iprayiam3
1yr ago
It is gross to criticize another’s motives when you don’t know.
If you think I was saying that you are concern trolling, I'm not. I'm referring to several online R personalities on Twitter and such. If you're calling my calling that out gross, then what can I say, you're heaping woke-scolding on top of your side's concern trolling.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I'm somewhere between you and zeke's objection on this. Closer to you, and think the concern trolling is phony. But I thikn the point about neutralizing the 'threat to democracy' rhetoric has some validity.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I just don't believe anyone is honestly upset at any alleged violation of democratic norms. Notably, I don't see many Democrats complaining about this turn of events.
I don't think the violation of norms now is really a big deal, and it's a lot of R's concern-trolling. But on a more nuanced level, it is representative of an avoidable past failing.
Unless Biden suddenly became much worse timed exactly with the debate itself, (which is possible tbf), the issue is best summed up as "They didn't pull biden because he had dementia, they pulled him because the voters found out". The argument is that could have forseen this and pulled it when there was still time for a democratic process.
I think the correct response should be, it's not a big deal that they have to circumvent norms at this hour. But it is a big deal that it was allowed to get this late.
Suppose I urge everyone to go to the pool and shut down debate about alternative activities. Then, when we're at the pool, it starts thundering. We have to pack it in fast, and the bowling alley is next door so we go there without a vote.
Now when we get there, you find out that I had seen the weather forecast and knew there was a strong chance of storms. Simultaneously, you can agree with my decision to call it on the pool when the thunder starter, agree that once there, the bowling alley was the only logical backup, but still be very very angry with me for hiding the forecast.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Completely agree with this. I watched the whole thing and just don't understant the argument that Biden won on substance. Over the course of the debate, Trump made a couple things clear about his 'platform', whether you believe he can get it done or not aside:
- Keep abortion at the state level
- Address inflation
- Address the border crisis and as a consequences, jobs, crime, social security, and medicare funding
- Be economically aggressive against China (and others)
- Return to the 'quiter' level of global conflict under his term, and reign in the foreign spending.
Biden on the other hand closed with an "everything is great America is great" statement with a dash of 'there's work to be done'. Sure it's always hard for the incumbant to thread the needle of bringing improvement without admiting your first term has been lacking. But just so. Shit sucks now, and Biden didn't offer much about how it would improve under a second term.
Biden dug in hardest as his strongest theme that Trump is a liar, but 1. That's irrespective to Trump's assessment of the issues to be addressed, vs Biden's lack thereof. and 2. Biden went hard on two debunked hoaxes: Fine People, and Suckers and Losers. (He also made passing references to other debunked hoaxes like injecting bleach). This alone, should have undermined his ability to portray himself as an arbiter of 'truth and lies' by any honest critic.
In other areas, Biden's arguments were just contextually irrelevant, despite the fact that he spoke with more 'detail'. The biggest example that comes to mind is the abortion exchange. After Trump made it clear that he personally beleived in exceptions that include rape and incest, but beleived that the states should decide democratically, Biden went on and on about different examples of rape and incest. Sure he was exhaustive in the different relatives that could rape a woman, but what counterpoint was it making to Trump? Trump already pre-agreed that those are indeed scenarios he believes in allowing abortions for.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
According to the NPR clip I heard this morning, Biden pushed for this early debate because they needed some play to reverse the fading in the polls.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
The two problems I run into are
-
the more you give to ChatGPT to code for you, the quicker a progam of any length is going to lose you, and when you inevitably have to reconsider some decision you might get stuck trying to understand foreign code.
-
ChatGPT is extremely annoying to troubleshoot with. It is over eager to spit out many steps at once, and tons of code example. It is very difficult for me to get ChatGTP to take things one step at a time with me in a back and forth manner.
ChatGPT is an amazing expert sitting right next to you who talks to much. But you need to keep him on a tight leash, and you will only hurt yourself in the future if you are too eager to let him drive.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
it's hilarious to me that these responses have basically proven your point. You dropped that line in, very clearly to specify what your goals were and avoid gymbro pointers, and you've gotten gymbro pointers about how you can't accidentally become a gymbro.
I think he hired a chick to play him and terribly read his scripts.
