domain:npr.org
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
30m ago
crushedoranges
30m ago
I note that Bezos had a noted aversion to helicopter flight (perhaps a part a fear of flight, a part knowing the horrible safety record of personal helicopters) that he seems to have gotten over, just for this woman. To the point where he would go on longer helicopter rides just to hang out with her.
I don't know if you've ever been in a helicopter, but it's like putting your head next to a concert amp playing the sound of a chainsaw. No amount of plastic titties can overcome that. There are easier ways to get with a chick then that. I am inclined to believe that he is genuinely infatuated with her.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
34m ago
First, the idea of sin isn't that you avoid sin because God will punish you for it, but because sin is bad in and of itself:
Well - yes, that's mostly what I said. I avoid [bad thing], because [bad thing] is bad in and of itself, when you dig down to the root of it. And I understand that in the Christian tradition, doing good things and not doing bad things is also thought to bring man closer to the state of Heaven.
The issues begin when people's intuition of what is good [joyful, peaceful, knowledgeable and powerful] starts coming in conflict with what the Good Book tells us is good [mostly focusing on what God said is good], and somewhere in the middle the church muddles things further. I as an atheist do not grok "sin" because "sin" to me is specifically something that a Higher Power has ontologically, fundamentally deemed to be Bad and which is separate from what a human might deem bad for their own purposes and with their own frame of seeing things. Because I do not believe into a Higher Power, or that even if a small-h higher power exists it does not hold fundamental authority over morals, I am not moved by condemnations of sin. As I said elsewhere, if a thing is harmful you don't need the S word to justify its harmfulness.
FtttG
35m ago
Because if it felt good to be sexy even in the absence of an audience, women would dress exactly the same way while lounging around at home as they do when out in public. No woman spends an hour applying makeup just so she can rot in bed watching Netflix, ergo the audience (whether male, female or both) must be a necessary ingredient in the cocktail.
pigeonburger
35m ago
It's not that men can't cook, I can actually cook great (by standards of men my age, though my brother is actually much better). But I also don't take much care of myself and if there's no one I'm accountable to and for, I'll probably go for least effort solutions (fast food, or junk frozen meals).
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
37m ago
I think I'd distinguish between being able to prepare a meal and being able to cook. I can prepare simple meals without a recipe and moderately more complicated ones with, but I would still describe myself as not being able to cook. I don't have the knowledge nor inclination to stray far from known recipes, and while I enjoy the results I very rarely enjoy the process. My wife on the other hand can take pretty much anything lying around in the kitchen and make an at least palatable meal out of it and almost never follows recipes even when it is her first time making a dish. She both has the knowledge and experience to make things up on the fly and enjoys the process nearly as much as the end result. I don't know exactly where the boundary between being able to cook and not being able to lies, but I'd put it somewhere between us.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
38m ago
I wouldn't know, but we do sometimes call them Schmuddelfilm.
Rov_Scam
38m ago
There was no buffet of 20 year olds to pick from, it wasn’t like that, and the billionaires who do live that lifestyle are essentially plugged into the party circuit, big time nightclub promoters, model / escort agents and so on on the Cannes/Miami/LA/Mykonos circuit with which Bezos was not really familiar pre-Sanchez given he was a nerd who mainly attended sober economics conferences.
Unless you're Joe Hardy and marry 22-year-old single moms from economic backwaters.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
38m ago
What does "assimilate" even mean in this context?
hanikrummihundursvin
43m ago
Jeff Bezos is one of the rarest.
hanikrummihundursvin
43m ago
I understand the point but in relation to Jeff Bezos you are not explaining how having a wife is easier than having paid assistants do all of the things that need to be done.
hanikrummihundursvin
45m ago
I don't think men will be eating a lot of take-out sandwiches if they are billionaires and can afford a private chef.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
48m ago
I think it's pretty clear they reduce overdoses and the waste of paramedic/hospital resources.
