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

Showing 25 of 410 results for

domain:worksinprogress.co

God.

Paxton represents everything I dislike about this state. Setting aside his little scandal, he’s a shameless partisan who grandstands whenever he gets the chance. Every AG statement just drips with condescension and/or righteous anger at the opposition. I suppose, given our political climate, that makes him a savvy political operator.

While we have various stupid and offensive laws, I can’t really blame him for enforcing them. But I do not look forward to seeing how he operates with a more deadlocked legislature. Especially if Trump is looking for opportunities to get even.

Women don't have agency.

From the point of view of an average progressive normie playing as a black samurai is awesome and fun, and you're the one who is injecting politics.

Well, yeah. Isn’t that what asscreed is all about?

Assassin’s Creed is more in the ‘Bridgerton’ school of historical fiction than the more realistic style. I don’t think the demographics of Bridgerton are propaganda to trick people into thinking the British aristocracy in 1820 or whatever was half black because so many other aspects of the show, from the music to the hair to the gender relations and sex are completely anachronistic. The casting is because it’s a show created by a black woman legendarily famous for self-insert characters. It’s “historical fiction” in the way that Disney’s Cinderella is.

In any case, the rage well has surely been mined with Assassin’s Creed to the point of utter depletion. A woman in 1868 London facing no instances of sexism was standard for the series back in 2015, so I find it hard to work up any performative outrage about a black samurai in 2024.

Prosecuting the Tides foundation isn't going to do much. As a "dark money" organization most people haven't heard of them the way they've heard of the NRA, so the chance that anyone will actually care is low. Furthermore, as a foundation, they don't actually do anything themselves but simply distribute money to other groups. It takes a long time for an advocacy organization like the NRA to build up the donor network and social capital to have the kind of influence they've had. If you're just distributing money, there's plenty of other advocacy organizations that can easily take up that slack.

The biggest problem, though, is that most of the alleged malfeasance on the part of Tides is directed towards liberal advocacy groups who claim they mismanaged money intended for their benefit. For example, they're currently being sued in California by BLM, who claims the group misdirected 33 million in funds that were raised as part of a joint campaign and were supposed to be earmarked. Any other prosecutions are going to be in a similar vein. It's hardly an own of the libs if most libs haven't heard of the group you're prosecuting and the ones who have are likely to be your star witnesses. If BLM ends up siding with the administration it's hardly a good look.

Project 2025 has approximately zero chance of succeeding:

  1. The president is already allowed to appoint approximately 4,000 people to high-level agency positions. At any given time in the Trump Administration, approximately 1200, or about a third, were unfilled. If he can't manage to fill these it's unlikely he's going to fill anywhere from 5 to 50 thousand additional posts.

  2. He's already notoriously bad at picking aides who are loyal to him. He fought with his own cabinet more than any president in recent memory. There's no reason to believe that four years of not having to appoint anyone is somehow going to make him better at this role. This problem is magnified by the fact that most of these positions aren't going to be under his direct supervision, and he'll only know that they don't have the requisite loyalty when a scandal erupts. Not a good look.

  3. If you remove a career bureaucrat and replace him with a political hack, the new guy isn't likely to have an in-depth understanding on how things actually work. Bureaucrat A doesn't do what you want so you replace him with Bureaucrat B. Bureaucrat B is dedicated to doing what you ask, except he isn't well-versed in the Administrative Procedure Act or the various other laws governing the office, and he's essentially starting from scratch. Except there's no time to get up to speed because the president wants this done now, so he ends up doing something that violates the law and the action ends up getting tied up in court for the next six months while the new guy in charge bungles various other duties of the office that were an afterthought under the first guy. Now the president's in the position where he has to fire Bureaucrat B and replace him with another guy who didn't make the cut the last time and is now even more likely to screw things up. Meanwhile guys appointed to non-contentious positions are making their own little messes that just become fodder for your opponents without any political gain. This obviously isn't going to happen every time, but when you're talking about thousands of positions the Venn diagram isn't always going to match up and there's a good chance you find you've appointed a moron.

Jesus. I made the mistake of reading the whole thing. This poor woman was indoctrinated well before her critical thinking was up and running (like most religions, they've got to get you early because it doesn't work once you can think), and internalized all of her mother's insane religious rants. She thinks she didn't because she did little acts of teenage rebellion, but she did. Now she is so fucked up about the whole thing she is doing only fans. JFC... Many woman enthusiastically enjoy sex in a healthy way. This poor gal is mentally ill.

Not engaging and being critical is a default victory for the minoritarian/woke supporters. Does this means you are obligated to take part in the culture wars? Well, kind of. Like it or not, those who show up are those who win.

Depends on what you mean by "show up", and what you're expecting to get out of it.

There was no conceivable act of individual heroism that could have shattered the power of the Catholic church at the height of the Inquisition, or hastened the fall of Soviet communism during the reign of Stalin. There was no "war", just those with power enforcing their will on their powerless, with very few meaningful avenues for rebuttal. Only through the accumulated weathering of decades (or centuries) did a change of conditions eventually become possible.

