banned
naraburns
nihil supernum
6mo ago
I have removed this post and permabanned the poster, because it is pretty obviously a copy/paste from an LLM, from a user account with no history. I don't know if it is Substack spam or what, and I don't mind if people want to talk about colonizing Mars, but this is not a place for dumping LLM posts.
TwiceHuman
6mo ago
Controlling who gets access to the game (and therefore reviews) immediately devaluates reviews. I don't feel like this is an unintuitive exploit that we should guard against, but something so obvious that it goes without saying.
I wonder if text-only review would help the next problem. Instead of saying "this game is good/bad", you'd have to give information about the game. So if a game has 10 hours of gameplay, you'd write "I don't like that it's so short, only 10 hours!" but any reader who prefers shorter games would see it as a positive. Reviews like this would describe how the game was, and allow readers to judge the description, rather than merely access the judgement of the previous person.
what has been released very recently
Isn't this only if a new product gets a single positive review, putting it at 100% (perfect score)?
I do agree with the "niche" thing, but the opposite problem (niches being labeled bad because they don't appeal to a large amount of people) seems harmful as well, because it selects for watered-down content which is inoffensive and all-around unremarkable. If this sounds confusing, think about spicy foods: Those who love what is spicy wants the most spicy food available, but it's necessarily a small minority which enjoys this food, so any global rating would judge this food to be unappealing. If you place games (or other works) in a thousand-dimensional space, then all the edges and corners are maximums, and gives people who enjoy X the most X available. But across all people who judge the contents of this space, the highest scores will be biased towards the middle or possible the surface-area of the shape within the space. Less than 1% of music being listened to is Jazz, does this mean that it's universally hated, or that it should be banned? But that's the argumentation being used against controversial which has less than majority-support, for its removal is justified with the word "democracy". This is a bit of a rant, but I want to challenge the assumption that popularity is a measure of quality, and I think that rating systems may be inherently limited by the wrong assumption that there's one objective measure of good. I'm just theorycrafting, don't feel pressured to engage if it doesn't interest you!
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
6mo ago
This is a point which our dear departed permabanned follower of Hobbes liked to make: The government is not there to protect the honest people from the criminals. It is there to protect the criminals from the honest people.
We certainly agree that if there's one right that can't be contracted away it's exit. Otherwise you're a slave pretty much.
But that's not what you're demanding here, it's entry you're demanding. You want the vegans not to be able to write up a simple contract that says "anybody renting this land must forego meat on penalty of being kicked out".
If anything you're denying other people's exit from a system where eating meat can't be banned.
And if you're fine with it, why is it illegal for the vegans to add "no blacks or unisex bathrooms" to the list of conditions?
Dean
Flairless
6mo ago
I'm surprised you didn't raise the Russian-captained Chinese-flagged ship that dragged it's anchor for 100 miles in the Baltic Sea, cutting the Baltic Sea undersea cable between German and Finland and Sweden and Lithuania.
The ship is currently surrounded by NATO vessels, with various European countries raising the rather pertinant point of sabotage. For which there a number of interesting things to say- this is neither the first case of probable Russian sabotage in Europe in recent years, but the timing and the nature are interesting in the context of the recent Ukraine posturing- but it's also interesting on the question of Chinese involvement, if any.
Especially given the Russian ruble tumble, which appears to be a foreign exchange issue given that they banned foreign currency purchases for the rest of the year, which itself followed a systemic Chinese premium charge of Rubles-for-Yuan from this summer
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
6mo ago
Thanksgiving -
Happy thanksgiving to the Amerikaner mottizens, I have no clue what the real story behind it is so would be nice in case you guys could tell me what exactly is the correct origin.
Death of Web shows and Fishtank.live -
Web shows, pre netflix web shows were quite hot for a minute. Collegehumor and Cracked.com put out fairly interesting low budget things. Youtube or the internet back then was not just another medium for larger crops like it is now but more decentralised. You did not expect to find mainstream people having thier own channels, it was its own subculture. Some web shows I liked were after hours by craked, jake and amir by collegehumor, most stuff put out by them was pretty good until like 2015, they had many great shows besides these two. One web entity that stood out enough to get a TV Show was MDE with its frontman Sam Hyde, his TED Talk is a hilarious introduction in case you have never seen him before.
