I mean if nothing else, the majority of misogynist men appear to be in sexual relationships with women at various points in their lives, and are hence “getting some” without fundamentally shifting their opinions.
The “dude hates women because he can’t get laid” thing irritates me from a number of directions.
Dudes who get lots of sex from women frequently hate women, dudes who want sex with women but are “volcel” or not interested in “sluts riding the cock carousel” or whatever manosphere redpill grossness is floating around have some weird shit going on and probably need hugs and sympathy for other reasons but that doesn’t excuse the fact that lots of them just hate women.
But that’s just some of the straight dudes.
I’ve known a lot of *deeply* misogynistic/femmephobic/transphobic gay men and at least a couple of very misogynist ace folks. I know a *TREMENDOUS* number of misogynist straight women, who are sexist as fuck and fighting daily battles with their own internalized misogyny but who are certainly not motivated in their contempt and hatred for women by a desire to fuck them. Misogyny in gay men, straight women, and ace folks at least proves that misogyny can be completely divorced from an unfulfilled desire for vaginal sex.
I think the reason we hear the “he’s just mad because he’s not getting any” is because there is a not-insignificant number of men who will be more vocal about their misogyny when they’re single and having trouble “pulling” - that’s where you get stories from women in bars who get called stuck-up bitches or who are told all women are the same gold-digging whores and whatever, because some dude tried to hit on them and got shut down. I heard an awful lot of this kind of thing as a comforting shoulder to many a geek who wanted to know what was wrong with him and why girls didn’t like him and went for the jock or the dude with the motorcycle or the asshole with the tattoos. But I also ran LGBT clubs and was the shoulder for a lot of gay men discussing how disgusting vaginas are and how they don’t even want women around (and I understand that a lot of that probably is a defense mechanism for young men being pressured into performing heteronormativity who are totally uninterested in women and ambivalence can easily become revulsion when you’re pressured into doing things you don’t want to that aren’t right for you; I feel less sympathy and understanding for older gay men I know now who continue to regularly discuss how icky vaginas are and how women are cock-hungry because they’ve got penis envy and aren’t whole without a dick in them somewhere, what the fuck you sound like radfems)
I’m rambling too much, but here’s what I’m trying to get down to: many women hear the most vocal, vicious, misogynist things from men they’ve just turned down or from men whose catcalls they’ve ignored. I think the reason a lot of women default to “you just can’t get laid” as an insult to misogynists is because their mental picture of “misogynist” is “that guy who chased me for two blocks because I wouldn’t smile” or “that guy who screamed at me in the bar” or “that guy who called me a bitch in science class because I didn’t accept his promposal” or “that asshole who said I put him in the friendzone when I wouldn’t sleep with him after a breakup because I just thought he was my friend.”
I’m not saying that it’s right or it’s good that people default to “wants and can’t attain straight sex” as the handwave for misogyny, I’m saying we should figure out where this is coming from. Homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality are probably a significant part of the answer, but lived experience of women being personally attacked (either verbally or physically) by men whom they’ve rejected is probably another part.
And, yeah, a lot of this ends up throwing LGBTQIA folks under the bus - an adult who menstruates and is freaked out by tampons is assumed to be childish or a prude instead of sex-repulsed or penetration-averse or experiencing dysphoria; an adult who doesn’t seek (primarily straight) sex is assumed to be broken.
And that’s all fucked up.
So yeah, feminist folks, you are perpetuating the cycle of toxic masculinity when you use “this loser can’t get laid” as an insult (also when you use “prude” as an insult - there are lots of good reasons people aren’t interested in sex or aren’t interested in hearing about sex in lots of contexts, oversharing when someone is uncomfortable with it is violating their consent).
And I’ll just end my rant with “can we just try not to be jerks to each other? That’d be swell.”
So you have that, but also there is a conflation of “what straight women want or find attractive” with “good” which this is a part of.
Ok, but I don't only want people to have enough money to live on (though I very much want that!). I also want business to *stop exploiting people*. And I haven't been seeing people propose alternative means for doing that?
If people had enough money to live on regardless of whether they took a job, then businesses would have to offer conditions good enough people wanted to work even though they didn’t have to work to survive. Giving people enough money to live on is also the best way to make sure they don’t work under exploitative conditions.
