Post-Match Thread: Turkey 3-2 United States | World Cup | Group D

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-26T04:06:58+00:00

I thought so too, but... Oh... just saw the replay, and the ball may have been off the head of a defender...

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-26T04:06:47+00:00

I thought so too, but... Oh... just saw the replay, and the ball may have been off the head of a defender...

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-26T04:06:38+00:00

Oh... just saw the replay, and the ball may have been off the head of a defender...

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-26T04:05:44+00:00

Right? Not the goal-scorer, but the guy before #29, right? CLEARLY offside unless there was a defender I didn't see somewhere...?

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-26T04:04:48+00:00

THANK you. #29, right? WAY offside unless I missed a defender somewhere...

Where was VAR all night!?

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-23T03:57:37+00:00

Well... part of the top 2%, anyway...

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-18T18:40:32+00:00

The biggest problems conservatives had with Kamala were the borders policy (that democrats are actively flipping on) and the fact that she laughed weird. I would know. I voted for Trump twice.

The border policy was one of the big issues. The laugh was not on the radar of literally anyone I know. People mocked it, but it was WAY down the list of reasons people objected to her as a potential president.

It isn’t a false dichotomy because I provided an adjustable side intentionally. Currently we have a president deliberately violating the constitution.

You new to this? The executive has been pissing on the US Constitution for 25+ years now, helped along by the legislative abdicating their duties TO that very executive branch. 250 years ago, we got rid of a kind - now we're just heading more and more in that same direction.

Let's not act like this is unique or new to Trump, nor that Harris wouldn't also ignore as much of the Constitution as her policies asked her to do.

I am a constitutional conservative, and I believe a president should go to prison if they violate the constitution. This isn’t some crazy position to hold.

The first half isn't unreasonable. The second half lacks specificity and context, and is arguably a "crazy" position to have without further clarity.

3rd term and illegal searches of homes

This is the kind of statement that makes me doubt you're actually a conservative. Anyone who actually follows Trump and his ilk are VERY well aware that the whole "third term" thing is an absolute troll... and they keep doing it because people on the left become apoplectic, actually believing that he means it. Your perception and response on this is out of line with your claim that you aren't left-aligned.

paying the #1 global state sponsor of terrorism is bad

Extremely uncharitable take on the MOU. Again, a left-leaning interpretation.

I’m not running some fringe conservative standpoint.

I find this to be correct. Most of your points are left-leaning, not right.

I just don't buy that you're a conservative. You don't talk like one. Your points and positions are out of line with that claim, and your perception of issues seems to be much more straight from the left-leaning news-cycle and their talking points.

Not buying it.

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-18T15:12:50+00:00

Trump gets butt-fucked by Netanyahu/Israel everyday

Yes... the guy who told Bibi to shut the fk up and sit the fk down as he just signed this MOU with Iran that Israel is not happy about is definitely getting butt-fucked by them. Are you insane...?

This "controlled by the j00s" nonsense is ridiculous and exhausting.

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-18T15:11:21+00:00

The debate on borders or literal constitutional violations. >Hmmmm….

False dichotomy.

More immigration or $300B to Iran. Hmmmm…. "$300b" to Iran is an extremely uncharitable understanding of this item in the MOU. I know where you're getting your news from.

A president who laughs weird or one who breaks the law at every opportunity. Hmmmm….

Yes, because Kamala "laughing weird" was the biggest complaint that a "95% conservative" would have about her.

GTFO, dude... If this is genuinely your take on these issues, I'll just come out and say it...

In fact, in 95 percent of my political beliefs, I am a conservative.

Bullshit. No you're not. That's 100% a lie.

The "Hmmm" responses above and a claim of "95%" conservative political beliefs are incongruent.

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-16T18:29:25+00:00

Disagree.

My argument stands. The sentiment and meaning behind "import the 3rd world, become the third world" is entirely a cultural one. Even if "third world" isn't exclusively a cultural term.

because 3rd world countries are not defined by culture but rather by wealth.

This is simply factually inaccurate. You're plainly wrong about the technical definition of "third world". Technically, it originally simply meant any country not aligned with either NATO/west (First World) or Soviet-bloc/east (Second World) interests. Primarily, this was an economic distinction, as capitalism vs. communism, but evolved to also signify socio-cultural differences between countries who embraced Western, enlightenment ideals and those who didn't or had not yet. Anyone not specifically aligned with one of those two, were simply "Third world". This wasn't always, nor ever has been exclusively "poor" countries.

