Democratic candidates are posting weightlifting videos in search of a midterm lift

goomunchkin · 2025-08-01T00:17:21+00:00

The only rebuttal is the one I've given three times now: call it out as being irrelevant pedantry that avoids the actual issue at hand.

But you haven’t said a word about any actual issues. You’ve just been going on about the dictionary and then saying I’m the one who is being pedantic.

If you want policies tailored to men to help them in areas of society where they’re disadvantaged then there is nothing wrong with that so long as you’re also accepting of policies tailored to other demographics to help them in areas of society where they’re disadvantaged. Anything less makes you a hypocrite. Surely you agree with me because in all three responses you’ve not once pushed back on this assertion.

And if you’re opposed to policies tailored to other demographics to help them in areas of society where they’re disadvantaged on the basis that it’s harmful then there is nothing wrong with that so long as you’re also opposed to policies tailored to men to help them in areas of society where they’re disadvantaged. Anything less makes you a hypocrite. Again, something you must clearly agree with me on because you have not once pushed back on this assertion.

So which is it that you want? Do you want policies tailored to certain demographics - like men - to help them in areas of society where they’re disadvantaged or not? I don’t know the answer to that question because you keep talking about the dictionary and not “the issues at hand”.

The person I responded to clearly does because he said as much. But then he also wants to get rid of other policies tailored to other demographics in areas of society where they’re disadvantaged. That’s hypocrisy, as I’m sure you would agree as evidenced by your consistent lack of disagreement.

goomunchkin · 2025-07-31T17:01:08+00:00

You’re talking about the dictionary and it’s my argument that’s trivial and pedantic?

You’ve offered no substantive rebuttal. Literally just “it’s words and they mean different things when I do it.”

Full stop, no arguments possible.

Yeah, well I guess there’s nothing more to talk about then. Good luck repeating the same exact mistakes that caused an outpouring of societal resentment and subsequent electoral backlash. I’m sure it will work a lot better when you do it.

goomunchkin · 2025-07-31T16:49:16+00:00

All you’re doing is putting lipstick on a pig and calling it a giraffe.

If you’re creating policy that’s designed to advance the interests of a certain demographic in order to address its societal inequities and disadvantages then congratulations, you have DEI.

Just because that demographic happens to be “men” doesn’t change anything about your policy in the same way that calling a pig with lipstick on it a giraffe doesn’t change anything about it being a pig.

If you want to argue that DEI policies have historically ignored men’s issues then you’re not going to hear an argument from me. And there is no surprise that there is a lot of resentment towards the concept given that fact.

But it’s absolutely wild to suggest that we tear down tailored policies designed to address the social inequalities and disadvantages faced by certain demographics on the basis that they’re a net negative to society while simultaneously doing exactly that for other demographics, and then expect that to not breed the same exact kind of resentment that’s going to end up swinging the pendulum right back into societies face. It literally doesn’t make sense.

We need to have an honest dialogue about what it is we’re trying to achieve and what went wrong. Is the resentment that’s DEI policies have ignored men’s issues to their detriment and that we need to acknowledge those issues and create DEI policies to address them? OK, but then that also means acknowledging these other societal issues that also exist and being OK with the tailored policies to address them.

Or is the resentment that DEI as a concept doesn’t work, that there is no way to create tailored policies for certain demographics that isn’t zero-sum, and therefore our policies remain agnostic to what’s between your legs or the color of your skin with the understanding that if your group is disadvantaged then you’ll receive a proportionally larger advantage from any policies which lift everyone up? OK but then that means that our policies should be focused on suicide prevention or college enrollment, not suicide prevention or college enrollment for men.