So this backlash, the death threats, the intimidation, the violence, all of that is justified?
The backlash in terms of people rightfully decrying CNN and raising cain, I think that’s a very good thing. Obviously the more extreme response I don’t condone, much in the same way I don’t condone a bear eating the drunk moron who tries to wrestle it. But much like trying to wrestle a bear while shitfaced, trying to police public discourse in the age of the internet has consequences, and reporters are not magically immune to the consequences of their extremely poor decisions.
We teach people that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. We seem to forget, however, that the same thing applies to freedom of the press.
Through our inductive proof, we demonstrate that anime was a mistake, and also that not-anime was a mistake. Thus we establish that abstract thought itself is an error. (Sample of Output from Victim of Miyazaki Virus, Datalinks, 2110)
so which of these premises sounds best for a short story or a fiction podcast
the head of a space mission in the early 1960′s can see Rod Serling lurking in the corners, and has to do everything he can to avoid the space mission turning into a Twilight Zone episode (”No astronauts named Adam. If one of our men is half of an Adam and Eve pair, everyone on Earth will die to set it up!”)
something detailing or tangentially describing the professional / political rivalries between the world’s two types of superheroes: sparkly magical girl princesses and dark edgy 90′s antiheroes. (”Well, why can’t I put some pouches on this skirt? I don’t have anywhere to put my phone or keys!”)
an after-action report (maybe a board meeting of EvilCorp, maybe a post-war truth and reconciliation commission between Earth and the Alien Army) taking place in the world of an imaginary generic video game: the game just got beaten by a speedrun and the denizens of the world try to figure out what the fuck happened
androids are real, are self-aware, and don’t have equal rights. the things they actually want and need as far as rights and necessities have nothing to do with what humans would want in their situation (they don’t care about being “enslaved” but STOP MAKING US USE ALTERNATING CURRENT), and neither the pro- nor the anti- android rights factions of humans really pay attention to what they actually want in favor of acting out a drama that reinforces their own identity
We can only say that a company and a prospective employee have equal leverage, and thus achieve an actually-fair deal (in a number of senses, but not all senses), if they actually have equal marginal/proportional consequences for not taking the deal.
For low-skilled workers in a work-or-starve environment where employment is scarce, that means that the executives of the company will potentially be out on the streets begging if they do not hire the worker.
Minimum wage, however, among its many other effects, can close some of this leverage gap.
Now of course, there are ways of managing this while retaining markets and capital, but not if you accept Capitalism as a morality in itself.
I typically quit half an hour after goodsprings or so
got any recs? build wise and mod wise
I like grenades, small arms, speech, medicine and survival and want a vanilla+ playthrough
I recall a mod bundle similar to FO3 Wanderer’s Edition, but I can’t recall the name. IIRC, it makes guns feel like they actually work, by increasing the damage for all of them, including the ones shot at you.
Now, more seriously, online, gender presentation is a sign of social intent. Under Transhumanism, it can become a sign of social intent as well, but that will change what it means into something new. Fascinating, tbh.
the assumption is that the tech giants’ battle for global supremacy will have positive externalities on net, but it’s difficult to compare with the counterfactual world in which they calm the heck down.
this makes it sound like they are giant cyborgs literally fighting
which sounds really cool
but it’s hard to imagine giant robot battles having positive externalities
The special sauce used in Big Macs still remains a secret even to this day. While dataminers have found a number of data involving the ingredients, the optimization algorithm remains unknown.
McNuggets were once thought to be procedurally generated via metaball physics but this has been disproven since. What we do know about McNuggets is that a normal texture is applied to the surface to give the illusion of bumps, when in fact the model is made up of very few polygons to reduce costs.
All items in the drive thru are not rendered until they are actually taken out of the bag. Physics do apply to them however, so watch out
The reason why hamburgers, etc look “better” in promotional content is because the low detail models and textures are used in the restaurant instead. If they did use their high detail models at all times, McDonald’s would have to start dedicating more costs to their worker processes.
“All day breakfast” was not possible for a long time due to a glitch where any breakfast data would get corrupted when served at an irregular time. This was fixed in an update that took advantage of faster GPU clock speeds. There have been a few successful attempts to get corrupted breakfasts since, with hash browns producing the most interesting results.
