? You're not owning anyone, you're just marginalizing yourselves, and ceding the entire institution to your rivals. It's not a gain.

I think you're overlooking something important here. Even if it's ineffective as a means to drive change, people simply don't want to work in an environment where they are hated and they know it. That goes double if said environment involves risking life and limb. Is it really that surprising that young red tribers might say "nah I don't really want to take a bullet for these people who hate me"?

I think weed is a great example, because I feel the exact same way. I don't want people to be criminals for choosing to smoke weed, or for that matter for doing any drugs really. I think that we should cover bad behavior arising from drug use with the laws which outlaw that behavior anyway, e.g. if you murder someone because you are an addict we have existing murder laws for that so no need for drug specific stuff.

But all that said... bloody hell, the stoners in my state (CO) are fucking dicks and they make me seriously reconsider my position. I shouldn't have to smell them smoking weed (which smells absolutely awful) when I go to events, when I go to the park, or even when I drive down the bloody street. It seems to me that we (CO society broadly) gave them an inch, and they took a mile. Well, if that's how it's going to be then maybe we should take the initial inch back from people who have shown themselves to be completely antisocial.

I try to stick to my convictions. I'm not actually out there campaigning to reinstate a ban on weed under state law. But holy crap, the stoners have made it hard to stand by those ideals.

One of the other members of this forum (I can't remember his name right now, stupid brain) is utterly convinced that he is so ugly that he can never have any success with women unless he settles for a literal meth head or someone so obese that he would be her caregiver more than her boyfriend/husband. He has further convinced himself that the way to solve this is to undertake a somewhat dangerous trek through the Alaskan wilderness ("the hock"), because apparently women will be able to subconsciously sense that he is the kind of man who risked his life and lived to tell the tale. He believes that this is a quality women value, and that this is the best way for him to attain it (other ways are being a soldier and living through war, shit like that).

This dude has had basically everyone (myself included) tell him that he's full of shit, that he has perfectly reasonable prospects with women as it is, that even if he didn't this won't fix them because women don't actually value men risking their lives, etc. He does not ever listen to anyone, but continued to post about his ideas every single week in the wellness Wed threads without a word of our advice getting through to him. He eventually got banned for this, because it was really obnoxious (though he was a good enough poster outside of this single topic, it came up a lot).

Anyways, as I recall dude is planning to do the hock in February, so this is basically @benjaminikuta giving us a "he seems to be really going through with it you guys" sort of update.

I made a mistake in this Wellness post. I forgot how highly smart people value their intelligence, and so my claim that I no longer felt stupid here is all anyone can focus on and has caused great injury.

You've missed the point of why people are upset with you and I honestly can't tell if you genuinely don't see it, or if you're trolling. People aren't annoyed because you said that the posts here are getting less intelligent. They are annoyed because you are using people's good-faith responses to your Friday Fun post as some kind of gotcha.

Your actions here, simply put, come across like you were setting out to pick on people from the beginning. Of course nobody likes that. If you simply had posted about how you felt like the posts here have gone downhill (and left the movie thread out of it entirely), nobody would be upset.

You (and @moonrider18) should know that SkookumTree is known to be wildly mistaken in his beliefs about women (check out past Wellness Wednesday and Small Scale Question Sunday threads to see what I mean). Basically, he's convinced himself that he's an ugly autistic freak whose only options for love are to get a bottom tier woman (literal drug addicts, someone who's so fat she will need full time assistive care before long, etc), and persists in that belief no matter how many people here tell him he's dead wrong. I would take anything he says about romantic relationships with not just a grain, but a giant fistful of salt.