MDE - World Peace was Sam Hyde's original breakthrough, 6 episodes of 12 minutes, it was the funniest thing on cable till it got cancelled literally by Adult Swim for Sam shilling for Trump, the group disbanded but Sam kept at it, he kept making videos and greenlight Fishtank, an idea Jet Neptune, one of the people in his team had. Do not go into it expecting to find something meaningful, Fisthank is what you want trashy humor to be, just balls-to-the-wall funny.
I started watching Fishtank.live via daily recaps on youtube since yesterday and it is the highest-brow trashy reality tv anyone can enjoy. Sam Hyde is the perfect host and the whole host of people there doing insane things is too funny not to laugh at. I cannot name my favourite incidents without getting banned since the show is seen primarily by 4chan folks.
Unlike Big Brother, you see it live 24/7 without edits, but instead of washed-up celebrities, it's internet weirdos and washed-up internet celebrities with cameos from the likes of Frank Hassle and Alex Stein. One of the episodes in season one ended with a guy smoking crack and getting kicked out, and another with Luke Valentine teaching an actor how to yell profanities. Viewers can pay money, send tts, and meddle with the lives of the contestants. Many would be put off by Fishtank which is fine, I am too at times but it is quite entertaining, you can just pick up at any point in any season and laugh real hard. Sam has made two of the most interesting web shows
Miscellaneous
No fights this weekend and since I have started Tantra Illuminated, the online academy run by Christopher Hareesh Wallis, I am tempted to pick up his book titled Tantra Illuminated. Hareesh comes from a school of Tantra called Shaiva Tantra that you found in Kashmir, it is a non-dual theistic tradition that encourages you to read up about the nature of reality from the perspective of a yogi. This is a purely leisure thing and I have a terrible habit of putting down books halfway. Do drop your own understanding of whatever spiritual readings you have come across, I never cared much about this till now so I do find it exciting.
Have a fun weekend folks!
TwiceHuman
6mo ago
There used to be no moderation. I thought the world had gone insane first time I heard of a police visit due to an online threat (I think this was Runescape, 2016). Calling people faggot is nothing, you could SYN flood a stupid kids server and demand 20$ for him to stop. You could sexually harass children. You could doxx people. I remember a guy who tried to get himself temp-banned on Runescape, and the things he wrote would get him arrested today, and he only got a warning after a day of harassment efforts (this was 08 or 09). I don't remember meeting power-tripping moderators (with rare exceptions) before like 2014, and not before 2016 did I meet people who supported attacks on freedom.
We complained about monetization since DLCs started, and DLCs aren't even considered predatory anymore. I'm partly immune to the "burning frog" thing, so you may imagine how I feel about gaming now. Anyway, they might not care about a little wokeness, but the characters aren't attractive anymore, and some people are getting banned for just playing normally (Writing GG in the chat, picking specific characters in Overwatch, Japanese players yelling "Nigeru" in Apex). Many MTG cards are also being removed, disrupting gameplay. Even naive friends of mine who are not into politics and who still thinks that LGBTQ is about accepting people for who they are, are frequently confused or annoyed by down-stream consequences of wokeness (and the more abstract tendency of companies taking control away from users). Tekken-like games are being toned down to be less bloody and less sexy too. Some people notice this. There's also the "You can't hurt children in Skyrim" thing. Game lore, characters, textures, etc. are being changed/censored/removed retroactively to comply with the current moral norm, and many people are upset when they notice.
I guess that current children, who grew up with what we have now, have much lower standards, and that they don't care very much. I'd say that people older than perhaps 25 generally dislikes DEI and its consequences.
TwiceHuman
6mo ago
This isn't exactly true. People are getting banned in these games for writing "faggot" or even "gg" because of wokeism. The political pressure leads to censorship, self-censoring, the dilution of art, the decrease of player freedom, and even competitive games modes (since hierarchies are seen as evil in leftist morality). I'm not sure how much the average console player understands these dynamics, though.
SteveKirk
6mo ago
There are a lot of weird errors and inexplicable decisions on Twitter, but I can't tell if it's gotten worse. The timeline spazzes out constantly, showing the same stuff over and over. The other day my account was limited, then suspended out of the blue, then reinstated without comment after I sent an email asking why.