The McFlurry machine was intended to be released in an update years down the road, but it was rushed due to time constraints and now we have the infamous buggy and unoptimized mess.
I would like to give a fact on the new “Grand Mac” but even the bun’s data is encrypted so it’s currently impossible to even view any of it.
We propose that the packaging of mandatory binding arbitration clauses as a condition of employment masks the true price of these agreements due to a mismatch in the available leverage of firms and employees in many markets.
To increase the efficiency of the market for the waiver of legal rights of redress to wrongdoing by private parties, we propose that mandatory binding arbitration clauses as a condition of employment shall be prohibited and struck out as null and void. Binding arbitration agreements shall then be negotiated between employers and employees, offering material compensation, allowing them to float in price so that the market can work efficiently and determine the true price of cyberpunk dystopia.
How do you prevent the company from simply firing anyone who does not sign the arbitration agreement in a week?
Well I tagged that as #shtpost for a reason.
My actual proposal depends on just how much power I’m being given to reshape the economy.
Assuming I could only impact arbitration, my move would be to require compensation at a minimum of $4,000 per-employee annually or X% of salary, whichever is greater, pro-rated by the number of hours compared to fulltime employment. Or something along those lines, perhaps. Maybe. I’d have to think about it.
My temptation is to set a huge “anti-monopoly trap” instead that triggers when the amount of binding arbitration in a district exceeds a certain percentage and tragedy of the commons the companies for irony purposes, but of course that’s a bad idea.
But the real move, with greater power, would be to severely limit binding arbitration and make all employers take out employment health and safety insurance for all employees (and for their products) while reducing regulations and creating a special court system and regulatory regime for the insurance that pays out much more regularly than one-sided corporate arbitration would. I would then require that the workplace health and safety insurance amount be listed prior to employment, informing prospective employees of just how dangerous the job is. This would all be occurring in a scenario where wage subsidies reduced working class desperation by increasing available jobs. (That would have its own program.)
This specialized insurance court system would be streamlined to lower the regulatory legal burden on both companies and individuals, while making it easier to file and resolve legitimate claims. It would be possible to appeal to higher levels of courts as well.
This would accomplish the stated goals of binding arbitration - reducing regulatory burden, reducing legal expenses on small matters without overloading the court system, etc - while wrecking the unstated goals of screwing over employees and consumers.
It also distributes the costs in a smoother, more predictable way. (That is, your bakery in specific doesn’t end up on the hook for $100,000 just because there’s a one in a million risk of a $100,000 bakery injury, and your bakery just happens to be the one it happened to.)
One of the core pillars of Solarpunk must be diversity. But what does this really mean? In our critiques of the modern day, it is only right that we recognize a lack of diversity so we can strive to achieve a true representation of the world around us–especially in our fiction.
A major problem with society today is a trend towards insular (or tribal) empathy. The mentality of “we only take care of our own” is as toxic as the “every man for himself” mindset, but with the capability to mobilize groups against each other. Empathy is a much needed part of the human experience, but it can be twisted and used to further hatred. Not only do we need an actual understanding of different cultures, we need the empathy to solidify that culture or religion does not separate our shared human experience.
I do not think separate spaces/quarters for different cultures or religions is ever the right way to go, even if it is under the guise of diversity. We already have multiple examples throughout history (and current day) that show us intermingling cultures can and have succeeded in both retaining their individualism and cooperating for a greater good. Cultural exchange and appreciation are not only possible, but necessary for a solarpunk future.
We already know there would be many more Grenfell Tower casualties if Muslim residents had not been awake in the building. How can we adapt this into stories or hopeful futures? Muslim people getting up for early prayers, and before or after laying out presents for Christmas so Christian parents can properly sleep. Christians providing rideshares and the like for Muslims during Ramadan, so no one who is fasting needs to take unnecessary risk. Christians sorting through foods to ensure they are halal or kashrut (kosher) without Muslim or Jewish people having to touch them.
Different religions or cultures covering for one another during holidays, festivals, religious occasions, etc!!! (At work or otherwise) how cool would it be to have so many beliefs and holidays to identify with?! No culture would go extinct if we had an exchange of appreciation. Instead of appropriating cultures, we could share them at a personal level. Even if it was only during a celebration, would it not be better at an empathetic level to teach the true meanings and feelings of your religion, spirituality, or culture? (Hell, even gender and sexuality too?!)
