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

Showing 25 of 2447 results for

domain:youtu.be

The most common suspender wearers that I see are older guys who have put on enough weight and lost enough muscle that belts don't properly hold up their pants anymore.

A good rule of thumb would be - it's difficult/impossible to avoid making snap judgements on appearances, but don't invest much in them. Once you rule out the possibility that the other person is a threat, it's best to treat them the same as you would treat anyone else until given reason to do otherwise. Valid reasons would be that their deeds or words indicate that they're actually a person of low moral character.

How is it that we've come to a place that old moral aphorisms need to be reiterated? Don't judge a book by its cover. Judge not lest ye be judged.

On the tattoo issue specifically though, you must recognize that your point of view is old-fashioned or at least regionally specific. Tattoos aren't even counterculture or subculture at this point; they're functionally mainstream in the US. There's no reason to associate them with antisocial behavior when you see them. Note, I say this as someone without tattoos who doesn't intend to get any.

Your ability to attack strawman is unmatched, congratulations on your gold medal

I can do it too!

“Crime-free neighborhoods” = The only way you hit ‘zero crime’ is permanent curfew, door-to-door gun raids, and AI cameras tracking every cough.

“Public schools without enemy propaganda” = Public schools are union-run psy-ops that’ve been red-pilling kids for Marx since Dewey. Burn the system down, hand parents vouchers, and let the free market homeschool ’em.

“I just want to grill” = While you’re basting Costco rib-eyes, the CCP buys our farmland and the EPA writes a methane tax on your Weber. join the county militia— or enjoy your bug-burger future.

“I just want to live my small traditional peasant life and raise my family among the same.” = you fell for the WEF ‘15-minute serfdom’ pitch. They’ll fence your hamlet, meter your tractor diesel, and trade your barn for carbon credits while Davos elites keep their Gulfstreams. ‘Back to the land’ is code for ‘stay in your lane, prole.’

I will say, every person I've ever met with more than one tattoo has a weird penchant for self destructive habits/major life choices. One tattoo seems like the gimme. Lots of people get one tattoo. I see lots of people who's singular tattoo is a tribute to someone deeply important to them who passed away, like a parent or child taken too soon.

More than one, and their life choices become totally baffling to me. Not just in the tattoos, but just in all their habits. Bizarre, sudden choices that jump the path of life onto a different (often worse) track. Nightmarish eating, hygiene, spending or drug habits. There is even a peculiar breed of people who get lots of Christian tattoos who are plainly overcompensating for personality disorders that constantly threaten to cause them to break with their faith. It's like they need the words or symbols indelibly scribed on their body in easily viewed places as a reminder not to do shit. This sort of tattooed person is often less bad than the rest, but also tends to be a bit of a powder keg.

I guess if I had to pin a through line of all the people I've ever known with lots of tattoos, its that they are constantly wrestling (or wallowing) in a wide spectrum of self harm.

This of course all went to shit when the Saudis leveraged their stewardship of Mecca and the Aramco money to turbocharge Wahabism. Maintaining local control by exploiting Islam is one thing, actively exporting it is another.

This might simply be inevitable. Progressives have a seemingly totally secular ideology with no holy site but they also often coalesce around a certain set of specific totems and doctrines, even across borders.

The world is too connected now, we simply know too much about one another. Many localized forms of Islam - especially the offshoot religions generally considered heretical - will always be put under pressure by people attempting to make them orthodox because it's so much easier to notice and police now.

I come from a seemingly laid-back Muslim background but even we had the sense that there was such a thing as being more devout and strict and people who went that route were praised. The potential for being forcibly realigned with more conservative versions of Islam was always lurking.

You see similar things with claims that evangelicals essentially invented modern homophobia in African nations. Those countries have just as much access to the latest advances in liberal theory. It's their own judgment that the evangelicals better align with the faith that makes them more attractive, not their money or overwhelming control over the American cultural industry. The other side has that. But it can't change that they feel one case is just stronger

I think Michael C. Cook puts it well in Ancient Religions, Modern Politics (albeit using an extreme example):

My approach likewise diverges from the view that there is no such thing as Islam, just many local Islams. This view is perfectly coherent in principle, and some fragments of reality do indeed help us to imagine what it would be like to live in a world in which it was true. A plausible example of the ever-increasing religious entropy that would characterize such a world may be found among the Muslim Chams of Indo-China, particularly those of Annam, as described by French observers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Their pantheon overlapped with that of their neighbors, the Hindu Chams, and included a mother goddess. They had a manuscript of the Bible that told of the creation of the sun god and moon goddess,8 and a central role in one of their rituals was played by a priestess.

This is not to say that they had lost touch with other forms of Islam altogether. They still knew about Allāh; indeed such was their respect for him that they abstained from sex on Mondays, the day of his birth.10 They still recited texts that bore some relationship to the Koran, and while the laity observed only a three-day Ramaḍān, the priests fasted for the full month.