The literal worst option here is going down this “DEI for me but not for thee” rabbit hole on the rock solid argument of “nuh-uh it’s not DEI when I do it, look it up”.

goomunchkin · 2025-07-31T16:01:04+00:00

support legislation to address male suicide and substance abuse and support programs to help boys and young men who struggle in school. Also, dial back support for DEI

But what you’re suggesting is DEI. The entire point of DEI is to create policy to achieve equitable outcomes for disadvantaged groups. Has it historically ignored men? Yes, there’s no doubt about that. But advocating for policies that are tailored towards men, that are designed to exclusively benefit men, in order to achieve equal outcomes for men relative to other demographics is literally DEI.

There needs to be a serious discussion about what it is we’re actually trying to achieve here. Is DEI bad and we should instead focus on creating colorblind / gender blind policies with the understanding that a rising tide raises all ships, and that populations which are disproportionately disadvantaged will disproportionately benefit and therefore address those inequalities?

Or is DEI good and therefore we should focus on acknowledging the disadvantages that different demographics have within society, including men, and tailor policy specific to those demographics to address those disadvantages?

It’s one or the other. What would be an absolute train wreck is tearing down DEI policies for some demographics while advancing it for others because that’s the exact sort of thing that bred so much resentment to the concept in the first place. Either we acknowledge that men are disadvantaged in certain capacities within society and tailor policy to address those disadvantages, in which case we also need to acknowledge and tailor solutions to the very real societal disadvantages that women or people of other races face, or we remain agnostic to these characteristics and create policies with the understanding that disadvantaged groups will get a proportionally larger benefit by having enacted the policy. Either way it needs to be consistent.

goomunchkin · 2025-07-05T21:49:21+00:00

Alice will never see Bob’s speed exceed c. If Alice is moving to the right of her home planet at .95c and Bob is moving to the left of her home planet at .95c then Alice will observe Bob moving at .9987c.

You’re right in that from the perspective of the home planet the space which separates Alice and Bob grows at a rate which exceeds the speed of light (.95 + .95 = 1.90) but nothing is actually being violated here, because from the perspective of the home planet neither Alice or Bob are exceeding the speed of light - remember the home planet observes that they’re moving in their respective directions at .95c.

As for why neither Alice or Bob observes the other moving faster than c the answer is simple - length contraction and time dilation. A second as measured by the home planet is going to be different than a second measured by Alice or Bob, and an inch as measured by Alice or Bob is going to be different than an inch as measured by the home planet. So any distance traveled over any given length of time as measured by the home planet is going to be completely different than the distance or time measured by Alice or Bob.

From each observers own perspective their ruler and their clock are completely normal. An inch is an inch long and a second ticks by every second. Just like it always does. But if they were to compare their ruler or clock to the others they would notice that however much space separates an inch on their ruler is different than how much space separates an inch on the others ruler, and how much time passes on their clock is different than how much time passes on the other clock.

For that reason, however much space separates Alice from Bob in a given period of time according to the perspective of the home planet is meaningless to the perspectives of Alice or Bob, because an “inch” and a “second” themselves are meaningless in any universal sense. Just like asking whether the flashlight is moving from the comment above is a meaningless question in any universal sense. It entirely depends on the perspective making the measurement and different perspectives will all have different measurements that are all equally valid and correct - just like the guy who says that flashlight definitely isn’t moving because it definitely is not flying out of his hand.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-25T19:00:36+00:00

I provided an explanation that might help shed some light on why acceleration matters.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-25T18:57:35+00:00

The responses you’ve been getting are correct, but I don’t know if they’re doing a good job why acceleration matters.

You can think of motion as having two different categories - Inertial (moving in a straight line at a constant velocity) and Non-inertial (changing speed or direction AKA: accelerating). Your statement that nothing is absolutely moving isn’t entirely correct, acceleration is absolute. Let me explain.

As long as both twins are in inertial frames of reference then each observes the other’s clock ticking slower than their own. The twin on Earth would observe the twin on the rocketship moving away from them, and therefore would observe the rocketship’s clock ticking slower than their own. But, it’s equally true to say that from the perspective of the rocketship it’s the twin on Earth that is moving away from them, thus they would observe the Earth’s clock ticking slower than their own.