Each culture/ethnic group having everyone celebrate and appreciate on a day, week, month… from history and legends to food and dancing. Imagine the love we could share if we took the time to listen and learn about other cultures!
But along with celebrations and exchange, we must also have remembrance. We should never forget the great evils we perpetuated against one another. No matter how ‘utopian’ we want the future to be.
The darker histories need to be told so we do not fall prey to their cyclical effect.
Teaching about conflicts/wars from both perspectives in general history education, which allows for all specific pride events or history months. Also including cooperation that has existed throughout history; the kind where all involved prospered. Even on smaller (non national) scales.
Teaching ALL the world’s opinions on subjects that are hotbeds within Christianity/Islam/organized religion, especially homophobia and transphobia; it would lead to an understanding that queer, transgender, and nonbinary people have always existed within history. And even still today, we have cultures that recognize these people as…people. Because that’s really the barrier here– ensuring no one is dehumanized due to looking or acting or believing differently than others.
If we can move empathy from an insular level to a broader one we could really get somewhere. If we can help each other understand we all share the human experience, racial and cultural divisions would fall by the wayside. If we start to actively reflect how truly diverse our world is in the fiction we create, the future will be as bright as we are all hoping it to be.
Solarpunk needs to be the hopeful future that everyone deserves; it is up to us to create art and media that reflects our world as it truly is–not how some of us wish it to be.
Ah, yes, we must be inclusive of diverse cultural practices such as FGM, honor killings, and cousin marriage.
Oh, what’s that you say? That’s not culture, that’s a human rights issue?
Too bad believing in human rights is itself cultural.
You want “diversity” of religions, but you don’t want the believers to actually believe in those religions. You think that religion is just an aesthetic, just a set dressing, it doesn’t have any real stakes. But it’s actually an ideology, more akin to the contests between the Capitalists and the Communists.
I question your axioms. Diversity is not good in and of itself. FGM is cultural, and all other things being equal, the culture that does not practice it is superior to the culture that does. You cannot deny this without destroying your argument for diversity to begin with.
We propose that the packaging of mandatory binding arbitration clauses as a condition of employment masks the true price of these agreements due to a mismatch in the available leverage of firms and employees in many markets.
To increase the efficiency of the market for the waiver of legal rights of redress to wrongdoing by private parties, we propose that mandatory binding arbitration clauses as a condition of employment shall be prohibited and struck out as null and void. Binding arbitration agreements shall then be negotiated between employers and employees, offering material compensation, allowing them to float in price so that the market can work efficiently and determine the true price of cyberpunk dystopia.
the former is animated storytelling and the latter is weaponised nominally female hyperstimulus
I think I even say the two words slightly differently
but what if one is a weaponized, nominally-female hyperstimulus, eh? eh?
you can’t deny their identity like that, Argumate! people have a right to purchase bodies with enormous breasts, oversized eyes, tiny waists that would snap an ordinary human woman in half, and megathighs. and how can anyone say that the moe-moe set of personality and quirk/behavior templates is invalid? some people have that as their natural personality, or were raised in moe no otaku cultures like Neo-Kyoto. what about their rights?
and what about survivors of the Second Gate communities that are rebelling against the hard restrictions from there?