Granted, the only part of that different from 2020 was actually getting unbanned, but still.
HaroldWilson
6mo ago
Not in such basics as 'not loading', but qualitatively the twitter experience is now way worse, to the point I don't really use it anymore it's so bad. The prioritisation of blue check replies has made replies on any post that becomes popular totally worthless, since it's mostly bots/meaningless garbage. For You is totally worthless as it just serves up the worst kind of lowest common denominator internet slop, and while one can (and I usually did) just use the other tab for accounts you follow, twitter alongside mostly giving me my own follows' posts used to regularly suggest interesting and worthwhile smaller posts and accounts. Now the garbage rises to the top, the cream to the bottom. Checking back now having been away for a few weeks I've been followed by 50+ scam bots.
So while it still functions what made the app useful and good has basically been totally ruined. I think monetisation was a dreadful idea since it gives strong incentives to post slop in order to rise to the top, and the same goes for allowing people to pay to boost their nonsense. No doubt the slop existed before Elon, but I at least never really had it pushed to me by twitter before, it became relentless so no I don't bother. Elon's own account is really the embodiment of the kind of place twitter has become. It would probably be good again if they summarily IP banned anyone who had ever bought a blue check.
I have no idea whether any of this has anything to do with the staff that were sacked, but I think it's a cautionary tale against tech bro 'disruptors' and the 'move fast and break things' philosophy. For all people rightly say 'twitter isn't real life', it used to be a pretty important gathering place for influential and interesting people in the UK politics, policy and journalism sphere. Now it tends to be like scrolling a big subreddit in 2014.
anti_dan
6mo ago
Youtube comments sections have gotten signifigantly further right over the last 3 years. That's basically social media.
You'd still get banned for saying "you cant be a woman and have a penis" so its still far left of the center.
This may be nonresponsive and a tangent to your guys' dialogue, which was fun to read, but thought I would add it since I looked some of this stuff up.
Catastrophic plans are available on the marketplace
Interesting! I was sure this had been banned and it looks like it pretty much was banned. You have to qualify for an exemption to even be eligible (<30 or poor enough to likely qualify for near total subsidy of another plan anyway) and also still covers the minimum requirements under the ACA like some preventative care and pregnancy.
This is a far cry from what "catastrophic" plans were not even 10 years ago. I got a grandfathered catastrophic plan from my health insurer when I graduated school. My max out-of-pocket was $5,000 and I paid $67 a mo and that included a sort of pre-purchase plan for eye and dental for another $20 or so. That plan kept getting enforcement waivers under Obamacare until it was finally banned as a parting gift of the Obama administration to the next one.
My "catastrophic plan" was better than a current bronze plan except the bronze plan covers a bunch of things I'll never need, and the current "catastrophic plan" now also costs over 6X+ ($420 was the quote I just got using the same age I was in the catastrophic plan) what my grandfathered, ACA noncompliant catastrophic plan, and the max out-of-pocket is now >30% higher than the inflation adjusted max-out-of-pocket. The current bronze plan quote is almost 10X what I paid for a catastrophic plan, the deductible is ~30% cheaper than the inflation adjusted max-out-pocket, and the out-of-pocket max is also >30% higher.
Wow! Hard to think this was in the medical wild west of yesteryear, 2016.
Felagund
7mo ago
Maybe see if you can find out from Trace what the old questions were?
I'd be interested in knowing religious composition, and whether the person is a convert to that tradition.
If someone would consider themselves a rationalist, rat-adjacent, rat-adjacent-adjacent, etc.—how many degrees people are out.
Whether/how many people on here they've met.
What other social media people use.
What their social security and credit card numbers are.
Find a list of questions, and then instruct people to answer a bunch of questions in a section with the answer they think most likely to be the most popular option (so, a Keynesian beauty contest), or, if you prefer, choose a prolific user, and have people try to answer what that person would answer. But people would want to see their results for that one, might be tricky.
What's one old user they wish were began frequenting this place again or were unbanned.
Number of siblings (and where in order). Number of children.
To clarify, I'm not saying that obsessively texting or calling someone should be illegal, and it's rarely more than an annoyance for the person at the receiving end. But I also think that pestering or bothering someone is bad behaviour, and that when the object of your affection has made it perfectly clear they aren't interested, you should respect that. I'd put on the same level as ghosting someone: obviously not calling for it to be banned or made a criminal offense (how could it?), but I consider it inconsiderate and disrespectful unless proven otherwise.
