site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9hr ago (text post)   307 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for August 22, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

He sold?

Annouce ze rate couts.

Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?

It's a meme from 4chan's /biz/ board. The most common phrasings are "He sold? Pump it." and "He bought? Dump it.", superimposed on an image of a Bogdanoff holding a cell phone to his ear. The implication is that there is a Bogdanoff-led conspiracy to ensure that your investments do poorly by manipulating stock prices. (Note the French accent in this version—"ze" for "the". The Bogdanoffs were French.)

This won't fully answer your question but will put you in the right rabbit hole:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=TRXdxiot5JM?si=cN4dBIZ8gyR6hiBD

I asked Grok what I meant, here's what he had to say:

The post you provided, "He sold? Annouce ze rate couts," appears to be a cryptic or humorous message that may combine intentional misspellings, internet slang, or references to specific contexts. Let’s break it down based on the text and potential interpretations, including insights from the provided search results and general internet culture. Breakdown of the Post

"He sold?"

This phrase likely references someone selling something, possibly in the context of stocks, cryptocurrency, or another asset. In online communities, particularly on platforms like X, "sold" is often used in trading or investing contexts to indicate someone has sold their holdings, sometimes implying they sold too early or at a loss (a term like "paper hands" might be associated, meaning someone who sells quickly out of fear). It could also be a meme-like expression of surprise or disbelief, questioning whether someone actually sold something valuable. This phrase is common in financial meme culture, especially in crypto or stock trading communities on X or Reddit, where users mock or question others’ trading decisions.

"Annouce ze rate couts"

This part is less straightforward due to the apparent misspellings and unusual phrasing. It seems to be a playful or exaggerated way of saying "Announce the rate cuts" or something similar, possibly mimicking a non-native English speaker or a specific character’s accent (e.g., "ze" instead of "the" suggests a comedic or stylized tone, like a reference to a movie or meme). The phrase "rate couts" likely refers to "rate cuts," which are reductions in interest rates by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve. This interpretation is supported by a recent X post mentioning Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell signaling openness to cutting rates without specifying timing. The misspelling of "announce" as "annouce" and "cuts" as "couts" could be intentional for comedic effect, a typo, or a reference to a meme where misspellings are part of the humor (common in internet culture, e.g., "Doge" memes or exaggerated accents).

Possible Reference

The phrase "Annouce ze rate couts" might be a humorous reference to a specific meme, movie, or internet culture trope where a character with a distinct accent demands an announcement. For example, it could evoke a comedic or exaggerated tone similar to characters in films like Inglourious Basterds, where accents and miscommunications are played for laughs (e.g., a post mentions a scene where a character’s gesture reveals they’re not German). Alternatively, it could be mimicking the style of internet memes where broken English or exaggerated accents are used to mock or highlight financial news, especially in trading communities reacting to economic announcements like Federal Reserve rate decisions.

Contextual Clues

The mention of "rate cuts" aligns with economic discussions, particularly in 2025, where Federal Reserve policies are a hot topic. The post might be reacting to speculation or news about interest rate changes, which impact markets like stocks and cryptocurrencies. The phrase "He sold?" could imply someone sold assets in anticipation of or reaction to rate cut news, a common topic in financial circles on X, where users often discuss market moves with a mix of humor and critique.

Potential Meaning The post likely combines financial slang with meme humor to comment on someone selling assets (possibly prematurely) in the context of anticipated Federal Reserve rate cuts. The exaggerated spelling and phrasing ("ze rate couts") suggest it’s not meant to be taken literally but is instead a playful or sarcastic jab, possibly referencing:

A trader who sold assets expecting rate cuts that haven’t been confirmed. A meme trope where economic announcements are mocked with exaggerated language or accents. A specific cultural reference (e.g., a movie or viral post) that uses similar phrasing for comedic effect.

Is It a Reference to Something? While the post doesn’t directly quote a specific source, it likely draws on:

Internet Meme Culture: The misspelled "annouce ze rate couts" resembles the style of memes that use broken English or mock accents for humor, common in financial meme communities like WallStreetBets or crypto X posts. Financial Context: The mention of rate cuts points to real-world economic discussions, particularly around Federal Reserve actions in 2025. Possible Media Reference: The use of "ze" could be a nod to a character or trope from a movie or show (e.g., Inglourious Basterds or similar), though no exact match is confirmed.

Final Interpretation The post is likely a humorous or sarcastic comment on someone selling assets (stocks, crypto, etc.) in anticipation of Federal Reserve interest rate cuts, using exaggerated or misspelled language for comedic effect. It reflects the tone of financial meme culture on platforms like X, where users blend market commentary with internet humor. Without more context about the poster or specific event, it’s hard to pinpoint an exact reference, but it’s probably riffing on trading behavior and economic news with a playful twist. If you have more context (e.g., the X post’s replies, the user’s other posts, or the date it was posted), I can refine the explanation further. Would you like me to search X for related posts or check for specific references to clarify?