Yet it does not take a card-carrying Wahhābī to feel an element of shock at this picture. We have here an example of a religion that has drifted so far from its origins as to be within sight of exemplifying a teasing idea developed by a philosopher of intellectual history: a tradition that has gradually changed over time to the point that no single element present at the start is still there at the end.

But to think of the Muslim world as nothing but a mosaic of religious traditions like that of the Chams would be very misleading. In the world in which we actually live, such unchecked drift is unlikely to continue indefinitely. A few centuries ago Islam was undoubtedly more polylithic than it is today, but it has never been a heap of rubble -- the centrifugal forces of time and distance are countered by the pull of homogenization.14 Such homogenizing forces were already at work in pre-modern times; more metropolitan forms of Islam have always had the potential to trump local differentiation. Modern conditions have rendered the effect even stronger. The Chams are again a case in point: a French source of 1891 mentions that some years previously three Muslim villages had abruptly abandoned the worship of their Cham gods; this was after a foreign Muslim who had made the pilgrimage to Mecca was passing through and condemned such practices.The pilgrim from Mecca had clearly put the Chams on the spot. But in a world in which there really was no such thing as Islam, just many local Islams, there would have been no spot for him to put them on.

For me, it's condescending Unix users.

You're talking about Kamina right? I really couldn't stand him I'm afraid. Given that he's dead, I don't suppose he could change my impression of him later on in the series.

Since about 3 of you guys spoke up enthusiastically in favor of TTGL, I'm going to try and finish it regardless. At least you've primed me to expect some ground-shaking changes down the line.

Well... for what it's worth I really enjoyed part 1, enjoyed part 2 to a lesser extent, and then really disliked parts 3 and 4 (stopped watching after that). But, in accordance with my newfound realization of how opposite our tastes run, that probably would mean you'd enjoy it? In any case, the British setting lasts only for part 1 (which is also by far the shortest part) so don't let that put you off the show by itself.

My backlog is rather long at this point! But I'll give it a go. Something about the way the (19th century?) British lifestyle was depicted hit me with an incredible sense of uncanny valley. Hearing Japanese VAs mangle English names didn't help either. (I usually prefer subs over dubs)

I think it's fully acceptable to take into account tattoos when judging people. However the blanket statements you're making seem way way too harsh.

First and foremost, they're ugly and I don't like them

K. Why should anyone care about your personal aesthetic preferences?

They indicate a higher level of criminality proportional to how many visible tattoos they have, along with other negative associations like substance abuse, domestic violence, and general "roughness"

This is true in a statistical sense. But the correlation is going to be noisy, and depending on your local culture entirely useless at the low end.

Anyone who gets a tattoo is comfortable with associating themselves in this way

This is only true if the local culture makes this association. My understanding is that Japan is like this to an extreme degree, to the point you get banned from bathhouses. The general association that a couple small tattoos have is nowhere near that strong in most places in NA, and even less so in most large cities.

Tattoos are expensive and painful to get and permanent

I'd argue that there's actually a positive correlation between the cost of a tattoo and the the quality of the character of the person in question. (As many "trashy" tattoos will be cheap flashes with no thought put into them, or done outside a regular shop on impulse with no thought for the future. Expensive tattoos are typically planned out with great care, discussed with a well-regarded artist beforehand, with the appropriate weight given to a permanent decision).

And painful? It's really not that bad (from my understanding, I don't actually have any myself). But lots of worthwhile things are painful in the moment.

They betray a significant deviation from my values (likes tattoos vs dislikes tattoos) and thus give me an "other" signifier for that person

This is just "I don't like them" again, and says more about you than them.

Again -> perfectly fine to judge someone for having prison-style, or face and neck tattoos, or having cheap offensive tattoos or way way too many. But the blanket statement is going to come off as rude because so many people have one or two tiny or hidden ones, that don't indicate anything significant about their character.

I myself have none, but my SO has a full sleeve, done with careful consideration and consultation with an artist. More are planned. My best friend has a quote from a classic novel hidden under his shirt. One of my siblings has a tiny symbol to commemorate a trip with friends hidden on the side of their foot. None of us are lower-class, we're all high-achieving in our lives, careers, and personal relationships.

I don’t think we know enough about ancient Mesopotamia to say whether it was a primitive democracy; given that the King was labeled “king of the universe” I think it’s unlikely. But in any case, “old as history” means “as old as civilization”, and humans are much older than that. Men didn’t form advanced civilization due to any biological impulse or feeling compelling them, but because their intellect persuaded them that it was for the greater good. It required significant social infrastructure to keep afloat: priests, myths, stories, tragedies, rituals, public executions, angry gods.

