site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 1885 results for

domain:putanumonit.com

The democrats need someone who's good at his(and it has to be a man) job and not someone who can hit the right shibboleths and characteristics. Currently they have Olivia Juliana in charge of their effort, who's best known for her weight and also somewhat well known for failing at being a progressive influencer even by the low standards of the Texas Democratic trainwreck-of-a party.

'Failing upwards landwhale feminists want to appeal to you' is not how you get a workable plan for winning over young men. It's how you get troll answers and a money pit. Democrats need someone who's legitimately popular on his own, who gets to color outside the lines a bit, who's a man's man that appeals to men. Legitimately, the failing upwards reputation is one they need to shed just like the Karen reputation. I don't know if this guy is the guy for that. But I will say- Joe Rogan didn't become a big deal because of his association with Trump. He became a big deal and Trump won him over.

This Kurzgesagt video evokes a similar feeling to me: losing something that can never be regained, the crushing weight of the rules of material reality.

His big projects are World Peace and Kickstarter TV. World Peace 2 is coming out soon too. Some other clips I have saved:

Congratulating OLP Class of 2018

Google Pixel Unboxing

Migrant Crisis Stand Up Routine

It's actually worse than that- democrats really need the urban political machines soldiering on their side like true fanatics and not by half measures. There's also several dozen large municipal debt crises gonna blow up, and political/economic realities mean someone is going to have to get bailed out, at least partially(the entire US insurance system is underwritten by municipal debt). Republicans have a strong incentive to drop a big bailout to keep the urban machines from going whole-hog with the democrats again, democrats have a strong incentive to drop an even bigger bailout to get them to go whole hog for the democrats again, everyone has insurance industry lobbyists in their ears explaining how the crisis needs a bailout.

The abundance democrats are also buffoons, albeit less buffoonish than other democrats. They're like paultards with a D after their name.

We're simply in a downward swing on the western civilizational cycle. The next boom we'll conquer Mars, Venus, maybe the stars. But the west doesn't have its shit together well enough right now and no one else has the capability and desire.

Ok, were I a Musk aid I would be strongly advising him to shut his mouth. There's schizo theories galore, but at a basic level, Elon is a drug addict who happens to be good at math right now. And yeah, it's politically impossible to cut spending because everyone likes gibs. Old people, young people, black people, white people, poor people, rich people, small furry people from alpha centauri- they may not agree on anything else, but they all agree they like free shit. It keeps the lottery in business. It gets politicians elected. Promising something for nothing makes the world go round. Trump understands that and Elon is, I guess, not grasping there's nothing to be done about it. Brown Argentina, here we come.

If the Democrats were capable of that level of self-control, they would have worked with the 90s-era democrat who got elected in a repudiation to the Republican establishment a decade ago.

Ultimately, even pro-choice women mostly want humanity to continue another generation. So we have a volunteer military, and volunteer motherhood. If people stop volunteering, then that society deserves their slide into irrelevance and possible subjugation that will follow.

i used to be somewhat of a sam hyde defender, i definitely see him in a more forgiving light than most leftists. It would take me 30 minutes to put together a reel of clips that would make someone think he is double mega hitler. The guy is utterly radioactive in a leftist political context.

He didn't even successfully cut foreign aid. Congress kept punting it, now they've said they'll cut 9b which is only 1/4 of USAIDs budget.

I believe he means that if the USA just exercises some fiscal responsibility for a few years they can eliminate the debt and stop paying interest on it.

See, it’s three where you get the minivan, and 4 is no issue.

It might help that my kids are relatively close in age, but logistics ain’t an issue for us.

I take my son to his piano lesson and watch my toddler, or I take my son to his piano lesson and watch my toddler and a baby, is not significantly differently

While the conflict is unsightly, the economic policy of 'lets continuously cut taxes and raise spending' is Zimbabwe-tier. America cannot afford to treat the rest of the world like retarded clowns forever, no matter how stupid and foolish other countries are. They're not going to keep buying these little bits of paper at a high price. Bond rates have been and will continue to rise.

A trillion dollars borrowed every 180 days? Inflation will inevitably spike and then interest rates will need to be raised, with serious consequences for refinancing. US is already at 124% debt to GDP, there's not much more room to borrow.

There are lots of people on the MAGA-right who don't seem to care about this at all, just the political impossibility of cutting spending. Being bankrupt isn't great politically either. Inflationary spirals aren't great either. Schizo tariff wars with the rest of the world... aren't great either. Trump and some of his key advisors have basically no concept of what it means to run the economy, they are not economically literate. It's like Soviet politburo members in the 1980s who had no idea how the Soviet economy actually ran, the complex dual-currency system that existed to prevent inflation. They had no concept of inflation. The Biden administration was little better, they did much the same thing. But one fundamentally can't expect loyalty from others if one flails around breaking things constantly in a position of power.

Frankly I suspect European authorities might be straight up lying about the identities of suspects now. I’ve clocked two suspiciously terrorist-like attacks on the last few weeks (a vehicle ram attack in the UK and a mass stabbing in Germany) where the authorities immediately announced that it was committed by a white European. I can’t confirm the Germany one but the on the scene video of the UK attack was ambiguous, the guy looked like he could potentially be English, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out he was Syrian or Egyptian either.