All investors know that when the moment one sells one's investments, a secret signal is sent to the shadowy figures who control the market to immediately send those assets through the roof. You sell, they announce rate cuts, what you sold massively increases in price just in time for you not to profit.

You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

One of my favorite parts of living in the middle of nowhere is the prevalence of cryptids in the local folklore.

Obviously you have your rock star cryptids like the Mothman and the Hopkinsville goblins, but the more obscure ones are great too.

In Northern West Virginia and Southern PA, people have reported sightings of an enormous snapping turtle that ranges in size from "as big as a man" to "twenty feet long". Sometimes it has two heads to match its monstrous size.

Obviously, there isn't a turtle half the size of a city bus tooling around the Monongahela, but sometimes I wonder if an unusually large alligator snapping turtle wandered north of its usual range. I remember living in Tennessee and seeing a local farmer pull one out of his pond that was nearly as big as I was, and he told me that it wasn't the largest one he'd ever seen.

Farther south, there's the Grafton monster, which is described as a giant, bipedal creature with no head. The most likely explanation I've heard for it is that a local black bear got into somebody's whiskey still, which was then witnessed by the still's owner (who had also gotten into it).

Do you have any local cryptids that haven't worked their way up to the national stage? Do you think they have a plausible natural explanation?

Do you have any local cryptids that haven't worked their way up to the national stage? Do you think they have a plausible natural explanation?

In and around the Blue Mountains in New South Wales there's the Lithgow panther, over 500 sightings of which have been reported in a 20-year period. Big cat sightings have been reported around the region for about a century, and there are a range of explanations for how one might have ended up in Australia, such as specimens from the exotic animal trade or travelling circuses getting loose within the country.

This is actually a more interesting story than most of the cryptids that often make their way into local folklore because there have actually been government enquiries into the subject - four in fact - a number of which actually state it was "more likely than not" that a big cat lived in the area based on scat and hair study. The most recent report, written in 2013 by an invasive species expert, concluded no evidence of a big cat in the Blue Mountains, but he later privately disclosed to the ABC that the existence of a small population was possible. Wiki article here.

Now this one isn't local to me, but there's also the obvious example of the thylacine, where the idea that it may still be extant in remote parts of Tasmania persists with many sightings of it to boot. There are even sightings reported on the mainland, in some cases. Some of the sightings in question are by zoologists and other experts, with the most famous being Hans Naarding's assertion in 1982 that he did see a thylacine and that it was unmistakeable. This analysis of sightings suggests it may have persisted until the 1980s and that there is still "a small chance of persistence in the remote south-western wilderness areas" of Tasmania.

Really I would say these examples of cryptids are actually... fairly plausible, as far as cryptids go. As for me? I'm still a firm skeptic, but of all the cryptids out there, these are the ones I'm most likely to believe in.

This reminds me of the mountain lion in the Eastern US.

The official stance from the federal and state wildlife agencies is that, excluding a small relict population in Florida, the mountain lion has been extirpated from the East Coast and has been for decades.

Despite this, local sightings persist and at least two have been struck by cars in the last twenty years. I have a relative who claims that one was hunting his sheep. He called the local game commission who told him that it didn't exist and that shooting it would be against the law. He claims to have taken a shot at it and winged it, and nothing has hunted his sheep since.

He's also an inveterate story-teller and drunk, so take that with a grain of salt.

range of explanations for how one might have ended up in Australia, such as specimens from the exotic animal trade or travelling circuses getting loose within the country.

I remember stories about 30+ pound black feral housecats in the outback. Is this related?

Is this fun? We'll see.

I had a terrifyingly linear and coherent nightmare last night. My wife and I woke up in some dystopian mega complex with no explanation. It was bright, white and clean, and absolutely jam packed with people hurrying about like drones. We were quickly swept up in the flow and struggled not to get separated in the press of bodies. The corridors appeared to be one way and incredibly maze like. Eventually we got swept to a cafeteria and tried to get a handle on the situation.

I grabbed a plate of food that didn't seem terrible, although it was indistinct slop of various colors and consistencies. It still hit all the taste centers, and had that distinctive salty and savory punch that junkfood often has. The only utensil looked like a broken fork, with one middle prong completely snapped off and one middle prong only half snapped. I struggled to use it.