Reading is as old as written history, but reading is non-biological. It has been lost before, like in the Bronze Age Collapse / Greek Dark Ages. It’s not like throwing, or building a shelter, which all humans know how to do. An example in another animal might be a primate learning primitive sign language. That’s not biologically-rooted, though they can do it. You can train a monkey to ride a unicycle, but that’s not natural or rooted in their biology.

So there’s a very real, and useful, distinction between “humans do this because intellect/reason assures them of a delayed benefit”, and “humans do this because they feel a strong primal urge to do it”. A woman might be compelled by reason to marry an ugly guy if she has no other option; but a woman would not be passionate about it. I don’t think fascism just so happens to take advantage of animal biology to increase passion for the state; I think that this is its functional definition, especially colloquially.

why isn’t Logos biological

Because it is an abstract construct that requires training for a human to either care about or learn. Humans don’t stumble across abstract philosophy in the natural environment.

I finally got around to using ChatGPT Agent and it is actually, finally, tingling my "this thing has reasoning and problem-solving capacity and might actually be sentient" senses.

Used it for creating a delivery/pickup order from the Sam's Club website. It hunted down the items, navigated challenges that I intentionally threw up for it, and successfully completed the task I gave it, with very minimal prompting to get it there.

Yet another "Future Shock" moment for me, which is happening every two months nowadays. My benchmark is very, very close to being met.

Anyhow: Anyone have any ideas for some non-mundane, but also non-illegal and non-dangerous ways to make use of a slow but reliable personal assistant that can navigate the internet?"

Matthew 7:1-3

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Another one we can lie at the feet of Christianity.

Also, the left has been hijacked by opportunistic arab/islamic in-group pandering.

Yeah, a lot of this discussion is basically delusional in that it treats it as an ideological battle with coherent positions for Westerners to settle. It's tribal for a lot of people. They feel no need to be fair so there's no magic judo trick to be pulled on them. Like any group engaged in competition, they've just learned learned the rules. That pressing a certain button helps their cause.

If they ever won outright the pretense that it's about oppression as such goes out the window.

My interest in Gurren Lagann improved significantly when one of the most annoying characters in the show died.

incoherent flabbergasted noises

IDK if you read my spoiler note (I wouldn't have in your shoes), but that character was the only good part of the show in my book. I knew we had different taste in things, but don't think I realized how opposite our tastes are until this moment, lol.

Jojo's Bizarre Adventure: Never got past the first episode, something about the faux-British setting set me off. I mean to, at some point, if only so I can appreciate the memes better.

Well... for what it's worth I really enjoyed part 1, enjoyed part 2 to a lesser extent, and then really disliked parts 3 and 4 (stopped watching after that). But, in accordance with my newfound realization of how opposite our tastes run, that probably would mean you'd enjoy it? In any case, the British setting lasts only for part 1 (which is also by far the shortest part) so don't let that put you off the show by itself.

I remember suddenly hearing the verb "judge" a lot in high school from girls. "She was judging me!" "You're being really judgy!" etc. and I was baffled by the usage. My internal reaction was something like... uh, yes? Everyone's judging everyone about everything all the time? Subconsciously most of the time, even? I understood that the girls were not trying to stop others from "judging" per se (since presumably they themselves often made knee-jerk and subconscious judgements about others) -- they simply wanted immunity from criticism about their choices (bad boyfriend, questionable fashion, low status friends, etc). I remember feeling unconvinced by their appeals against "judging" but at the time I couldn't put my finger on why. Nor could anyone else, so it was an effective tactic to immediately shut down any criticism (cf. "you're being inappropriate").

Americans are taught from a young age that we "shouldn't judge a book by its cover," that we should "judge by the content of their character," that we "ought to walk a mile in their shoes," and so on. This stems from a belief in an obscure nameless virtue that's not quite captured by the term "tolerance." The best name for it I've seen (sadly from a writer whose name I cannot remember) is "indiscriminateness.". It's not enough to tolerate your neighbors weird facial piercings/taste in movies/cooking/religion -- to simply let them enjoy those things without trying to stop them -- no, you must pretend (and strive to actual believe) that you can't even see a qualitative difference at all between Christianity/Islam, Michael Bay/Ingmar Bergman, natural look/septum piercings, etc. I think that "indiscriminateness" as a virtue is the fruit of Americans' extreme fixation on egalitarianism and discomfort with any sort of hierarchy or authority.

So what is it "okay" to judge? Everything, I suppose. You cannot stop other people from judging you, at best you can just shame them into lying and saying they're not (which sounds like a worse outcome to me -- now you don't even know who looks down on you!).
If you want to get a hideous septum piercing or due your hair some ludicrous color, please weigh whatever benefit you'd get from that action against the negativity you'll get from others (comments, mockery, rejected job applications) and then, make your decision and own that decision.

