philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
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.
Your math seems to assume they would only have lived one more year each. (If I understood it right, and if I didn't, it might be because most of the symbols seem to be missing...) Many were kids with their whole life ahead of them. It's 11 minutes per year they would have lived on average, plus other considerations of the sort self_made_human pointed out.
It doesn't sound a thing like him.
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.
Rarely do these things turn out to neatly fit anyone's narrative. I think this or something like it is very likely indeed.
Like seemingly a lot of people, my initial guess was 80 mil.
The thought process was something like this, though less articulate. (Coming up with that number took me less time than it will take you to read this, and much less than it's going to take me to write it.)
"I know it's big. Like I'm positive it's over 50 mil. On the other hand, if it was US tier, much less China/India tier, I'm pretty sure I would know that. I wouldn't be completely shocked to learn it was over 100, if it wasn't by too much, but if you made me choose I'd bet against it. But probably closer to 100 than 50... 80 seems in the right ballpark? Maybe 85? More likely 85 than 75, but probably around there somewhere."
I don't quite count that as a win, but I guess I could have done a lot worse.
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.
Yes, I was like "left identifying what, and why did she in particular need to identify it?" until I read it a second time.
TPOASITDWID
This was really confusing at first. I figured it out eventually but it's a really bad idea to use a uncommon acronym without defining it the first time.
Even Google was no help because the two extra letters you added in the middle were just enough to make this thread literally the ONLY Google hit for this as it was typed, as opposed to as it was intended.
-
Without the last five words, yes. With them... probably still yes actually, but only because it's a good habit to get into.
-
We're notorious here for what's known locally as the "Winnipeg Rolling Stop", so... almost yes? Like, a somewhat close approach to this is generally enough as long as you're paying attention. Personally I'm much more rigorous about red lights than stop signs.
-
No. They're meant for really bad driving conditions, and barring that (or traffic congestion that makes it impossible to reach much less exceed them), it's perfectly safe and reasonable to treat them as polite suggestions. That said, if you're doing 130 klicks in an 80 zone, that's over the top.
-
Again, yes if you'd only leave out the last few words. But riding someone's bumper is never acceptable behaviour. That's both unsafe and assholish and has absolutely no upside. If you ever do this on purpose, you are a dick.
-
Yes, as a last resort. That said, needing to do so usually reflects poor planning on your part. Also, sometimes you yourself are the one who should be slowing down to let them by, then falling in behind them, depending on traffic conditions.
-
Of course not. I'm a very strong believer that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'll pretty much never object to someone breaking any of these in the specific ways I've outlined (except mildly to #5) as long as they're paying enough attention to not pose a danger to me or others.
-
When the light turns green, move your fucking ass!!! Sitting there for 4-5 seconds is a dick move especially for a protected turn signal that may only last 15 seconds or so.
Well, according to the progressives, everywhere, including at least some of what you'd call the "progressive" states.
One screen, two completely different movies.
What is the difference between a sincere belief derived from a religious framework vs a sincere belief derived from a philosophical one and why is religion given more weight in this regard?
Legal scholar and philosopher Brian Leiter has a whole book on just that topic, by the somewhat trollish title of Why Tolerate Religion?. His conclusion is the opposite of what people often assume it's going to be based on the title - that all such "claims of conscience" should be treated with equal (and fairly high) respect in this regard, rather than religion having its own special claim to "tolerance" that isn't accorded to anything else.
Hypothetically, if Canada did become the 51st state, would I be right in saying it would be the largest state in the union by landmass by quite a huge margin? Or am I too Mercator-projection pilled?
LOL. By landmass, Canada is the second-largest country in the world, after Russia. It's not just bigger than any US state, it's bigger than the US.
Even by population, it would be the largest, just slightly higher than California.
As a last resort, perhaps. They're much more comfortable just implying that detransitioners don't exist and trying their best to keep them out of the conversation entirely.
I've noticed this phenomenon among the right (necessary disclaimer: I completely acknowledge that this is true of the left as well, but they're not in power now so it's not as fun to scrutinize them) to boldly assert the truth of easily falsifiable claims. The "media ignore it entirely" is such a claim: CNN, CBS, ABC, and my favorite, an ominous report from the Washington Post. This story is obviously being covered...
This is a genuine case of "both sides do it", but yes, any time you see "why isn't anybody talking about _______?!?" on social media, the correct response will invariably be somewhere on a spectrum from "They are!" to "Are you living under a rock? No-one seems to be talking about anything else".
"Road train" is an Australian term for a semi that's pulling more than one trailer. I only know this from my attempts to decipher Midnight Oil lyrics and didn't 100% follow that part of the discussion myself, but that's the basic thing it's about.
Their three paragraphs here and replies elsewhere in this thread can be summarized as; "even if the populists are sucessful (which they wont be) it will be for reasons outside thier control and thus not count."
All three specify circumstances under which he would update, and some of them aren't even all that demanding. None of them require things outside the government's control or at least not wildly more than your list that he was replying to. Reading "here are three ways I would update" as "I wouldn't update" is... certainly a thing someone said on the Internet today.
Honestly, you're not making much sense. You don't seem to be reading what the words in front of you actually say, but what your opinion of the person posting them leads you to expect to be there.
I think a very strong case can be made that the New Left, and its subsequent and related movements in the academic left particularly queer theory, is pro-pedophilia (eventually filtering down to the 'woke' public in watered down form). To be more charitable, it's not that they are pro-pedophile per se, but rather that they have adopted a world view that doesn't make a distinction between pedophilia and non-pedophilia.
Regardless of what you think follows from other things they believe, find me a pro-pedophilia social media post from anyone visibly on the left. I'll wait. I predict I'll be waiting a very long time. Not "well if you squint just right and also read these tea leaves over here...", but anything at all that is unambiguously supportive of boinking kids. You'll find a hundred, probably a thousand, wood-chipper memes before you find anything even close. It just doesn't exist, no matter how badly certain elements of the right want it to.
Most of these people have never heard of figures like Firestone, and even if they had, look at what happened to Germaine Greer. They feel deep loyalty to their movement but not a single shred of loyalty to any of the individuals that make it up, no matter how paradoxical that sounds to people like me or what debts of gratitude it might seem that they owe. And even Firestone never seems to have gone as far as openly supporting sexualizing kids, in any sense of the word.
Except this is literally the first time I've heard anyone include the "to do", and the extra two letters were just enough to make it look weird and unfamiliar even though I thoroughly lurked the recent discussions of it.
You will not make yourself more romantically successful with women by putting on dog ears, getting on all fours and barking because there are a couple women out there that like dogs.
With men, on the other hand, that'd probably work.
Rarely do people waste space voicing empty agreement.
Especially here, where low-effort posts like that are explicitly against the rules. This may make some views seem less popular or more controversial than they really are, even among posters here, if that's all you're going by.
Thanks, that gives me a fair bit of the missing context, though I'm still no closer to understanding (among other things) the title!
Besides being a big move of the goalposts, you seem to have some weird-ass misconceptions about both Canadian demographics and Canadian politics. Toronto is about 17% of the population, not anywhere near 60%. That's not quite as weird as thinking the Territories are 95% of the land mass, but it still seems to be massively skewing your perspective. Things are certainly weighted heavily toward the East but it's nowhere close to all-powerful.
- Prev
- Next
Is it possible this is what Hylynka (sp?) had in mind when he implied that (oversimplifying) basically everyone here was really a progressive? He never made much sense to me when he was in that particular mode, but it seems to me you're arguing for something that could be stated that way.
More options
Context Copy link