While I'm eating this kid is yelling at me that I'm eating wrong, I'm not eating the food in the correct order. I ignore him, but I notice people asking some AI questions out loud, although I don't hear any of the answers back. I ask the kid about it, cause kids are easy to pump for information, and he once again yells at me that it's not "AI" it's "At". I guess they named their LLM "At". At this point my wife and I try to dispose of our plates and utensils, but it's close to the one way exit and my wife gets swept up in the press of bodies and whisked down a corridor. I try to catch up, but I simply can't. At this point my top priority is trying to find my wife.

I try asking At where my wife is, but it doesn't work. I'm getting intensely scared and frustrated, afraid my wife will be lost for ever in this complex and I'll never see her again. I somehow figure out that At needs to be installed directly into your brain. I get to a kiosk to do it, and I'm just mashing the touch screen as fast as I can. I don't realize there are levels that At can be installed at, and each press of the button increases the level.

The first level just tries to use parts of your brain that you aren't using. The last level fully uploads "you" to the cloud and At uses your whole brain as part of it's cloud compute. But of course, the more of your brain you give to At the more convenience it confers. Level 1 lets you ask it questions and receive answer, Level 2 gives you a HUD in your vision and highlights things in your environment to assist with the task you are trying to perform. The highest level can hijack your entire body, turn you off, and walk you to where you are trying to get to.

I accidentally get the highest level installed. I feel different. Everything I feel towards my wife feels somehow muted, or turned down. In the nightmare this terrifies me even more. I ask At to take me to my wife, and it finds her, I black out, and then I'm there. Something is different between us now, and my wife seems unsettled by me. I ask At to guide us out and it takes us to the exit. As we go to leave, a warning pops up in my vision that since I'm running 100% in the cloud and my brain has been formatted to run At completely, I'll die if I leave. My wife takes the exit, and I wake up from the nightmare.

Nice. Been a long time since I've had a dream that I remember, nowadays I'm too tired to have any of those. And maybe that's for the better, since most of the dreams I do remember end up being hopelessly surreal or fucking terrifying.

One of my most realistic dreams to date involved a scenario where I had died as a kid and my family had made an android copy to replace me due to their failure to cope with the grief. Here I was the copy, filled with memories I knew could not possibly be real, and acutely aware of the fact that I had been modelled off a person whose internal perception of the world may actually have been nothing like mine. Out of obligation I just went about my days like nothing had happened, like everything was normal, and my family in turn treated me as if I was actually the child they had lost. It wasn't a nightmare in the traditional sense - there were no sudden bouts of panic - rather, throughout the dream the existential horror of the whole charade just sat passively in the background, and it actually stayed with me for a while after I woke up.

In yet another dream I got rather badly jumpscared. I was at some event or something, or party, and at one point I turned around and the entire dream went black and white, almost like early photographic film. There was a person standing right behind me, looking straight at me with this intensely malicious stare, and their face just kind of... popped forward, in a really fucking creepy way that I can barely describe. All I can say is that to date, there is not a piece of horror media that has viscerally freaked me out that badly.

I also tend to get recurrent dreams which are endless loops of waking up, realising I'm actually still asleep, then waking up again in the dream. These can go on for a while - I think at one point I "woke up" six times before finally successfully forcing myself awake.

Pretty much all of the dreams I remember are fucky in some way or other. You can probably endlessly subject all of this to Freudian psychoanalysis, but I don't care for it.

You can probably endlessly subject all of this to Freudian psychoanalysis, but I don't care for it.

Funny enough, dream analysis has always been the least interesting aspect of psychoanalysis to me. Probably because I rarely have them, and when I do, their "meaning" is always quite manifest and apparent -- there's a clear causal relationship between what I'm dreaming about and something I was thinking about recently, or something I experienced at some point.

Although, I am curious on a meta-level if this says anything about me...

Everything I feel towards my wife feels somehow muted, or turned down.

We can certainly say that this is one of the general effects of AI integration, yes.

How well does this dream correspond to conscious, waking thoughts that you've experienced previously? Is the narrative of this dream a familiar line of thought to you, or did you experience it as something new?

It definitely had aesthetic aspects of Black Mirror episodes, especially Fifteen Million Merits. But the central conceit of people allowing AI to use part or all of their brains as cloud compute I don't think I was ever exposed to, or consciously thought of until the dream.

Ah, I was asking more about the symbolic meaning of the narrative -- the coming technological dystopia, the alienation from our humanity, a sense of impending irrevocable loss, etc. How often do you consciously ruminate on those sorts of things?

Ruminate? Hmmm, from time to time. Though as far as yesterday goes, not at all.

Here's a court opinion from Queensland, Australia.