It's also incredibly clear that alone they do nothing to actually fix anything. They're a Band-Aid for symptom management as we treat the underlying issue. Problem is, we don't bother to treat any of the underlying issues.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
50m ago
Safe injection sites
They reduce overdoses and time wasted by paramedics/hospitals treating the same 100 people over and over again.
They clearly don't make less people use drugs.
Their biggest issue imo, is that the Venn diagram of people who implement SIS and people who also implement the more draconian measures for the un-savable drug addicts are two different circles. And then the awful addicts are left to ruin it for everyone.
FlyingLionWithABook
Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.
55m ago
As far as the judgment thing goes, Lewis had some more to say! First, the idea of sin isn't that you avoid sin because God will punish you for it, but because sin is bad in and of itself:
People often think of Christian morality as a kind of bargain in which God says, "If you keep a lot of rules I'll reward you, and if you don't I'll do the other thing." I do not think that is the best way of looking at it. I would much rather say that every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a heavenly creature or into a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow-creatures, and with itself.
To be the one kind of creature is heaven: that is, it is joy and peace and knowledge and power. To be the other means madness, horror, idiocy, rage, impotence, and eternal loneliness. Each of us at each moment is progressing to the one state or the other.
As for why you should feel guilty, well, do you think a bad character is something to feel proud about? I'm a coward: I have learned that about myself. I feel shame about it. I'm trying not to be one any longer! I don't think feeling guilty about our flaws is that strange a thing to feel. When we think about God as the ultimate Judge it might be better to focus less on the potential punishment for our crimes, so to speak, then for the fact that who we are will be judged, and judged perfectly. Lewis writes a bit on this as well in his essay "The World's Last Night":
We have all encountered judgments or verdicts on ourselves in this life. Every now and then we discover what our fellow creatures really think of us. I don’t of course mean what they tell us to our faces: that we usually have to discount. I am thinking of what we sometimes overhear by accident or of the opinions about us which our neighbours or employees or subordinates unknowingly reveal in their actions: and of the terrible, or lovely, judgments artlessly betrayed by children or even animals. Such discoveries can be the bitterest or sweetest experiences we have. But of course both the bitter and the sweet are limited by our doubt as to the wisdom of those who judge. We always hope that those who so clearly think us cowards or bullies are ignorant and malicious; we always fear that those who trust us or admire us are misled by partiality. I suppose the experience of the Final Judgment (which may break in upon us at any moment) will be like these little experiences, but magnified to the Nth.
For it will be infallible judgment. If it is favorable we shall have no fear, if unfavorable, no hope, that it is wrong. We shall not only believe, we shall know, know beyond doubt in every fibre of our appalled or delighted being, that as the Judge has said, so we are: neither more nor less nor other. We shall perhaps even realise that in some dim fashion we could have known it all along. We shall know and all creation will know too: our ancestors, our parents, our wives or husbands, our children. The unanswerable and (by then) self-evident truth about each will be known to all.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
56m ago
How, other than dropping shotguns?
More physical challenges. Practical shooting prior to this type of match (IPSC/USPSA, 3-gun/UML) demand more choreographed physical movements- you basically dance through the stages. Step here, shoot here, reload here, most accurate within the fastest time to last shot fired wins. At its worst, it's a memory game; at its best, it's exhibitionism shooting. This is why the use of shotguns is compatible with 3-gun, since those matches are more reloading contests than anything else (using a shotgun that you don't have to do that with puts you in Open division, where you're competing with people wearing 15,000 dollars of equipment).
Brutality matches are a lot more "perform this physical challenge over these obstacles, then shoot the gun", "run 400 yards then shoot a spinning target 300 yards away so many times it goes all the way over" (3-gun has some of that but not a lot), "throw this kettlebell and wherever it lands, shoot, then do that again until you get to the end". It turns out that it's quite difficult to shoot after significant physical exertion- that's why biathlon and (to a lesser extent) pentathlon are as challenging as they are.
