Lurker > foolm0r0n

Man if I stopped getting lots of recommendations for anti-SJW and Prager U videos I would be happy. But I doubt that will happen.

Nice fuel for their fires though.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Why terrified?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

You have proven to be a terrible wing man so no!
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Ask about his sister for me
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

banananor posted...

Realize that hunger is something that you're supposed to feel, which then motivates you to hunt and eventually eat- rather than something that you should completely avoid by pre-emptively eating

That's a good point I never thought about

Fat people make so much more sense
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

should've locked it too cuz the first 4 posts were perfect
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

the slide is polished to a mirror sheen tho
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Yeah I got really shitty lootboxes last time I played but 1 of the items was Gurren Lagann Reinhardt so I won't complain even if I get 10 more shitty ones
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Wait we had a contest?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

James Bond is also a series about how government secretly murdering people always saves the world and regular citizens are too dumb to understand that. I guess he didn't have a problem with that?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

CoolCly posted...

It's really strange that you guys don't seem to be able to even imagine a Roadhog other than what you know. You only know strong one shot Roadhog and current shitty Roadhog and that must mean Roadhog is doomed forever.

They aren't game designers so it's fine
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

It's not about walking or exercise or anything. Just don't stuff your face to death at the dining hall buffet. That's 99% of the reason. And yes only drink water, no soda (beer is okay since you can probably only get calorie free piss water).
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/02/541126799/new-fears-for-public-service-loan-forgiveness

But they promised to remove the chains after 10 years!!
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Yes except for the racism part
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

That looks way too expensive and pointless but also awesome
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

I was only 3 hours away from his house once
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

If that were to happen, I just don't see who or what exists that could defeat that?

dragon glass ballista

revealed in the final scene of S7
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

An institute that holds up two Jews as its founding fathers seems like a poor venue to recruit Nazis.

Dead jews*

It's either that or irrelevance!
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SVU >>> Scrubs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chappelle's Show >>> the rest
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Jorah S1 was a superhero though. That's why they needed to give him a kryptonite in his obsession with a 14 year old girl.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

I'm not sure what late-stage Rothbard paleo-conservatism is, but that quote really is about recruiting nationalists (racists) "at the risk of irrelevance". I feel like he wouldn't disagree with that at all though? Seems self aware.

Anyways, all these people seem to care way too much about the larger collective of libertarians and what other people think. They should learn from the conference creepers.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Trial by combat: Mountain vs Hound vs Drogon
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

I want the dragons to find a dragon wife and have a dragon family on a big mountain away from all this violence
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Obviously depends

A documentary about how video games are bad is never gonna be enjoyable no matter how well it's shot
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

There will definitely be a wall of ballistas, and probably on the ships too.

But yeah I'm putting money on the arrows just bouncing off. It's fucking dragon scales. Best case is they get one in the eye and then he becomes a pirate dragon.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

haven't watched but relevant probably
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

No, the concept of comparative advantage is quite sound

holy fuck this CANNOT be how you interpreted my post

How is this possible?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

This is why lasa should not post

But hey you got Muffin to agree that being pro-war is libertarian!
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

I still think that's a self-aware trolling of the audience

I can't decide if it would be funnier for the ballistas to just get destroyed instantly, or to actually kill all the dragons
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

OliviaTremor posted...

Anyone else annoyed as hell that we're getting Euron Greyjoy so late?

That's where all his problems stem from

I imagine they kept going back and forth on introducing him cuz they didn't want to introduce the dragon horn, and then finally decided to just bring him in without the horn
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Mr Lasastryke posted...

wouldn't it make more sense to hit on girls in a club, where there's a gazillion times the amount of girls and they're a lot more open to the idea of getting picked up than at a conference?

That's the perceived comparative advantage he was talking about. It's completely and blatantly disproven in every way after even 1 minute of thinking about it, but he argues that's what fuels their rationale.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i'd say he's not a libertarian at all for doing this

Well HE doesn't do this, despite being a massively horny awkward guy, which is what I was saying earlier in regard to Adams' blog
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

As much as I oppose social shaming

But come on, how can you be so blatant about this while still claiming to be libertarian?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

Just because someone isn't "there for" sex doesn't mean they won't agree to a date in the right set of circumstances.