  • At three in the morning, a drunk 19-year-old male engages a 51-year-old prostitute for a 30-minute session. After the woman tells him that his time has expired, he angrily responds that he hasn't finished (ejaculated) yet and punches her in the face multiple times, resulting in "significant" injuries. Two hours later, he accosts a 66-year-old woman who is on her morning walk and rapes or attempts to rape her three times—once with fingers in vagina, once with penis in vagina (just an attempt since he failed to achieve an erection), and once with penis in mouth. He also inflicts severe injuries on the 66-year-old (dislocated shoulder, broken jaw, fractured eye socket, and broken nose). Some hours later, he is arrested, makes "partial admissions" to the police, and expresses "genuine remorse".

  • The 19-year-old pleads guilty. Before the sentencing judge, the prosecutor suggests a total sentence of 14 years—3 years for the assault on the 51-year-old, and 10–14 years in total for the attempted and actual rapes and grievous bodily harm on the 66-year-old. The defense accepts that a range of 10–14 years is appropriate for the second set of offenses, and asks for a total sentence at the low end of that range. The judge imposes a total sentence of 13.5 years (with the possibility of parole after 10.8 years)—1.5 years for the assault, consecutive with concurrent sentences of 12 years for each actual or attempted rape and 6 years for the grievous bodily harm.

    It is critical, as is required, that a sentence be just and appropriate, and not too crushing and disproportionate. What I have sought to do is ameliorate the sentences so that the overall sentence is just and appropriate. The likely overall sentence would have been, I think, about 16 years; that is, the sentence for count 1, in my view, is likely to have been over two years, and was likely to be over 13 years for your sexual offending, coupled with the violence.

  • The appeals panel reverses. In this case, the offender was only 19 years old, had no criminal history, had a disadvantaged background (his mother committed suicide when he was 13, and he lived unhappily with his grandmother afterward; he was exposed to excessive drinking and violence in his childhood; he started drinking at age 15), has expressed remorse, and has been out on bail for 16 months without reoffending. In the context of both the crimes and the offender's background, the sentence imposed was "manifestly excessive".

    The case of R v Wark, in which the offender was resentenced, on appeal, to 12 years’ imprisonment, supports the view that 12 years was too high in this case. The offender in Wark was 51 years old, with a limited criminal history of minor drug offending. He too had a problem with alcohol and had been drinking in the lead up to the offending, which started at about 1 AM one Saturday morning. The complainant, a woman in her 30s, [suffered one assault while armed, one assault with intent to rape, one deprivation of liberty, five actual rapes, and one attempted rape]. Both by reference to the circumstances of the offending (which involved a far more prolonged series of violent and degrading sexual assaults) and the offender, Wark is a more serious case.
    The panel resentences the offender to 11 years (with the possibility of parole after 8.8 years)—1 year for the assault, consecutive with concurrent sentences of 10 years for each actual rape, 5 years for the attempted rape, and 5 years for the grievous bodily injury.

  • One judge on the panel dissents. She would impose a total sentence of 10.5 years (with the possibility of parole after 8.4 years)—1.5 years for the assault, consecutive with 9 years for the oral rape, and no further penalty for the other crimes.

    It seems to me that a comparison with the offending in Wark and the offending in the present case shows that the primary judge’s starting point of perhaps 16 years for the total of the appellant’s offending was significantly too high. Serious though it was, the appellant’s offending was objectively much less than Wark’s offending. Not only was the starting point too high but, again in comparison with Wark, a reduction from 16 years to 13 and a half years in the present case was an insufficient reduction to reflect a guilty plea. Significantly the primary judge in this case needed to mitigate the sentence he imposed to reflect a guilty plea, and also to reflect the fact that the appellant was a young man with no criminal history (Wark was a mature man). The appellant’s youth and lack of criminal history bore upon his prospects of rehabilitation. His youth also bore upon the primary judge’s consideration of totality. That is, in considering what might be a crushing sentence, the primary judge was obliged to consider the appellant’s youth.
    The period of nine years is inflated to allow for the criminality of all the offending against complainant 2.

(The judges don't mention it, but obviously any 19-year-old male who would choose to hire a 51-year-old prostitute also has a severe mental disability that warrants special sentencing treatment.)

Where does this idea of lowering criminal sentences because the criminal is stupid or trashy originate from? Is this common across many countries? Just an Anglo thing? Recent? Old?

Under US law, sentencing serves four specific purposes: deterrence, incapacitation, retribution (or just punishment), and rehabilitation.

In the context of the death penalty, the US Supreme Court has held that mentally disabled offenders are not smart enough to understand deterrence and are inherently less morally culpable as regards retribution. These rationales date back at least to English common law.

I can't comment on non-Anglo countries' sentencing systems.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats