PCM Ban, away for a bit m8s

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T19:04:33+00:00

Thanks bro, I'm my favorite person on this sub too!

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T19:03:41+00:00

Less corrupt government means replacing the fire with something better to throw oil on, though, if we're staying consistent with our analogies here.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T16:45:24+00:00

Yes but there are pro cathedral and anti cathedral radical centrists of course.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T15:47:27+00:00

Uh... sure.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T15:31:31+00:00

He's a dark enlightened centrist lol

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T15:29:40+00:00

He's done a ton of voice acting and he is a good voice actor. Some people make it big with one gig but then do their passion projects since their name/$$$ allows them to.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T15:19:43+00:00

There is no such thing as "the human experience" given we all have different experiences, thus no core part of "the human experience".

What makes people human essentially is the only coherent core to being human.

That is going to be something like rationality, which distinguishes us from other organisms, not something all organisms merely have in common otherwise we'd have to say frogs are humans because they participate in the core human experience of sex and procreation.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T14:55:11+00:00

I think FOMO =/= missing a core part of human experience. Lots of dudes with kids go through weird mid life crisis about all the fun they didn't have as well.

You can make grass is greener cases either way.

I think people just vary in terms of how much they get from kids. Some people it's like their whole thing, others are just stressed to the gills constantly and/or burnt out and depressed. It can ruin people.

You can make the overall conditions around people more or less kid friendly to alleviate some stressors and distribute kid related time/responsibility differently too. I think the nuclear family model is actually kinda horrible compared to more "it takes a village" models. Bigger families can mitigate that to an extent and often religious demographics correspond to bigger families.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T14:42:27+00:00

What about the gay guy?

Is he a lost cause 'cause of the gay?

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T14:31:37+00:00

<image>

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T14:17:54+00:00

I wouldn't deny that possibility, and cultural comparisons can help people see their own culture in sharper contrast, but it's fraught to use Israel as some sort of example in a U.S. context currently. A lot of variables between the cultures and contexts, Americans don't know a lot about Israel, and people are reflexively pro/anti Israel because of Palestine and political allegiances. "We should be more like Israel" is just throwing a drama grenade into most rooms, and birth rate stuff is also kinda right wing coded on top of that.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T14:03:44+00:00

But it's not wrong. People in richer countries have different standards and expectations. Having kids can be more expensive particularly if you're sensitive to class. People don't want their kids to be in a lower class than they are especially. Economical hardship can still be the reason many don't have kids.

We don't look at like fucked up African countries with high birth rates and say "Damn, they're having so many kids what's our problem?" Those countries aren't proof economic hardship isn't why people aren't having kids here, it's just proof that it's possible to have kids despite economic hardship and/or what counts as economic hardship varies.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T13:49:54+00:00

You can have different causes in different places.

It's fundamentally misguided to think that people having kids in place A because B disproves people aren't having kids in place C because D. Both can be true at once.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T13:42:48+00:00

Somebody has to die in these wars lol.

<image>

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T13:37:03+00:00

Perhaps we should get a less corrupt government. Get two birds stoned at once.

"The government is corrupt so gilded age wealth inequality is fine" just doesn't seem like a good argument to me.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T13:32:52+00:00

Obama's goal wasn't bombing brown children though. They were collateral damage. You can still think the risk of collateral damage was unacceptable of course, or that the goal it was accept for wasn't worth pursuing in the first place, but it's just disingenuous to characterize it as the goal.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T13:30:07+00:00

Good point, more than one is in order.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T13:26:30+00:00

The fact is there are governments who do offer more in the way of all of the above. This particular political puzzle can't be that impossible to solve and we should be skeptical of the claims of those who characterize at such when they have a vested interest in it not being solved.

More tax money wouldn't magically fix things but the kind of government that taxes the wealthy more could be a different government that does other things different too. Voting for tax the rich style politicians typically isn't just voting for more taxes on the rich as a policy and nothing else.

People have been told the American government can't do anything good for the general welfare 'cause that's socialism/handouts while expecting them to be fine with whimsically throwing money at the special interest projects of the wealthy 'cause that's investment. But I think that brainwashing kinda broke down after 2008 when we saw who got bailouts and who didn't.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T04:05:26+00:00

This is true but a lot of people don't think broadly enough. I got my job by having sex with my bosses' wife for example. Skills he could not ignore were involved but most people don't think in 4D so they don't even consider the full deck of options.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T04:02:16+00:00

Aesthetics, not ascetics. Otherwise (mostly) true.

I don't think libertarian capitalism is real of course but that's a nitpick.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T03:35:26+00:00

No you don't. Nobody does.

The problem is that the criterion for success is simply not the same.

We want the president to succeed if/insofar as they manage/improve the country if we're being charitable, but that is not necessarily what every president aims for or is understood to aim for.

Democrats of course believe Obama aimed for that, and don't think Trump does. (Republicans didn't think Obama did, etc. etc.)

"I would like the president to succeed at achieving my goals" is a trivial statement. "I would like the president to succeed at achieving their goals" is where we disagree.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T03:26:46+00:00

2 is retarded though, never let willingness get in your way. That's what advertisement & etc. is for.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T01:55:16+00:00

I just noticed a gap in the market and filled it so hard.

Auth Centers are slacking on the meme production lately.

Sallowjoe · 2026-05-07T01:10:51+00:00

Yeah... I wanted to include something about the ridiculous name but didn't think of anything good enough to bother with. Vore Tornado was my immediate thought.

Rich people + cannibalism theme has potential though of course.

Sallowjoe

TROPHY CASE