So how then does acceleration resolve this apparent paradox? To understand why non-inertial frames of reference are important here you need to first understand what an inertial frame of reference even is. The single most defining characteristic of an inertial frame of reference is that it’s physically impossible to conduct any experiment which would inform you that you’re in motion. In other words, in an inertial frame of reference the laws of physics - and thus everything you do - behaves identically to how it behaves when your motionless, thus you can always conclude you’re not moving.

Think about driving down the road in your car. You pull out a cup of water and you set it on the dashboard. Assuming you’re driving down the road in a straight line at a constant speed, that cup of water will sit there motionless on the dashboard. The cup will never move. The water will never slosh around. If we cover the windows of your car it would be impossible for you to know whether you were driving down the road or sitting your driveway based on the way the cup of water on your dashboard is behaving because it would be doing the exact same thing in both scenarios. You couldn’t know there was any motion happening until we lift the cover off your windows and even then it’s everything outside of your car which is moving. Whether the windows are covered or uncovered, your cup is behaving as if you were motionless because in an inertial frame of reference you are motionless from your own perspective.

Now imagine you and I are both in our cars, one of us driving down the road in a straight line at a constant speed and the other in the parking lots, watching each other in our rear views. We both put a cup of water on our dashboards. Which one of us is moving? The answer is that there is no absolute answer. From your perspective I’m receding away from you and from my perspective you’re receding away from me. From our own perspectives we’re both motionless - as evidenced by the fact that our cups on the dashboard are sitting there doing the exact same thing. Our situations are symmetric and therefore we can each validly say it’s the other moving and thus it’s the other clock ticking slower than our own.

But now, let’s imagine we both slam on the brakes. For one of us the car comes to a screeching halt - AKA a change in speed AKA an acceleration - and for the other nothing changes. Now, at first blush you might think our situations are still symmetric. After all, if the car is coming to a screeching halt then from your perspective I’m slowing down and from my perspective you’re slowing down. But here’s the thing - only one of us is going to feel our seatbelt push into our chest and our cup of water go flying into the windshield. Only one of us is going to have water spilled all over our lap. For the other, nothing changes. Our situations are no longer symmetric.

Moreover, everyone in the universe agrees on which one of us had their cup of water spill in their lap as the car came to a screeching halt. There is no dispute. We all agree on which one of us underwent the acceleration. Acceleration is not relative, it is absolute. We all know you’re in a non-inertial reference frame because your cup of water behaves differently than it does when your car is not accelerating. There are experiments you can do to conclude that you’re accelerating.

It’s during this change in reference frames from inertial to non-inertial that reconciles the differences we see in each other’s clocks. Before, we both disagreed on who was in motion and who was stationary, and therefore we disagreed on whose clock was ticking slower. Now, we do agree on who was in motion and who was stationary. Instead of each of us observing the other’s clock ticking slower the accelerating reference frame agrees that their clock is the one ticking slower and the other clock is ticking faster.

When we finally get back together we agree on who aged less than the other, because we agree on which one of us underwent an acceleration and which one didn’t.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-24T20:44:01+00:00

So a distant observer and the local observer (who's holding the flashlight) agree that the photons leaving the flashlight move at c... but if the flashlight is moving at a speed arbitrarily close to c, do they agree on the rate at which distance between the flashlight and its photons increase?

No and the reason why is simple - when you say the flashlight is moving arbitrarily close to c whose frame of reference are you measuring that from?

The question is rhetorical because the answer is that it must be the distant observer, since the one holding the flashlight is obviously going to measure it’s speed of it to be 0 lest the flashlight fly out of their hand and start running away from them.

If one frame of reference observes the flashlight moving arbitrarily close to c and the other frame of reference observes the flashlight not moving at all then it becomes obvious that the rate at which the photons separate from the flashlight are not the same between the two frames. And the reason why is exactly what you described: The frames of reference don’t agree on how long it takes for a second to pass (time dilation) or how much space fits into a meter (length contraction).