I certainly think it's virtuous to not be afraid of the censors. Do what you want to do, and don't let them stop you. But don't have delusions of grandeur either. If the only reason you're waging the culture "war" is because you think you can change the course of world history, then you should consider if there are better ways you could be spending your time.

How does using a voice that sounds like Scarlett Johansson's harm anyone? Perhaps it was illegal, but you shouldn't claim it was evil unless you can identify the harm done.

Can you explain what that means, and what your justification for that claim is?

You’re coming in a bit too hot, here.

Huh. This is actually your first mod warning at all. I guess that means you definitely know better, and just hate tattoos that much.

Being faiiiirrrr the entire job of CEO is to try to optimize for exactly how much you can get away with in the name of maximizing profits before people will balk. Forced diversity is not the only way that media products are getting worse.

I find myself waffling between the position of "CEOs are usually coldly logical sociopaths who are pushing the woke ideology because it appears to be profitable and will change up if it ceases to be so" and

"CEOs are just as brainwormed as other lefties and are genuinely trying to push the message where-ever they think they can get away with it."

In full reality, could be a little from column A and a little from Column B, plus unnoticed variables C, D, and E, too.

As I recall, Trump had to use Customs and Border Patrol to do it.

I've never been a fan of condemning someone's solution without offering your own alternative.

Why can't we? For the entirety of human history aged out hookers were likely to be STD ridden and have low human capital, that's no longer true.

Well I did more than skim; I would ask you do the same before passing judgement on my analysis. There are some deeply troubling stories in her narrative that don't line up with what I know about the college world, most people I know met their life partner in college and it sounds like she didn't even give it a shot. There are many ways to have a fulfilling sex life, including exclusive monogamy, she was too fucked up by her upbringing to try any of them.

I mean she is doing porn for money now, something went wrong. None of the "sluts" I met in college are doing that, they are all happily married with a few kids, mostly with people they met in college.

My point exactly.

Despite any pope-knifing, AC2 was more controversial for its DRM than for its politics. This was objectively more reasonable than today’s squabbles.

Who is his audience? Covid warriors?

I predict less success than Johnson. The libertarian bloc surely benefited from running against a populist and a Clinton. A protest vote against the current choices isn’t going to look like RFK.

Seriously, I don’t know anyone IRL who supports him. That’s not true for the libertarians, who apparently adopt streets (?!) near me.

Scarlett Johansson doesn't have an IP right to "female voices that sound vaguely like Scarlett Johansson." As long as they can produce the receipts to show that this is actually what happened, she'd have no case.

Hmm yes, a female voice that teehees around and feigns innocence while attempting to manipulate men.

For some reason this doesn’t strike me as the most unique IP.

But I'm a homo, so presumably I'm not the target audience

Hey now, no need to gloat. Count your blessings.

Okay, that's the kind of thing where you have to make your case.

You were warned for this exact behavior a while back. One day ban this time.

I'm not at all convinced that that "pair bonding" is a super significant phenomenon. I think it's quite likely that instead those stats reflect that women who want varied sex will have multiple partners before marriage, and then will also desire varied partners after getting married, leading to her divorcing or leading to her cheating which leads to divorcing. Especially since a lot of women who don't have sex before marriage come from cultures where divorce is socially unacceptable.

What would be more convincing is instead of stats about divorce, since that's distorted by women who're socially unable to divorce even if they'd want to, is stats on how much women who haven't had previous partners like their spouse.

I'd agree with most of what you've said. But ultimately I think a better equilibrium is achievable than a Christian purity culture, although I probably couldn't convince you of that if you're operating off of Christians principles instead of utilitarianism. But I look at Christian purity culture and still see many failure ponits- e.g maritial rape, or to a lesser degree all the other ways a couple could get married and grow to dislike each other and would be much happier divorced. And I agree with you that the author overlooks the many women who do enjoy kink. Although I don't think she's saying they don't exist, just that many women are pressured into kink despite not enjoying it. And I think Christian purity culture also fails those women- if a girl would genuinely be happier engaging in BDSM with multiple different men a week, and those girls do exist I believe albeit they're rarer than some pop culture would lead you to believe, they should be free to pursue that. But I do think the sort of culture you paint would be my second choice. My first choice being a culture where everyone is aware of the biologically differences between men and women, and men are held accountable for sexual abuse but only sexual abuse that's real, and women are expected to exercise agency in identifying and seeking the outcomes that are actually best for her instead of just waiting for a hot man to ask her to hook up.

Not like this.

How much is Biden's 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal going to hurt him during the up-coming election? Will Republicans be able to make it a salient enough issue to convince swing-voters to change their votes (or at least not to vote D)? I remember disagreeing with a friend about this at the time, arguing that no one would care by 2024, while he passionately believed that it would still haunt him. Who does it look like was closer to being right?