Edgy kins of Diesel or Diesel 10 (complete with edgy themes)
Edward’s fan base is split perfectly down the middle: those who see him as a young man and those who see him as an old guy
“omfgggg i cant believe im drawing fanart of THOMAS THE TANK ENGINE what has my life come to lolllllll” (personally this is what i hate the most)
“Percy is my precious cinnamon roll”
“Diesel is my precious cinnamon roll”
Discourse about too many human!James designs being skinny white dudes
Discourse about a couple human!James designs being suupppeerrr fetishy trans men
Twincest/incest (this is already present but it’d just get worse)
Trying to figure out if some of the engines are child-coded
Consequentially, discourse about if a ship is pedophilic
Consequentially, posts like “unfollow me now if you reblog oh///-thein///di//ignity because they’re friends with villai/ngirlfrie//nd who ships jame//spe//rcy”
SOOO MUCH DISCOURSE ABOUT SIR TOPHAM HATT
“This is a bad show because it endorses slavery”
Sexy Dark Anime Eyes art of Thomas, you know what im talking about. when there’s that shadow over the eyes to be sexy or whatever
Candy body gore of James (and Thomas too probably)
People woobifying Gordon for no good reason
Someone points out how Percy can be manipulative sometimes but it gets blown out of proportion and 2 days later he’s deemed all out abusive
Everyone’s thirsty for Cranky
James becomes the Onceler/Bill Cipher/Sans of the fandom
It seems that people assume that if only we got rid of conventional beauty standards that everyone’s internal beauty standards would default to some standard that placed themselves at the top. I haven’t seen anyone ever argue for that position explicitly though. I could just be misunderstanding the logic behind other peoples hatred of conventional beauty standards. (I also might be biased because my internal beauty standards don’t seem to be influenced by external culture in a straight forward fashion.)
even if we got rid of conventional beauty standards I suspect that many people would still inexorably end up fixating on a particular aesthetic that isn’t physically possible for them, so transhuman body mods all the way baby
sometimes I fantasize about how nice it’d be to just automatically look really great all the time, like perfect skin, effortlessly excellent posture, everything in place all the time, don’t have to mess with your clothes, and so on, because I covet that look but just do not have the discipline to put the effort into that. BUT
inevitably this leads me to reflecting on how, if everyone was like that, we wouldn’t have a world where everyone is effortlessly beautiful, we’d have a world where people put the same amount of time and expense into their appearance that they do now, and expectations are just as uneven, only the bar is higher, so it’s like you’re totally sloppy if you leave the house without painting a unique abstract art composition over your entire body and crossbraiding your hair with live flowers
like most superpower fantasies, it only works if everyone else is denied it.
I think the actual position that people unconsciously hold is that we’ll stop having beauty standards, in the same way that naive anarchists think that we’ll stop having power dynamics if we get rid of the current government.
So…I think that there are (at least) two mostly-separate psychological phenomena that manifest as The Dream of Being Beautiful.
There’s the desire to be recognized as a Beautiful Person, someone who is noteworthily more-attractive-than-the-masses by conventional standards. This is a semi-specialized social role that comes with its own perks, in the form of certain kinds of status and attention and identity-validation etc. (It also comes with its own burdens, of course.) Some people covet those perks, and so find it painful that they don’t have the looks necessary to get them. Such people, when they’re wise and thoughtful and self-aware, don’t usually rail against beauty standards in the abstract, because – as @discoursedrome implies – the thing they want actually requiresthat some kind of beauty standards exist. They want to win the status competition, which means there has to be a status competition.
(I should be clear, here, and say that many people in this category do rail against beauty standards. That is because they are being hypocritical, or otherwise failing to achieve integrity and self-awareness. They are sleight-of-handing their way to the fantasy of a world in which they are the beautiful ones, not those hateful Chads / popular bitches, but otherwise nothing much has changed.)
Then there’s the desire to be Beautiful Enough For Practical Purposes, which is in fact pretty different. There are lots of people who don’t particularly wish to be remarkably attractive, to be the best-looking person in the room, and who would actually find it kind of weird and unpleasant if that got folded into their identities. Many of them nonetheless want to be free of physical flaws that they or others might find actively off-putting – want to be sufficiently attractive that they can feature in fond romantic/sexual imaginings without dissonance – want their preferred partners, who probably aren’t super invested in the have-the-hottest-mate status game but who do probably have normal levels of preference for an attractive-looking mate, to be totally satisfied – etc.
This is the desire to live in an anime world, fundamentally. In an anime, some people are marked as being noteworthily more attractive than others, just like in real life, and everyone treats them as such…but even a universally-acknowledged “plain” character is in truth physically flawless, and his level of physical beauty isn’t ever going to cause a problem for him in a relationship that’s largely based on other things.
Assuming that “make reality look like an anime” sadly isn’t an option, “widely-available body mods” is a pretty good solution for such people. You can’t guarantee that you’ll win the status contest no matter what you do, but you can probably guarantee that you’ll be perfectly acceptable by your own lights and the lights of your ingroup. “Eliminate beauty standards by enlightening humanity” is a terrible solution, in that I think it would be easier to eat the moon than to make it happen, but it does at least attempt to address this kind of suffering face-on.