Listen to him on a bailey podcast episode from back in 2020: https://thebaileypodcast.substack.com/p/e016-the-banality-of-catgirls-f65
He has claimed that he used to use a voice modulator to sound male to prove that "she" could make it without being a thirst trap. But that's just track covering. 2020 is before Kulak was down this influencer wanna be rabbit hole and that's just a dudes voice. And it has absolutely no resemblance in cadence or speech patterns to "girl" kulak
Also, no woman ever wrote like Kulak writes ever.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Kulak is not a woman. I think he's trying very hard to create a fake woman thirst trap persona.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
In bed by 9pm to 930pm, asleep by 10-11pm.
It takes you up to 2 hours to fall asleep?!
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Sure but can you be slightly more specific? What market is it in? What class of problems does it solve? Is it entertainment? Is it business focused? Is it for everyone? For girls? Young people? Technical people?
iprayiam3
1yr ago
What's your startup space? Generally speaking , you don't have to dox your idea. Who is your target? Are you business to business or business to consumer?
What questions do you have specifically? I can probably answer some of them.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Dude, you went less than a week. That is not enough time to update on how much social media affects you. I know it's oversimplified, but remember the saying - it takes 21 days to form a habit. Point is, id give any lifestyle change a month before speculating on how it affects you.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I'll say a few things.
-1 is having a family is far more detrimental to my ability to socialize than any and all technology. In my entire childhood, I don't recall my parents really ever doing anything social without it being related to their children. I at least hang out with friends about once a week. But with 3 kids, that's a ton!
My point here is that I think 'too much technology's is the wrong issue. It's young people not starting families that's changed. Any comparison between what single people in their 20s-30s are doing today vs 1985, is a weird comparison of we're not considering that they were having and raising kids in 1985.
-2. Have siblings close to you in age. Live nearby them as an adult. Built in social club. If you didn't get that, do it for your kids for fucks sake. Build a strong close knit family life, and provide whatever financial support you can to allow your kids to stay in the community as an adult.
-3. Get involved in your church. There's not a lot of substitute that get you a group of people who share your core values, orient their lives and worldviews around those values, ground them in a physical place visites weekly and build social clubs around this.
If you're a young adult get involved. My closest adult friends I met though young adult activities while single.
-4. Be a conservative, or more specifically a conservationist. Find something you believe in preserving and get involved with other people who want to preserve it. Maybe being an progressive activist can give the same thing here. I'm not sure.
-5. Run clubs.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I certainly don't have the option of "reducing stress" as is advised, what am I going to do? Quit my job and lay about?
I mean, yeah... If your job's stress level can't be reduced below the threshold that it might permanently blind you, then yeah if we were friends I'd strongly advise you to quit or reconsider how immovable the stress level is.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
This is fantastic, compelling conversation. Not tedius at all. Tell me more.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
This is a good idea if you're regularly interacting with (or married to) someone into somethign you're not. But it's overkill if OP just wants more general conversational grease.
Moreover, unless he's willing to become a sportsfan all the way, keeping up on the latest talking points will be a tedius waste of time. And he'll still end up bored and anxious of being discovered a fraud in sports talk. Honestly if you want to make good sports small talk with someone, it's probably better to know nothing about sports than to pretend you care. Consider this opener.
"You know I haven't really kept up with college basketball in a few years. Which schools are doing well these days?"
You'll get the sportsfan talking! and you don't have to pretend you know or follow anything. Plus, a little understood phenomenon - you now have the conversation's steering wheel, while the other one gets to talk and like you for getting to talk. Once you start trying to demonstrate your own knowledge or insert your own talk tracks, you actually lose control.
Instead, you can take the converstaion where you want it to by asking questions. Like history? Interject with historical questions. Like strategy and theory, ask a question about that. "So how does a good team get good..." Like the culture war, ask about that. "You think ratings have changed since ESPN has gotten woke?"
Want to get off sports? Let them give you a little schpeel, they'll like you for letting them talk. Then play a game with yourself to see how many questions takes you to X. Say, X is crypto. Sports... Sports Betting... Gambling... Crypto.
