Lurker > adjl

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Pretty much. Thew road would be a much better place without other people.

Muscles posted...

Anyways, f***ers that wait until the last second to try and merge just to cause everyone, including them, to stop. Just get over when you see 2 lanes are going to merge instead of trying to cut the line and slowing everything down.

That's actually how merging is supposed to work. Fill both lanes, then alternate. In practice, most people don't know this and some will even get angry when people try to do it right (like you), but it's the better way to do it if everyone cooperates.

I know of Korn, I'm just being a silly goose.

Is that like popcorn with kimchi on it or something?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Okay... Let's consider that. Given that information was tightly controlled in order to manipulate voters and get the election results they wanted, that means... what?

That not every nonsense conspiracy theory is granted the same media exposure time as actual news. This is inevitable; air time is finite and people are already bombarded by more information than they can possibly process. Some curation is necessary.

Also, "tightly controlled" is a gross overstatement. If it were actually tightly controlled, you wouldn't have heard about it because you aren't exactly digging hard.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's not what I stated though. I conceded earlier that I wasn't referring to all democrats, just the ones that are prominent figures in politics.

Most prominent ones also don't support the autonomous zones. They just don't see the autonomous zones as reason to withdraw support from the movement as a whole, given that they are non-representative of the broader movement.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I had some trouble following how you reached either conclusion. Then I remembered about your difficulties with abstract thinking and realized you're just confused.
Maybe some clues will help.
If I agree with what you said, and someone who did what you described had succeeded at it, who would be in power as a result?

Had the coup succeeded, Trump would be in power. The coup did not succeed. Participating in a failed coup is no less treasonous than participating in a successful one.

Either you mistakenly believe that I think the coup succeeded (I don't) or you mistakenly believe that Biden being president indicates that a coup succeeded (which is baseless, conspiratorial nonsense). Which mistake are you making?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

@adjl Do you have source to prove that the anti-vaxx sentiments were mostly bipartisan?

Anti-vaxx sentiments have been bipartisan for about as long as they've been around. From the left, it's hippies placing mistaken faith in the naturalistic fallacy, from the right, it's religion and misplaced machismo. For Covid specifically, I expect the split leans more to the right, given that so much of the movement (and the response to Covid in general) has turned into deliberately defying the democrats, but there's still plenty coming from the left. During at least one of the waves in BC, Nelson was a major hotspot, and Nelson is exceptionally hippie-dominated even by BC standards (it's where the family that was convicted of negligence for attempting to treat their toddler's meningitis with garlic and horseradish moved after serving their sentence to be among more like-minded people).

I can't be bothered to find specific data (though I'm sure it's out there and easy to find if you're curious), but low scientific literacy and a subsequent distrust of science is something that crosses party lines: people just don't understand this stuff.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think so too. But they argued that the development of the vaccine was rushed and it hadn't been thoroughly tested. So if you were someone who agreed with them then, it was still true when they were the ones who mandated it.

If it helps, I was also concerned that the vaccines may have been rushed and inadequately tested, independent of any comments Biden et al made or whether or not Trump was endorsing them. The fact of the matter is that this was a very short vaccine development timeline with very high stakes and a lot of incentive to cut corners to be the first to market, and that reality has nothing to do with political leanings.

Then they came out, and the various regulatory agencies shared the data that was considered in approving them and some of the strategies used to complete the process so quickly (like conducting clinical trial stages in parallel instead of in sequence), which did a lot to bolster my confidence. Perhaps most significantly, though, the nature of the triaged rollout meant that people were getting the vaccines for months before I was even eligible, so I had hundreds of millions of doses to base my analysis on, which was enough to satisfy my skepticism.

There was reason to be skeptical of the covid vaccines. Absolutely. There's enough data now, though, that that reason is gone (or at least, legitimate skepticism can be answered and dispelled). Reality has changed, so our reaction to reality must follow suit.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I consider that to be part of the election process.

You can make that argument, but it's still outside of anything the government can control or secure without going full North Korea, and it's definitely not relevant to concerns of voting fraud.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't see how that changes anything in my comment. Those protests still resulted in autonomous zones and several prominent democrats expressed support for them.

