domain:alethios.substack.com
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1d ago
600 people per year being deliberately killed
*Voluntarily killed
although if they want to DIY it that seems fine
How is a ~77 year old terminal cancer patient going to DIY suicide, and how is that better for literally anyone? Sucks for them to DIY it, sucks for them even more if they fuck up DIYing it and survive with a crippling injury, sucks if they just can't, and have to die of their terminal disease slowly, sucks for whoever has to find their DIY remains (likely, a family member).
this new category of homicide is totally cool and no problem.
It's not homicide, it's literally voluntary. The average age is 75 for track 2.
Further, given it's VOLUNTARY, it won't happen to you, so why are you so tilted other people are doing it?
I feel like you should convince me why terminal or near terminal old people shouldn't be able to go out peacefully and painlessly. I think everyone has a right to a dignified and painless end, justify why they should be stopped if they consent.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1d ago
I'm going to pretend you're not being a bad faith ankle-biter here.
The only way back is by promising you will follow the rules and not continue breaking the rules. Under those circumstances, we will consider unbanning someone.
No one should consider this unreasonable.
The alternative is no forgiveness ever.
You can disingenuously characterize this as "Begging can save you from banning" but you know that is not remotely the same thing.
We've never rescinded a ban because someone begged (and once or twice someone has tried).
Also worth noting that as far as I can recall, no one has ever actually petitioned us to be unbanned other than the ones who pleaded for leniency as soon as it happened (and then flew into a rage when we said no). Quite a few people have complained that their banning was unwarranted, and a few times someone else has petitioned on behalf of a banned member, but this scenario in which someone genuinely asks us for amnesty (whether you call it "begging" or not) is to date entirely hypothetical.
Jiro
1d ago
Arguments about ‘abuse’ are unconvincing. If “the government” or “the powers that be” want to kill me, they can and they will.
The main problem isn't that someone in the government wants you dead. It's that incentives will lead to bad decisions that end up with you dead. Nobody has to specifically want you dead as a terminal goal (no pun intended) for incentives to have an effect.
thrownaway24e89172
Death is the inevitable and only true freedom
1d ago
It's only considered "cheating" when it is framed to make progressives look bad. It's considered a perfectly valid solution when framed as a solution for groups progressives hate.
wayfarer
1d ago
percieve and react to the obstacle by applying the brakes and/or going around?
that is doable with single sensor and single if instruction
also, automatic door is able to react to events
claiming that it is core of intelligence is a highly motivated reasoning to ensure that heron is counted as intelligent and LLM not
if you want to claim that automatic doors are more intelligent than LLM feel free to do so
wayfarer
1d ago
though they probably wouldn't be comfortable mentioning the possibility of murder, even.
IIRC schools in USA keep holding shooting drills intended to make subset of "You shall not murder." harder
(in effect cause more damage than shootings themselves, but that should obviate "wouldn't be comfortable mentioning the possibility of murder" anyway)
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
I did not misunderstand you, nor am I pretending to. I am merely seeing the issue from a perspective you don't share. If you permaban someone and they go away and never come back and never contact you again, they remain permabanned; this is what "permaban" means, of course. If they go to you and request to come back and promise they'll be a good boy, you might let them come back. You don't want to call that begging, but I can't see how it is anything else; you're saying the only way back is through the supplicant's door.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1d ago
That is not what I said. You did not misunderstand me. You are pretending to misunderstand me. Stop doing that.
wemptronics
1d ago
Throwback T-saturday*
I've developed a burgeoning, if still nascent, interest in the IRA. I was reminded of a post from ancient times. Mcjunker's quality contribution on The Ins and Outs of the Kilmichael Ambush where, a week after Bloody Sunday in 1920, the IRA hit the Brits with unprecedented lethality in an orchestrated ambush.
Maybe this topic or post isn't so much fun, but I figured one or more interested parties might not have had a chance to read a dusty old effort post. I felt like I rediscovered it, enjoyed reading with new old eyes, and thought to share.
- If only this was some flavor of Tsar related it could be Tsar-turday. First one's free, folks.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
I don't know a single person in clinical medicine who wants to eliminate opioids
Yeah, but I'm not talking about people in clinical medicine, though I suppose it's not out of the question there are some drug warriors there. Ask a clinician who deals with severe pain as part of their practice whether APAP or ASA or ibuprofen control pain as well as opiods, and they're going to laugh. The reason studies like this are done is to come to the conclusion "Non-opioid medications are just as good as opoids for , therefore we should move to legally discourage the use of opoids for that condition."