This is so extremely far away from this point, since this requires immense tact and social acumen, which these people obviously do not have, BY CHOICE. The criticism is for their CHOICE to be tact-less and unprofessional, not their inability to land a date. Take your Chad whining to r/incels, this isn't about how hot you are.

I guess a better way to say it is no one wants to be "picked up" at a conference. Dates and sex can happen but it's not because of a pick up.

SmartMuffin posted...

So long as the nerd believes he has a comparative advantage (something libertarians understand very well!) with libertarian women

Suddenly nerds are consciously using their brains now? It's not just intense horniness taking over? Good.

So then it should be quite simple to explain that they do NOT have a comparative advantage on people at a professional conference just because society said people who like the same thing as you will bone you. Should be easy to understand. It should also be simple to explain how hunting at a conference and harassing and sending dick pics does NOT improve your chances at all, and in fact ruins them.

But this doesn't work (except at the margins). Lots of men just don't give a shit about logic or "chances" or anything, they just want to harass. THAT is the end goal. Not a date or sex. It's not horniness taking over, it's not misinformed rationality. They are just bad people. How do you deal with that?

SmartMuffin posted...

You're really confused as to why libertarians are reluctant to subordinate their individual interests to those of a larger collective? Really?

I'm confused why these "libertarians" supposedly chase truth and reason in politics and economics and other individual interests, but when it comes to anything sexual, they are subordinate to completely false mainstream globalist propaganda about "same interests"/dick pics, and 100% proud of it.

Is it at all acceptable for a libertarian to be pro war because society conditions them to be so? Then how is it at all acceptable for a libertarian to be pro sexual aggression just because society conditions them to be so?

Shouldn't they look at the facts and logic and history and economics and come to their own conclusion about how to behave sexually, just like they came to their own conclusion about war and keynesianism and such?

This is why you're specifically a bad libertarian for doing this. Either you came to your own conclusion that sexual aggression is the way to go, or you're just some brainless sheep of society.

Game development has a similar fault where either you're okay with intentionally driving away new talent, or you lack the empathy to design a good game.

If we're talking about an MRA or PUA conference... like sure, be hostile to women. Inclusivity isn't inherently valuable in those groups.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

stop having cultural memes that insist shared interests are required for romance

This is important but it's also not at all the core of the issue. The fact is, if you drop in 100 male nerds with 10 women, there will likely be harassment, no matter WHAT the women's interests are.

The problem is those dudes are taught that they should proposition women EVERYWHERE. This is bad already in bars where they think they should ask out every woman no matter what availability she is signaling, but it's CRITICALLY worse when at a professional conference where NO ONE is there for sex. This goes back to Adams argument about your penis turning your brain off. I guess all those dudes were just so horny that they forgot they were in a professional environment and not some club? No, they just also view a professional environment as a mating zone.

You can throw around statistics all you want, but the fact is, if you are one of the 100 awkward male libertarians at a conference, you have the ultimate power to affect that harassment statistic. If 10 out of 100 dudes were going to harass, and one of them decided not to, then only 9 out of 100 will. Why would you NOT choose to do that, if you cared AT ALL about your community (libertarianism, games, whatever)? Why would you relegate your behavior to a statistic?

THAT is why people blame communities for pushing away new members. Because they care more about justifying bad behavior with statistics, than using their power to improve the community. That's what makes it a community issue, not just a few bad apples.

Besides, SSC argument is that hostility to women is only <49% the reason for bad gender balance. Which is like, duh? No one would disagree with that. There's way too many other reasons.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

He also just admits it's social conditioning. His main argument though is that it is normal (and therefore acceptable) to let your penis control your body to the point of assault though.

It's weird though, I doubt him nor Muffin have ever sent an unsolicited dick pic to a girl. What, have they just never been desperately horny enough? That's hard to believe, and empirically false with Muffin.

