domain:ryandv.substack.com
2D3D
17m ago
This is a fairly common consequence of webbing parallel benefits. Its like asylum claims in Europe: on the face of it the individual benefits of the doubt accorded to asylum seekers to process their claims seem innocuous, but combined they just mean it is better to be a total noncompliant asshole. Burn your papers, deny all attempts at age verification, claim religious/sexual discrimination and deny requests for proof on the grounds of 'danger', claim benefits while working illegally, fight deportation requests all the way, then bring your family over or convince a leftist that their love will stand the test of time. Stay six years and once your asylum request is rejected say you have built a life and cannot go back, letting a new court adjudicate your stay.
Individually all the above actions are minor points meant to ease the life of 'traumatized' individuals, put together they are an ironclad web of perverse incentives that impoverish the state for no benefit.
Forgotpassword
19m ago
Super slowburn romances, lots of grand gestures of romance, incredibly pretty boys without particular masculine push.
anti_dan
22m ago
Its not that rare, its just that people typically understand the formation as if it would be difficult to not be in that status anymore. Most high school boys are virgins. But they generally have no way of alleviating that. Any post pubescent girl can "fix" being a virgin by going up to an unattached guy and propositioning him.
Glassnoser
25m ago
What do you mean it isn't wrong? My friend with by far the most successful love live in high school and university told me that getting a girlfriend is something that "just happens" and that you don't need to try. Is that what you're referring to? Because that doesn't work.
SteveKirk
25m ago
My favorite teacher always told us tattoos were stupid because identifying marks show up on arrest warrants and interpol dossiers, so real professionals would never be caught dead with one.
Best thing you could say to influence 11 year old boys.
Forgotpassword
27m ago
Yeah. Lots of girls will do that where they'll make an app account, be exposed to the firehose of approaches, maybe do a date or two and if that person is good they've got a boyfriend and if that person is lacking they'll delete and be back in 6 months.
Forgotpassword
28m ago
Yes. Definitely hugely skews that way in my geographic area.
How can I convince my kids in 5 years that they do not need or want to have one just to fit in, and that they're too expensive and most people will regret having them for various reasons?
Do things that get them to respect your values and opinions. There is no argument you can provide that will convince them if that foundation isn't there.
I'll also give you a different perspective, since there are many people who are anti-tattoo here. If you really hate the idea of tattoos on your kids, you can consider my point of view and work against it for maximum protection. Personally, I would say your post is a great argument against bad tattoos, and making permanent decisions based on peer pressure. Hopefully your kids don't fall into either of those traps. It's important for you to instill a good sense of taste and self-assuredness in them - that may or may not mean that they end up getting into tattoo culture, but hopefully that means they avoid a saggy butterfly tramp stamp.
I only recently got into tattoos, and I am in my 30s. I had no desire in my younger years - my earliest memory of a tattoo was a no-longer-recognizable rose on my mum, which she didn't like, and I thought was weird. I recently got into tattoos because I am very familiar with my body, and I like art. Now I can get a tattoo and see cool art any time I want, and I don't miss having bare skin (I might have when I was younger). It's a similar experience to something like carrying a nice pocket knife (which I also do when I am working). I can take it out, look at it, and it brightens my day a little every time. And similar to a nice pocket knife, I expect it will last decades, and change over time. Do I expect it to look the same for decades? Definitely not, but seeing the change is part of the experience. Old tattoos have a certain charm for some people, just like grandpa's over-sharpened slipjoint.
Of course there are people who get tattoos for the image of being a gangster or individualualist (and of course there is an irony to the latter that they will never understand). The majority of tattoos, like the majority of any cultural expression, reflect bad taste (as you note with your examples). But I think that's a bad argument, because it doesn't apply to everyone, and even the people it does apply to won't think that is does. I think tattoos have become ubiquitous in part because they allow anyone to showcase their taste. Whether it's good or bad, that's irrelevant. What matters is finding people who share it or respect it, and tattoos do that well. They can be an immediate talking point, and for people who are really into tattoos, they are a hobby like any other to bond over - both the result on your skin, and the experience of getting them.
The other aspect to their popularity is that no one can take them away. You note their longevity as a negative point, but that's double-edged. Go back to the pocket knife example - they are durable, can be beautiful, and are certainly more useful than a tattoo. But they are also extremely easy to lose, and produced in large numbers (well, aside for extremely expensive customs). Tattoos fill a gap that is hard to fill in contemporary life: individualized modification, which is an external representation of change that you enact on your surroundings. Some people like modifying their cars, some people like modifying their homes, and some like working in their gardens. But the fact is that tattoos can be less expensive than any of these, and are more accessible and meaningful for many. Many younger people can't afford their own spaces, which means they can't meaningfully modify their environments to reflect their tastes - but they can modify their bodies.