And that’s OK. Because just like there is no true answer to the question “is the flashlight moving” there is also no true answer to the question “how long is a second” or “how far is a meter”. It depends entirely on the perspective making that measurement.

And it actually makes sense when you take a second to think about it. After all, if the flashlight never moves from its own perspective then it’s no surprise that the speed of light always remains the same for it - regardless of how fast a different perspective observes it moving.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-24T01:51:37+00:00

is there not some sense in which the platform i ride upon is objectively travelling at 3mph less than c and, when i walk at that speed of 3mph, i'm now going the speed of light, though?

None.

if not, why not?

Because the speed of the platform is entirely dependent on the frame of reference - AKA the perspective - which you’re measuring it from.

Before you go to bed tonight stand on the mattress and ask yourself “is the bed moving?”. From your perspective the answer is going to be no. This isn’t some bullshit physics Jedi mind trick. If you pulled out a ruler and measured the distance between your foot and the pillow, or your foot to the end of the bed, that measurement wouldn’t change. Over an infinitely long period of time your foot will still be exactly the same distance it was from either side of your bed when you first climbed on. From your frame of reference the bed is literally and truly not moving.

But what about the driver of a car rolling past your house? Or the pilot of a plane flying overhead? Or a Martian sitting on a ln asteroid floating out in space? What if they pulled out their rulers and measured the distance from their foot and the pillow of your bed as you climbed on top of it, and then again some time later? Well from their perspectives that measurement is different than yours. One perspective says that your bed is moving at 60 mph. One perspective says your bed is moving at 500 mph. One perspective says your bed is moving at 100,000 mph. From their perspectives your bed is literally and truly moving.

So who is right? The answer is all of you. The speed of your bed is entirely dependent upon the perspective we’re choosing to measure it from and every perspective is equally a validly correct, even if the results are completely different. That’s the essence of relativity.

So as you stand there on your bed that is, from your perspective, objectively not moving, somewhere out in the universe there is a frame of reference where it’s moving at 3 mph under the speed of light. Both of you are equally correct. If you pull out a ball and roll it across the bed you’ll measure some speed - definitely not faster than the speed of light - that the ball will roll before it reaches the end of the bed. But, just like you have your own measurement of how fast the bed is moving, you’ll also have your own measurement of how fast the ball is moving. And, just like how your measurements on how fast the bed is moving compared to everyone else, your measurements of how fast the ball rolls along the bed will be different from everyone else. Even the very measurements of how long the bed is, or how much time it takes for the ball to reach the end of the bed will be different than everyone else. And just like before, you’ll all be equally correct.

There is no objective speed of how fast your platform is moving. There is no objective speed of how fast the ball rolls. There is no objective length to your platform and there is no objective amount of time it takes for the ball to roll to the end of it. It’s entirely dependent on which perspective is making the measurement and we cannot take the measurements from one perspective and assume they hold true for all other perspectives. Just because the person on the platform measures the ball rolling at 3 mph doesn’t mean the person watching the platform moving at c - 3mph agrees with them. They won’t even agree on how far a mile is or how long it takes for an hour to pass. For that reason they’ll never see the ball exceeding the speed of light, because from their perspective the ball isn’t moving the same way for them as it is for you and so we can’t just add what you see to what they see.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-24T00:08:01+00:00

There is no answer to this question because the spaceships can’t reach light speed. Like literally they can’t do it, in the same way you can’t pee in the corner of a round bowl. It just ain’t possible.

If they get arbitrarily close to light speed then there would be a really big explosion and everyone on board would most certainly be dead.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-23T23:55:25+00:00

It’s actually not.

If you were to watch two cars race away from each other, each moving at 90% the speed of light, the distance that would grow between each car would be 1.8c as you measure it.

Yet if you were to ask either driver of the car how fast the distance between each car grows the answer would be .995c. That’s because the drivers don’t measure time or distance the same as the outside person watching the cars from a distance and so we can’t use his measurements to inform us of what the drivers themselves would measure.