All very true, though there is also the third type, which is the purely relativist desire to be “more beautiful than I am now,” or “beautiful enough” where “enough” is a bar that is always out of reach.
It’s typical status-anxiety that most people face some sort of, but is probably most starkly illustrated in the memoirs of people with anorexia.
one example of Americans’ cultural obsession with people getting things they don’t deserve (I think it’s partially @bambamramfan’s favorite Lacan stuff but not fully) I want to bring up is indeed healthcare related
when you bring up the topic of universal healthcare, people insist that universal healthcare is bad actually because it covers people who are fat and people who smoke. not necessarily that they’re a drain on the system to such an extent that they’ll break it, but that these people negatively impacted their health and will benefit nonetheless
there’s a lot of counterpoints you can make here. what’s a decision that ruins your health that means you need to go bankrupt because of hospital bills? Moving to a city and breathing poisonous air? Buying a car? Serving in the military?
Isn’t that just an intentional slippery slope towards “pre-existing conditions” nonsense?
Doesn’t free healthcare also cover free dietology advice so people don’t become fat in the first place?
Isn’t it absurd to think the only reason people don’t become fat or take up smoking is the expensive hospital bills, or that it even factors into the equation?
but honestly I want to focus on this ridiculous assumption that the real problem with healthcare is making sure people who access it “unfairly” stop doing so, and breaking the system completely to spite them
and honestly I’m no HAES blogger, but if you think that people reading wikihow guides to stiching their own wounds in order to avoid going to the doctor, number one bankruptcy cause being hospital bills, and hundreds of thousands dying from preventable causes is optimal because some of them are fat, your view has some glaring issues
This is partly an intuitive normie understanding of the free rider problem and incentives.
The issue is that while normies are picking up on a real issue, normie understandings are all running at level N=1. There are ways to manage the incentive issues, but only at higher levels of contrarianism/synthesis.
Also, I really ought to dig up that article showing that the effects of the US being some weird mix of developed and underdeveloped impacts the costs of healthcare. It may be a tougher nut to crack than it looks. (But man, would I love to save 5% of GDP.)
so can anyone give a good reason why the Google search engine shouldn’t be nationalised, now that the pagerank innovation is no longer novel?
Do you mean nationalized or made public domain?
I was a little sloppy in my speech, my real question is given that corporations only exist at the sufferance of the public, what purpose does Google serve in its current form that couldn’t better be achieved by destroying it?
For actual nationalization, the US Government would be absolutely terrible at administering Google.
For having other companies copy pagerank, it wouldn’t be used to subsidize all the other various Google ventures that have benefits for internet users.
As far as I can tell, even though uneven exchange of trade between nations means that someone, somewhere must be taking on debt or selling off assets, only Nationalists actually care about the trade deficit.
The Left in general would prefer to see the end of nations, and want “reparations” to go to “brown people” from the developed countries for the sins of colonialism. (Never mind the colonialism of their own movements.)
The Liberals also want an end to nations, and everyone singing along happily together, but under Capitalism. Also they really are individualists, so they don’t think countries have a ‘right’ to hang onto their wealth.
The Capitalists like it because, aside from making the money themselves, weakening nations and loading them up with debt messes with the state’s abilities to regulate their behavior and make them do things like quit using child labor. Further, weakening nations weakens the states themselves, but most people cannot see this.
“Global trade, but we don’t keep a net trade deficit or surplus across the total of our trade with all nations” would likely be beneficial to American workers, but who cares about that?
Are you so sure nationalist elements are opposed to this? It’s the other side of the account you want to pay attention to, the capital account. It’s about America’s role as the global hegemon. Having the US dollar as the global reserve currency means that the US can use to enforce it’s will. Nations stockpile US dollars to fend off the IMF. It’s about increasing the desire of others to hold US assets. The trade deficit is the result of decisions the US has made to increase it’s national power since the Second World War.