This, more. Seeing the Bannon position (which- to be clear- is really old) being passed / smuggled as 'Trump is seriously feuding with Musk' has put this firmly in the 'can't trust initial reporting: ignore for now and come back in a few days to see what, specifically, has changed' zone. Both Bannon and the democratic media have been trying to meme a Musk-Trump blowup into happening for some time, and the information environment is already contaminated. Maybe that's what's happening now, but then Musk has been distancing from DOGE since its disruption phase was done in the first two months, reporting already indicated his allies were/are still there, and he's been reportedly wanting to go back to focusing on his business. It's not exactly hard to think of various kayfabe reasons* for a quote-unquote 'staged' breakup fight in a way that serves both his and Trump's political interests.

Or he could be ketamine-influenced and this will spiral. Who knows. I'll wait regardless.

Key things I'll look for to validate this being a Big Deal include-

  • Are Musk's allies purged from DOGE?
  • Are Musk's contracts frozen / suspended?
  • Any immigration-specific action against Musk.

*One amusing proposal from a friend: the Dems demanding the Epstein file log, which will be less damning to Trump than hoped, but catch some Democratic VIPs in a way that leads to inter-Democrat fratricide.

If only the Democrats hadn't just spent the last few months proving that they punish their apostates more vindictively than Trump ever could,

Never say never.

Despite the uptick in political violence that the US has seen recently, political assassinations really haven't been a thing that much.

Also, people have a relatively short memory. Dems will never totally forgive Musk, but a sufficient number would probably be willing enough to tolerate his existence.

I haven't kept up with his content in recent years but my goto for his classics is Paradigm Shift 2070, where he tricked the organizers of a TedX conference into thinking he was some genius young entrepreneur so they let him speak. His talk includes things like teaching African refugees JavaScript on ipads, state-mandated homosexuality, and farming cheesy sea potatoes that will blow your socks off on the ocean floor:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4jRoatZizQ0?si=TMxHlJkiQSd6MryC

Same. This proves what I've always suspected: Musk was trying to use the Republicans to push a bit of fiscal responsibility. Now that it's clear that this isn't going to work, and after presumably fighting against the Big Beautiful Bill behind the scenes, he's calling it quits.

The real mistake was the left wing's decision to alienate Musk. The Democrats really should have seen this coming (since Trump falls out with all his allies sooner or later) and they should have refrained from spending the past few months calling for people to firebomb Tesla dealerships out of spite. If they had just kept their stupid mouths shut they would be in perfect position to welcome the highly influential CEO of Twitter into their camp, with plenty of time before the midterms. Maybe they could even drive Zuck and the rest back into the fold (look what an alliance with Trump gets you, better join the right team while you have the chance!)

If only the Democrats hadn't just spent the last few months proving that they punish their apostates more vindictively than Trump ever could, they might seem like the safer and more reliable ally right now. As it is they just look dangerously unhinged in a different way.

To what end? If you were to say one or the other of them is picking a fight, sure, but what benefit does having a fake falling out serve?

Yeah, I completely agree, although I think that the "borderline" aspect of BPD conveys important information, namely that the sufferer's emotional distortions can be indistinguishable from psychosis.

And on the genetic front in particular, the evidence from my n=1 family is damn sobering. Maternal grandmother? Check. Maternal aunt that share's my mother's father? Also check. Sister? Check? Her first daughter? Also check. That's 66% of the daughters from mom's immediate family, with the non-BPD aunt having a different father, and 50% of my sister's daughters, with the younger one also having a different father. And none of the men in my immediate family have fathered a daughter.

Sure, that could be a cause. But the claim was that Blue mental health is worse than Red mental health because you hear about it more. That they might have different causes that vary over time isn't relevant to whether that is true or not. If Red mental health problems currently seem to manifest in different ways and thus are not as visible and thus not being counted as mental health issues at the rates at which they occur, that would be separate from what is causing them.

Why there are mental health issues is irrelevant as to whether we are measuring them accurately and if they appear at the same rates in the same ways in these different populations at any point in time. Conditions of course vary over time in both populations. If we were in 1975 then we'd also want to be seeing if those urban drug overdoses were hiding mental health issues, if we were doing the same comparison back then.

I think the rest of your comment deserves a full response, but for now:

Why wouldn't there be people out there who get off on cross-dressing or whatever;

Okay, but are there enough of them? If most trans people are crossdressing fetishists, then the prevalence of the latter should be a rough ceiling prevalence of trans people.

The first study I found with numbers on crossdressing prevalence was this one. 2.8% of men, 0.4% of women. Here is my choice for trans people, which suggests something like 0.2% of the population. Alright, there’s roughly 16x as many crossdressers as trans people. Sounds compatible with your model.

Except the gender ratios are pretty screwed up. This source talks about a 2:1 ratio. If being transgender is the extreme end of an incredibly skewed paraphilia, why does it show less of that skew?

(wait, this had better not be a regression-to-the-mean thing. I’ll check the math tomorrow.)

More importantly, the trend in that paper became less skewed over the last couple decades. Unless crossdressing has also become more egalitarian, that suggests something else is going on.

What the fuck is happening?

Elon isn't an idiot. He knows how math works. He successfully gutted foreign aid. Congradulations, DOGE shaved 0.5% off of the federal budget, maybe, who really knows?

Anyone who has ever spent more than ten seconds investigating the federal budget already knows that the bulk of the money goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense. I suspect that Elon has finally discovered the haunting truth that the rural white underclass loves gibs almost as much as the urban black underclass. Arguably, it is insulting to human dignity to be tasked with cutting waste while at the same time being barred from touching the giant money pit.

He believes doing this will cause him to die before it manifests.