To directly answer your questions:

How much should you judge people? All the time. Unless you've been living alone on a desert island you've met a lot for people, so you have tons of data to use. It would be foolish not to use it. Your brain is designed to due exactly that sort of thing (pattern recognition).

On what should you judge them by? Any characteristics for which you have data.

Is there something you think it's wrong to judge people for? No, with some exceptions for leniency on people who have Seen Some Shit (e.g. abuse victims, war fighters/survivors, mentally ill people).

They are associated with hipsters (the "slender, bearded twenty-something man from Brooklyn", though I might note that while the hipster lives in Brooklyn he's probably not from there), and fat old guys from the South. Also, not mentioned, lumberjacks. The hipsters wear them ironically because they do everything ironically, and the other groups wear them seriously.

"Mom Jeans" seem to have come back in fashion HARD.

But as you note they're often paired with a top that is either barely-there or is designed for maximum emphasis of the body's traits.

Which you can also kitbash with 3-D printed bits and guns into a fun post-apocalyptic war rig a la gaslands!

There are also lots of open source miniatures and "create a character" places to make custom miniatures if you play any tabletop RPGs.

Whoa, you must have some problematic associations with suspenders! I hope you feel sorry.

I don't know that I've ever seen anyone wear them seriously except for Amish, my dad, and the only lesbian in my class when she went to a school dance once.

But you can't put that in words without saying what your folk community is, and (for different reasons) neither British nor American wannabe-ethno-nationalists can do that without stepping on rakes, so they use a pictorial dogwhistle.

This is actually extremely easy to do, it's European-descended. These cities were formerly almost-entirely European descended and now European-descended are in many cases minorities in these same places. Many cities and public beaches which were very nice places are no longer nice places, everyone knows that so the images strike a cord. You can't pretend this didn't happen, you're essentially left saying don't believe your lying eyes.

I basically agree with your last point. My own criticism of the meme is that it whitewashes 50s-90s culture which led us to exactly where we are today. Going back to the 80s is not any sort of solution. The rot was endemic to that culture as well, it just had not yet led to the demographic displacement that the meme is lamenting but it was already on the path. A 1970s muscle car is not a good symbol for "the good times" because it's more symbolic of the vapid changes in American culture that led us where we are today.

That's how Anglo-Americans traditionally (read pre-CRA) viewed it. That's not how continental Europeeans ever viewed it.

I think the question has merit. Otherwise Mill wouldn't have had to invent the Harm Principle to solve it.

Consider a church that a large majority of your society attends (let's call it the catholic church, for "universal"). Let's say this catholic church has formal processes that would impose specific penalties on its members if they associate with people deemed unsavory by the institution. This is not a government institution, and yet it possesses large powers of censorship through this simple application of freedom of association.

How is this possible if there is no tension between keeping political expression unsuppressed and the ability for people to freely exclude anyone they desire from their lives?

Libertarians discard the primacy of political expression and focus on property rights. Liberals discard the primacy of freedom of association and focus on political expression. Hence vastly different reactions to some dudes deciding to setup ethnic enclaves innawoods.

But neither of these approaches realizes the original Liberal promise that both political and social freedoms can be fully realized with no contradiction. Because it was a lie.

Given this, the best solution is backing one side to break the stalemate and take over, the quicker tge better.

What does this mean in practice? Where do the Palestinians go?

Yeah, whenever people come out of the woodwork to say things like "Meyers-Briggs is complete nonsense" I roll my eyes, because it's not. Like you, I am certainly willing to believe that the framework is not perfect. Not only is any framework going be imperfect for the reasons you said, but with MBTI specifically some of the categories seem poorly defined. The introvert/extrovert and think/feel axes are really strong in their ability to gauge what a person is like, but the others not so much. So yeah, the system is flawed. But on the other hand, most people I've known tend to get consistent results on tests, and people with similar results truly do behave similarly. So despite the flaws, there is truth to be found there, and the "Meyers-Briggs is complete nonsense" claim simply does not withstand scrutiny under the available evidence.

Trump did, and the Episcopal Church shut down their refugee organization so they didn't have to help.

Logos, as a construct of wisdom, is surely non-biological.

Why?

“representatives based on population” are examples of procedures unrooted in biological instinct [...] you could see that happen in humans 100k years ago, or in primate groups

Iceland's parliament is about 11 centuries old. And Mesopotamia had primitive forms of democracy. It's quite literally as old as History. I see no reason to assume it's not as viscerally embedded in human nature as autocracy.

All three systems of government seem to fade into the eons in this way.

Fascism is about Garibaldimaxxing, to the fullest extent,

Fascism is ultranationalist, that's true, but it has neither a monopoly on nationalism, nor on ultranationalism, making this not a sufficiently defining characteristic to base a whole political analysis on, in my view.

I instinctively pictured the boss from Office Space.