It depends a lot on what US assets they’re holding. In general, to maintain sovereignty, you don’t want foreigners owning all of your real estate and other assets unless you’re planning to purge their ownership without compensation later. If they own your physical dollars, that may not be as big of a deal, since you can unilaterally change your currency if necessary, leaving them with piles of worthless paper. (That and, of course, significantly strengthening China is not a good long-term plan for American hegemony.)
Although, this does make me curious based on the level of implied competence in the ruling elites’ actions based on your evaluation, what do you think the purpose of the Iraq War was? The purpose of the Euro?
Though, to refine the previous statement, it isn’t that all Nationalists want to balance the trade deficit, but rather I think most people who want to balance the trade deficit are going to lean Nationalist (prioritizing the nation’s workers over capital or foreign workers).
Tumblr funnymen: omg gamer dudes are the absolute worst and garbage pedophile and they sexuallize characters
Meanwhile in the shipping side of tumblr:
“Let’s turn all friendship and emotional intimacy between men into a sign of androsexuality (even though anecdotal reports indicate that straight women are not interested in bisexual men).”
Like, I get that the fujoshis love to ship men, that’s okay, but a healthy media marketplace will contain examples of men deeply relating to each other that are entirely straight, even though it will also include gay men.
As far as I can tell, even though uneven exchange of trade between nations means that someone, somewhere must be taking on debt or selling off assets, only Nationalists actually care about the trade deficit.
The Left in general would prefer to see the end of nations, and want “reparations” to go to “brown people” from the developed countries for the sins of colonialism. (Never mind the colonialism of their own movements.)
The Liberals also want an end to nations, and everyone singing along happily together, but under Capitalism. Also they really are individualists, so they don’t think countries have a ‘right’ to hang onto their wealth.
The Capitalists like it because, aside from making the money themselves, weakening nations and loading them up with debt messes with the state’s abilities to regulate their behavior and make them do things like quit using child labor. Further, weakening nations weakens the states themselves, but most people cannot see this.
“Global trade, but we don’t keep a net trade deficit or surplus across the total of our trade with all nations” would likely be beneficial to American workers, but who cares about that?
The president’s distaste for trade deficits with any
country is not news, but that last sentence is striking — Trump is
claiming that trade deficits are at the root of the national debt.
That is a creative explanation — and an incorrect one.
Vox just made a humiliating economic error in front of its readers.
> seriously this is what you hit him on?
Might I suggest this is ideological in nature. Global types don’t want America balancing its net imports/exports. They want a net flow of wealth out of the country.
A white dude saying “you can’t call me white because whiteness is an ideology” is the perfect example of taking academic language and concepts out of their actual contextual meaning to defend something really shitty
unpopular opinion: people who accuse others of being white are the real whites
I’m a level 5 white, I can’t breathe near anyone who has a culture
having a 3yo brother means i get exposed to kids’ shows way more often than i thought i would at this point in my life, but man, binge watching thomas the tank engine as an adult is a wild fucking experience
all these trains (and there’s like 20 counting locomotives alone, don’t even get me started on the anthropomorphic train cabins) are MAD competitive the whole time and will constantly fuck up their own whole day by tring to prove they’re the biggest baddest train. and like, i understand that you gotta get you plot from somewhere and i imagine plotlines like this happen in cars etc. as well, but the other day i was watching and i noticed that all these goddamn locomotives have DRIVERS in them. that apparently have no control over their train’s actions at all whatsoever. so these trains wake up, pick up their drivers, go to work, get taunted by another train who’s like “ha ha i see u there with your 4 cabins but did you know i can pull SIX cabins and still fucking book it at 80mph” and the 4 cabin train will be like “fuck it i gotta prove myself now, hook me up with 4 more cabins” and will inevitably derail themselves or some shit while the engine driver just shuts up and kicks back the whole time
i explained this to my brother and was like, is that fucked up or what, but he just pointed at the green train and went “that’s percy” so i guess that’s his take on the situation
I want to complain about people who send messages containing only ‘hi’ or something similar. This happens mostly on dating sites, but it happens on Tumblr too.
Like, what do you think will happen? Do you think I will also say ‘hi’ back and then you will be like ‘how are you’ and I will be like ‘pretty good how about you’ and you will be like ‘i like your stuff’ and I will be like ‘your blog is pretty cool too’ and then you will be like ‘yeah lol’ and i will be like ‘do you wanna have sex’?