The fact that most left-leaning folks don't support the autonomous zones changes quite a bit about the validity of the belief that a meaningful portion of left-leaning folks support the autonomous zones. Namely, it renders it completely mistaken.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I am in total agreement with this statement. Where we disagree is whether the attempt succeeded.

I don't think it succeeded, so either you're mistaken about what I believe or you have some very dubious beliefs about what came of the insurrection.

kangolcone posted...

Its 15% when comparing one value to the other. However, the average protein intake for most people should be between 50-100 grams. This means that in terms of daily value it represents 2-4%. 2-4% is often the error margin in polling because at that point the data is considered insignificant.

It's still significant enough that you shouldn't assume your protein needs are met if you just substitute an egg white for every whole egg you'd otherwise eat, especially where the white makes up around 3/5-2/3 of the egg's mass. Just take out the yolks with no other adjustments, and you've dropped the protein content of the eggs in the dish by ~40%.

Of course, you generally aren't going to make substitutes that blindly, so saying that that's something that needs to be considered is very much stating the obvious.

LinkPizza posted...

But whole egg is good for baking, too

They serve different purposes. Sometimes you want whole eggs, sometimes just whites, sometimes just yolks, sometimes whites and yolks beaten separately then mixed back in together... Eggs are tremendously versatile in baking.

Revelation34 posted...

This is not true at all.

100g of egg whites have 11g of protein, compared to 13g in 100g of whole egg. It's a loss, but a fairly small one.

kangolcone posted...

Hardly a significant difference.

15% less is pretty significant. Just not significant enough to rule it out.

Cacciato posted...

She was Korean so she was pretty light. Not much effort on my part.

I'm so happy somebody went this route.

As a game, Minecraft is possibly more recognizable, but that's less a matter of recognizing characters and more one of recognizing the assets/art style.

On their own, there isn't much to them, but I mostly use them in baking, and they're very useful there.

Technically it'd be speciesist, but it can fall under the same umbrella as racism if we're using the term colloquially to refer to all related forms of discrimination.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It was developed during the Trump administration so democrats were quite out spoken about rejecting it.

Some were, but most recognized that Trump himself had little to do with any of the vaccines and the anti-vaxx sentiments were mostly bipartisan (as they usually are). There was, of course, some extra skepticism because of the circumstances, but again, that's not partisan so much as it is understanding science and the stakes at play.

And then once a Democrat was in power the official "do the opposite of what the dems want" position became to oppose the vaccine, so that created a slant to the right, compounded by the fact that being educated enough to understand nascent science is more common among the left (though only marginally).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Just like how they spent 4 years casting doubt on the election process before saying how secure it was this time.

Not on the election process, on the extent to which foreign powers had influenced the outcome. The Mueller investigation wasn't looking at election security, it was looking at efforts to manipulate voters.

Trump, on the other hand, did spend his entire 2016 campaign spinning the narrative that the only way he could lose is because of the widespread fraud the democrats were definitely committing (a claim made without any evidence), then after winning, continued to insist that that fraud was the reason he lost the popular vote. He kept that narrative going through his entire presidency and the 2020 election, which came to a head when people that believed in his narrative tried to murder the people they thought were responsible.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And just like how they supported protests which resulted in "autonomous zones"

Most BLM supporters and participants did not support or participate in the autonomous zone idea.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

yet the one where the protesters didn't declare themselves independent from the rest of the country was treason.

That was an explicit attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government and install their favourite candidate as president against the will of the country. How can you not consider that treason?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I don't think I've ever even seen this phenomenon. Every single game I've ever looked up seems to have at least one wiki that addresses most of the things I'm looking for.

I've encountered a few games in recent years that do have wikis and reasonably active subreddits, but the most up-to-date information, theorycrafting, and advice is in the Discord, so you tend to miss out if you aren't on the server. That's not hugely common, though, and tends to only apply to games that are continuously evolving and having new content added rather than more static, established ones (and also really only be an issue if you're some kind of min/maxing nerd like me).

You can sign up for 365 online for free and access Excel through your browser.

Oh man, I forgot about dino comics.