If you think being a mod for a place where charged political discussions happen is a power trip, you are so far off base that you aren't even in the stadium. I've modded a forum like that before, and let me tell you: it fucking sucks. You spend almost all of your time dealing with shitty posters who are spoiling for a fight and deliberately antagonizing others, but who are just on the good side of the rules most of the time. They are the equivalent of a child who runs up to a line in the sand going "haha, you can't touch me" the entire time. They make the experience worse for everyone except themselves, and the moment you give them a warning (let alone a ban) they will raise bloody murder about how you are biased and persecuting them. Meanwhile, the good users aren't giving you shit but they don't really care about the work you do either. The "janitor" analogy is apt here, because people rarely take notice if you're doing a good job but notice right away if you're doing a bad job. In general it's a thankless job which can easily lower your opinion of humanity if you aren't careful to not let it get to you. Any minor power trip you might be able to get from moderating a backwater politics forum simply is not worth it, and nobody is doing that.

Contrary to your assertion, the mods actually use a pretty light touch. FFS you can go look yourself and see all the times Hlynka got temp banned and given a lot of lenience. And in many of those cases you can find people bitching "ah, so Hlynka continues to get away with posts like this and the mods do nothing". So even the "overbearing" mod presence you decry is considered by many posters to be far too light. That by itself should tell you that you are way out of touch if you think that this is overbearing.

"it was more of a lecture - I felt like I was being scolded for the entirety of that meeting"

I mean, that person isn't wrong. That's kind of the entire DEI modus operandi.

Say what you will about the 7/11 post (which I remember well, and personally didn't like at all because it was so obtuse), but at least it took some effort to make. There is zero effort, or value, in a post which consists purely of "I asked these questions from ChatGPT, here's what it said". I can go ask ChatGPT those questions myself if I want to know the answer. Like @slothlikesamwise said, you really need to bring something beyond copy/pasting output from some chat bot.

Yes, we Québécois receive electricity and healthcare as government services. To be frank, I don't know why you'd do it any other way.

The same reason one does anything as a private service: because one believes that either it's not a proper function of government, or that the private market can provide the service better. Pretty straightforward tbh.

Or the fact that Congress seems completely unwilling to pass bills that have a single subject. Gotta tie everything together so that you can't block bad legislation without having unpopular knock-on effects! Bonus points if you make it so that the artificial consequence of your legislation is "the federal bureaucracy and the military shuts down", because there's basically no law so bad that a president will ever accept those consequences to veto it.

In another, similar vein, look at the show Kim's Convenience. I recall reading that the reason the show shut down was because they had someone on the crew (a camera guy, I believe) quit, and they couldn't find an Asian person to replace him. So rather than have non-Asians on the crew, they shut it down. But as a consequence there's one less depiction of Asians and their culture in the broader culture. The perfect was allowed to be the enemy of the good.

Also, real talk - the name Washington Redskins wasn't offensive, and they should've just kept it. People would've moved on to complaining about something else eventually.

I think 3 isn't that much worse than 2 except for the stuff on the floor. That's what really makes it bad. If the clutter was just limited to things on tables/counters, it would be messy but not beyond the pale.

On that, a surprising number of the establishment Republicans have kids married to black people. Haley, McCain, Boehner, etc. What's with that?

Those people happened to find that a black person was the right person for them to marry. Why the heck would there be anything else?

Of course, it's hard to blame Yud for being wrong when, when written, everyone else had ideas that were just as widely off the mark as he was.

No it isn't. When you are speculating wildly on what might happen, you rightly bear the blame if you were way off the mark. If Yud wasn't a modern day Chicken Little, but was just having some fun speculating on the shape AI might take, that would be fine. But he chose to be a doomer, and he deserves every bit of criticism he gets for his mistaken predictions.

I agree with @self_made_human; you fucked up pretty seriously imo. I realize that you're not feeling the best and I'm sorry to pile on more, but you need to realize this now so that the next time you have someone good you don't set them aside because "what if I can do even better".

My wife and I have discussed this topic because I was in a similar boat as you - she was the first woman I ever dated, and I had to make a call as to whether I should pursue other options just to see what's out there. She, on the other hand, had dated many men over the years before meeting me. I mentioned to her (long after we got married) that I faced this choice, and basically there are two salient points she made based on her perspective:

  1. It was good for me that I chose to not set her aside, because at minimum she would've started dating others and who knows where things go from there. More likely she would not have considered a relationship with me again.

