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

Showing 25 of 191189 results for

domain:kvetch.substack.com

Windows 11 may have my least-favorite feature ever. Try this:

That is not by far the least favorite feature of windows 11

Of course, the incompetent brawl is only funny if neither side accidentally hits the pavement and dies.

No, there is a hard limit of 10 years, which is two and a half terms. If you as Vice President got the promotion in the first half of your predecessor's term, you are only eligible for one more full term. If you got the promotion in the second half, you're eligible for two more. Lapses do not reset the clock.

This is the rule for the President specifically--the governorships of various states have a variety of different rules, some of which do include a limit on consecutive terms, where a lapse can reset the clock.

My understanding is that he can’t serve more than two consecutive terms. Since Theresa gap, he gets two more.

It mostly confuses me. Like, unless you strapped me down to a dildo machine that boofed me with oestrogen and sissy-hypno at 120 decibels on shrooms, I struggle to think of any situation where I'd want to be the other sex, or even simply have sex with men.

If my medical malpractice gets me locked away in prison, I'm going to be sitting in the corner jerking off rather than being tempted by a bussy. Or a skirt.

This reminds of something that happened at one of our summer houses a decade or so ago.

A property close to ours was sold and a new guy moved in, who immediately started a number of construction projects, only... He did them partially on our and some other neighbours land. We immediately told him but he rebuffed us and said that we were wrong and that he had measured things on his own. The issue was that he had both mismeasured, ignored the literal marks in the ground and misunderstood the law regarding what you can do on the particular type of land that bordered his.

We filed a suit but when the assessor got there the guy had destroyed the marks in the ground (illegal) so it wasn't possible to tell what was what anymore and if we wanted to fix things we would need to call a surveyor.

At this point he had taken down over dozen trees, build multiple building, a jetty and a large veranda partially on ground that wasn't his.

We finally got a surveyor there and he of course confirmed what we already knew.

Our neighbour then had to pay a combined cost of some €400k in reconstruction, fines and court costs, something he couldn't pay without selling the property... Fucking retard.

All this because he thought he could measure things on his own and that he knew better than the office of surveyors and all his neighbours. Do I need to add that he was a realtor?

But- formal one man rule seems to incentivize anti-corruption drives at the very least.

Not clear that's true. Insofar as power is concentrated, it is easier to identify who you have to bribe. Things like monopoly concessions in return for money (formal and informal) happened a lot in e.g. Elizabethan England, and (I am no expert) presumably other cases of one-man (male or female) rule. On the other hand, that could be attributed to the problems that feudal rulers had in obtaining tax revenues.

However, from an incentives standpoint, it seems that the more powerful the state and the more concentrated that power, the greater the gain and the lower the cost of outsiders corrupting those with power. That's leaving aside "power tends to corrupt, more power tends to corrupt more" considerations.

The other problem is that even if the "because genetics" explanation brings compelling evidence (which definitely happens) it isn't actionable except to refute a "because racism" explanation that was already lacking supporting evidence.

It suggest an actionable solution of researching gene therapies that increase intelligence.

Also, setting up some sort of baseline welfare state and somewhat paternalistic social institutions instead of engineering society with the assumption that everybody could train themselves to perform a well-paid knowledge work job and consistently make rational personal decisions if it weren't for moral failings like laziness, and that the people who don't manage that deserve what's coming to them.

So the instructive lesson of your analogy is that when you're buying nails, you should pick the brand with the higher quality reputation instead of testing each individual nail. Sure, that makes sense. Now what? What was the point of building up an elaborately granular analogy spanning several paragraphs only to abandon the gratuitous detail as irrelevant? I don't get it.

This why you get no bitches

Ignore me, I'm mildly salty because despite having the dubious distinction of being the first to apply the Secretary Problem in the context of dating, at least on The Motte, I lack the patience or mathematical astuteness necessary for such an in depth analysis. It's highly appreciated, what else can I do but hit AAQC?

I really hope I don't have to resort to necrophilia by the time I'm 36, but either way, I'm sure the coroner will cut me some slack.

Whatever surgery she got (rhinoplasty and a chin lift?), it made her go from homely to Girl Boss Tiger Mom.

I think she'll let him off the leash for a bit.