This is a nice moment to take stock of the situation. Up to this point, you have lost and abandoned every single object-level argument you have made, over and over again. In this comment, you have implicitly acknowledged that you have again abandoned another argument that you've lost.
You know nothing about
This is also a nice moment to reflect on the fact that while, "You're stupid," is a great and effective argument on the third grade playground, it's not very becoming in a place like The Motte... especially when you've just lost and abandoned every single argument you've made so far.
Now, to get to Chesterton's Fence, which is in a sense moving up to the meta level, mostly abandoning any actual argument that would benefit from real in-depth domain expertise at the level of the practice of medicine, but instead moving up to the question of the history/intent of the government action.
One thing that is always a bit tricky about Chesterton's Fence is its conceptualization of "intent". One doesn't have to go full Scalia to know that, when it comes to law, 'legislative intent' can be a tricky beast. Things are sometimes done for a variety of motives affecting multiple agents. Sometimes, it is just a banal compromise (something that no one really intends, but merely accepts). Sometimes, it's a confluence of surprisingly different intents; see also the famous Bootleggers and Baptists theory. So, with that in mind, let's go through a little of the history, and see what all we can say about it.
One could have a more expansive history, but I only have so much time in a day, so I think an acceptable place to start is 1937. Prior to this point, USP was a private organization that published their own compilations of drug information. (As Mitch Hedberg would say, they still do, but they used to, too.) Alongside this, the government did have a legitimate reason to ensure that consumers at least had some understanding of what products they were buying, so the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act adopted the USP and said that a drug was "adulterated" if it failed to meet the USP's standards. Then, a company brought an "elixir" to market that used diethylene glycol, causing lots of harm and about a hundred deaths. There was a clear gap in the law and standard, because if the product had been called a "solution" instead of an "elixir", there would have been no legal violation. (Note that liability damages are a separate question and plausible pathway to accomplishing some fence-like goals and may be a useful tool in the toolbox.)
Enter the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938. This was "intended", in the Chestertonian Fence sense, to be a more robust labeling law, in an extremely pre-information-age era. This fence was not intended to restrict a person's ability to self-medicate. With the above caveats about divining intent for fences from legislative history, FDA chief Walter G. Campbell said:
There is no issue, as I have told you previously, from the standpoint of the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act about self-medication. This bill does not contemplate its prevention at all. . . . But what is desired . . . is to make self-medication safe. [The bill provides] information that will permit the intelligent and safe use of drugs for self-medication. . . . All of the provisions dealing with drugs, aside from those recognized in the official compendia, are directed towards safeguarding the consumer who is attempting to administer to himself. If this measure passes, self-medication will become infinitely more safe than it has ever been in the past.
Sen. Royal S. Copeland (D-NY) said:
There is no more common or mistaken criticism of this bill than that it denies the right to self-medication. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The proposed law simply contributes to the safety of self-medication by preventing medicines from being sold as “cures” unless they really are cures. It requires that drugs which have only palliative effect say as much on the label.
The House committee reported:
The bill is not intended to restrict in any way the availability of drugs for self-medication. On the contrary, it is intended to make self-medication safer and more effective.
It wouldn't have made sense for the elixir tragedy to be the impetus for a law requiring prescriptions, because almost all of the deaths that came from the elixir were under the direction of a government-licensed physician. (Prior to any mandates, I'll note, some manufacturers voluntarily made their products "prescription-only", and one would have to have a separate exploration as to whether the intent there was commercial or something else. That said, I don't believe that they had required this drug to be prescription-only, but I'm not sure.) Having a prescription requirement would have saved almost none of the precious lives in question. Since then, we have not had any splashy self-medication string of deaths that would justify a prescription requirement, either. One other additional note at this point is that, even in the absence of such government requirements, the vast majority of people who took this drug did so under the direction of a doctor; many many people leveraged the expertise of medical professionals, because they found it valuable. It was not banned to leverage a doctor's expertise. (It just happened to get them killed when they followed the doctor's advice in this case.)
