• 1 Post
  • 123 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 14th, 2023

help-circle



  • That sounds like it’s exactly the point…

    Normally I’d chalk your comment up as being a little too “tinfoil hat” to warrant engaging, but half the article implies exactly that, and I don’t think the author was doing it on purpose because quite frankly, I don’t think there are any news authors left with the competence to do so.

    This is 100% some shit I’d expect to come out of the red team though… The Biden administration hasn’t struck me as being on the side of corporate interests (generally speaking… I’m not naive enough to think the Biden administration couldn’t be bought, I’m speaking to track record here…), and I don’t think this would impact tax revenue much, which is to say that there’s not much ulterior motivation for blues to trump up a bullshit problem to keep Chinese cars out of the market.

    I’m inclined to agree with your opinion, but logically it doesn’t add up, is my point :)


  • There were others who changed sports as well… Fosbury didn’t cause the Olympic committee to implement any bans, which is to say that others arguably attempted much larger changes…

    He simply tried something way the hell off the beaten path and it caused people to think differently about how to go about doing their thing.

    Jimi wasn’t even the only revolutionary influence in his time, you could argue chuck berry had more influence at the time, you could argue Charlie christian had more influence at sorta the same time, you could argue Zeppelin, Sabbath, the Beach boys…

    Nobody came crashing into music from deep left field like Hendrix did though, just like nobody came into the Olympics from deep left field the way fosbury did (I’d argue for korbut, but nobody followed her lead due to pretty much everything she did getting banned).

    I get what you mean and don’t disagree, but I did say I was speaking to a specific context ;)


  • Hendrix. Hendrix is the fosbury of music. Dude went off in his own direction in both technical and compositional terms, and a lot of people followed.

    There’s solid points in the comments, but I feel like we’re talking about a single individual ignoring convention here, and there’s really only one answer in that context :)







  • Your question would be much better applied to height discrimination, which is something that’s almost never mentioned, but is a lot more indicative of the nature of discrimination itself.

    It is instinctual, as others have said, but it has nothing to do with tribalism or war, its about resources. Discrimination is almost always about resources (the notable exception being gender/orientation based discrimination, which I guess is religious?).

    The discrimination against small people (and obesity and age as well), is more basic, and likely older (in evolutionary terms), and is oriented towards hunting and fighting. We think less of smaller, fatter, and older people because they’re assumed to be less capable of gathering (and fighting for or defending) basic resources.

    Discrimination against races is more recent, and more societal, and is more about monetary resources, and isn’t even entirely a matter of race. Poor white people can be discriminated against in the exact same way for the exact same reasons. Racism is more classist than discrimination against height, weight age, etc. but is essentially still a matter of these classes being seen as less capable of getting resources.

    You can see it more easily if you look objectively at the discriminatory tendencies of women (and I mean that in a very generalized way). They tend to be far more discriminatory towards resource based biases… Height, weight, physical condition… They’re often inexplicably attracted to overly aggressive partners, occasionally to their own detriment. The more instinctual a woman is, the more likely to pursue the overly aggressive men. Race isn’t anywhere near as much a factor, and there are notable exceptions in all factors for women if a man obviously has a lot of resources already (no indictment intended ladies, just is what it is, and generally)

    And of course it’s more obvious among women for the same reason… The disparity (again, in a very general sense) between male and female in ability to gather and defend resources affects women’s choices of partners more so than men.


  • Ultimately, what I’m asking you is: why would I be opposed to a law that itself is 100% fine, just because the same legislators might later pass a different law that I don’t like?

    Ultimately because the basic premise of the law could (in general) be the basis for the government to remove our entire conversation here…

    It is potentially a tool to do this

    In 1984, the government rewrites history and uses a multitude of techniques that trick you into accepting things that are not true as being true.

    I don’t object for the sake of my my benefit, I object for the sake of yours (everyone).

    I see it a one degree increment on the proverbial frog in the proverbial pot, being slowly but surely brought to boil and it’s death, and I don’t really care who it affects in the moment.



  • White rot fungus, use very diluted bleach (like 5%, a cup of bleach in a gallon of water.) or vinegar (either might alter the wood finish though…), wrap the arm of the chair in paper towels and keep them damp with it for like 30 minutes or so to let it soak into the substrate of the mold inside the wood, and it should just come off with a brush.

    Don’t let it go everywhere when brushing it off because the more you spread the spores, the more mold you get.

    A steamer will likely make it grow more. It’ll look like it’s working but it’ll grow back worse.



  • No, were just apparently on very different wavelengths here (I’m totally fine with this personally, no animosity intended at all, I like discourse and you don’t seem like you’re being a dick about it, so we’re on friendly terms here from my perspective)

    Do you not think that government determination of what is or is not acceptable on “social media” (quotes because generalizing) is eerily similar to thoughtcrime? And an orwellian policy? Making a 1984 reference in its defense a little ironic?

    I realize I discounted the bulk of your comment and all the “logical fallacy” buzz phrases you threw in, but I generally consider that pedantry and responding to it would bring in bad vibes on my side, so I skipped it, sorry. I can engage it, but I won’t have anything to say on it worth reading, it’ll just be old guy bullshit…




  • Ok, well it was intended to be an opinion, so your assertion that I’m incorrect is incorrect because its my opinion, but that aside, which part?

    I reiterate that question because if your opinion is in direct opposition to mine, it is, in my opinion, the one I would most like to hear. I’m a moderate/centrist/libertarian(non-party) and I’d unironically and unsarcastically love to hear your opinion on it. Unless you’re just being a pedant, then I’ll listen and I respect your right to posit any pedantic objections, but I won’t really care much :)