I did not participate in Charlottesville. In 2015-2016 my content brought tens of thousands of people into the Alt Right. I was the biggest AR creator on Youtube for several months. You can learn more here: https://newaltright.substack.com/p/how-the-alt-right-won

Since returning to the public sphere I have built a large and lucrative Substack extremely quickly and several of my essays have gone viral. I can pretty consistently influence discourse in the dissident right and adjacent scenes whenever I want.

It's just empirically demonstrable truth that I am an effective propagandist.

It's really not that complicated - they agree with the Democratic Party and think their anti-vaccine kook of a brother/uncle/etc. would be a terrible choice to be President?

I appreciate the compliment, however, OP wanted to know his chances. What I provide is, I hope, sterling dating advice accrued through both observation and bitter experience, but until he can convince me or himself he's assessing himself correctly, nobody knows! haha

These are all steps you can take to help yourself on the apps, but how much they'll help and how badly he needs it? I have no idea. And I don't really trust self-assessments, I did better than I expected myself, so it's not like people just underestimate their chances. You'll never know for sure until you put it out there and see how many matches you get and how much you like them, until then no amount of mere talking, without showing someone else your profile, pictures and personal information, can help. I understand very well why someone won't want to show that to online strangers, but without that, what else can I do but pray he takes my suggestions seriously?

Team Fortress 2? It did have some particular glitches and exploits, but they were patched in a reasonable time, IIRC.

Bobby at least would be banished to the Kennedy kids' table at every Thanksgiving from here to eternity...

It do be that way -- what if everyone is innately straight, and some butterfly stimulus turns the odd one gay?

You made a claim about the British colonisation of India and the Aztec response to Cortez. Both of those claims are false, and you were challenged on them, and your response is to... what? Assert that the Indo-Aryans somehow prove it as well? Despite not presenting anything that would plausibly indicate that?

And then you somehow pivot to ancient Greece, where Apollo is actually a deity of many things (including prophecy, music, light, disease, archery, healing, etc.), and the only arguments you make are firstly that one of Apollo's many epithets relates to the founding of cities (never mind that that is also true of many other deities), and that... you think one statue of Apollo looks like some guy on Imgur? Okay? This isn't even considering that an ancient Greek 'colony' is something very different to British India.

This is all, frankly, bullshit. You have some sort of general theory about superior racial archetypes - it's basically just a recapitulation of the old Nordic/Aryan category you get from people like Gobineau - but whenever any specific claim based on it turns out to be false, as indeed it does in both your initial examples here, you leap to some other isolated 'fact'.

Let's try to clarify this a bit.

Motte: More attractive, more physically capable people are more likely to successfully reproduce.

Bailey: There is a well-defined Aryo-Nordic race that is recognised across many cultures for its superior beauty and intellectual capacity.

The motte is true, sure. But the position you're arguing for overall is under-specified, you haven't made any actual argument for it beyond gesturing at a handful of isolated observations that fail to cohere into a theory, and whenever any one of those observations is indicated to be false, you ignore it and immediately jump to a completely different observation, often centuries or even millennia away. This is not a real argument.

What are the actual points of evidence here? Some guy on YouTube makes videos of himself flirting with girls around the world. The British colonised India. The Aztecs thought Cortez was a god. Indo-Aryan peoples conquered northern India around four thousand years ago. Apollo was revered as a founder of cities. One statue of Apollo has a similar nose shape to some guy. Even if all these points were true, they don't cohere into a plausible macrohistorical theory. Anyone could, with a similarly arbitrary process of selection, cobble together a theory of racial superiority from the same random noise. There is no rigour to this hypothesis.

Come the hour, cometh the man?

The first is that the introduction of technology makes a lot of things that used to be the domain of trained professionals increasingly accessible to the general public. Take land surveying. Anyone of average intelligence can pull a deed from the courthouse, buy pro-grade survey equipment, and locate a pin, which is probably enough to do the trick if you're trying to see where you can put up a fence on your own property. But the field is deceptively complicated, and when the same guy decides to go into business for himself as a surveyor with no more training than basic YouTube tutorials, he's asking for trouble.