So what happened? Who intended it? Who built the fence and why? Turns out, the problem was mostly that the FDA was part incompetent, part just unfortunately operating in a pre-information-age era. They set out extremely vague, but strongly-worded labeling requirements. Manufacturers were scared off by how vague the requirements were, not even being sure how much stuff they really needed to put on the label to remain compliant, and in a world where all that information pretty much had to be printed directly on the little bottle, at great expense, many manufacturers were unhappy. Of course, in every regulatory scheme where half the job is keeping consumers happy and half of the job is keeping producers happy (and rich), and especially when the latter group is likely the buddy-buddy industry counterpart to the regulators with a revolving door, sometimes, you gotta do something to make the industry happy. So the FDA, on their own, without Congressional intent or authorization, just exempted medications that the manufacturer designated as prescription-only from their labeling requirements. How much of this is due to the fact that they were just not competent to come up with a more acceptable and precise labeling requirement and how much of it is just due to pre-information-era constraints? Not sure.
In any event, since manufacturers found the FDA's hamfisted labeling requirements so vague/onerous, they generally preferred to just take the exception, presumably with the Chestertonian intent to make more money and reduce their regulatory risk. I'm not even sure that the physicians were part of the bootleggers or baptists; they might not have even lobbied for this exception, only realizing later how lucrative the arrangement would be for them as well as the manufacturers. The result was that many drugs which were actually totally safe to self-administer suddenly became prescription-only, primarily because the FDA went out on its own in making new rules, did a kind of bad job at it, and manufacturers would now make more money this way.
In the next decade or so, there was clearly some confusion. The rules didn't make sense. There was no consistency or logic in whether a drug was prescription-only or not. It was entirely up to the manufacturer, who would presumably decide based on money and risk (mostly regulatory risk rather than safety risk). So, two professional pharmacists in Congress (unsurprisingly named Durham and Humphrey) created the Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951, which codified the prescription-only/OTC divide and put the decision under the purview of the FDA. Of course, don't forget, those drugs would be dispensed by professional pharmacists, folks near and dear to those two congressmen.
So, that's the story. What is the "intent" of the fence? Well, sure, consumer protection is in there somewhere. But it's pretty confused with tales of differing motives, incompetence, and plain difficulty of living in the past. Is it a messy story of how we got to where we are today? Absolutely. Does that mean that there aren't possible good features of the system we have today? Of course not. Does anything in there imply that this is the only plausible way of doing things and we'll have megadeaths if we do anything differently? I doubt it. But since we've now gone through the exercise of going through how the fence got there and why, perhaps we can turn back to the real questions: today, right now, what are the real, serious, justifications for such mandates/bannings?
jake
7mo ago
These three images are found in the article: 1 -- 2 -- 3
None of these images show gunshot wounds. These show children x-rayed after a bullet was placed beneath their heads or neck.
These are radiological findings of actual gunshot wounds to the head: 1 -- 2 -- 3
Image searching "cranial gunshot wound radiological imagery" is all you needed for the debunk.
Quoth the article:
These photographs of X-rays were provided by Dr. Mimi Syed, who worked in Khan Younis from Aug. 8 to Sept. 5. She said: “I had multiple pediatric patients, mostly under the age of 12, who were shot in the head or the left side of the chest. Usually, these were single shots. The patients came in either dead or critical, and died shortly after arriving.” Dr. Mimi Syed
That's damn bad luck she only had fakes to hand over. Guess we'll have to take her at her word, same for the journos and editors who applied I would estimate at approximately zero scrutiny and negative intelligence. On that note,
I believed the story because there's a huge number of people talking about what they saw treating casualties in Gaza
Nobody treating casualties in Gaza is a reliable source. The Israelis sure as hell aren't reliable either, but you are talking about the bleeding-est of bleeding hearts. These are people truly incapable of thinking about the conflict in terms any more complex than the immediately real of what they see treating the wounded. There is something admirable to those who go out of neither ethnic nor religious obligation, felt, implied, whatever. A white Catholic doctor treating those people, as I'm sure exists, is doing good, but they're never thinking critically. Critical thinking does not lend itself to going halfway around the world to treat war casualties. Critical isn't the same as clear, you know, they might be the clearest thinkers of all. Like, what the hell is everybody else thinking? People are dying and we can help. But if it is, that's warm, it's goodness, while realpolitik is frigid. If they're told an Israeli soldier shot the child they're treating, they will believe it, because they don't have it in them to doubt those who told them. Doubt would send them packing, but really, the doubt would make it so they never went.
