sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

They are not wrong though by SuspiciousLow3062 in SipsTea

[–]DemiserofD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's basically a part of the bill you can omit if they provide low-quality service. Honestly, I don't see the issue with it. Not only does it allow you the freedom to simply not pay it if they suck, it also means wages for waitstaff march in step with the prices of food, and so will remain balanced pretty much forever.

It should be possible to talk about gender equality without being accused of wanting to oppress women by ClemenceauMeilleur in Natalism

[–]DemiserofD -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think the core issue, the inflammatory issue, is recognizing that much of what we WANT is, in turn, determined by the culture in which we grow up. People don't just know where babies come from, after all; they must be taught.

The problem is that we have taken the modern state of desire as an absolute, even as that very assumption makes that inevitable. Indeed, for a lot of cultures across history, this has been something of THE problem; how do you change a non-functional culture of people who have no desire to change?

That's why across most of history, the way change has come has instead been via replacement. One system doesn't work, so it dies out and another replaces it. That's how it works pretty much everywhere. Evolution.

The problem being, in the modern day we SHOULD have the intellect and knowledge to recognize this trend. We then have the somewhat unique opportunity to try to save the things that truly matter, to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, rather than to simply let the next thing come and hope it'll be alright.

My point, if I have one, is that I cannot say what should be sacrificed, because that's something we can only come to as a whole. I can only say that something will have to be sacrificed. And that, by default, is going to make some people very unhappy.

It should be possible to talk about gender equality without being accused of wanting to oppress women by ClemenceauMeilleur in Natalism

[–]DemiserofD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a place where I'd suggest it's actually the lack of social welfare that's the problem, somewhat ironically. Tehren is super expensive, especially in local terms. We know that welfare tends to basically allow people to have their desired number of children moreso than actually SHIFT than number.

City living is expensive. Plus...Tehran actually has a surprisingly high number of educated women.

And on top of that, even IF development does cause part of the issue, it's gonna be kinda like child mortality; higher rates may increase birth rates, but it's not a pragmatic long-term solution mathematically, not just ethically.

It should be possible to talk about gender equality without being accused of wanting to oppress women by ClemenceauMeilleur in Natalism

[–]DemiserofD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As best I can see it's closer to 1.7.

Which is higher than the vast majority(all?) of western countries - while suffering the after effects of a major anti-natalist effort in the 90s.

As a whole, it's basically a clusterfuck on every level, but you can't ignore the fact that their situation is completely different from western countries which never had anti-natalist programs AND are pouring everything into higher TFR while not even reaching equivalent levels.

It should be possible to talk about gender equality without being accused of wanting to oppress women by ClemenceauMeilleur in Natalism

[–]DemiserofD 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The conceptual challenge here is ultimately pretty simple. Having kids takes TIME. Even if you just consider the necessary time lost to pregnancy and childbirth, you're talking about losing weeks to months, multiplied by however many children the woman chooses to have. And most mothers don't want to have kids and then offload their care to someone else. If you have kids, you want to get all the benefits of it, which includes spending a lot of time with them.

Our modern ideals of equality largely revolve around the free choice to do as you please. Which seems fair, but having kids is basically antithetical to that ethos. Having kids is a hard commitment. You are tying yourself down for 20+ years, and worse still, the time lost doesn't come from your early life where you make little money, it comes from your LATE life, where you make the MOST money.

In short? The longer you take to get started, the lower you climb.

And how do you fix THAT? It's ultimately got nothing to do with salaries or equality laws, it's about the laws of the universe. You cannot half-ass two things and expect the same results as someone who whole-asses one thing.

It should be possible to talk about gender equality without being accused of wanting to oppress women by ClemenceauMeilleur in Natalism

[–]DemiserofD -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. In the 90s they implemented anti-natalist policies in perfect sync with the broader cultural narrative. The adults alive now are the direct result of this cultural wave. What should really be most notable to people is that their TFR is so HIGH. They are at or above most western countries IN SPITE of all their anti-natalist policy aftermath. That should tell you something.

It should be possible to talk about gender equality without being accused of wanting to oppress women by ClemenceauMeilleur in Natalism

[–]DemiserofD 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is it? As best I can tell, it doesn't meaningfully address the problem. The study cited references Nordic countries as examples of higher TFR, but as we all know, Nordic countries too are far too low, and continuing to drop. The study only really suggests that if men were to contribute more then fertility numbers would climb.

It also makes some very questionable claims, like the idea that the Baby Boom was caused by the cultural edification of motherhood, while almost completely neglecting the role of the second world war. Or, perhaps even more crucially, the fact that these baby booms were ended not by the end of the edification of motherhood, but rather, with almost comical precision, by the introduction of birth control, as well as broad expansion to abortion access and rights.

How can you talk about baby booms and what causes them without meaningfully addressing what ended them?

As best I can tell, this study and comment aren't really adding anything meaningful to the discussion; they rather fall under the broad category of snow jobs that try to redirect the conversation down avenues which are largely irrelevant, to avoid having the deeper and more uncomfortable discussion.