Oh! Yeah, that were cool.
The project, and what it did to the rest of Guntube, form the genesis of my understanding of rifles in general. While 9HoleReviews and Ivan (the gun-printing one, either on his own or as part of Fuddblasters) are far more intelligent than IRTV is now, I wouldn't have the requisite level of understanding without them.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
57m ago
Not either of these unfortunately. Definitely post-split, likely post-covid. My top guess is that it was linked in theschism. Will play with the search engine, thanks.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
57m ago
Cooking is simple (like going to the gym), but it's a hassle until you're just used to doing it. And for many I assume the calculation goes "I'm less assed eating a lazy meal/paying for takeout than I am instilling a habit to cook".
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
59m ago
I as well am master of the culinary arts. Still my wife is better, hands down.
I'm not suggesting men have to be this way. I'm suggesting often they simply don't care enough to bother.
No_one
1hr ago
Mackenzie looks odd. She's got a very long neck, her hips are narrow. If she had a nice figure like Sanchez, even a less bouncy natural one and a proportional neck she'd be pretty attractive, but she's really a scarecrow.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1hr ago
Prescribing cocaine and heroin is, unfortunately, not a viable cure for depression.
Has anyone tried? In the manner of these studies I mean, not by just looking at addicts. People whove done heroin generally report that naive use is an experience beyond anything they had before. I would not be surprised if this influences people even months later. But it also might not, there are always those pescy details. E.g. maybe it overlaps too much with the alcohol high to show effects in our society.
Its more that we have now found multiple drugs with different mechanisms of action, but apparently similar in terms of how they are used and effect against depression, and all of them are used recreationally for their short-term effects. That suggests to me that it works off the recreational bit, and it again wouldnt be super surprising if it did. "Drugs can make you feel better when used responsibly" is hardly a new insight - the entire problem is the way they lead to non-responsible use.
Also curious what you think of this one.
No_one
1hr ago
Cooking is simple. Just read the instructions, then do it. 2/3rds of recipes can't really be messed up in a truly bad way either.
I keep hearing about these guys I can't cook, but looking at my parents I'm pretty sure "can't cook" is just calculation. "If I never learn to cook she can't ask me to cook."
I started cooking for myself as soon as I lost access to subsidized meals. It wasn't difficult at all. Pretty much every single guy I've ever lived with could also cook. Not that big a sample, sure, and they were mostly engineers, but still..
Rov_Scam
1hr ago
I think Hood is underrated, but only to the extent that he was merely a bad general and not in contention for the worst the Confederacy had to offer. What frustrates me with a lot of Civil War discourse, especially online, is the same thing I mentioned earlier about judging actions with knowledge of the outcome in place. Yes, Hood's actions look bad when we know they were unsuccessful. The problem is that, at the time, it wasn't obvious that these actions were worse than any of the realistic alternatives.
To put the whole issue into proper context: In the spring and summer of 1864, the overall Confederate strategy was hold off the Union until the November elections, in the hope that war weariness would usher in a new administration with a mandate to make some kind of deal. To this end, it wasn't critical that they score any major victories, but it was critical that they prevent the Union from getting any of their own. Ever since losing Chattanooga the Joe Johnston playbook had been to stake out a defensive position, only to abandon it after getting outflanked. He'd given Davis repeated assurances that he'd hold behind this river or whatever, then not like his position and retreat. After several weeks of this Sherman is on the outskirts of Atlanta, a city the Confederacy can't afford to lose, and Johnston is talking about giving it up.