So maybe get your kids into landscaping?
Aside from having some form of output (if they are prone to needing that) and building a foundation of respect for your opinion as their parent, you have to protect them from the notion that tattoos are normal. That's tough because eventually you will have no control over their social circle, and many normal people have tattoos these days. Having friends or colleagues with tattoos is the biggest impact, I would guess. I started getting tattooed because my partner has tattoos, and I wanted to have that shared experience. I think that is something different from peer pressure. It's not the idea that you should do something because others want you to do it, but the idea that you can do something because you want to and the people you respect won't judge you for it.
Good luck.
Glassnoser
31m ago
I've noticed the best women I meet on dating apps downloaded it about a week ago, haven't been on a date yet, and are about to delete it because it's overwhelming.
SSCReader
33m ago
Right, its quite possible Foster was threatening Perry. Or even he was about to shoot him. It's just nowhere near as clear as Rittenhouse and just angling your gun down as you would anyway can't be as clearly dispositive.
I think Foster was stupid for bring a rifle at all, but thats neither here nor there.
Rov_Scam
34m ago
The prior incidents of protesters shooting at cars is all well and good, but they're only relevant if the defendant knew about them and they influenced his decision, and the only way to admit that evidence is if he testifies to it himself. While that evidence may have helped his case, that help almost certainly would have been outweighed by the fact that he'd have to testify and open himself up to cross examination, which almost never ends well.
Glassnoser
34m ago
Can you elaborate on this behaviour?
SSCReader
36m ago
As far as I understand it from our very long threads back in the day the law in Wisconsin doesn't specify you have to defend yourself in the smartest way. If someone points a gun at you, running may well be the smart play, but if you choose to fight, you still can claim self defense. That is why the prosecution were trying to establish Rosenbaum had the gun pointed at him prior to him charging.
IF Rittenhouse had openly threatened Rosenbaum, charging him would have been legally permissible, though stupid.
Glassnoser
37m ago
I don't have much experience dating East Asians, but one did ask me to be her boyfriend on the third date before we'd even kissed. I thought that was odd.
Glassnoser
40m ago
These girls also have their preference profiles shaped by the most asinine Kdrama shit, and their expectations for male behavior are simultaneously low and ridiculously high.
As someone with zero familiarity with K-dramas, I'm interested to know what this means.
SSCReader
41m ago
But if you can't have your rifle pointed down, because that threatens a person seated below you, then that means the general freedom to open carry a rifle is severely circumscribed. In a city there will always be cars around.
In fact in the hours that Rittenhouse was walking around we have images him of gun angled down walking past an occupied car. If that is enough to trigger threat then the occupant could have shot him!
My point is that on its own should be ok. If it is ok to open carry a rifle then we must accept some people will have it angled towards them. Rittenhouse in the image has his gun pointed at the legs of the man next to him. Unless you are always pointing your gun directly vertically down, its just a statisical certainty. So if open carrying rifles is legal, then that cannot be the standard.
You can legally in Texas walk up to a car with a rifle open carried. The question is does that mean when doing the safe thing, and pointing it down, you are automatically threatening the occupant because you could shoot them in seconds? I say the answer logically has to be no, in order for the legal carry right to make any sense.
Now to be clear that does not mean Foster wasn't actually threatening Perry! He may well of been and certainly previous testimony might make that more likely. But it can't come solely from walking towards an occupied vehicle with your gun angled down. Because that is I am given to understand (and as Rittenhouse did!) the safer way to point it. Is he supposed to raise it? Because that seems more likely to trigger a response. If open carrying is legal you can walk towards people legally, you can walk past them, you can ealk up to their car window and knock on it. You can ask them for the time or pet their dog.
My point is not that Foster was not threatening Perry, but that the description of WHY it was a threat seems biased. If Perry was threatened it was not because the gun was simply angled down and he is lower, it has to be because it was actively pointed at him. That was the determination in the Rittenhouse trial, that merely turning with your gun angled down such that it is passing a trajectory where you could shoot someone can't count as being actively threatened so Rosenbaum could not have been defending himself. Whether the gun is pointing at your leg or your body because you are sitting down doesn't matter.