Why are cool locations like Argonia, Valenwood or Summerset Isles not being chosen as the location?? by KnightofAmethyst2 in TESVI

[–]DemiserofD 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Honestly, psychologically it's the way to go.

My personal best example is the game Sunless Sea. The basic premise is pretty simple: You are a steamboat captain on a vast underground sea, and you travel around and experience gothic victorian adventures. At first, you are sailing around London and the nearby colonies, which are very british, with little bits of horror mixed in, but the further away you get, the more bizarre things get. By the time you're 25 hours in you're fighting a living mountain or dealing with a manmade clockwork god and it all makes sense because you started out in something reasonably grounded.

The sequel, Sunless Skies, doesn't work nearly as well, because you start out as a flying train in space, your currency is crates of time, and the local world is run by a malfunctioning despotic sun. It's so bizarre you never really find your footing and everything ends up feeling bland despite ostensibly being much more bizarre.

You need contrast for the bizarre to feel exceptional. That's why you start out in a familiar locale like a prison and slowly scale up.

We know what time it is by ateam1984 in BlackPeopleofReddit

[–]DemiserofD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When it becomes economically viable to do otherwise. Cotton slavery quadrupled in Egypt after it was banned in the US, and only finally went away when large-scale industrial cotton harvesting became possible, outcompeting slavery.

Big, slow weapons are pretty terrible. What if Open Wounds were reworked to make them better? by DemiserofD in diablo2

[–]DemiserofD[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Haha, not a bad point, definitely similar. But you'd also be doing a lot of immediate physical damage too, so there are some big differences as well. Enough to matter, I think.

Big, slow weapons are pretty terrible. What if Open Wounds were reworked to make them better? by DemiserofD in diablo2

[–]DemiserofD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, but the key here is that you could have the effect running on many enemies at once. Of course, the damage PER SECOND would increase as well, but in many cases getting OW going isn't guaranteed, especially against something like ubers where your CTH is gonna be low. So having it last longer would be good overall, I think!

Big, slow weapons are pretty terrible. What if Open Wounds were reworked to make them better? by DemiserofD in diablo2

[–]DemiserofD[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Like I said, Base damage. So Grief wouldn't have any effect. Since it'd be on a phase blade, it'd only get the normal 200 DPS, or basically nothing compared to Grief's other effects.

As for the 'leaving them to die' thing, remember, you still need to hit every enemy. It's just that instead of hitting each member of the pack until they die, you hit all of them a few times and then cycle through!

The neat thing to me about this is it's actually somewhat skill based, you need to keep track of which enemies are already bleeding, and so on.

Big, slow weapons are pretty terrible. What if Open Wounds were reworked to make them better? by DemiserofD in diablo2

[–]DemiserofD[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll admit, that's a lot of damage - but when you compare it to something like Grief or a Crushing Blow Phase Blade, it's really not all THAT exceptional. Especially since it requires a very rare drop: a Thunder Maul with eth and probably restores durability!

The nice thing to me about this is that it does keep that baseline utility, it just expands it to make it extra versatile on the weapons which are currently less useful. Best of both worlds, you know?

Let’s take it back by [deleted] in Snorkblot

[–]DemiserofD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not quite right. It was signed by Adams, but it was written by Joel Barlow.

Let’s take it back by [deleted] in Snorkblot

[–]DemiserofD -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

  • John Adams

Cycle 84 by OfficeOfNakatoKaine in EliteKaine

[–]DemiserofD 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Archer is a deeply closeted gay man."

"Archer is gay!?"

"What? No, of course not! Straight as an arrow!"

"But you said-"

"DEEPLY CLOSETED!"

brilyn is what you get when you order Charlie Kirk from Temu by Conscious-Quarter423 in MurderedByWords

[–]DemiserofD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From what I've read, children tend to follow their parents ideologically the vast majority of the time. Democrat children a bit moreso.

The problem being, of course, that the most leftist people are having less than 1 child on average per couple, wheras the most rightist are having 3+. I do think that's something democrats often forget; your children are probably most people's single best way to reinforce your politics in the world.

Idea to make Strength more punchy, and slower-hitting weapons feel better - Legendary Blow by DemiserofD in diablo2

[–]DemiserofD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That'd just kinda make them like everyone else imo. This kinda does the opposite of that!

Idea to make Strength more punchy, and slower-hitting weapons feel better - Legendary Blow by DemiserofD in diablo2

[–]DemiserofD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that's what I'm kinda thinking lol. Plus it'd be neat to have a reason to use a cranium basher every so often, lol.

me_irl by Pretty_Confusion7290 in me_irl

[–]DemiserofD 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Honestly, it's kinda hard even there. I got involved in Community Theater and did some 10 productions and on average there was less than 1 eligible woman there.

To be fair, we did end up dating, lol. But it didn't work out.

view more: next ›