At this point Davis, who didn't like Johnston to begin with, is getting fed up and is probably getting deja vu about the Peninsula campaign, where Johnston did the same thing around Richmond, which probably would have fallen if Lee hadn't taken over and changed strategy. So Johnston gets cashiered in favor of Hood, who has a reputation for fighting and will at least make an attempt at fending off Sherman and saving Atlanta. Hood, true to his word, launched a series of ill-fated assaults against Sherman that do nothing to stave off the inevitable and only serve to inflict casualties he can't afford to lose. Buffs like to argue that Johnston would have at least kept his army intact, but an intact army is useless if it isn't going to defend anything, let alone something as critical as Atlanta. There was pressure from the president, the state legislatures, and the public to do something, and Hood at least did something. I'm not going to comment on whether what he did was ideal because I'm not an expert on battlefield tactics, but the buffs who criticize Hood aren't criticizing his execution.
So now, to get closer to answering your question, we get to the fall, after Atlanta is in Union hands and Sherman is aiming to push to Savannah. Hood didn't attempt to stop him because he knew that the endeavor was pointless. He could have slowed the march but not stopped it; he would have fallen farther and farther back, desertions and casualties increasing with every passing mile, and there would have been nothing left of his army by the time Sherman got to the ocean. Furthermore, there would have been no reason for Thomas to keep his troops in Tennessee. He could have either invaded Alabama unopposed, or joined up with Sherman to give him 120,000 men to Hood's 40,000. So Hood made the decision to move toward the Alabama line, cutting off Sherman's communications. This would purportedly compel Sherman to leave Atlanta and divide his army, sending one wing to protect the threat to Tennessee and the other to hunt down Hood, who would get the opportunity to fight the remaining forces in Georgia on the ground of his choosing.
Sherman did indeed give chase, and Hood found the area he wanted to give battle, but Sherman showed up with his entire army, which was more than Hood could handle. At this point, Hood was stuck; if he took up a position, Sherman could do the same, and hold him there while Thomas came down from Nashville to hold him while he turned toward Savannah. Or he could hold him while he sent Thomas into Alabama, before turning toward the sea and forcing Hood to give chase, which wouldn't do anything but waste Hood's time. So instead he decided to give up Georgia and head north to Kentucky, hoping he'd have better luck where he wasn't at such a numerical disadvantage. If nothing else, it would keep the Union out of Alabama.
It's worth also noting that the Confederate army was having serious problems with desertion at this point, largely driven by the hopelessness of the situation. The buffs who talk about how Johnston would have at least preserved his army don't realize that no one wants to spend weeks putting his ass on the line in rear guard actions defending land you intend on giving up in a few hours without any immediate prospects for taking the initiative. On the other hand, if you go to Tennessee where you can win a few battles and keep the Yanks out of Alabama, there's much less temptation to desert. If nothing else, it might force Sherman to pursue and backtrack out of Georgia.
For Hood's part, he was wildly overambitious, thinking he could march straight into Kentucky, replenish his army with locals, and force Sherman to abandon Georgia to keep him from crossing the Ohio or, alternatively, that he could march from there into Virginia and hit Grant in the rear, crushing his army. Fantastical, yes, but at this point in the war, the only way to keep morale up and preserve any chance of winning is to go for a knockout blow. Even defeating Schoefield would have been enough to effect a short-term reorganization of Union priorities. Again, we can argue about whether poor tactical decisions led to Hood's downfall and the destruction of The Army of Tennessee, but criticism of Hood isn't that he blundered away good opportunities; to the contrary, if anything good is said about him it's that he was a competent corps commander under Lee but was too aggressive to command an army. His actions were all failures, but it's not like there were a ton of obvious alternatives.
WhiningCoil
1hr ago
Oh I think it can very well both be true that a whole class of people are undesirable and that there is no realistic way of getting rid of them.
I mean, I would be content to start restricting suffrage, ending birthright citizenship, and generally "fortifying" out democracy from being co-opted by third world mobs.
Unfortunately, the more I study history, the more I see that all political solutions are temporary. There is only one solution that is permanent, and history is littered with the names of long extinct tribes. Mere curiosities with no survivors to complain, and by and large, the world is better off with that being so.
Damn right. They'll be delivered.
More options
Context Copy link