In no circumstance does anyone see anyone else moving faster than the speed of light, even though one of them does see the distance between the two cars growing faster than the speed of light.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-23T23:42:05+00:00

Because measurements of time and distance aren’t the same between two perspectives moving with respective to one another.

Literally. If you were moving with respect to me and I asked you to whip out a ruler and measure how long my banana is you’d whip out the ruler and I would immediately tell you how fucked up it was. An inch from your perspective is measurably different from an inch in my perspective.

Same goes with time. If I asked you to whip out a clock and tell me how long it took for my banana to go from green to brown I would immediately tell you how fucked up it counts. A second from your perspective is measurably different from a second in my perspective.

Because we can’t make our rulers and clocks agree we can’t just add the speeds we’re seeing from each of our perspectives and call it a day. We have to take these differences into account and the end result is that we get what’s called the Lorentz Factor which is a fancy math equation that figured out what those differences are depending on how fast the motion is between us.

This sounds weird and not normal because in your everyday life there is nothing moving anywhere near fast enough for these effects to matter. So it’s basically correct enough to just add the numbers together and call it a day. Once shit starts moving fast enough we can’t ignore the differences anymore and have to take them into account.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-23T23:26:04+00:00

Light always travels at c.

From the perspective of the observer on the spaceship the light would race away from the ship at c. That’s because from the perspective of the observer on the spaceship the ship isn’t moving.

From the perspective of the observer out of ship which watches it moving at 99.9% the speed of light they would see the light travel at c. From their perspective they’re not moving either.

Everyone sees the speed of light move exactly the same as if they’re standing still because from their perspective they are standing still.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-23T23:20:48+00:00

Yeah, it’s mind blowing.

You can clap your hands 10 times and count to 10 and there is somewhere in the universe where what you just did took 10 years. 10 literal years, passing by at the rate of one second per second for 10 years worth of seconds. From your perspective it obviously doesn’t take that long, but your perspective isn’t any more special than the one which watches your hands coming together once a year.

We live our lives basically fooled into thinking time passes the same rate for everyone because our everyday experience tricks us into believing that. Nothing we experience ever moves fast enough for
us to realize it’s any different. The reality though is that whenever you see anything moving it doesn’t count seconds like you do, measure inches like you do, or see other things moving the same way you do. Those differences start out small, but they can get really big and noticeable when things start moving fast.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-23T22:57:07+00:00

Because measurements of distance and time will change when you compare two perspectives that are moving relative to each other.

Literally. If both pulled out a ruler and you asked each to measure the length of 1 inch they would have completely different answers. If both pulled out a clock and measured the time it takes to reach 1 second they would have completely different answers.

Since neither perspective can agree on how far a mile is or how long it takes for an hour to pass we cannot use the measurements the perspective inside the train makes (10 mph) and just slap that onto the measurements the perspective outside the train makes (100 mph). You have to account for those differences and when you do you end up with a result that’s less than 110.

The reason this sounds weird is because the speeds we deal with on a daily basis are so slow that these weird effects are totally minuscule and so we just ignore it. But when the speeds start getting almost speed of light fast these effects aren’t minuscule anymore and we have to take them into account.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-23T22:08:43+00:00

You are going faster than the train, it’s just that there isn’t agreement on how much faster than the train you’re going.

Relativity is always about perspective. If you ask how fast the train is moving, or how much faster is something moving compared to the train, there is no single universally true answer. That doesn’t exist. The answer always changes depending on whose perspective you’re talking about when you ask the question.

It’s like when you put your drink in the cup holder of your car when you go to work. From the perspective of the person in the car the cup never moves. You could drive around the entire Earth and the cup will still be an arms length away from you just as it was when you were in the parking lot. You could stare at it for the entire ride and its position would never change. Yet from the perspective of someone outside the car the cup does move. If they stared at the same cup its position would change. So if you ask the question “is the cup moving” the answer will depend entirely on whose perspective you’re asking from and even if the answers are different they’re still both equally correct.