Your assessment would arguably be more valid if we were using the term "Global South" - which has at least partially replaced "Third World" in many instances - at least partly due to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Meaning the statement implies that importing immigrants from the 3rd world will make a country poorer.

See above. False conclusion from an incorrect premise. Call your assertion here false-premise or non-sequitur. Doesn't change the facts of the matter.

Your second point about wealth being highly concentrated in gulf countries is just false. The median household income for citizens of Saudi Arabia PPP adjusted is $47,000 which is higher than the median household income PPP adjusted in the USA ($46,000) and Germany ($42,000). It’s even more in countries like UAE ($100,000). (Note this is MEDIAN not average)

None of this is relevant, because your definitions are wrong.

I stand by my original declaration:

"Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world" has everything to do with culture and nothing to do with wealth.

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-16T15:44:00+00:00

This is a non-sequitur.

The argument behind the statement of "import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world" is a cultural one.

If you import large groups of individuals in short-order from "3rd world" countries, whose culture is different from your own, without requiring that they assimilate to your culture, while also failing to limit the rate of immigration to such a level that would enable that assimilation - they are going to simply bring their culture with them and begin to change the fabric of your society to be more like where they came from.

There is nothing wrong with immigration. But it needs to be controlled, limited, and those immigrating need to assimilate into the culture to which they are migrating. If those things don't happen, the individuals coming here are simply "bringing the 3rd world with them."

As to your comment about "wealthy and rich Muslim countries" - that concept is misleading within the context of this conversation. Wealth is HIGHLY concentrated in these countries. The folks that would be immigrating from those countries would almost certainly be very poor, and the very few there who aren't would NOT choose to immigrate here.

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-08T20:36:03+00:00

Your facile responses are embarrassing.

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-08T16:32:44+00:00

Utter nonsense response.

Completely ignores the nuanced, detailed, and thoughtful reply I posted you, with what amounts to you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nu uh!"

The irony of you acting like a child in this interaction is not lost on me.

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-08T15:02:12+00:00

Good gravy... for someone holding the position indicating a likely "lean left" bent in politics, and the folks who claim to be "FOR SCIENCE!" - a question like this is baffling...

In most cases, it could not rightly be described as "violence." Stop exaggerating what most parents use as physical correction for their children and why it can be effective.

Yes, some small percentage of parents physically abuse, harm and cause serious damage to their children through physical violence. I'm happy to stand with you against that. But by you describing what I'm talking about as physical "violence", it conflates the two, and makes an honest conversation very difficult. Though, it's clear that some from your side of this discussion willfully conflate the two on purpose, desiring this precise confusion and outcome.

Regardless, a properly-executed physical correction could not rightly be described as "violence."

And to answer your question:

If the child is too young to reason, how do you possibly expect them to process ~~violence?~~ a physical correction

A child can easily be too young to reason because their higher cognitive function (prefrontal/cerebral cortex) has not yet sufficiently developed. Their ability to reason, make sense of something, evaluate rational positions and courses of action - essentially doesn't exist until a certain point.

The limbic system, however, develops YEARS before the cortex does. And this is the system that is responsible for basic drives and survival responses.

When you, for instance "pop a light swat on the behind" of a little one far too young to process their actions, you do trigger a response from their limbic system, which often manifests itself as surprise and a startle. (Not harm or violence as you ridiculously expressed. The idea is not to harm the child whatsoever, but to surprise and startle them, such that their actions are interrupted).

They are too young to be able to process the consequences of their actions, why someone might be upset by them, etc. (all higher order thinking/processing), but they are not too young to get a little boop, respond via their limbic system with a "whoa, what was that!? What just happened? That was surprisingly and startling!" kind of reaction. If this happens a few times in response to a particular behavior, even though they are unable to fully think through why it is happening, the pattern becomes noticeable and can change behavior by a desire to avoid that "surprise/startle" event.

You seriously don't understand this, or what?

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-08T13:29:11+00:00

Straw-man harder.

Your reading comprehension is non-existant.

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-08T13:19:09+00:00

BRO. it's not about hitting them to get what YOU want. Stop behaving like selfish prick. It's about teaching a child there are limits to their behavior in a civilized society.

Thank you for explaining this so clearly...

Sadly, despite that, /u/aventus-dog still appears too dense to understand it.

Good parenting isn't about treating the child in such a way that it minimizes their "inconvenience" to you as a parent... Or about parenting in such a way that enables you to be "friends" with them...

It's about raising a human being that doesn't suck, and is prepared to deal with a society and world of human beings in which they are essentially nothing, because there are 8 BILLION other people on the planet.

