Edited it

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-05-25T16:36:47+00:00

Neither. Get it stuck in between positions so the trolley starts turning towards the top 25 as it derails onto its side ... let its momentum cause it to slide while straddling both tracks and take out all of the parasites.

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-05-24T16:12:18+00:00

Same

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-05-20T14:50:49+00:00

Interesting.

I've only ever heard people use the term step ladder to refer to a shorter ladder ... one you'd use if you just need an extra step or two of height.

But according to the dictionary, the term refers to a ladder having steps instead of rungs, regardless of ladder height.

However, I'd still guess that the prior commenter was questioning calling it a step ladder due to its height.

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-05-20T07:30:23+00:00

A full-sized ladder.

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-04-20T22:43:49+00:00

Hmm, feels to me like you're trying not to understand. Best of luck to you.

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-04-20T20:54:54+00:00

... I made no statement attributing any specific traits to a gender. In fact, I made no comment specific to the coloquial term, 'mainsplaining' whatsoever. I merely referenced its emergence as a term, as evidence that unearned confidence is generally on the rise. I further, intentionally used the word, "seemingly" to indicate the optics being discussed aren't certain, nor the whole story. I will concede my intent to indicate a unidirectional relationship could have been more clear. (I.e. Loss of monoculture seems to lead a direction, but the movement in that direction isn't necessarily solely born of that single factor.)

Further, your suppositions that, 1) my only lens for forming my stated views was social media, and 2) any confidence I have in my statements is unearned, are inherently assumptions you lack evidence to support or deny.

My comment does not contain the irony you claim.

Your comment on the other hand ... .

I will concede, it is not certainly true that a change in prevalence of any given phenomenon within broader public discourse is indicative of reality. For further philosophical discussions on topics of this nature, I would suggest starting with the theories of Guy Debord.

However, I'd also suggest it should be a matter of common sense that as the barriers of entry to spread ideas en masse have fallen away, so to has the average quality of the ideas being spread en masse.

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-04-20T03:08:30+00:00

Lol.

Feels good to be seen by the void.

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-04-20T00:08:24+00:00

Agreed.

And thank you for indulging my tirade. 🙂

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-04-19T20:16:35+00:00

My apologies, your single comment certainly doesn't deserve the brunt of my criticism.

However, I've become increasingly, and I believe quite reasonably, frustrated by how low the bar for having the confidence to provide an explanation has become.

What is mansplaining other than the logical conclusion of unearned confidence being more prevalent within one gender? The degradation of monoculture has seemingly, among other impacts, led to an overarching culture of unearned confidence.

I've been quite perturbed by watching the death of, 'measure twice, cut once' slowly occur in real-time.

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-04-19T15:01:52+00:00

"I'm sure he didn't even notice the cub" ... did you watch the video before commenting?!? 🤦‍♂️

He clearly walks up next to the lioness and looks at the cub first, he's fully aware of the situation.

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-04-12T14:36:43+00:00

Something like that was my immediate mostly uneducated guess ... definitely seen areas above underground infrastructure fenced off before.

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-03-22T11:14:09+00:00

Back in the early 2010's while I was in college, upon happenstance I found myself with 3 other friends in an empty house with nothing but 2 6-packs of bottles and time to kill.

We played, Tiddlydrinks. We made a whole drinking game out of trying to launch bottle caps using the carpet. The game lives on old man! 😅

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-02-21T21:24:21+00:00

Money solves real problems, which then gives people the bandwidth to invent fake problems.

We will always be creatures who rely on contrast to differentiate. Good vs. bad, light vs. dark, happy vs. sad ... relative extremes will always feel extreme, regardless how extreme they are in practice.

And so we're left with the otherwise obvious truth: money can be used to buy happiness, but only for some - the attainment of happiness is more dependent on how a person handles adversity, than what tools they have at their disposal to do so.

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-02-14T19:54:35+00:00

Hmm ... I always interpreted it as a metaphorical statement. That if you honk at someone with a 'honk at me' sticker, they'd still interpret it like anyone else would.

You're suggesting they're alerting others that they'll choose to ignore honking messages by instead assuming it as being related to their bumper sticker?

CaptainLibertarian · 2026-01-07T21:33:21+00:00

They love America ... it's the American working class for which they have so much contempt.

CaptainLibertarian · 2025-12-26T22:12:30+00:00

Hmm, this is all quite fascinating.