I do not. I honestly have no desire to go looking for footage of children being gruesomely murdered, no matter how much it might strengthen my argument on an online forum. I'm aware that this is a dodge, but I'm sure you can appreciate that not only is graphic footage of child murder extremely hard to stomach, it is also banned by almost all major platforms and is frequently removed after it gets too "popular". I regret seeing the clips that I have seen and have no desire to repeat the experience.
This is a place for evidenced discussion and the evidence you provided is fake. To be clear, I don't believe you're commenting in good faith, I believe you're doing a good job at disguising mundane antisemitism. Namely because if you had seen as much graphic footage as you claim, you would know acute gunshot wounds to the head don't look like that. So either you're practicing sophistry in service of your point, or if I were to extend faith, it would mean you're too naive to yet comment on this issue, as it would be total indictment of your ability to assess the truth of things, such as your supposed videos. You take those bullet images uncritically, I must assume you take "graphic footage" equally uncritically. To match your anecdote, I've seen a lot of modern, graphic war footage over the last 15 years and I have not once seen a video anything like you describe.
So basically, pics or it didn't happen. Provide the video or stop citing it as though it has any bearing. I don't want to witness the child victims of war, but I've heard this so many times that I'd rather see it to know the truth of it than be forced to continue only speculating. I would certainly rather see it than take you at your word, because I will not take you at your word.
ControlsFreak
7mo ago
Having someone who's more intelligent than you, knows a lot more about medicine than you, and has had a lot of practice managing patients instructing you on what to do helps a lot.
No one is talking about banning doctors. There are options other than "mandatory" and "banned". You can still have literally every word of that.
The doctor has a list of all the medications you are taking
ROFL. Only if you tell him. Or he works for the same conglomerate as your other doctors with the same records system. And again, no one is preventing you from doing these things. And again again, they're generally just a second set of eyes, and a pharmacist does this. There are so many ways that you can have some eyes on what you're taking and look for interactions without blanket bans on prescription meds. But if the point is to make sure you don't take specific different medications at the same time, they're gonna need to be in your house 24/7.
Would it? Most of the time, when industry advocates are here arguing this sort of point, they're implicitly assuming that the use of medical professionals will drop to zero (or be banned). Thus, they're imagining the least knowledgeable person deciding on their own medical treatment. But when we look at the car maintenance world, we see the vast vast majority of low-knowledge folks still using automotive professionals. The rate of self-injury is, indeed, low, but someone needs a bit more than arguments from bad imagination if they're going to rest on a claim that the rate of self-injury would surely be "quite a bit" higher.
You hear this same shit from the realtor cartel, and frankly, any cartel that wants to maintain its market power. "Oh real estate transactions are so complicated; can you imagine how the sky would fall if we didn't get our 3% cut of every transaction?! PEOPLE WOULD BE HARMED!" You know what really would happen if you lost some of the sketchier tools to maintain your market control? First, you'd probably have to clean up your act, but second, lots and lots of people would still use you, but for your actual expertise, rather than because they think they're basically forced into it. Sure, will there be some harm that didn't occur before? Probably. But there's some harm now that wouldn't occur then, too. You need an actual argument about magnitudes rather than just imagination.
EDIT: Remember when it was every state, rather than just two states, who banned you from pumping your own gas into your car? Surely there were folks saying how risky and dangerous it would be (gasoline is flammable, don'cha'kno?) to let ignoramus individuals do it. How's that argument looking for those two states that have held on to it?
ControlsFreak
7mo ago
If you are okay with putting a bullet in the head of anyone who uses medical care without expert opinion in any way that causes a societal cost then sure.
This is a wildly disproportionate and frankly bizarre thing to say. We could just not do that. Or are we currently required to be okay with putting a bullet in the head of anyone who works on their car without expert opinion in any way that causes a societal cost?
But let's be clear what you're doing here. You've become unable to defend your previous position that would imply that we must ban individuals from performing auto repair, so you're playing a two-part threat. Claiming that we must restrict supply because we've subsidized demand. It's a lucrative hustle in crony capitalism if you can control the government in this way. But we can easily dismantle the threat, cut the Gordian knot, and just not do any of that stuff. Just stop. Stop putting bullets in people's heads. Stop making everything either banned or mandatory.