Unless, like in your scenario, the topic is regularly the center of the activity, there's no reason to pretend to like it or to learn about it just to make small talk. It will actually backfire (without a genuine interest) because you'll be bored AND worried about demonstrating your boring knowledge.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Speaking of other professions, I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked at a mechanics shop, and the perspective is similar. The more truth you tell us about how your car got broke, the faster and easier it is to fix.
I think my point was entirely missed by everyone who's responded. Which is clearly my fault. I am in no way advocating or justifying lying to professionals.
I am saying that the professional has a great deal of power over your outcomes, limited time and attention for you, unknown scruples/ levels of quality, and will conduct their work on your behalf behind a veil of your own ignorance.
These factors can lead to a lack of trust and a desire to influence the interaction. LYING is a BAD strategy to resolve these issues. But it is understandable how and why someone kind of dim might develop that bad strategy in this context. Especially if lying has been an effective strategy in other interactions with people they don't trust or want to influence.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
No, either you misread me or I was unclear. I've never lied to a doctor (or a lawyer or another professional). I've been over-eager / over worried about how much they like me,
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I find surface-level convos boring and tend to detach myself if we move down that path.
Of course some people really are duller than others, or just worse fits conversationally for each other. Some people do like more or less substantative discussions, more or less argument, more or less critique, etc.
But taken too far this becomes a cope. And it's best not to self-frame like that. Almost everyone enjoys a good conversation. If you want to check out of a tedius or boring conversation, by all mean, it's your right, and might be the best use of your time.
But recognize internally that it's usually because you don't have the patience or interest in fishing, and probably NOT that the other person likes standing with his pole in the water not catching bites.
Two people go out fishing. Both are bad at it or are in an unfamiliar lake. They fumble around, leading eachother to different spots, as often moving on too quickly from a promising spot for other's taste or linger too long in an apparently bad spot. Neither one has the confidence, knowledge of the lake, or strategy to lead, so they keep stepping on each other's (and their own) attempts at catching something.
After an unproduction adventure they both walk away thinking, "It's too bad that guy didn't want to catch any fish. What a waste of time."
Maybe there's a minimum amount of "normie" (I hate that word, but you get the idea) topics I should keep up with?
Thinking they're being charitable and getting the entirely wrong message, the fishermen later say to themselves
"Maybe I should spend more time practicing puttering around in bad fishing spots, since the other guy seemed to like that."
No, that's not necessary at all.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Thanks for the response. And apologies if my tone seemed overly combative, I was on a mobile phone and didn't have the patience with my touchscreen keyboard to edit for balance.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
He's not sneering. People really are this stupid.
Making fun of stupid people for being stupid is sneering.
If you fucking lie to my face about stupid shit that I know is a lie, and moreover this is a shitty dumb lie that harms your case, then I'm still going to do my job, but by God I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt or try and help you out of the holes you are digging for yourself.
Well this kind of proves the point that you're going to give a different service based on your perception of the person you're dealing with.
Now of course, lying is a stupid and self fulfilling way for you to lower your esteem and because they're stupid, they're stupid liars. But the premise that OP immediately dismisses as deluded, is proven out here.
My biggest problem here is the claim that it's deluded to suspect one might be treated differently based on perception of sympathy.
I know ymkeshout enough to believe that he wouldn't consciously do that. But have no reason to extend that to any given professional wouldn't. And I don't believe that ymkeshout or anyone doesn't unconsciously. Replication crisis and all that, but the principles of influence and persuasion aren't totally false.
Of course lying to your lawyer is the wrong way to deal with that, but the premise as argued is wrong.
This article is 1 part dismissing as delusional to suspect you might get difference based on perceived sympathy. 1 part the fact that non Lawyers don't know ahead of time what is or isn't a lever in the legal process and 2 parts laughing that stupid people make stupid decisions.
And consider that this whole discussion exists in a world where lying about something as obviously stupid as, your gender can get you put into a better prison. So...
Why is there an expectation that she will actually make public appearances? She's going to vibe her way to Nov and win. I increasingly can't understand any argument otherwise, except as wishful thinking.
The idea that Kamala will be forced to make a fool of herself in public is Q-Anon level cope.
A major economic downturn or a bungled military crisis are the only two outside shots Trump has.
More options
Context Copy link