I ended up getting myself two things at the same time. An Oculus rift, and a 3D printer.
Three guesses as to which one is sitting in a box in my basement, and which one I use on a regular basis.
Three guesses as to which one is sitting in a box in my basement, and which one I use on a regular basis.
That could be it. These are really weird.
These things are oily and they're mushy and they're mostly tasteless. It tastes like something that you might have as like, filler in a turkey stuffing or something. Like an overcooked parsnip.
These things are oily and they're mushy and they're mostly tasteless. It tastes like something that you might have as like, filler in a turkey stuffing or something. Like an overcooked parsnip.
Obviously I don't have any data on it, but there could be a particularly usage pattern that's more popular than the US than other places? For example, you could smoke a cigarette a day and be considered a smoker, but let's say that you smoke a pack a day or two packs a day or three packs a day, those two people are both counted as smokers but one of them is probably going to be okay and the other one is probably going to die of cancer...
It all makes sense if they're just fascists with a rebrand, which has been my going hypothesis forever.
I just had a couple of chestnuts. I've never had chestnuts before in my life.
I can see why. They're edible, but they're not very good.
I can see why. They're edible, but they're not very good.
More like boot the arrogant attitude from the perspective.
I can see a case for something called humanism. We have the set of morals we do because we are human. It's built right into the structure of any morality created. We're going to have morals determined by the fact that we eat food that's either plant based or animal based, that we reproduce sexually, that we are social, intelligent, and rather weak on our own.
If we were a species that fed ourselves with photosynthesis, reproduced asexually, were anti-social, unintelligent, and overwhelmingly strong on our own we'd be a completely different thing and a human set of morals would be completely incomprehensible to them, just as the set of morals for such a hypothetical creature would be completely incomprehensible to us.
The issue is that there isn't a straight line from our current morality to our humanity. It's a winding path that involved may different humanistic ideas that were decided in one way or another over millennia. It's equally human to say "slavery is wrong because those are humans too and we're social animals" as it is to say "Slavery is ok because humans are tribal creatures and those humans are not part of our tribe", or to say "Slavery is ok because we decided the people who are slaves did something to deserve slavery", such as the slavery that was outlawed in Ghana in 1998 (and whose justification looks chillingly like woke ideology).
So why would we choose one direction over the other? The answer lies in our culture, and it's inarguable that in the west, Christianity dominated our culture for over 1000 years.
If we ditch our culture, and ditch the driving force our that culture, then we will inevitably have to come up with answers from scratch, and as we're seeing now those answers might not be so nice. They might be reprehensible.
So for that reason, humanism is fine as a concept, but too arrogant as a fully baked ideology.
I can see a case for something called humanism. We have the set of morals we do because we are human. It's built right into the structure of any morality created. We're going to have morals determined by the fact that we eat food that's either plant based or animal based, that we reproduce sexually, that we are social, intelligent, and rather weak on our own.
If we were a species that fed ourselves with photosynthesis, reproduced asexually, were anti-social, unintelligent, and overwhelmingly strong on our own we'd be a completely different thing and a human set of morals would be completely incomprehensible to them, just as the set of morals for such a hypothetical creature would be completely incomprehensible to us.
The issue is that there isn't a straight line from our current morality to our humanity. It's a winding path that involved may different humanistic ideas that were decided in one way or another over millennia. It's equally human to say "slavery is wrong because those are humans too and we're social animals" as it is to say "Slavery is ok because humans are tribal creatures and those humans are not part of our tribe", or to say "Slavery is ok because we decided the people who are slaves did something to deserve slavery", such as the slavery that was outlawed in Ghana in 1998 (and whose justification looks chillingly like woke ideology).
So why would we choose one direction over the other? The answer lies in our culture, and it's inarguable that in the west, Christianity dominated our culture for over 1000 years.
If we ditch our culture, and ditch the driving force our that culture, then we will inevitably have to come up with answers from scratch, and as we're seeing now those answers might not be so nice. They might be reprehensible.
So for that reason, humanism is fine as a concept, but too arrogant as a fully baked ideology.
Aren't you guys glad there's literally nothing going on in the world, so the powers that be can focus on drinking straws?
It sure would be annoying if we were in the middle of stagflation and had worldwide famines coming, wouldn't it? We couldn't focus on important stuff like drinking straws.
It sure would be annoying if we were in the middle of stagflation and had worldwide famines coming, wouldn't it? We couldn't focus on important stuff like drinking straws.
If you think about it, it's an ideology with very little intellectual rigor.
They're saying that words can have whatever definitions they want, but not whatever definitions we want.
It's postmodernism if you got a D in philosophy. Fitting, since their philosophies also consistently get a D in history.
They're saying that words can have whatever definitions they want, but not whatever definitions we want.
It's postmodernism if you got a D in philosophy. Fitting, since their philosophies also consistently get a D in history.
Everyone knows inflation isn't just 8%.
One of the ways that they've gained the system with respect to inflation is something called hedonic adjustment. Basically, if this month you can afford to eat steak and next month you can afford to eat chicken but the chicken is the same as the steak was in terms of price then prices haven't risen. If the month after that you move from chicken to bologna, prices haven't risen. If the month after that you move from bologna to organ meats, prices haven't risen. That's despite the fact that steak meanwhile has gone up a thousand percent.
Another thing that they do is they will arbitrarily claim that something whose prices have gone up actually hasn't had the prices go up because the quality is better than it was. For example, if computers go up they can just say well computers are faster than they were they're a better thing so even though computers went up they actually didn't.
For homes, rather than going out and finding the average rents in different cities, they use this completely fake number called owner's adjusted rent where they ask a bunch of people who don't pay rent what their rent would be if they paid rent. You can imagine that this insane false number doesn't actually contribute to anything.
According to a lot of people, if we still measured inflation the way they did in the 1980s, inflation would be at least double what it is now.
One of the ways that they've gained the system with respect to inflation is something called hedonic adjustment. Basically, if this month you can afford to eat steak and next month you can afford to eat chicken but the chicken is the same as the steak was in terms of price then prices haven't risen. If the month after that you move from chicken to bologna, prices haven't risen. If the month after that you move from bologna to organ meats, prices haven't risen. That's despite the fact that steak meanwhile has gone up a thousand percent.
Another thing that they do is they will arbitrarily claim that something whose prices have gone up actually hasn't had the prices go up because the quality is better than it was. For example, if computers go up they can just say well computers are faster than they were they're a better thing so even though computers went up they actually didn't.
For homes, rather than going out and finding the average rents in different cities, they use this completely fake number called owner's adjusted rent where they ask a bunch of people who don't pay rent what their rent would be if they paid rent. You can imagine that this insane false number doesn't actually contribute to anything.
According to a lot of people, if we still measured inflation the way they did in the 1980s, inflation would be at least double what it is now.
Here's something I've been trying to wrap my head around: isn't what we call "left wing" really "right wing" by that measure?
These people are pushing what has been established order for longer than most of us have been alive. Of course they are making changes, but those changes are in line with that long running dominant ideology.
Most people I see who are pigeonholed into "right wing" are strongly skeptical of the establishment and established order. If most people got what they wanted the world would work fundamentally differently than it does today, so how are they protecting the old order?
These people are pushing what has been established order for longer than most of us have been alive. Of course they are making changes, but those changes are in line with that long running dominant ideology.
Most people I see who are pigeonholed into "right wing" are strongly skeptical of the establishment and established order. If most people got what they wanted the world would work fundamentally differently than it does today, so how are they protecting the old order?