If we want to claim that Perry was legally threatened then it has to be because Foster was aiming at him. Not just holding the gun in his general direction. And the problem is, from the images we have we can't see that, which is why Nybbler has to fall back to the gun being angled down being a threat because that is all we can make out. He is inflating the level of evidence we have. Again to be clear it is entirely possible Foster was pointing his gun right at Perry. And if so Perry would be justified in seeing that as a threat. Likewise in a state where open carry of rifles is not permitted maybe the walking towards you carrying a rifle pointed close to you might be a threat. But if you are going to legalize open carry of long arms, they WILL be angled towards people at some point (seriously go watch the pre-shooting footage of Kenosha, particularly when some of the "militia" are standing and walking together, their barrels are angled down but pass trajectories of peoples legs all the time) and if that legally counts as a threat, there is a serious mismatch, that risks inciting incidents. (Assuming we are allowing open carry, I don't think it should count for the record.) That is true even if Foster was about to shoot Perry in cold blood (and he might have been!).
I'm not complaining that people are defending Perry. More that they are pitching certainties or potentially reasonable things as absolute proof. Such that there is no chance the jury was actually correct.
To be clear, just as I think it was dumb of Rittenhouse to be wandering around a protest with a rifle regardless of whether he did anything legally wrong, then Foster was just as stupid, possibly more so. I don't think its a huge loss he got shot. Though I am sure as it always is it is a loss to his family. Attending protests has risk, attending openly armed inflates the risk that someone will take exception. Possibly Rittenhouse is only alive because Rosenbaum was not armed. And in the US, that is not a good gamble, as Foster perhaps learned...well briefly.
Also I keep typing Genosha instead of Kenosha, so if any made it through, I apologise.
Glassnoser
42m ago
I think indigenous people have far more children than any of those groups.
gattsuru
44m ago
?He's set for a jury trial in 2025!? Nice problem to have if you're out on bail, but what the ever-living fuck.
There looks to have been some process stuff -- what looks like a pretty questionable police-tossed-my-evidence back and forth that took a several months, and a judge recusing because his brother-in-law turned out to be involved in analyzing the case -- but that's still nearly New York City levels of delay.
Glassnoser
45m ago
The girls on Coffee Meets Bagel a very disproportionately Asian in my experience.
SSCReader
46m ago
I would agree with you. Though I think Rittenhouse did himself no favors in his testimony because he said as Rosenbaum charged him, he did point the gun at him to try and scare him off. Then ran, when he kept charging, then shot him when he was getting close. Had the jury felt he HAD initially threatened Rosenbaum, the second (admitted) threat might have been viewed to show that Rosenbaum might have believed Rittenhouse would have got more distance then turned the gun on him again. A podcast I was listening to at the time was concerned he had just given them a reason to convict. Though that turned out not to be the case of course.
Rosenbaum was i think unstable, and looking for trouble, so whether Rittenhouse did have his barrel angled somewhere near him was probably the excuse he was looking for.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
46m ago
Women are looking for a good-looking, confident but humble, respectful and unconditionally loving confidant who earns more than them...
Men are looking for a harem of sweet, nubile girls who'll provide stress-free sex on tap. Or perhaps a nice, pretty, forever-loyal tradwife who'll stay at home and raise children.
Nobody is going to get what they want unless they're very lucky or high-value. There are trade-offs. The tradwife probably isn't going to be that good looking. The harem girls are probably most interested in your wealth. The good-looking men are hard to lock down. The 'nice guys' aren't so attractive, physically or socially.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
47m ago
It's English. Or at least ebonics haha. I don't think I've ever used Bengali over here.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
51m ago
Alright, so what would be a “good sign”?
Assuming that the evidence was genuinely unclear, I don’t see how the scissor can be avoided. Either the initial conviction was unjust, or the pardon was. This isn’t new to Current Year.
I suppose I find it a bit premature to say people aren’t accepting his pardon. On Twitter, sure. Until someone denies him a job as if he were still a murderer—or until Jack Ruby shows up to launch a conspiracy theory—I’d say law and order are holding together.
non_radical_centrist
57m ago
Sounds like good reasons not to be a lawyer
The evidence against Perry was prejudicial, but that's not the end of the analysis. All evidence is prejudicial to some degree. The question is whether the prejudicial nature is outweighed by the probative value, and it was because it was clearly related to motive. The argument wasn't that it was evidence that Perry was a bad dude but that he specifically contemplated the actions which he was accused of. The evidence of Foster's prior actions wasn't admitted because it would only be relevant if Perry was aware of it at the time of the incident, and there's no evidence that he had seen those posts. Even then I don't know if it would be admissible because simply blocking a street isn't a deadly threat, and intent to intimidate doesn't necessarily mean intent to injure, but since Perry didn't see the posts, we don't need to go that far with the analysis.
More options
Context Copy link