Lurker > averagejoel

Vicious_Dios posted...

Invite them all to stay at your home then if you really want to enforce your own moral code. Not sure why you're waiting on us for.

how big do you think my home is?

---

peanut butter and dick

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I thought she was sleeping. At least I learned something today, I guess

I remember hearing that she was sleeping too, though now I'm looking at the actual timeline of events and it seems like she was in the hallway when she was shot.

regardless, it was after midnight and she was in her apartment. probably not doing much

---

peanut butter and dick

Duncanwii posted...

I'm not answering that because my answer is not the "correct" one.

then maybe you should read a book or two about this and reconsider your opinions

---

peanut butter and dick

Flauros posted...

What about people who just condemn the times when they decided to violently riot and destroy?

they should focus their anger on the injustice inherent in the system, not on the people protesting that injustice

---

peanut butter and dick

I give her a very quick kiss on the lips and whisper in her ear. "not here. not yet." I nod in the general direction of where I live

---

peanut butter and dick

coh is proudclad

---

peanut butter and dick

nothanks1 posted...

I just feel sorry for people thinking this means anything
it's why I'm stilll happy to link a Wikipedia article and official site

this means fucking nothing beyond giving someone advertising for nominating it
Goomba got nominated

the nobel peace prize itself means very little anyway -- Henry Kissinger got it

---

peanut butter and dick

ImAMarvel posted...

I don't understand why people keep getting upset about rioting and looting when that's always been a means to further social progress.

it's because they don't want social progress

---

peanut butter and dick

InhumaneRaider posted...

I mean 97% of protests were peaceful...so?

the legitimacy of the protests is not contingent on them being peaceful.

---

peanut butter and dick

lordofmud posted...

I think that OF shows that isn't true. A relatively attractive girl can get a steady stream of revenue going with very little sexual contact. It's amazing actually.

you're overestimating how much OF models make

as a log:


---

peanut butter and dick

getting the Dream Nail in Hollow Knight was a pretty mindblowing moment

---

peanut butter and dick

Leaf-- posted...

Whats the difference between south Africa and the rest of Afirca? lol?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

---

peanut butter and dick

specialkid8 posted...

He just used them as a visual starting point. They are not apparently a direct analogue.

no one is saying that they are a direct analogue. I am saying that orcs were based on asians. that is a fact.

Intent is everythign and the fact that he is accused of basing orcs on three separate racist caricatures in this topic alone, with nothing backing them up seems to put him in the clear.

Tolkien explicitly said that he based orcs on asians

---

peanut butter and dick

specialkid8 posted...

The quote literally says that Orcs are a corrupted form of Asian traits, not that Asians are a corrupted form of human traits.

do you see the problem with basing a race of aggressive warriors on real people who, because of xenophobia and racism, were portrayed as aggressive warriors

---

peanut butter and dick

Tolkien's orcs were explicitly based on asians. it had a lot to do with a "Yellow Peril" going on at the time. the D&D version took some liberties and made them more similar to black people.

here's a two-part article about that:
https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/1/13/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-i-a-species-built-for-racial-terror

https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/6/30/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-ii-theyre-not-human

---

peanut butter and dick

pikachupwnage posted...

No?

I wouldn't say there's really a lot, but there are a few big ones. like the parallels between Kurapika and Sasuke

---

peanut butter and dick

apolloooo posted...

nah. wendy bryde from ozark is a woman and she's an amazing character

wendy bryde from ozark being an amazing character has no bearing on whether or not the hatred in the fanbase for skylar white from breaking bad was based primarily in misogyny

---

peanut butter and dick

---

peanut butter and dick

the stock market is basically a big roulette wheel where each stock is a different number on the board. the payout structure is such that the optimal play is to bet [total investment] */ n dollars on each space, where n is the number of squares on the board. that's more or less what a hedge fund is.

a "short" is borrowing shares that someone else owns, selling them, and hoping you can buy the shares back for cheaper to make money on the difference. essentially making a bet that the price will tank.

so basically what happened is this:

hedge funds took out bets that $GME would decrease in value.
the subreddit decided to start way overpaying for shares in order to fuck over the hedge funds
the stock price is now so inflated that it's about to cause those hedge funds to implode because they can't cover the cost of their bets anymore

---

peanut butter and dick

Bad_Mojo posted...