Paternalism is good to some extent it's why we have building codes and financial regulations and you know....laws.
This is completely absurd. If we have any law, we must have one particular set of laws that benefit your industry. Just utterly disconnected from reality. This sort of reasoning can justify literally any regulation, no matter how insanely stupid, no matter how insanely destructive, no matter how insanely corrupt. "What? You want no laws whatsoever?" Come on. Be serious.
ControlsFreak
7mo ago
I'm sure all of that is very helpful to many people, but we're not talking about banning doctors. Remember, we are not stuck with just two possibilities of "banned" and "mandatory". For many, could you not just have massive warning labels that say, "This product is meant to treat specific conditions in specific ways; please consult a medical expert before use," in case someone has difficulty identifying the correct medication? They could still be sold by pharmacists, who can inform you of what you need to know about it (as they already do). If you show any uncertainty, they can say, "If you don't know, you should contact a doctor." The checking in sounds mostly paternalistic, basically just a verbal reminder; what's the real point here if you're not physically making sure they're doing as instructed?
Because remember, you're not actually making sure that they're not taking the medication incautiously. You're not actually going into their home and dispensing a precise dose at a precise time. You're an occasional verbal reminder that they need to comply with the instructions on the package of the TB drugs, another set of eyes to check if there are other medications that might interact. You're not actually stopping them from doing something dangerous.
Some medications have side effects that will very rapidly kill you that are rare enough patients wouldn't think of them
What do you actually do about that?
EDIT: The warning label can even say, "This product is dangerous if not used correctly," or even, "This product is dangerous even if used correctly," with another recommendation to consult a medical professional.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
7mo ago
Can you link the x-ray pictures you considered credible, so the debunking would be more direct?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/09/opinion/gaza-doctor-interviews.html
I'm just going directly with the story posted by the NYT. I tried looking for a debunking of the story, but the only ones I could find were on websites with huge DONATE TO ISRAEL NOW buttons which made me a bit skeptical of their motivations. I believed the story because there's a huge number of people talking about what they saw treating casualties in Gaza, and it is consistent with all the other reporting I've seen come out of the region. There have been multiple reports of Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian children for several years, and I don't see why the current circumstances would make them stop doing that.
For what it's worth, if you've got video evidence of the attacks, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.
I do not. I honestly have no desire to go looking for footage of children being gruesomely murdered, no matter how much it might strengthen my argument on an online forum. I'm aware that this is a dodge, but I'm sure you can appreciate that not only is graphic footage of child murder extremely hard to stomach, it is also banned by almost all major platforms and is frequently removed after it gets too "popular". I regret seeing the clips that I have seen and have no desire to repeat the experience.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
7mo ago
is precisely why what you are doing ought to be criminalized.
Well. You are allowed to argue that political views you don't like should be criminalized, but we are going to insist you keep it in the realm of civil discourse, which means not going after the posters you don't like personally.
Unfortunately you are not as clever as @SecureSignals, who usually manages to keep his Jew-hating impersonal. I would probably have let all the "you you you" "racist treason genocidal hypocrisy" statements pass, except you just piled them up and up and ended with this:
The idea of destroying other nations except the Jewish one is an insane megalomaniac ideology that ironically shares plenty with pop culture idea of Nazism. Albeit you are a bit more sneaky about it.
This is not the first time you've been told not to get personal and to avoid slinging insults and insinuations at other posters that they are part of some nefarious Joo-spiracy because they are pro-Israel or pro-Jewish. Last time you got a short ban, because it had been a while, but since then you've accumulated several more warnings for doing the same thing, so you do not seem to be learning. This thread is full of reports on your wall-of-text diatribes, and while the wall-of-text diatribes are (mostly) within the rules, if generally just kind of shitty and inflammatory, attacking other posters directly is not.
Banned for a week.
BlindDeafRat
7mo ago
I'm not really sure what you want, but if I'm understanding you correctly you can look at the repressor general/repgen on 4chan's /lgbt/ board. I don't know if it's still like that, because I haven't checked it in years, but the general idea is that they want to transition but won't because they wouldn't pass, or they do take HRT but don't present as women. Some voice train to sound feminine, but only use it online. While some of them don't take HRT at all, I think a sizable amount do, so it should still fit your criteria.