It’s annoying, but it’s better than those people who don’t send messages at all, and just expect to receive them.
Disagree unless they can actually make that expectation relevant to you.
There was a hilarious dating site a while ago (whose name I forgot and which might well still exist) where the concept was that only women could initiate conversation. The consequence was that women would send hot men empty messages so they could initiate.
Apparently reality is more exaggerated than even my own beliefs.
The Fourth of July is an annual American celebration of freedom from repressive laws and government. In time-honoured tradition, the American people observe this date by setting off as many illegal explosions as they can before the police show up.
got an iron pan, see if it can free me from the tyranny of teflon.
modern consumerism prefers the smarts to be baked into the product, so instead of learning new skills or gaining experience (personal growth!) you just upgrade your life by purchasing a better model.
so far this process still fails to work for some product categories: no matter how good the knife you have to know how to sharpen it, and no matter how good the pan you have to know how to season it, or be consigned to a succession of disposable items, which is the flip side of purchasing upgrades: binning the old stuff.
to clarify I am absolutely terrible at these things; frankly if you could purchase competence online with one-click checkout I would be incredibly pleased
DO NOT EVER PIRATE SKILL SOFTWARE
ALWAYS ALWAYSALWAYS
Yes, good man, always make sure you purchase skill software legitimately, and cryptographically signed directly from the vendor. Further, the deeper your implants and the deeper you run the software, the more important it is that it isn’t compromise. People like to think of it as just a tool, but when you run skills, it becomes part of you.
I know people call me paranoid, but I only ever run skill software in standalone mode. It’s good security practice to only interface with networks externally, too, and neuro-gap components. Your mind is a fortress and it’s best not to leave holes in the walls.
free markets werent such a bad idea at first but i think theyve run their course
the idea that a corporation make the end user pay for a product but then place in their terms of agreement that said corporation is the real owner is actually evil
the end user should be the absolute sovereign owner
also closed source is bad and gross open source is good
What are you rambling on about now, you flaming homosexual?
A rant about physical products are now licensed rather than outright bought.
Something akin to the original intention of Xbox one during unveiling
stocking Stallman is right
There’s a reason commercial software is so successful when FOSS is just sitting right there in competition.
You want what you need, not the minimum of what some bored sysadmin in Oklahoma can code in his spare time. Having to actually sell the stuff provides funds to hire developers and keeps the project from going too off-the-rails.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t alternative ways to arrange software development, just that “boo, closed source!” isn’t very clueful on the intersection of economics and software development.
I don’t think we’ll see Neural Nets creating entire television shows any time soon, in addition to other classes of drawings/images, for two reasons.
1) During the act of creation, human beings are able to constantly evaluate what looks good according to their own tastes, thus acting in a both backwards and forwards search through the content space. A regular neural network which is orders of magnitude less complex cannot accomplish this or logically reason about it.
2) Filling in certain elements requires higher abstract reasoning, which is more complex and also requires a lot more power. (e.g., logically deducing facts about things which are not immediately visible in the scene)
What I think we’ll see instead are patches, filters, and tools. Not “make me a South Park episode”, but “make me a texture of gravel”. An existing one sharpens up pictures of animu girlz, and likely a NN could be trained to, for example, increase the resolution on old 90′s anime.
(I do agree that low-level feature generation will be used first)
Oh, it may well get there eventually, but with the slowdown on Moore’s Law, it depends on one’s evaluation of just how powerful and just how inefficient human brains are - and if they’re doing stuff with microtubules and non-trivial quantum stuff, that suggests something more rather than less powerful than previous estimates.
It’s likely that, aside from the requirements for replication (itself non-trivial), the human brain’s computational density isn’t that horrifically poorly tuned, probably reflecting tradeoffs in energy consumption, heat dissipation, latency, durability, and so on.
Currently, I’m forecasting specialized modules on dedicated hardware, but I don’t think we’re going to hit the levels of computational cost/density that Kurzweil and the other Singulatarians predicted, as the cost in engineer manhours per chip is going up, last I checked.
(I think I’ve already mentioned some implications for ethics.)
It does cause the information risks you’re worried about long before being able to create an entire South Park episode, however.