Is that on Netflix? Doesn't seem like it

not as far as I know

---

peanut butter and dick

it's good

watch the first episode of the 1999 anime, or read the first chapter of the manga, before watching the 2011 anime. there's an important character that got taken out of the first episode of the 2011 anime for some reason

---

peanut butter and dick

Gafemage posted...

I still see people buying into it (esp. millennial/older gen Z women) so I feel like it's gotta be fairly controversial.

there is value in being cognizant of taking care of yourself, and that's true regardless of the reason for the "boom"

you're right though; certainly the majority of people "buying into it" are not coming from that direction

---

peanut butter and dick

doing a lot better now

---

peanut butter and dick

uwnim posted...

Requirements/restrictions you did though, you are arguing to provide for each category separately which requires that(i.e. you can't take some of your housing distribution and apply it towards better food).

no, requirements/restrictions would be giving someone a certain amount of money and saying that it can only be used for food (or rent or whatever). this is just giving those things directly. also I used housing as the example, but the same thing should absolutely be done with food.

Eh, can't say I care much about how many numbers someone has on paper.

you should. the ability to accumulate wealth is one of the major sources of problems in the world. arguably the major source of problems. either way, it's very important that that be prevented from happening, and one way to start that process is by removing the possibility of essential services (like housing and food) being treated as for-profit investments.

Real resources though are a concern, like buying up massive amounts of water and other such things that have actual consequences. Ways to prevent that though(i.e. water is considered part of the country and therefore owned solely by the government, water bodies may be leased to, but never actually owned by individual people/companies)

yes. and... that is exactly what I'm suggesting as the solution

Where I will disagree is with the idea that a middleman cannot have value. They can make things work more smoothly than it would by having a massive centralized agency try to handle everything. However they should be leashed. Private land ownership should not exist since any land within a country would belong to the country. Could use "landlords" as middlemen between the government and the populace to get the land utilized and be granted a small percentage of the collected rents in return.

okay this is something that I could potentially get behind, provided that the "landlord" actually did things and directly contributed to the equation. like acting as a steward of the property.

(big semantic tangent: I use "landlord" in quotation marks because this would be a very different function from what landlords currently do -- they would be making money by doing things rather than just by owning things -- to the extent that I don't think they should be called the same thing. not entirely sure what another name would be though)

---

peanut butter and dick

the idea that knowing one detail from a plot "spoils" the experience of watching a movie (or reading a book, or what have you) is extremely stupid.

any media that would legitimately be "spoiled" by having knowledge of the plot is probably not worth engaging with in the first place, and anyone who thinks their experience has been ruined by knowing something like "Steve kills John" has an extremely shallow way of thinking about creative works

---

peanut butter and dick

Gafemage posted...

The recent boom of "self care" talk is neolib claptrap designed to make young Americans complacent with the ongoing atomization of our society & more efficient worker bees as a result.

this is controversial?

---

peanut butter and dick

Conflict posted...

What, did P2E say something mean to you 6 years ago and you couldn't get over it?

ah that's the guy whose username I couldn't remember.

and... this is explicitly a topic for people we don't miss. he fits that category as well as anyone else that I named

---

peanut butter and dick

ssj3vegeta_ posted...

Whoa wtf, respect da dead guys

I will if I think they did things while alive that deserve respect

---

peanut butter and dick

Gavi
Admiral
all the proudclad alts
the toxic asshole who died (I don't currently remember the username but every once in a while there's a topic asking about who remembers him)

---

peanut butter and dick

quality over quantity I guess?