So if it's about horniness turning off your brain, why has Muffin always been able to keep his brain on? Is he a super hero? Or are those who blame their penis for shitty decisions just consciously bad people?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Each one is far better than the last

But Burn My Dread is up there
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Imagine if you thought it was in your DNA to send dick pics to people. I guess my DNA is broken.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

This does not, in any way, imply that a draft would shrink the military or result in fewer wars.

Any other arguments I didn't make that you want to refute?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Of course 1970 matters. But why would I ignore the 40 years after that, including today, where the military has launched hundreds of major military operations and massively grown the military, while avoiding the draft? Why is 1970 more relevant than 1974-2017 for a hypothetical about 2017?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Jak has really freakin good dialogue. Uncharted definitely didn't get it from nowhere.

But yeah Oxenfree has UC style dialogue kinda.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

wtf

History means things that have happened in the past. That includes the shit ton of wars without a draft. That's part of history and critical to understanding the implications of the draft.

Jusf because some dudes signed a paper doesn't mean history stops. Why would you give politicians such power?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Are you implying history ends in 1970 or what?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

I admit if we traveled back to 1970, my argument would not make sense
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

I liked how the mad max divorce parallels were both ridiculous and way too blatant. But yeah nothing too interesting. Joel McHale was amazing though.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Skyridge87 posted...

Considering one of my favorite streamers has won over $2000 in the past week, I'm willing to take that risk.

Who do you think he won it from

Gamblers are so dumb
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Anagram posted...

He built a giant fleet using wood we never saw on the Iron Islands

The implication is people dismantled their homes to build ships so they could go out and die for Cersei

Like what?? How is that a good storyline?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

So the three examples here (military draft, slavery, open borders) are all good examples of static statism. Statism depends on the mentality that when considering policy changes, it's all about immediate, obvious, static results. You enact a draft, and people have to fight a war. You ban slavery, blacks have no jobs. You close the borders, and no immigrants come in.

It completely ignores the vastly complicated dynamic nature of people and society. You have to think about the reaction that society will have to your policy, and how it will respond. And NEVER is it the case that people will react to your piece of paper with straightforward cooperation. There is always a resistance, and a resistance to the resistance, and so on echoing through history forever. Even if you use guns to the head to enforce cooperation, it doesn't last at all. The wheel always turns.

Modern politics is defined by very smart policies that use this concept to escalate government while keeping resistance low, like multiple loud sound waves destructively interfering with each other to result in silence. A highly discordant policy, like a military draft, would cause a phase shift that totally destroys that careful silence they have constructed. They would never do it.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

As a follow up, the other common left-lib canard was always "Well if we have the draft then congresspeople and their own families would actually have to fight the wars rather than just the poor - so they'd be less likely to support war!"

Yeah now you're just screeching at the TV

How hard is it to understand that if Congress enacts a draft, there would still not be a draft. People are gonna go give up their lives just because some rich dudes signed a piece of paper? Trumpism has seriously federalized you beyond repair.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

Easy. Your argument is NOT based on history or economics at all. The notion that requiring a draft leads to a smaller military or fewer wars is based on nothing more than speculation. Historically, the US has utilized the draft in wars both large (civil war, ww2) and small (korea, vietnam).

So you're pointing out that there hasn't been a draft for 40 years despite massive military growth and numerous military conflicts, and you don't understand how my argument is historical?

SmartMuffin posted...

It's actually even dumber than speculation because it implies some sort of faith in democracy working perfectly, which is just incredibly naive and embarrassing for anyone who even leans libertarian to advocate. "Oh well if there's a draft the people will get really mad and demand the government end the war." As if the government gives a flying fuck what "the people demand."

What are you even talking about? People will just leave if there's a draft. That's economics. Or they will revolt in extreme circumstances. The feds do not have the resources to defend against that. Democracy isn't the only way to do things, not sure why you are assuming that.

Don't fault my argument for your lack of imagination.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4