I've had my eye on it for a while. I'll grab it at some point.

captpackrat posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/0/4/AAQwHjAADZI8.jpg

This about sums up my thoughts. The issue with bestiality isn't the interspecific thing, it's the consent issue. If the non-human in question is sentient and can communicate well enough to secure consent, you're good.

papercup posted...

They unlocked all the e-reader and connectivity stuff in the Zero/ZX collection, so I fully expect all of the connectivity, e-reader and region locked content will be unlocked.

That, or sold separately as DLC.

That's a really sizable collection. I've only ever played the first one (rented it once on GBA, bought a VC copy on WiiU but haven't finished it), but I think this is a package I'll need to pick up. Unless it's really expensive, that's an excellent deal.

ArvTheGreat posted...

People can spend there money how they like just cause its not something you like doesnt mean its wrong

Sure it does. If they're spending their money on something that makes my life worse, I have every right and reason to criticize and/or object to that.

More than that, though, the issue isn't people spending their money how they want, it's companies producing games that manipulate people into spending more money than they want to or sometimes even can. That's a pretty serious problem with a lot of innocent victims.

That was magnificent.

Monopoman posted...

China banned it but they aren't doing it due to the monetization, apparently Blizzard had some tweets recently that made China look bad so they are punishing Blizzard by banning certain games like Diablo Immortal and maybe some future games.

It may be for the wrong reasons, but Blizzard is still going to miss out on billions for it, so I'm comfortable applauding.

Straughan posted...

I used to have a reoccurring dream as a little kid where some naked man in all black silhouette surrounded by radiating fire would speak fast to me in a foreign language.

It was like this, but a male
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/0/0/AAfGAbAADYxc.jpg

That image makes me think of "Who's that Pokemon?" for some reason.

True, but his particular brand of dismissively denying the reality of what's going on is even more unwelcome here than it usually is.

Count_Drachma posted...

The bizarre, alarmist leaps people make are truly astounding.

Remember when you were all like "it's just a draft decision that got leaked, they won't actually overturn Roe v. Wade" and told everyone to stop worrying about it?

Yeah. Just get out. You cannot contribute meaningfully to this discussion in any way.

Presumably, it's because a lot of people have socks lying around, making them a convenient rag-like substitute if they don't have tissues available. That said, having tissues available is pretty easy, so there's little excuse.

Jen0125 posted...

And I'm not an ally lol. I'm the affected party.

Nomenclature aside, you're not exactly doing the cause any favours. When the cause overwhelmingly depends on public opinion and raw numbers (since it's either going to be decided democratically or by violence), actively trying to alienate supporters is generally not a good idea, especially when the opposing side is more than happy to welcome disenfranchised men into their fold. Obviously, it's not particularly rational to say "I was pro-choice, but they were mean to me and the pro-lifers were nice, so I lean more pro-life now," but people aren't particularly rational creatures, and the pro-lifers don't need full converts so much as they need people that don't care enough about abortion to vote in favour of it.

That's not to say that you shouldn't call out men (or anyone, really) that express opinions that they can't support, but that doesn't extend to men that can support their opinions, nor does it have to entail insulting people unprovoked. Personally, I don't really care what you say. I will continue to argue in favour of abortion rights for the sake of swaying as many votes as I can, no matter how hard you try to discourage me from doing so. I will listen to and incorporate any insights you can provide, since your personal experience has that value (along with that of every other woman I interact with), but this cause is too important to let your ego get in the way of it, so I won't.

Jen0125 posted...

It's not an opinion that it's medically easier for men to get vasectomies than for women to get sterilized.

It's also not an opinion that it's safer for a woman to get an abortion than carry a pregnancy to term (or rather, both are opinions, but they're based on obvious empirical information that everyone has access to regardless of gender), so the analogy isn't out of place.

Jen0125 posted...

Comments like that are how you can identify who is actually anti-choice because they hate women

There's some nugget of merit in it in that it's probably going to be better for all involved parties if somebody who doesn't want a baby doesn't end up with a baby, but the phrasing and probable underlying sentiment is indeed overtly misogynistic, as is him all but explicitly saying "I don't care about women's rights, but abortion seems to yield some broader social benefit, so I guess it's good." But then it's Zeb, so we expect such deplorable opinions from him.