---

peanut butter and dick

Human_Username posted...

However, many times it doesn't, and to say they're completely beneficial and "the only people against them believe corporate jargon" is not only extremely ignorant, but causes harm to those that believe it, start a union, and end up worse off.

then it's a very good thing that I didn't say that

---

peanut butter and dick

Coloradough posted...

What do you mean people don't understand unions? In my industry unionized workers don't have to buy their own equipment (huge for us), make 40% more, have properly functioning tools, and get sick pay and maternity leave. I don't see a downside

there's a ton of anti-union propaganda from workplaces, and a lot of people believe it

---

peanut butter and dick

because they hate poor people

---

peanut butter and dick

the brief period of time shortly after people realized that text-to-image worked on images linked in topic titles was great

---

peanut butter and dick

I remember enjoying the Mcdonald's Girl saga.

it started with a topic like "this girl in mcdonalds is basically showing me everything." there was a whole long story about it spanning many topics. but in the end the person admitted that he made it all up

---

peanut butter and dick

uwnim posted...

Giving free houses reduces the power people have

it reduces the power that landlords have. which is a good thing.

people with money directly provides them with support to leave bad situations like terrible landlords.

taking landlords out of the equation entirely would do this much more effectively

Providing all those services directly will never be better than providing a generic resource to acquire the services. The simpler your safety net is, the less it costs to run which means more of it goes out to the population.

those two sentences directly contradict each other: landlords are an unnecessary middle man. all they do is leech resources away from their tenants. removing them from the equation would drastically lower costs because there would be no third party sucking money out and contributing nothing.

By strengthening the bottom of society with no strings attached money, you enable them to make changes to benefit themselves.

by strengthening the bottom of society with no strings attached housing, food, and other essential services, you do the same thing. but you have the added benefit of not causing a massive upward transfer of wealth.

By attaching shit like means testing and usage requirements/restrictions you consume an excessive amount of the peoples time and make it harder to change their situation since doing so risks loss of benefits.

not sure where you got this from, but I never said anything about means testing, or about usage requirements/restrictions

---

peanut butter and dick

HalSteinbrenner posted...

Bruh

It's $2500 extra the person doesn't have to spend

it's $2500 being given to the landlord by the government

---

peanut butter and dick

HalSteinbrenner posted...

But $2500 goes to their landlord and now they have $2500 more to spend on basic necessities.

the landlord is probably not using that money for basic necessities

---

peanut butter and dick

UBI could do a lot of good if it were combined with existing public services, but it's intended as a replacement for them.

ultimately it's not a solution -- giving $500 a piece to 5 tenants is effectively just giving $2500 to their landlord. it would be better to cut the landlord out of the equation entirely and just have free housing for all.

---

peanut butter and dick

monkmith posted...

wasn't the oxford vaccine the one made with AstraZeneca? quick look-up about 'operation warp speed' funding suggests so.

the answer to this question is irrelevant to the question of whether or not AstraZeneca should have exclusive rights to the vaccine.

the vaccines were developed using a whole lot of taxpayer money, and AstraZeneca is essentially double-dipping on that

---

peanut butter and dick

In a business driven by profit, vaccines have a problem. Theyre not very profitable at least not without government subsidies. Pharma companies favor expensive medicines that must be taken repeatedly and generate revenue for years or decades. Vaccines are often given only once or twice. In many parts of the world, established vaccines cost a few dollars per dose or less.

Last year only four companies were making vaccines for the U.S. market, down from more than 20 in the 1970s. As recently as Feb. 11, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the governments top infectious disease expert, complained that no major drug company had committed to step up to make a coronavirus vaccine, calling the situation very difficult and frustrating.
Oxford University surprised and pleased advocates of overhauling the vaccine business in April by promising to donate the rights to its promising coronavirus vaccine to any drugmaker.

