1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
slartibartfastibast
  • [Scene: a nervous-looking older man meets with a millennial in a darkened alley.]
  • Millennial: what's the target?
  • Man: I don't know if I want to do this.
  • Millennial: people don't come to us until they've made up their minds.
  • Man: Alright. Styrofoam cups.
  • Millennial: Six months and they're gone.
  • Man: Can millennials really kill styrofoam cups?
  • Millennial: we can kill anything, but not cheaply.
  • Man: I can pay. I work for a plasti-
  • Millennial: I don't need to know and frankly I don't care. One of us will deliver a routing number to a Zurich account. Two billion euros, then we start.
  • Man: Al..alright.
  • Millennial: It will be your last chance to reconsider. Once the money is processed you'll have no contact with us again.
  • Man: I understand. It has to be done.
  • Millennial: then it's sealed. The cups will join chain restaurants and diamonds in the void.
  • Man: Thank..thank you.
  • Millennial: We don't require thanks. Participation is its own trophy.
Source: brainstatic laugh rule

More you might like

slatestarscratchpad
everything-narrative

Hot take: the LessWrong community is doomed to fail, because it’s original memetic code is written by a libertarian individualist. Yud focuses on rationalism as a singular activity of debiasing oneself, which is ultimately doomed to yield astonishingly diminishing results.

Modern theories on the origins of reason pose that the purpose of reason is not to independently find truth, but to evaluate and author arguments in debate. Hence, much like pair programming makes better code, pair reasoning ought to be a discipline. Indeed academic debate is a very natural medium for creation of good ideas.

A much better saying that “what do you think you know and how do you think you know it” would be “who did you hear it from and who benefits from you believing it.” A philosophy of truth-as-social-construct both ties into the paradigmatic theory of science and the skepticism of accepted truths that is crucial to good social idea generation.

In fact, science is a poor fit for a prototype of rationalism, since science is a highly involved and highly specific process of discerning the mechanics of reality in a way that makes it very easy to profit of (c.f. the practice of engineering) and therefore hard to question w.r.t. truth-as-social-construct (give or take global warming denialists.)

A much better prototype for rationalism is an unholy union of mathematics and postmodern philosophy, favoring discourse and communal creative problem solving over solitary reasoning. An idea-economy based on social deconstruction, rather than derision of one’s intellectual forbearers and lessers.

Also, queers and unashamed socialism (c.f. who told you socialism was bad and who benefits from you believing it?,) because it scares off the undesirable crypto-fascists and ancaps.

Discuss.

plain-dealing-villain

You’re making the ‘natural things are good’ mistake.

The evolutionary origin of reason is probably from the value of winning arguments, but that does not imply anything about what it is most useful for now.

Truth as social construct is toxic to anyone trying to exert their will upon reality, which is the universal goal.

millievfence

I’m a libertarian individualist but I think OP might be onto something with the paired reasoning thing, it’s something I’m exploring.

slatestarscratchpad

> Invite crypto-fascists and ancaps to scare off the SJWs and commies.

> Invite socialists and queers to scare off the crypto-fascists and ancaps.

> Invite economists and meta-contrarians to scare off the socialists and queers.

> Invite bobcats and bears to scare off the economists and meta-contrarians.

> Invite tigers to scare off the bobcats and bears.

> Rationality overrun by tigers, all Less Wrong posts are just the word “GRRRRRRRRR” hundreds of times.

Source: everything-narrative laugh rule
ranma-official
theonion: “SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass....
theonion

SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.

Source: theonion queue
See this in the app Show more
Top Photos