philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
every statement you just made only reinforces @MonkeyWithAMachinegun's thesis.
Um... yes? That's the point? If this seems like a reasonable response to you, you're deeply confused about what that post is doing.
I think my bigger question is: how the fuck is a company that was founded in 2011, and IPOed in 2017, employing over five thousand people while losing hundreds of millions of dollars per year, still in business?
It really seems like that's the deeper question here. Ever since ~2021, the economics of software companies have increasingly decoupled from the fundamentals that are supposed to describe a healthy business.
That's what a bubble looks like. It's not even the first one that industry has seen (partially) this century - remember the dot-com "boom"?
Which is it? Either it's an image of her, or it's an AI generated image.
Disingenuous, unless you think the concept of, say, drawing a picture of Taylor Swift is incoherent. You can generally tell whether a picture is of Taylor Swift, and among people who know her the same is presumably true of this girl.
I don't see how having an AI do it instead of a human changes anything morally relevant; at the very least you need to make the case that it does. You seem to just assume it as a default, but I see no reason for doing this.
I can only assume people are wildly misunderstanding what actually happened, though it seems to me the OP explains it quite clearly. There seems to be a lot of projecting of people's vaguely similar hobby horses going on.
(Unless you were a union worker in one of the industries Thatcher stopped subsidising, I suppose)
Um, she did a little more than "stop subsidizing" them.
Trump kept his promise of no forever wars in his first term, and for most of his second term. The recent Iran action is an aberration
This is one of those "but you fuck one goat..." situations, though. The biggest difference by far is the jump from zero to one.
Well, yes, what else can one do? "Here's my impressions from the video, here's an important question it leaves unanswered, here's the sort of evidence that would change my mind" is perfectly reasonable and I have no idea why you seem determined to describe it so uncharitably. It's more thoughtfulness than you'll see from the vast majority of people on social media.
What is your overall point? What is the "Morning Chestnut Problem"? What do Japanese sources say about Yasuke that differs from English ones, specifically? How did his depiction go over in Japan?
After all those words, on a topic I do have some interest in, I feel only marginally closer to understanding any of these things. Almost all your explanations feel incomplete, and the lack of structure or things like clear thesis statements doesn't do you any favours either. Impose some structure and make sure all your thoughts actually resolve, and I could overlook the awkward prose.
Your thoughts on Wikipedia are certainly familiar ones here. What most strikes me about your first (English-language) Wikipedia link is the hypocrisy of the principles expressed there when contrasted with how they actually handle any topic relevant to the US culture war.
At least in my experience, women are the first to claim that sex is not a big deal and discourage anything that shames promiscuity or a lack of self control.
I think this is one of those things that's true as long as the conversation remains abstract and unspecific, but frequently falls apart as soon as the conversation is about a concrete scenario the person is actually facing (or can imagine in a particularly vivid way). Kind of like "there's no reason women shouldn't be the ones approaching men rather than the reverse", most women agree in theory but freak out as soon as it's suggested they themselves put it into practise.
If nothing else it shows there's an important sense in which he was not a terrible politician but a very good one, contrary to the quoted text.
A lot of people had to do dumb shit they shouldn't have done for Babbit's death to fall out of it, is what I take that person's point to be.
Pointing out that the police did something wrong doesn't require thinking the rioters were in the right. People have this zero-sum picture of how blame works that just doesn't correspond to reality at all. You see it from the other political direction in "victim-blaming" discourse - "maybe you shouldn't have dressed like that or gotten that drunk" does not mean "the guy who assaulted you did nothing wrong and you deserved it", but when people get emotional common sense gets left behind. In a lot of these situations, a lot had to go wrong, many people contributed to it, some of them doubtless behaved worse than others, but even so, it makes no sense to insist there is one and only party at fault.
Is there a "don't" or similar word missing near the end of that sentence?
That's not a debate, that's an ambush.
