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

Showing 25 of 10488 results for

domain:amphobian.info

A minor thing that may help (no guarantees) is learning how to bike without your hands on the handlebars (at least temporarily). Essentially this is going at a sufficient medium speed, and “shifting” your body weight or center of balance a little more towards your hips. It also forces you to make your pedal cycle more consistent and regular. You bike straight and one handed, then slowly practice shifting your weight back slightly, so that at first you are lightly resting the hand on top of the handlebars, or floating one or the other on top, and then practice removing it for longer periods of time (of course you can grab it back with one or ideally both hands carefully if you wobble). Eventually you can get to a point where you can, on flat and straight roads without traffic, bike straight with your hands on your hips or so. Note that this works best on a more mountain bike style bike, some road bikes have seats and/or handlebars that deliberately force you to assume more of an aerodynamically superior forward lean position. You also can’t really do this on any kind of notable incline.

I’m not completely positive if that would help or anything, but maybe? The process of learning it for me at least was helpful for getting a better and more intuitive sense of where my balance is and could be, though I already had spent a decent time biking so idk.

Also yes, perhaps adjust your seat too.

Darwin had a particular style of bad faith

appear dishonest and manipulative

Do you have a clear example of this? Because every time I saw people get into heated arguments with him and accused him of "bad faith" or being "manipulative", it was mostly just the two sides not understanding each others' positions. I didn't follow him super closely so maybe there are some clear counterexamples, but I have a somewhat strong bias towards the null hypothesis that people just didn't like him because they disagreed with him, so they claimed he was "bad faith". Every time someone has accused me of being bad faith on this site, it's been exactly that: a stronger, somewhat more intellectual way of saying "I disagree with you".

Autism can lead to people not having an innate understanding of why social rules work the way they do

Most normal neurotypical people don't understand why social rules work the way they do. They just can intuit what the rules are and don't question following them. Trying to get them to actually explain these arbitrary rules and why this particular variation exist is a maddening exercise in futility. It almost always results in a tautology.

It was a hypothetical example.

I think smartphones/TikTok/AI are making us lose our attention, our ability to analyze and to think, and they don't offer anything in return (AI could in theory take over our thinking for us, but I doubt it will, and even if it did it raises the question of who's going to fix it if it breaks down). It's akin to becoming dependent on cooking, and losing our ability to do so, but it's not literally the same thing.

I guess I might be more willing to believe Adelstein was serious if I saw him walking around everywhere with a broom and facemask--and if he does, he's still wrong, but at least he's not performatively wrong.

When I saw the article, the thought occurred to me that it was an awful lot of work to re-invent Jainism.

Dude, there are literally thousands of people being removed from the country weekly who, in the world we lived in last year, were in no danger of deportation. Many had some form of legal or protected status, others had simply been living here for decades.

The world now is, for those people, completely unlike the one they lived in last year.

So yeah, research into alternatives is a reasonable thing to start doing on the off chance we see similar changes by next year.

Don't paraphrase unflatteringly. Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

But he's not accusing anyone specifically of believing the things he's pillorying? He's not claiming all Republicans believe what he said. At worst, maybe you could say his mention of the "Online Right" was overbroad, but the way he capitalized it meant it was different than "anyone online who is right wing". Is the issue that you think no single Republican thinks these things? If that's the case I'm 100% certain you're incorrect.

I don't understand how the use of quotation marks in general would be worthy of a ban, or what you mean by "scare quotes". E.g. writing HBD as "HBD" probably just means he thinks it's a euphemism that he doesn't really agree with, but he's using it here for the sake of clarity as that's what it's often referred to. None of his other use of quotation marks seem bad either.

This seems like a ban based on vibes alone. Here's a post from a year ago that came from a right-wing that IMO is far worse, and yet it didn't get a ban or even a warning.

If I’m willing to pay $5 for a coffee, and someone else says it’s worth $100, why wouldn’t I think that person is misguided?

This view of suffering, as some sort of negative imposed on life, is bizarre to me.

It almost seems gnostic: we've been trapped by a terrible demiurge into a prison world of suffering. If only we can deprive ourselves of enough material items (now including honey) in this prison world, we'll finally be able to reach the perfect spiritual realm.

Photosynthesis provides far too little calories of sugar. Outsourcing your photosynthesis to a large quantity of plants gives you enough energy for a high metabolism and big brain.

Let’s say there was a flipped left-wing version of the motte, same policies and everything. Most commenters downvoting/arguing for the ban of seemingly “antagonistic, bad faith” left-wingers like Turok and Darwin would not survive there.