Bonus points where, in the context of him arguing that masks are pointless because they don't provide 100% protection, he revealed that he doesn't use birth control and doesn't see a problem with that.

Imagine thinking that anti-Trump messages mostly going away after Trump stopped being politically relevant is a sign of some sort of grand conspiracy.

That is kind of their job, after all.

Jen0125 posted...

Having a man act like it's hard to get a vasectomy is my first hint that they didn't even try to get one lol

I know my friend (who was 30-32ish at the time) was actually discouraged from getting one (in Canada), but that was purely because the doctor set him straight on how feasible it is to reverse them, since he didn't want to completely rule out kids and the doctor didn't want to mislead him and be the reason he couldn't have any. I expect that if he had said that he didn't want kids, it would have been no problem, which is a very different story from what women under 40-50 face when they ask for tubals.

FinalFight posted...

Its hilarious how hypocritical you people are. I distinctly remember you all calling out the January 6 rioters as traitors and terrorists, and now youre vaguely alluding to the same thing when your side is down.

The situations are not comparable at all. The January 6th insurrection was an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected president over imaginary allegations that the election was not legitimate. This is a matter of overthrowing a court that was not democratically elected over a very real erosion of critical health care rights. Advocating for violence in the latter case (a real problem that genuinely can't otherwise be solved because death is literally the only way to force out an SC justice) does not in any way preclude advocating against violence in the former case (an imaginary problem that can be solved democratically).

Violence is not inherently unacceptable. Violence for stupid, pointless reasons is. For more meaningful causes, trying something other than violence first is generally preferable, but if that fails or isn't an option, resorting to violence to solve the problem is not always going to be bad.

Count_Drachma posted...

Considering how many buildings are burned during leftist riots,

Hey remember when empirical reality was all like "93% of BLM protests have been completely peaceful" and you were all like "that's a misleading statistic because they include the protests where nothing violent happened" because that was the only way you could reconcile empirical reality with your belief in the narrative that the entire BLM movement is nothing more than a bunch of violent thugs vandalizing everything in sight? Good times...

Jen0125 posted...

Well it's okay adjl. He said he eventually got a vasectomy he allegedly "had to wait hours in line" for. Not sure where they do that at but

Oh man, he's so lucky. I camped out overnight to line up for a vasectomy but some douchebag scalper three spots ahead of me bought the last hundred.

What a weird comment. That makes me think he didn't actually get a vasectomy and he's just displaying even more of his ignorance of birth control by not understanding how to lie about it convincingly.

ZangsBeard posted...

Youre being obtuse if you think its similar. Its the literal definition of a parasite.

Aside from the "another species" thing. Intra-specific parasitism is also a thing (i.e. landlords), but parasitism also requires the host to gain no benefit from the infestation (otherwise it's symbiosis), and successfully reproducing is not only beneficial, it's arguably the only point life has. That is, of course, speaking strictly biologically, but it's nonetheless a benefit.

Of course, the distinction between an unwanted symbiote and a parasite is completely academic, but such is the realm of "literal definitions."

Jen0125 posted...

It never ceases to amaze how much men make their incompetence a problem that women need to fix or be responsible for. I can't wait for the day when men take personal responsibility for their own lives.

Yeah, producing four unplanned kids means you're doing something very, very wrong. Trying to generalize that to every sex-haver as a means of solving the "abortion problem" is so idiotically out of touch that I'm amazed he remembers to breathe every morning.

MabinogiFan posted...

If it's towards government officials, how is that any different than inciting an insurrection?

Technically, it would be committing an insurrection, not inciting one. Other than that, it isn't. That's not inherently a bad thing. Some governments need to be overthrown. Here, we have five unelected officials who just gave up on their duty to protect the american citizenry from tyrannical laws. They seem like an obvious starting point, to allow them to be replaced with people that would actually do their job (death being the only real means by which to effect a replacement). From there, those passing the tyrannical laws would be the most likely next option. And then those enforcing them, along with any that seek to replace them. And so on, and so on, until this disgusting ideology lies gasping in the dust, bleeding out more life than it ever deserved to have.