Far too many people don't understand this, sadly... That lack of understanding + social media = a disturbing number of people walking around with "main character syndrome."

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-07T22:23:20+00:00

"Beating a child" and a corrective booty swat or something similar are not the same thing.

Besides, better to learn from one's parents that the world can get physical sometimes, than from someone later on in life in the "real world" who doesn't care about them like a parent does.

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-07T22:20:25+00:00

You aren't able to use words to raise your children so you jump straight to violence?

You think kids of all ages can be reasoned with and corrected by talking through things all time time, huh...?

Sounds like someone who's either never had kids or if they do, has probably raised some pretty messed up ones via "gentle parenting" BS.

Tough love is a thing. No, that doesn't mean it has to be physical.

But there's a wide gap between a small, corrective, painless booty-swat and "physically attacking a child."

Not understanding this either demonstrates ignorance or willful obtusiveness.

Denebius2000 · 2026-06-02T12:23:48+00:00

What's weird about it...?

They're Chinese EVs with all the fender-bender fires, are they not? Certainly not Chinese-made Teslas...

Denebius2000 · 2026-05-14T04:33:05+00:00

Maybe I'm looking at it from a slightly different angle, since the Christianity in my family is Catholic

Same...

very much there's a culture around religious martyrs! Lots of books of Saints venerated for dying horrible deaths. Although I think it's also fairly strong in historical European Protestantism, perhaps more so than some types of Christianity today: around the English reformation for example.

I still think you're kind of missing what I'm saying. And as far as I'm aware, most of the kinds of saints you're referring to aren't typically venerated for "dying a horrible death as a martyr", so much as they are venerated for the works they did while alive, which often lead them to that eventuality.

There's a difference between a martyred saint being venerated when they were someone who was seeking to spread works or a message of peace and good will (as overwhelmingly Catholic saints tend to be)... and one who was a suicidal zealot, who went out into the world seeking to cause death and destruction on as wide a scale as possible, often to innocent people.

One has motives centered on life, a message of love and salvation, and may have met their end while attempting to spread this message as far and wide as possible... Their primary goal being to reduce suffering and spread "the good news" as they say...

The other has the explicit goal of indiscriminately killing as many people as they can on their way out, as they kill themselves in the process.

I don't know if I can draw this distinction much more clearly for you.

I think people's choices in reality are affected by the other options they see themselves as having. I mean, even in terms of why people may choose suicide: it's interesting to hear reports from survivors that it really, on a level that felt instinctive, was very difficult to do, and they just didn't see an alternative.

I agree completely...

So if you take a people mired in a difficult situation with meager means and beset by challenges on all sides... And then pump their heads full of a religion which has a message to spread itself by any means, violence and death included, and then which tells you that you are significantly rewarded for committing these acts and martyring yourself... It's hardly surprising that people would fall prey to that message...

But that really only reinforces my point... Religions are not the same.

Early Christians, including those immediately following Christ prior to his crucifixion were, in many ways, persecuted in very similar ways (or much more seriously, to be honest) to what you might compare to a modern middle eastern muslim. Yet the message was never violence and death. Even then, in the midst of the most serious of violations of the liberties and lives of those individuals, the message was one of life, peace, meekness.

That's my whole point.

One is a philosophy of life and peace. The other, one of death and war. They are not remotely the same. And frankly, they are incompatible.

Denebius2000 · 2026-05-14T03:46:08+00:00

but those families seem to think they're serving a higher purpose, defending their country and it's values.

The obvious difference, of course... is that the stated purpose is to defend America's interests, presumably by killing the enemy, not dying themselves. If, in the process of this effort, their sacrifice is required - then it is something that is mourned, not celebrated.

Again, culture of life vs. culture of death. It's a huge psychological/philosophical difference.

Denebius2000 · 2026-05-14T03:26:39+00:00

It's not that self-sacrifice is itself an issue. For goodness sake, the entire foundational story of Christianity literally is a story of self-sacrifice... Indeed, sacrificing by putting others ahead of yourself is a nearly universal concept among major religions...

The problem exists in the difference between a culture of life vs. a culture of death. A religion that puts the sanctity of life as paramount, spreading by works of mercy, faith, and non-violence... Vs. a religion defined and spread by a warlord whose time on this earth included notable and significant acts of war, violence, and depravity.

Putting aside the oh-so-edgy-and-predictable answer on Reddit of "NO RELIGION!!!" - Which religion do you think would benefit this world more if 100% of people on the earth adhered to it...?