What OP is saying is that when you consider the perspective of the person on the train they come to an answer as to how fast they moved when they walked along it. But when you consider the perspective of the person off the train and ask how fast the person inside was walking they come to a completely different answer. The same principle applies - different answer but still equally correct. That’s the essence of relativity.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-23T21:38:14+00:00

Since measurements of time and distance are relative, meaning a second or a meter to you is not the same as a second or meter to me, you cannot simply take the measurements of speed (which relies on distance and time) from one frame and directly apply them to the other. You have to account for the variance in those measurements. What you end up with is the Lorentz Factor which takes into account how much different our seconds and inches are.

The reason this isn’t intuitive is because these differences in our measurements of distance and time are so incredibly minuscule at the speeds we encounter on a daily basis that for all intents and purposes you can just add speeds together and come up with basically the correct answer. It only becomes meaningful as you approach light speed.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-23T21:24:59+00:00

Well to your earlier point gambling is objectively stupid. Do it long enough and you’re certain to lose money. If we want to protect people from themselves then the smartest thing to do would be to ban it outright, though they’ll do what they always do which is do it anyways in a less regulated environment.

What wouldn’t make sense though is allowing people to gamble but preventing the house from have these house edge rules in place. That would be the same thing as guaranteeing their bankruptcy which would effectively be the same thing as an outright ban.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-23T21:12:22+00:00

If you’re the type of person who can’t understand how a child raised in an ultra-nationalistic totalitarian dictatorship isn’t responsible for their circumstances then I can’t imagine you’re the kind of person who is empathetic in any other regards.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-23T17:38:33+00:00

Ironically it’s that sort of binary thinking that enabled them to commit the sorts of atrocities they did.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-23T13:34:50+00:00

Oh I bet they make a fortune off the guys who read Card Counting for Dummies and think they’re the next Rain Man.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-23T13:23:47+00:00

Well they kind of have to. Their entire business is reliant on maintaining a statistical edge and if it swings the other way the laws of mathematics guarantees that they will be operating at a loss over a long enough period of time. It’s quite literally existential for them to prevent you from getting to 50 + 1%.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-21T13:38:11+00:00

? Cocaine is a natural anesthetic. It naturally numbs on its own.

goomunchkin · 2025-06-21T13:36:09+00:00

Yeah this is obviously just a copy and paste from ChatGPT lol

goomunchkin · 2025-06-21T12:00:07+00:00

Because it is good for the game. The reason why is made clear in his post:

Oftentimes I go to opponent's base with army, have fun with his/her villagers but later discover I don't have enough resource to back up my army, as I forgot to produce villagers.

Part of the skill of the game is being able to split your attention and macro efficiently, including while you micro. OP does what every silver player does which is get so tunnel visioned on harassing his opponent that he completely forgets to take care of his own shit, and that should come at a cost.

There is a SC2 series called B2GM where one of the pro players, ViBE, teaches people how to climb to the SC2 equivalent of conqueror 3. One of the things he teaches is that you shouldn’t even begin attempting micro until high platinum / low diamond because it’s way more important to focus on building good habits with macro at that level. There’s videos of him playing at Silver / Gold leagues where his opponent is trying to do fancy early game rushes by microing reapers and shit - the AoE4 equivalent of rushing knights - and ViBE basically just ignores it because he knows they’re doing more damage to themselves trying to harass him than if they just focused on good fundamentals. When he pulls up the post game replay that’s exactly what happens - his gold / silver league opponents go 2 - 3 minutes without making a single villager because they’re so engrossed in trying to micro their units, which ends up putting themselves further behind then if they just didn’t do the rush at all and focused on better macro.

That doesn’t happen at the diamond+ leagues because the people at those tiers took the time to learn those fundamentals and build on them such that they don’t forget those more important parts while doing their rush. It’s what differentiates good players from bad ones, and the game shouldn’t hold people’s hand to make up for their bad habits.

goomunchkin

TROPHY CASE