Really, what other option is there?

Judgmenl posted...

New things are not bad.
There are some good new things.
There are some bad new things.
Same can be said for old things.
Having a populist take on everything is extremely depressing.

So... some trends of 20-30 years ago are worth hanging on to, while others are not? It's interesting how that's the philosophy most people do actually approach their life with.

Cruddy_horse posted...

Can't they fail or something happens and you start producing again? I was reading up on it a couple months ago and the impression I got was that it wasn't foolproof.

It's not foolproof, but it's more effective than any other option (short of a hysterectomy, but that's too invasive to be considered for contraceptive purposes).

BEERandWEED posted...

resorting to violence is not a solution

Quite the contrary: It's the only solution. Protesting? The Supreme Court already knows that most Americans disapprove of this decision; there's nothing more that a protest can make them consider or realize. Voting/campaigning? The Supreme Court consists of unelected individuals that will be in there until they either resign or die. Given that they're unlikely to resign (see the previous point for why protesting will do nothing), that leaves death as the only possible avenue for effecting meaningful change.

The second amendment exists to protect citizens' right to violently remove a government than has failed the people and cannot be removed any other way. The Supreme Court has failed the people and cannot be removed any other way.

KodyKeir posted...

Some reddit subs have been issuing bans for posts that contain the word of what is displayed in that image, which has only led to roundabout ways to describe something you can build for under $200 dollars worth of materials from your local hardware store.

The other day, I had a lot of trouble opening my cutlery drawer. It took me a solid 10-15 minutes of fiddling before I realized that a couple of forks had managed to wedge themselves together and bend some of their prongs in a way that was wedging the drawer shut. I did eventually get them loose and open my drawer, but I have to say the whole experience has really made me resent the guile of tines.

Jen0125 posted...

People who get multiple abortions should have additional medical coaching anyways because of the risk for medical injury.

That too. But, of course, that would require a functional medical system, so here we are.

DrPrimemaster posted...

Are there actually frequent flyers?

There are, but not to nearly the extent that many pro-lifers want to believe. It's pretty uncommon for any one person to get more than one abortion, especially since the first unwanted pregnancy is very often a wake-up call for people that haven't necessarily been careful about birth control (to which end, I'd say offering (but not mandating) birth control consultations after every abortion would be a good idea) and they're more careful after that (which isn't a guarantee, but it reduces the odds significantly).

DrPrimemaster posted...

Also, the only reason I talk about a time limit is it feels like itll be easier to get that legislation passed.

The problem is that the reason it's easier to get that legislation passed is that the people pushing back against stronger legislation see the compromise as something they'll be able to exploit to get what they want (which is to prevent as many abortions as they legally can). Make that compromise, and you give up most of the point in making the legislation in the first place.

Make no mistake: These people aren't going to be happy unless abortion is federally illegal. You give them an inch, they'll take as much of that mile as they can possibly grab.

DrPrimemaster posted...

A question I wonder too though is how many women get to 8 months pregnant and then change their minds.

Outside of medical issues (which isn't really "changing their minds,") or the rare (but not unheard of) cases where they didn't realize they were pregnant until then, not many. Again, many pro-lifers have this fantasy that most abortions are late-term ones where they're hacking apart perfectly formed babies, but with proper access, it's much more common to catch it early enough to just take a pill and have an extra-heavy period.

Exactly. The only reason needed to want an abortion is not wanting to be pregnant. It's probably worthwhile to offer birth control counselling to "frequent flyers," since multiple unwanted pregnancies may indicate that they don't understand something about birth control and that's putting them at higher risk, but even that should be voluntary.

DrPrimemaster posted...

-First trimester abortion so any accidental and unwanted pregnancies can be stopped.

While the basic concept of time-limiting abortions seems nice on paper, in practice, less scrupulous jurisdictions will often abuse that limit by throwing in so much red tape that it's almost impossible for a woman to finish getting approved for an abortion before she passes the time limit. On top of that, it's not at all uncommon for women to not realize they're pregnant until they're several weeks or even months in, especially if they normally have periods that are irregular enough that random pregnancy bleeding (which is common), so it's completely possible to miss that deadline even without pro-life interference.