There's a also something similar "boymodding", but from what I understand that's usually temporary(present as male while in the early stages of HRT/pre face feminization surgery). There's also something called "Manmodding" that's supposed to be more permanent, but I only know the terms in passing.
Looking through the archives through an archival site like this is probably the best way to do it, since individual threads won't offer much more than "woe is me". There's also the AGP threads on the archives you can check(think they're banned on the board, although enforcement is selective), agpgen is way more interesting, but they are pro transition unlike repgen. If you don't know, you can change the repgen in the subject to agpgen if you want to search the other.
As far as info goes on what you want, that's probably the most easily accessible public source. It won't be easy to sift through it to get to the information you want, but it is there, somewhere.
Wouldn't have transitioned in similar circumstances, in the cultural climate of, say, 20+ years ago, (i.e. comparing to counterfactual of born 20 years earlier, making decision 20 years ago, not comparing to past self) but did transition in recent years (or is about to start transition now)
I feel like that's the case for most of them. If it was 20 years ago, and even if you had gender dysphoria you'd suppress it, or manage it through crossdressing or other ways. If you wanted to transition back then you really had to seek it out. The average transwoman from back then is a whore or a porn actor. These days it's much more visible, you see a lot of news about trans topics, even if you don't really see anyone who is trans, meanwhile online you have entire communities which are easily found by anyone. And the process of transition is easier too, you can order HRT online easily, and there's tons of guides to regarding dosages and other stuff relating to it. I don't have any statistics, but quite a few trans people did either start through DIY and then switched to official, or stayed DIY.
Another thing to look at more specifically is the last few years, aka Covid. This is completely anecdotal, but I think that if you look back to the years 2020, 2021, and 2022 you will see a huge spike in transitions. Everyone being inside and online, meant you were more likely to spend time thinking about it and see it and wearing a mask made passing easier too which helped with the woes of early transition.
Profile meaning:
As to this, if you want the most common example you can look at a "failed males". Nerdy interests, no friends, shut in, depressed, anxious, likely autistic. There's also an incel to trans pipeline too. HRT has created irreparable changes to any community that has a lot of autistic males, like programming, speed running, video games in general. There's definitely examples of successful people transitioning, but most were depressed prior. There's reason for the 42%? attempted suicide rate, that's often spammed online as a meme.
Although looking at your past posts, I feel like this post might not really be of much use to you, but whatever. Since you mentioned autogynephilia in an earlier post, but I hope it at least offers something.
Ironically it's not easy to export energy to the northeast because they banned everything from pipelines to ships to high voltage wires.
The Canadians basically have a monopoly on selling them energy because they can tap into the existing local grid without building anything new on the American side, take advantage of grandfathered pipelines, and legally deliver LNG due to the shipping being international rather than interstate.
Fuentes is not alt-lite, the alt-lite is not alright because alt-right talking points are now fairly ubiquitous on X. Things like remigration and "Great Replacement" and "anti-white" are all essentially mainstream. The alt-lite doesn't have a market anymore because the alt right is going mainstream, and that was the entire purpose of the alt-lite, to try to grift on the parts of the alt-right that were congruent enough with the mainstream to not get banned.
I'm not sure if you're just gullible, but it's absolutely not Nick Fuentes in that Destiny leak. That is a claim which has been made mostly by the "Dissident Right" figures surrounding the BAP/Peter Thiel network who all hate Fuentes because Fuentes calls them out as crypto-Jewish dissemblers who adopt an Aryan Twitter aesthetic and then try to orient the Alt-Right in a pro-Israel, Kosher direction. So they have no problem lying, I guess, to hurt Fuentes in a scandal he's not involved in whatsoever.
The online DR is as fractured as ever, as someone on DR twitter yesterday made an apt comparison to Gangs of New York. But the "rumor" about Fuentes and Destiny is just a lie perpeatured by the left-wing and especially BAP factions of X, who are knowingly lying. But burning their credibility to get at Fuentes is worth it for them, I guess?
I say this as someone who doesn't like the Christian Nationalist project of Fuentes, for basically the reasons given by Richard Spencer.
More options
Context Copy link