This seems fine? So long as that person is not allowed to claim to be a licensed land surveyor who's surveys will be accepted by, like, the Land Titles Office (much less the neighbours) -- consumers can probably decide for themselves whether such a survey is of value to them? (hint: the only time anybody is likely to get something surveyed it's because some government agency (or maybe the neighbours) is forcing them to; if that agency won't accept the results the survey is worth zero dollars

Only if his wife will let him...

I mean it's pretty antagonistic, but his points seem valid enough -- it's not so much "you suck" as "what makes you think you're so great". Which seems like a pretty valid thing to ask somebody who's proposing some radical shit on thin rationale?

If you guys really want a forum of witches, tone-policing the antiwitchers when they make mild criticism of the witches would be a good first step.

I encountered the same types who were using incel to had been previously been using MRA as an insult in reddit political subreddits.

The reality is that in culture wars, the groups that are bullied more are those who have shown weakness and susceptibility to it by accepting it, and those who have a lower status position. And men who do pander to women qualify. Obviously this in it self is a massive problem for movements that claim to be for equality, and you will sometimes see people use the arguement that X demographic cares less about identity politics for themselves, so it is fine and proper to maintain a caste system.

A bit like the over focus on white extremism, or "right wing conspiracy theorists". All these are smear terms and propaganda from a political space that favors framing things in a manner that is excessively disfavorable towards its outgorups, men being one of them.

It is also important to note, that it is blatantly a bad argument that the existence of niche subcommunities justifies such behavior. There is obviously a backlash against feminism, but modern loser men have never been more pro feminist, and previous generations of more sexually successful men, had more antifeminist views. Although, being attractive and more social is probably something women appreciate more than having more feminist views and not being too social. But that frustration a) it would be unfair on current societal circumstances including issues like hypoagency, female overepresentation in colleges, and a lot other things, to entirely pin on men as a class while not criticising women which is what the prevailing bias is towards b) it is something different than the narrative that ties the increasing more isolated behavior as deserving because they hate women. This guy has a decent if somewhat more pro male take on decline of marriage. https://www.highly-respected.com/p/stop-blaming-men-for-the-marriage

An aspect of this strategy is to keep in line under a mental slavery and acceptance of their inferior role, various demographics who accept that it is just and roper for them to have a subservient role as allies. My view is that these ideologies really need to be thrown in the dustbin, but it isn't as if I think unfairness towards women is impossible. Although we should also be conserned with important goals of the common good and not take a self serving lazy stance that greater comfort for particular demographics is greater good. For example neither women nor society benefits if birth rates crash and we have a culture that abhors necessary pain and self sacrifice.

What we see here is another example of a supremacist ideology in favor of specific demographic, also unconcerned about the negative effects n society in general, that hides under the pretense of being morally pure, and its dissenters evil. It would be a beating a dead horse to say that a male incel supremacist/focused ideology where the selfish interest of an incel is maximized at expense of women, and society, is undesirable. I would expect most people here already agree with the undesirability of such approach. Well, people should realize such movements are exaggerated enormously and dangled as scapegoats to justify the opposite extreme, and reject such manipulations.

Although, controversially, I don't see why the interests but not from a self destructive manner for society, of even incels of people who would have come incels, needs to not be considered. As should that of women, even incel women. Hint, hint, we need to move towards a situation that there is more romance, marriages, and births. And part of having a sane understanding on such controversial issues is putting your foot down and saying that the legitimate interests of groups like whites, men, whoever, matter. But, like all interests those have a limit and it relates also to how they affect the legitimate interests of other groups. There is a massive gray area and room for debate, but this idea that only the interests of progressive favored groups matter, and the interests of other groups is inherently an extremist proposition, is precisely why things have gone in a direction that is hateful and mistreating of groups whose interests are treated as illegitimate.

While I am in favor of the suppression/end of various sacred cows movements and their limited hangouts that are extreme in this manipulative manner I don't think the ideal is to be the opposite extreme, but to try to wisely favor good tradeoffs. There isn't a good reason to buy into this idea that without such movements and factions only the most extreme chaos and opposite approach would happen. Part of these fears relate also to exaggerating the bad things from the past and not considering the good things that have been eroded by such movements. Nor the fact that we can in fact choose to accept whatever if any reasonable points have been made, while still we ought to reject the unreasonable, which cannot be done under the factions that are uncompromising which is what we are dealing with now.

So... don't walk in a bad neighborhood if you don't want to be raped?