To be "fair" to the drug warriors, in recent years they've been moving from accepting the presence of APAP in combination drugs as a reason for lesser regulation to not doing so, instead making both the combination and the straight opoid hard to deal with. I presume this means more people with broken bones being sent home with an aspirin.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1d ago
I’m not necessarily pointing to invention here, though the similarities are pretty shocking. Re: the line from Isaiah, that’s true, but the second half of Isaiah is sometimes referred to as the “fifth gospel” because of its prophecy of the Messiah (according to the theology). In any case, it is still hundreds of years older than Ad Herennium.
But Ad Herennium was the most important book on rhetoric in the Middle Ages, which likely means it was esteemed around Christ’s time. So it’s not impossible that the authors used the go-to manual on rhetoric to emphasize certain aspects of the event. I suppose a more literalist reader can just as well say, “of course God would author the real events in line with the best rhetoric and memory advice; the only new info here is that Cicero had some Godly wisdom about rhetoric”.
Gaashk
1d ago
I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, they are a foundational part of our civilization, and it's good for people to know about and consider them, so I would certainly address them in the curriculum at some point. On the other hand, they're kind of appropriate as actual classroom rules.
I am the LORD your God; you shall not have strange gods before me.
Clearly inappropriate for American public schools.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
I don't think religious people even agree about what this means, and also not appropriate for American public schools.
Remember to keep holy the LORD’s Day.
They get Saturday and Sunday off, anyway. It would be an improvement on playing Roblox all weekend, but not seriously taught in public schools.
Honor your father and mother.
Good advice. Public schools like to focus on the dishonorable parents, with messaging like this Mother's Day, think about all the women who are unable to be mothers, or are estranged from their mothers, and how sad they are. This would probably be a net improvement.
You shall not murder.
Schools are very serious about this one.
You shall not commit adultery.
Inappropriate for school aged children to discuss.
You shall not steal.
Schools are and should be serious about this.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Schools should be more serious than they are about this.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
Inappropriate for children.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.
Schools should be much more serious about this, and especially about flaunting your goods at your neighbor to try to bait them into covetousness.
So I guess that's half of them, where the Commandments and schools align, though they probably wouldn't be comfortable mentioning the possibility of murder, even.
I'm so bad at memorization that I never learned the multiplication table by heart. If someone asks me what 7 x 8 is, my mental process goes: Okay, I have no idea what 7 x 8 is, but that's the same as 14 x 4 (multiply the 7 by 2 and divide the 8 by 2). Then I can just:
1
14 x
4
56
Which only takes me a few seconds, even in my head.
Likewise, I never memorized most of the trigonometric identities. Instead, I memorized cos x + isin x = e^ix and rederive them at need. When I took the ABCTE math exam, I even practiced using Feynman's notation to make this faster. And the only reason I know the common derivatives is because of this song.
The one math quiz I totally bombed in high school was when our teacher gave us a list of squares and cubes to memorize and then deliberately did not give us enough time to calculate them, to check if we had indeed memorized them.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1d ago
You too? My condolences.
In that episode, they were specifically showing everyone who wanted safe spaces being guys who don't want to feel bad about living in the first world, and don't want to be asked to donate to charity at the supermarket. And "Reality's" argument against it was you should feel bad about living in the first world sometimes. It seemed way off the mark to me, just like they're missing anyone and everyone's points on the issue.
quiet_NaN
1d ago
Some relevant context (from my understanding from the far side of the pond):
Paramount and Skydance have recently completed a merger. As both were big media networks, that merger was subject to approval by federal authorities, e.g. the SEC and the FCC.
At the beginning of July, Paramount decided to settle with Trump for 16M$ in a lawsuit where he contested that they had illegally used editing in a Harris interview, despite the fact that experts say that they could likely have won the case on merits.
On July 17th, they cancelled Colbert.
On July 24, 2025, the FCC approved the merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media.
South Park is ultimately owned by Paramount. Given the length their owners had gone to appease Trump, of course they took it upon themselves to maximize pissing him off.
--
While previously, Mr. Garrison had been a stand-in for Trump as an obnoxious narcissist, Trump now had the dubious honor of becoming (iirc) the second person to be represented by photographs of himself, after Saddam Hussein. Like Saddam, he was also depicted in a gay relationship with Satan, and they also gave him a micropenis.
None of this is particularly funny on its own, but it reads as a credible signal that they want to piss of Trump.
Turning the PC principal from a proponent of political correctness into a power christian worked for me. (South Park has mocked political correctness and wokism for two decades, the death camp of tolerance remains a personal favorite of mine.)
Cartman, being upset that he can no longer start his day by hearing 'liberals whine on NPR' due to a funding cut has a crisis of identity which might be somewhat autobiographical for SP. They were mocking wokeness before it was cool to mock it. Now that everyone does it, it can no longer be Cartman's (or SP's) shtick.