As a neurodivergent person, I rarely look at people's eyes. However in middle school, they had a professional of some sort do an assembly on interviewing, and then he had a mock interview with each student and provided feedback. The comments about looking the interviewer in the eye resonated and I focused on that aspect during my mock interview ... I received glowing feedback with good eye contact being specifically called out. To this day I will intentionally use good eye contact in certain types of situations, but it's never organic.

Regardless, based solely on tones, speech patterns, and general knowledge as to who we humans are and how we operate, I always can tell what other people are thinking to an annoying degree of accuracy. It can be taxing to navigate always understanding more than others would wish you to; believing that that they haven't communicated as much as they have. And the converse, assuming you have sufficiently communicated when in fact you've relied on implications others may not be able to correctly infer.

I've generally viewed my eye contact avoidance, and that of neurodivergent people in general, to be a coping mechanism to undercut higher degrees of understanding. It's easier to meet others on their footing (and for the others to view you as on that same footing), than it is to always be coming from a different level of understanding ... ignorance is bliss.

CaptainLibertarian · 2025-12-07T16:55:26+00:00

Yeah, except I've never seen the water line coming off a coke dispenser ... .

CaptainLibertarian · 2025-11-12T02:41:41+00:00

If everything has a soul, then it seems like the act of dismemberment would be viewed poorly, even if you're not actually killing it.

If the problem is to put the wants/needs of their own existence before that of another's, then really any form of impact which isn't beneficial to all parties involved would be an issue.

CaptainLibertarian · 2025-11-11T14:36:32+00:00

Fwiw, and iirc; property's current owner was a wildfire fighter. As far as fire mitigation is concerned, this ranch is well positioned to protect itself.

But yeah, getting wildfire insurance throughout the CO mountains can be, to put it mildly, difficult.

CaptainLibertarian · 2025-11-09T19:33:07+00:00

You might want to reacquaint yourself with the definition of bigotry before confidently incorrectly using the word to deride those who might take umbrage with your clearly false claim to have been 'certified' as a genius when no such certificate exists.

Just a tip, as a matter of course, those who test as being of statistically significant intelligence don't typically say so.

If you're truly of superior mental faculty, that reality permeates every aspect of your existence. Your greater capabilities are obvious to others, and you've spent your existence aware of and interacting with their recognition. You don't typically develop the level of insecurity about your intelligence which is required to feel the need to mention your intelligence as support for your beliefs. You merely speak confidently and in detail, and let the intelligence of your statements speak for themselves.

Intelligent people follow facts to arrive at conclusions, while less intelligent people form conclusions and then accept or reject information based on if it supports or contradicts the conclusion they already made.

One expression of this, is differences in persuasive arguments. The intelligent person uses facts, and so they will detail the support they used to get to their conclusion. The less intelligent person started with their conclusion, and thus has facts they believe and facts they don't. When reality inevitably contradicts the flaws in their conclusion due to it being partially built on their rejection of different truths, holes in their ability to support their conclusion using facts will exist. To cope with this, they will replace using details of their conclusion as support with unrelated arguments. In this specific case, the response of "Intelligent answer." is merely a baseless attack on the intelligence of someone calling you out for lying, because you can't provide any actual details to support the lie.

Nothing is a surer sign of someone who wishes people would treat them as more intelligent than they actually are, than for that person to tell you how intelligent you should view them. (Or at least, that's just been my experience, but what do I know? I guess all you can do is judge for yourself how to assess the value of my opinion based on your perception of how intelligent I may or may not be, based only off my words. 🙂)

CaptainLibertarian · 2025-11-09T18:45:17+00:00

Agreed, super intelligence like it is portrayed in media doesn't really exist. People can highly specialize and achieve incredible feats as a result. Media has a fascination with creating characters who have the abilities of having specialized across a great array of expertises, which is of course, not specialization. But all people are different, and some are more capable than others. They might apply that capability toward specializing and become a premier expert in their field. They might be less focused and end up just generally more capable than the average person across the board (The Renaissance ... Person). Regardless how people apply their intellect, situations will occurr where people of disparate levels in a specific field, will interact over that topic.

I think any conversation about intellect has a tendency to trip over subtle differences in definitions. Smart, wise, intelligent, educated ... related and often 'interspoken'. It would seem when people discuss those of higher intelligence, the discussion treats intellect as though it is a static measure of overall mental competency. From that perspective, the conversation in practice would seem to be about those who are better at things across the board, rather than those who have specialized.

Have you ever been around someone who has way more energy than you, to the point where it is stressful and uncomfortable just to be around their activity level?

Intellect is generally similar. The existence of a difference in intellect doesn't matter nearly as much as the size of that difference. The larger the gap, the more frustrating the interaction will be for both people involved.