  2. Having dated many people she was able to gain perspective on just how many losers are out there. You're doing decently if you just find someone who is a good person even if they aren't good for you, let alone finding someone who is a good person and also good for you. So basically, if you hit that mark on the first try, be grateful because you saved yourself a whole lot of trouble.

If by some miracle your old girlfriend would take you back, I would suggest that. If she won't, then definitely don't make this same mistake again next time.

If it was as simple as choosing to eat less, we'd see far fewer fat people than we do. Nobody wants to be fat.

As @Walterodim said, you're confusing "simple" with "easy". Eating less to lose weight is indeed very simple, but it's not at all easy.

Ah yes, so now if you're single you not only have to deal with the pain of nobody wanting to be with you, but you get punished by the government for not having children. Seems very reasonable and not at all cruel. Not to mention that punishing people for the state of their family is something a tyrant would do, not a reasonable government.

I don't think people are pretending, but I don't understand how anyone can say she's attractive either. I actually think she's mildly ugly. But there's no accounting for taste, I suppose.

Also I definitely disagree that her casting in Spider Man was a non-issue. Basically everyone I know thinks it was complete bullshit to cast her as Mary Jane, and a clear example of hamfisted diversity.

It was a great prompt. Those people treated you very poorly indeed.

motherfuckingwebsite.com is unironically better than 95% of sites on the Internet today. I know that the author is like "this is satire", but I would far rather read that website than the vast majority of what people put out.

I've read most of the replies and I wonder if it doesn't boil down to unwillingness to entertain anything short of a perfect case. If a vegan can't provide a watertight case for how turning vegan will generate ideal outcomes on all aspects under consideration then their argument is irredeemably flawed, and if their argument is flawed it can be rejected wholesale and we can all carry on as we were.

Maybe, but I don't think that applies to the specific case @satirizedoor brought up. The poster in that case wasn't interested in advancing arguments for veganism, he was interested in shaming others for not being vegan. Of course people aren't going to respond to that. Once he condescendingly asked "what's your excuse?", there was no argument any more, just good old-fashioned "I'm better than you, suck it".

Does anyone else occasionally feel that Christianity is real and Jesus is the Lord?

I mean, I'm a Christian so I would say I feel that more than occasionally. ;)

Christianity has been proven to not be true and just a superstition

So far as I'm aware, no such proof exists. The general reasoning I see given for atheism isn't "Christianity is proven false", but "Christianity isn't proven true and so one should assume it is false until proven otherwise". The two positions are very different, with different implications on how you should think.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose you saw a unicorn on the street today. If unicorns are proven to be impossible, then you are probably hallucinating and should see a doctor. But if it's merely the case that we don't believe unicorns exist until we have proof they do, congratulations cause you just proved unicorns exist. That's why the distinction between "proven false" and "unproven, assumed false for now" matters. In the former, evidence for the false proposition can safely be considered faulty. In the latter, evidence for the proposition can potentially show that the proposition is true after all.

Back to Christianity, that means that if you feel you have reason to believe in it (which I'm not saying you do, only you can decide that), then you shouldn't set aside those reasons because "eh it's proven false, it's just superstition anyway". Instead, you should follow up on those reasons and see where it takes you. Maybe it changes your mind, maybe not, but it seems to me that it's worth investigating just to see what happens.

Personally, I would encourage you to continue to seek the truth as best you can. YMMV, but my own experience has led me to believe the wisdom of "seek and you will find". I spent many years being atheist/agnostic, and at times I despaired that I would ever be able to resolve the questions I had inside. But in time, God led me to the answers I wanted in a way that I could accept. Now looking back on it all, yeah the path was winding and at times dark. But given who I am, and how I see the world, it probably couldn't have worked any other way. So while the journey was long and tiring (mentally), it was my journey and I'm grateful for it. And it's not over yet, of course.

I hope you find the answers you seek, man. Even if you wind up deciding "yep it's all bunk", I hope you're able to have the peace of having found those answers. Good luck, and Merry Christmas!