The second episode was okay. The "Kristi Noem shoots puppies and has a face full of botox" thing did not really land for me. The "anyone can earn a huge salary by becoming an ICE goon" was better. Eric Cartman and Clyde "masterdebating" (to) college girls was ok as far as jokes go. So far, the Epstein stuff was more hinted at (Dora the explorer giving a massage to some old guy at Mar-a-lago). Presumably, it will be milked for what it is worth in a latter episode.
I don't think this degree of victory lap is earned just because Mississippi taught its poor black kids to read better than California's. Also, there might not be a better way to catch a state's attention than by rubbing Southern success in their face.
Mississippi is supposed to be dumb and backwards. Ipso fatso anything that contradicts this is due to unfair, fraudulent, or underhanded tactics. You can't just spend $32 more per student to teach an entire state of inbred hicks to read more better. Oh, they're making fake would-be 5th graders take the test? That explains it.
A good way to keep kicking the same dumb dog with a finger in each ear, but I don't think it's one that can last. Involved parents prefer effective education more than they do values that say holding kids back is emotionally damaging or mean. Involved parents vote with their feet. Uninvolved or uninterested parents might prefer their illiterate kid get failed upward than the hit to their pride, but that's the school's problem. The schools have lots of problems and seek the path of least resistance, but the school can always point blame above.
California legislature tried at least once already to push science of* reading. They failed. There's another go so it will be interesting to see if it fares any better. This story got a lot of press. States can choose to teach kids to read, but only if they have the power and wherewithal to say, "Tough luck, toots. Teach the program." I, for one, hope we improve education for kids. But, if shame fails to sufficiently motivate, then there is always honor to be found. You may keep your Kipling, Shakespeare, and Twain. They may keep their compassion and progress. Who has the honor culture then?
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1d ago
My bad.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1d ago
A sort of problem is that the “marred more than any man” bit isn’t in the gospels, it comes from Isaiah 53. And if you’re dealing with a person who was crucified, the beating and the crucifixion would be part of the story whether or not you’re trying to create a memorable scene. Just like the ending of Hamilton being played for drama, this doesn’t change the fact that the historical Hamilton actually died in a pistols at dawn duel with Aaron Burr.
I’m not going to suggest that the prose of the text wasn’t written to highlight certain parts of the story to appeal to people reading the story. But I think the claims of skeptics that the story must not be true because it matches a rhetorical style is a bit too far. The story was told in a way that appeals to Romans of the first century.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1d ago
Except they do not have different morals, they do not believe in the tenets of Satanism, they are trolling? Petulant trolling no less since I would bet they agree with the morality of most of the ten commandments, usually they're just having a 'fuck you dad' reaction to at least one of the first four?
haroldbkny
1d ago
Well, I mean to say they don't really understand the current issues that they try to tackle on their show. They always seem to misunderstand the core issues. I remember when they had an episode about safe spaces where they were fighting a complete straw man. Their main argument seemed to revolve around people using safe spaces to avoid having to think about starving 3rd world countries. That's just so off the mark.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
You've said that begging here CAN save you, even rescue you from a permaban. Which encourages begging, which is why you shouldn't do it.
I'm frankly disappointed in Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Going back on their initial mockery of climate change; keeping their mouths shut on the frankly ridiculous clown world tier state of dems/ zombie Bidden. Where were they for the four years of nonstop gaslighting and censorship we endured?
Facing Covid disruptions and then streaming deal agreement issues. They were still able to make some but it was limited and messy.
"This merger is a shitshow and it's fucking up South Park. We are at the studio working on new episodes and we hope the fans get to see them somehow."
"We’ve tried to do South Park through four or five presidential elections, and it is such a hard thing to—it’s such a mind scramble, and it seems like it takes outsized importance,” Stone told Vanity Fair.
Stone said that the election is "obviously...f---ing important, but it kind of takes over everything and we just have less fun."
Plus, as Parker pointed out, the pair "don’t know what more we could possibly say about Trump.”
Even the first episode this season was delayed due to all the streaming rights fuckery.
I think this is part of why the new season's first episode was "incoherent" as the OP put it, a lot of people didn't follow along with the show so the meta commentary on the process and their anger at Paramount being expressed through targeting the Trump deal didn't make sense to them. Part of the bait isn't just to get the Trump admin mad, it's to get them more mad at Paramount.
It's actually really funny if you understand the metaphor. Cartman and Butters in the car represents the "suicide" of Matt and Trey going down this path, trying to upset the executives. They don't know what if anything will come from it, but fuck it they're bringing the fight. The anger and freakouts at them from the right are not just icing on the cake, they're part of the formula
Did Kulak eat a ban? I must have missed that, I just thought he got really involved on X / Substack and drifted away.
More options
Context Copy link