The idea was to provide medicines preventing or treating COVID-19 at a low cost or free of charge, the British university said. That made sense to people seeking change. The coronavirus was raging. Many agreed that traditional vaccine development, characterized by long lead times, manufacturing monopolies and weak investment, was broken.

We actually thought they were going to do that, James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a nonprofit that works to expand access to medical technology, said of Oxfords pledge. Why wouldnt people agree to let everyone have access to the best vaccines possible?

A few weeks later, Oxfordurged on by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundationreversed course. It signed an exclusive vaccine deal with AstraZeneca that gave the pharmaceutical giant sole rights and no guarantee of low priceswith the less-publicized potential for Oxford to eventually make millions from the deal and win plenty of prestige.
Other companies working on coronavirus vaccines have followed the same line, collecting billions in government grants, hoarding patents, revealing as little as possible about their dealsand planning to charge up to $37 a dose for potentially hundreds of millions of shots.

Even as governments shower money on an industry that has not made vaccines a priority in the past, critics say, failure to alter the basic model means drug industry executives and their shareholders will get rich with no assurance that future vaccines will be inexpensively available to all.

If there were ever an opportunity to change the economics of vaccine development, this would have been it, said Ameet Sarpatwari, an epidemiologist and lawyer at Harvard Medical School who studies drug-pricing regulation. Instead, it is business as usual, where the manufacturers are getting exclusive rights and we are hoping on the basis of public sentiment that they will price their products responsibly.

In the United States and other developed nations, the solution to drug-company reluctance was to shower them with billions of dollars in public funds to persuade them to help. The Trump administration has announced deals worth more than $10 billion with seven companies to try to turn basic researchoften funded by the governmentinto effective, widely distributed vaccinesbut with no guarantee they would be widely affordable or available.

That approach has driven up stock prices in the past four months and enriched drug executives betting with somebody elses money.

AstraZeneca stock and options owned by CEO Pascal Soriot have increased by nearly $15 million in value since early April, according to calculations by KHN based on company disclosures. The stock hit an all-time high in July. The stock market value of Novavax, a biotech that never recorded a profit in more than two decades, soared tenfold to $10 billion after a nonprofit and the Trump administration agreed to give it $1.6 billion to make a vaccine.

Companies say we have to charge high prices because we are taking a risk, said Mohga Kamal-Yanni, an independent consultant on global health based in the United Kingdom. Actually, the public is taking the risk. The public is paying for the cost of research and development and probably the cost of manufacturing as well.

Moderna, another company working on a vaccine candidate, received nearly $1 billion from the U.S. government to pay essentially all costs to research the product and get it approved by regulators. Its using a vaccine designed in large part by the National Institutes of Health and academic scientists using federal grants.

If the vaccine works, the company gets an additional $1.5 billion to cover 100 million doses, a deal that U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat, likened to giving taxpayers the privilege of purchasing that same vaccine that we already paid for.

That deal comes to $15 a dose. Moderna told Wall Street analysts it might charge as much as $37 a dose for smaller-volume contracts.

This is greedy, and the taxpayers who have funded all of this should have expected better negotiation on the part of the U.S. government, said Margaret Liu, a globally respected vaccine scientist who once worked for Merck and is now chairperson of the International Society for Vaccines.

more in the article:
https://khn.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine-oxford-makes-a-deal-with-drugmaker/


---

peanut butter and dick

Mario has been in most of the Elder Scrolls games

---

peanut butter and dick

The image you are requesting does not exist or is no longer available.

---

peanut butter and dick

https://youtu.be/9u-KVZbbiVs

---

peanut butter and dick

p

---

peanut butter and dick

0Renegade posted...

When adam sandler trys he's not that bad. Look at uncut gems

yeah I was going to say. he's a good serious actor.

he was good in The Meyerowitz Stories too

---

peanut butter and dick

don't know. don't care

---

peanut butter and dick

Socrawheeze posted...

i live for hard bosses

Hollow Knight is the game for you

---

peanut butter and dick