I do understand where you're coming from, because late-term abortions are a really unpleasant concept, but the practical reality of the matter and of the malicious actors involved is that fettering abortion access at all will result in people that need abortions being denied them, even if they would "deserve" them under your reasoning. If you want to minimize late-term abortions, don't give lawmakers an excuse to make them necessary, because they will do exactly that if they think it will prevent the abortion altogether. Completely unfettered access is what needs to be protected. Adding caveats and limitations will only make things worse.

Of course, there's also the point that nobody but the pregnant woman should have the right to decide whether or not to continue carrying a pregnancy, regardless of the circumstances, so all of this rationalization is moot. Nobody should be determining whether or not a woman "deserves" to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term in the first place, let alone debating about the criteria used to make that call. I'm fine with saying that viable fetuses should be induced and delivered instead of aborted, since the process isn't all that different once you get to that stage and you might as well save the baby and put it up for adoption if the experience going to be so similar for the mother, but that's really the only limitation I can justify, and even that's pushing it because it's still none of my business what any given pregnant woman chooses to go through.

Jen0125 posted...

This is my current theory lol

"I don't actually have anything against any of these issues, but it'll be much cheaper for me to get divorced if my marriage is legally annulled instead, so I'm working up to that."

Horses are vampires confirmed.

Can we just take a moment to appreciate how profoundly out of touch with rational discourse "you aren't arguing properly with my memes" is?

No, Wanded, you are not some paragon of open-minded bipartisanship. You are not being oppressed by moderators that can't abide "dissenting opinions." You are being moderated because you routinely mock and belittle a very serious health issue that you will never have to worry about, which makes you the sort of person that nobody wants in a civilized community. I have no intention nor desire to join your Discord server because you have given me every reason to believe that it consists of little more than nutjobs masturbating over memes that completely misrepresent, belittle, or completely fail to understand the issue. If you have a legitimate argument to make, you can make it here (or could, if you didn't modded for mocking and belittling a very serious health issue that you will never have to care about). The only "dissenting opinions" that get moderated here are ones that deny the legitimacy of marginalized groups as people, and those aren't a legitimate basis for anything.

There is no rational basis for banning abortion. There are plenty of reasons to want abortion rates to be lower, but there are far more effective ways to achieve that goal that don't involve declaring that women have less right to their own bodies than corpses and don't have major consequences for women's health (one of which is ensuring ready access to contraception, which the SC is also looking to undermine because - surprise, surprise - this is all a self-righteous circle jerk and not a legitimate effort to solve real problems). There is no more justification for banning abortions to solve that problem (even if we accept that it's a social problem and not an individual decision that the law should not factor into, which is tenuous at best) than there is for chopping your arm off to get rid of a broken fingernail.

DarkMinun posted...

We don't have those in Canada.

Toronto and Montreal both have pretty decent public transport (at least, decent enough that you can often rely on it instead of needing a car to get everywhere), but by and large, Canada does indeed fall prey to the same city planning issues that plague the US in that cities are overwhelmingly designed around the assumption that people have cars (namely suburban sprawl with inadequate transit support).

wolfy42 posted...

Before heading to Canada just be aware that gas prices are PER LITRE not gallon.

I was so ready to move until I found that out.

A Canadian dollar is also ~0.75 USD, which offsets some of the difference. Gas is still generally more expensive here than in the states, but $2/L is about $5.83/gal, not the ~$7.80 you might think on the first pass.

Ozmose posted...

Nobody wants to take away your abortions. This is just common sense abortion control.

Quite a lot of people want to take away abortions. This really isn't the witty retort you think it is.

Wanded posted...

apparently not because that's what i did last time,

Did you use my wording, or did you add in additional rationalization explaining how and why you don't consider half of the people on the planet to exist as legitimate, autonomous persons?

Wanded posted...

in fact the leftists i have are better than the ones here, way higher quality points,

Such as...?

It's a simple question. I've given you the only two possible answers already; if I can state them without being modded, so can you. There's no need to run away to another platform where you've found a more validating echo chamber.

Again, I ask: Do you not realize that women are involved in carrying a pregnancy to term, or do you not care?