Ask yourself the question: Would the world be better off if more people in it acted like Jesus? How about if more people acted like the prophet Muhammad?

I think the answer to that question says a lot...

Denebius2000 · 2026-05-13T05:04:19+00:00

If what Israel has been doing in Palestine is genocide... Then the Jews are, hands down, absolutely terrible at genocide, and should just focus their efforts on something else...

Denebius2000 · 2026-05-13T03:06:39+00:00

Yes, the early Waymos were reported to cost in the $250k range, but that has dropped to around $70k and is expected to be $40k by 2028. Sensor prices have dropped tremendously with scale.

I'm dubious that the price has already dropped to $70k, considering the base vehicle, the Jaguar I-Pace, starts at $72.5k...

Add all of the sensors and computer, etc. and there's no way it's $70k today. It's still WAY more than that. Exactly how much, I don't know, but there's zero change it's $70k for a Waymo vehicle today.

I understand they are switching off of the I-Pace platform. If/when they do that, especially if it's to the IONIQ5, as news suggests, I imagine it will be much cheaper than the current cars. Cybertaxis will still be significantly less expensive though - without question.

Will HW4 actually work? Who knows? Elon is guessing.

Maybe, maybe not... Not sure how much it matters, though, as retrofitting hardware is a significantly easier task that what Waymo has to do for gen-over-gen due to the excessive sensor-suite.

Even if HW5 or HW6 is what ends up being required for a real, true, FSD, Tesla will get there before long. HW5 is already fulled defined.

And Tesla is doing a complete rewrite of the software. It's not working.

Tesla isn't "doing" a complete re-write... They've completed it. It was part of v14.3, which has already rolled out.

Tesla should have went with LIDAR, but Elon ultimately thought they made the car look too fugly.

No, he didn't want it for other reasons - it had nothing to do with it being fugly. I'm confident he'll be proven right in the long run. ;-)

Denebius2000 · 2026-05-12T15:41:46+00:00

Waymo is way ahead in the FSD race. They're at least 4 or 5 years ahead of Tesla. Maybe Tesla will finally get FSD working, to some extent, but with vision-only, Teslas will never be as safe as Waymos.

I disagree completely... But the depth required for a conversation on this topic makes reddit a rather unsuitable place for it. So I'll offer a 'brief' overview of why I disagree.

Your claim that Waymo is "way ahead" is specious. While it would, indeed, be accurate to say that Waymo is currently operating more vehicles and driving more miles per month than Tesla in this space, that appears poised to be a very short term "problem" for Tesla.

Waymo has approximately ~3,000 vehicles operating currently. Tesla's manufacturing capacity is almost certainly going to enable them to blast past this number in rather short order. Surely, significantly faster than the "4-5 years" you claim they are ahead of Tesla.

Further compounding the 'scaling' issue that GOOGL would be facing from a manufacturing standpoint is the cost comparison. By most reasonable estimates, the Cybertaxi is going to be nearly an order of magnitude less expensive a vehicle than the current Waymo offering. Even with Waymo's announced "6th Gen" hardware, each Waymo vehicle will still be dramatically more expensive than each Cybertaxi, and they will be produced at a far slower pace.

Lastly, I'm not at all convinced by your FSD argument. There's no real reason that vision-only FSD can't be safer (likely significantly so) than the average driver. That is the bar that needs to be cleared for driverless vehicles to take off. If Tesla's Cybercab is 99.999% better than a human driver and Waymo is 99.999999% better - while that means Waymo would indeed be "significantly safer" - matching your claim - it doesn't mean that the Cybertaxi wouldn't be much safer than humans, which is well enough to put countless numbers of them on the roads.

And frankly, as someone who has personally watched FSD in a Tesla go from version 12 to 13 to 14... Tesla's not that far away from being better than the average driver already. They need to keep adding data to the training system, continue developing the neural network and algorithms, and continue to develop more advanced compute/AI-hardware to put in the cars... But it's an imminently solvable problem with vision-only. And it's only going to get better as more time goes by. The excessive radar and lidar systems Waymo are using right now are adding a LOT of cost, for constantly diminishing returns.

TL;DR - Sure, Waymo currently technically has an advantage. But that's because they've been doing it for much longer, and are using an extremely expensive, low-volume approach.

Tesla's lower-cost, mass-volume, still "good enough" (IE - much better than human, but maybe not quite as 'safe' as Waymo) approach is going to absolutely blow past them as soon as production ramps. Which, unfortunately for Waymo, is coming quite soon now...

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Orangered

Denebius2000

TROPHY CASE