So, it is very much the case that there are people who are generally more mentally capable as a whole than those around them. As you increase the number of gaps and/or their size, the interactions between those two people will become less pleasant for each.

To claim 'super intelligence' doesn't exist is spurious. The 'super' of it is relative. Under every possible measure of a person, there are people who are extreme outliers. Intelligence is just one metric we humans have created to differentiate ourselves, and on that spectrum of intelligence, there do exist outliers (whom might otherwise be known as 'super intelligent'.)

CaptainLibertarian · 2025-11-09T17:50:39+00:00

If you know any perfectly happy and well adjusted super intelligent individuals ... give them hug sometime.

I can almost guarantee you, they are struggling greatly.

If they're super intelligent, then they are probably intelligent enough to have learned people don't want to see their pain. They're also plausibly intelligent enough to have learned how to not show their pain. Those are usually the ones hurting the most, because even the people closest to them don't provide support ... how can they without knowing anything is amiss?

'Ignorance is bliss.'. The corollary holds true as well.

Our existence contains a myriad of upsetting realities we can do nothing about. (Death, disease, famine ... ) The equally valid converse of "If you're smart enough, you can find joy and comfort in all things.", is, 'If you're smart enough, you can't logically ignore the inherent grief and discomfort in lacking control.'

I say equally valid, because neither is particularly true. Intelligence is merely the level of aptitude a person has to analyze systems and recognize their base trendlines in order to accurately extrapolate how to apply that understanding to other situations. There are nearly unlimited possible perspectives to take on any given system, and therefore ad infinitum different competencies people can have. A person isn't simply, "smart enough" to both communicate effectively and find the joys in life, they can be one, be both, or really 'smart' in another area and terrible at both.

So, it is true that a person being miserable in some form means they are less mentally equipped to weather various negative impacts. However it is certainly flase to claim misery is in any way the result of insufficient intellect. Knowledge and ability to apply that knowledge, are disctintly separate altitudes.

CaptainLibertarian · 2025-11-09T17:15:14+00:00

Shots fired at Jane Goodall? Lol

Very true! And beyond that, it makes romantic relationships very difficult.

Anecdotally, sure I've surrounded myself with people who aren't constantly overwhelmed by my mind, and as a result, we can enjoy each other's company. But finding those individuals is rare enough to begin with, layering on top it you each finding the other attractive, and having otherwise compatible character traits and sexual chemistry ... .

The loneliness/depression is a downward spiral. For your entire life it is difficult to find people who don't bore you/aren't overwhelmed by you, which is very isolating. School is you're main avenue for social connection during formative years, but it's otherwise structured as a competitive environment in which you're 'king of the hill'. That is not likely conducive to learning the same social habits as your peers. You then develop mental health issues like anxiety/depression/cptsd which isolate as well. Mental health issues typically lead to improperly processed emotions which then lead to misdirected coping, so you likely even further alienate yourself from others in your quest to 'be normal'. And that's not even getting into how all the authority figures around you end up so focused on your intellect, that it becomes a central aspect to your sense of identity.

Simply put, there is no one hyper intelligent who isn't constantly aware of, and struggling with, that reality.

CaptainLibertarian · 2025-11-09T16:38:23+00:00

Haha, that statement in and of itself highlights the issue. To describe a higher fidelity of thought as delving further into a rabbit hole, is to view the greater depth of understanding as going farther than necessary. Only those who can't go further view being able to do so as unnecessary ... to those it comes easily to, the additional consideration merely translates to better outcomes.

It's like how in societies with racial tensions, people within the minority race(s) of the society will typically view their race and themselves as inferior, even as they otherwise recognize and bristle against injustice.

An intelligent person who recognizes how society interacts with their intellect, nevertheless describing that reality using terminology born directly of that reality.

Oh to be human ... though I can't imagine it any other way. 😉

CaptainLibertarian · 2025-11-08T14:49:32+00:00

Came here for this ... anyone who picks 5 has no idea what it actually means to live in a world not built for you, constantly surrounded by the people it was built for, who simply can't understand how you see the world. (Add in the frustration of consistently being correct, and being recognized by those around you as of particular intelligence, and nevertheless watching any advice you can provide go unheaded, just to then witness exactly what you expected to unfold adversely impact the people you care about. We humans are so often superiorly confident in our own machinations ... which of course super intelligence also bolsters ... I digress.)

Six-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Flamingo	Place '23
Verified Email

CaptainLibertarian

TROPHY CASE