Maybe that's how the fight looks like in the next 5-10 years, but again, I think you're being insufficiently imaginative. Imagine instead a realignment so that the feuding sides are, "people should keep the sexual orientation and felt gender identity they're naturally predispositioned to" versus "we should precisely schedule changes in sexual and gender organization across several developmental thresholds to create well-behaved citizens." Something utterly bizzare, like making every kindergartener a girl so that they all play peacefully, then transitioning people to man or woman based off which educational track they used, combined with making people gay during their early teens so they don't have accidental pregnancies, but making them EXTREMELY straight going into adulthood to make sure their parents get grandchildren.

I remember seeing stories on the news about how our troops deployed to Iraq weren't properly equipped, that either they didn't have gas masks or the gas masks didn't work properly. This seemed kind of insane, since the whole reason to go to war was because Iraq had chemical weapons, so in that case wouldn't you want to be really sure the gas masks worked? Probably was not a conspiracy though, probably just normal incompetence.

I'm suddenly struggling to find a proper term to describe posters like Turok - I understand that, presumably, there's a plethora of posters on the Motte that would identify as left-leaning that don't act in the way Turok and others like him do, but I can't quite find a good way to describe them.

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make - in my experience, posters like him tend to flame out badly when they interact with forums that are neutral and/or lightly-conservative-leaning. It's far from a Motte-only problem.

"Liberalism in the way it was meant 200 years ago" is pretty common here, and yes Christian values are part of that because they're significant rootstock of the project.

"Liberalism as used by David French to describe Ketanji Brown Jackson" is not, and is unrelated to the first definition, despite being more common in the common discourse.

Alas! Language evolves.

People just hated Darwin since he was unabashedly left-wing.

Hard disagree. Darwin had a particular style of bad faith in the way he argued his left-wing positions that made left-wing arguments appear dishonest and manipulative, and that's why I personally was glad he didn't come to this site and stopped interacting with GuessWho once GuessWho revealed that he was Darwin2500 from Reddit.

Intermediate gym-goer for a decade. I started rucking a year or so ago, just recently decided I was doing it enough and enjoying it enough to splurge on nicer equipment than "old backpack full of dumbbell weights".

It's combining them into a back-to-back mega workout that I've only thought of doing in the last few weeks... because yeah, the individual ones weren't getting me to exhausted ecstasy anymore.

Hm.

Maybe I will just double check the macro/nutrient basics and otherwise enjoy the post-workout fugue while it lasts, and while my schedule permits me to devote a third of a day to exercise/recovery multiple times per week.

This burning hatred for any left-of center commenter is embarassing.

Unfortunate feedback loop gets generated that the most obnoxiously combative are most likely to stick around, until you get Turoks that everyone hates and provide no positive comments, and after that point anyone even vaguely associated gets tarred with the same brush.

Extremely difficult to undo at this stage.

Prop 8 in California passed just 17 years ago, banning gay marriage - it was struck down by a judge.

I would volunteer that gay marriage has never been as popular as people have claimed, and support has either been driven by wide-spread media-driven propaganda, the social pressure to 'be nice', gays are very much a minority in the wider population(hence, lack of exposure), or a mix of all of the above.

But now that we've had 17 years of exposure to how all this works out, people have become more negative toward it.

True. So let me modify the question a bit.

He may not want to personally reduce suffering as much as possible. But not only does he not do it himself, he also seems to think that people who do do so are misguided. Why would he think that it's misguided to reduce suffering as much as possible?

(In fact, let's rephrase that again: Given that someone wants to reduce animal suffering, why does he think it's misguided to do so efficiently?)

A lot of anime. It overlaps with "humans don't deserve to exist" quite a bit.

Smoked canned oysters aren't bad but they're not nearly as good as fresh with a little mignonette. Even more fun is finding a decent oyster bar to sample a few varieties and compare the merroir.

I don’t think this is true, but I suppose it’s rather hard to prove.

There’s no particular statement that crossed the line, but if I had to point to the biggest red flag, I’d blame the scare quotes.

Don't paraphrase unflatteringly. Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

He's a nazi who pretends to be inoffensive braindead left and gets banned for ban evasion, he's nothing like Turok.

It's a massive implicit value judgement like the egregious slimeball that successfully argued Just Mayo as in "justice" is acceptable.

I don't care about calling pea-protein-derived spread "mayo." I do care about abusing multiple definitions of the word "just" in misleading ways, and someone should regularly egg Josh Tetrick's house for this offense against language and decency.

"Just" go ahead and label it "we're the good guys, neener neener."