In what other ambush scenario does the side that's supposedly being ambushed get to decide whether, how, and when to engage?
or it's written by AI.
Say what you want about AI writing, it would almost certainly be better structured and less awkwardly worded than this, and leaving the title unexplained isn't the sort of error they'd typically make.
But I, like Kirk, was in an environment where I was never going to run a serious risk of being ostracized.
Are you seriously trying to suggest, at this of all times, that he wasn't running any risks?
I provide it a ChatGPT report on sources and current events to ensure the references are clear.
This is the part I like the least for the tiny bit that's worth. ChatGPT hallucinates sources fairly regularly. And setting that aside, you shouldn't write (or let an AI write on your behalf) as though you could safely assume everyone is familiar with the sources, especially when you yourself wouldn't have been if not for the AI.
Principal photography on The Last Jedi was done in July 2016. Fisher was done all her scenes and finished an entire book tour in the remainder of the year, before dying from an out-of-the-blue heart attack around Christmas. She did not die "mid-filming".
That's still pretty damn competent as recent perpetrators of high-profile public shootings go.
I quite vividly remember someone posting a comment about there being a siren and someone else saying "can't find any news confirming it" and not piping in with "it's me, I'm the news, posting from the spotty internet in the bomb shelter". And then it became just increasingly not the right moment for it (also I was quite sleep deprived and dealing with lots of other more immediate concerns).
Those posts from the shelter would probably have been awesome, actually, though I completely understand you having other concerns that were far higher priorities at a moment like that.
A quick aside about Kant, since so many people blame Kant for things that he really had little or nothing to do with (I recall a program on a Catholic TV channel where they accused Kant of being a "moral relativist", which is... distressing and concerning, that they think that...).
Related pet peeve of mine - ask a roomful of medical ethicists (who should bloody well know better, and to be fair some of them do) about Kant and "autonomy". It's darkly hilarious. Just because Kant made extensive use of a word that is often translated as "autonomy", a lot of people seem to think he held something like a modern medical ethicist's typical views about the importance of self-determination, informed consent, and so on. This is almost the exact opposite of the truth. Kantian "autonomy" means you have to arrive at the moral law by your own reasoning, and not out of (say) social pressure, for it to really "count" - but there's only one moral law, and it's the same for everyone, with zero space for individualized variation.
(And you aren't really acting morally unless you follow it out of duty, not because it feels good or gets good results. Just arriving at the same object-level conclusions about how to act isn't enough.)
It's a good sci-fi idea in general. It would be a great fit in, say, Babylon 5. But I take the point to be that it's iffy at best whether it fits the Star Trek universe as established in the first few series and first ten or so movies.
Non-wokes successfully built and/or bought their own websites. Wide-spread censorship thus became impossible because the US still has strong free speech norms, so extremely strong tools like direct government censorship / DOS provider bans / payment processor bans are only used in the most exceptional cases.
And as we're seeing in the latter case with the crackdowns in Steam and itch.io, these tools are available to non-wokes too. Hopefully this is making some people - if not wokes themselves, then relatively-neutral bystanders - realize they can be used against them as well as in support of causes they like (or at least don't mind), and people are waking up, no pun intended, to how dangerous some of the authoritarian precedents that have been set in the last few years actually are.
First they came for Kiwifarms, and I did not speak out, because fuck Kiwifarms...
I'm no expert on the geopolitics of that region, but it seems to me if anything could bring them together, it's their common hatred of Israel.
It could have been more explicit but I think the idea was to draw an analogy between the academic journal and insider trading cases, as both being examples of the sort of thing he decries in the first part of the post - dishonorable behaviour being defended or even celebrated.
- Prev
- Next

No, I am telling you you're misreading that post very, very badly. That is not his claim, but his account (further elaborating on MWAM's) of what the postmodern-influenced keyboard activists in question believe in practise. (And also, between the lines but I may as well make it explicit now, that you need to calm down and take a few deep breaths...)
More options
Context Copy link