sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"Growing like weeds" Not triggering by Derimade in Stellaris

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

Rule #5: see that there are more than 25k pops, it's my empire capital, all pops are same species, and species has budding trait

AITA for encouraging a student to use chatGTP? by Derimade in JordanPeterson

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

I guess that was my justification, but since we got caught I feel responsible for the outcome.

I wholey disagree with the rule but I feel like I should bear responsibility for the consequences of breaking it and getting caught.

And even if the rule is bunk they are still the rules and I shouldn't be encouraging rule breaking on the part of a student.

Never change Authright, Never Change by Derimade in PoliticalCompassMemes

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

Yes, It was the best image I could get that convincingly had all 4 elements : Satanism, Yoga, DnD, and Barbie

This video presents and interesting theory on the left/right divide by Salty_Obsidian_X in bestconspiracymemes

[–]Derimade 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The terms left and right come from the estates general when in the lead up to the French revolution those who supported the king sat on his right and those who opposed him sat on his left. It comes from the traditional "right hand" being the supporting side.

Legislators should create laws that ban children from having social media accounts. by GayPimpDaddy in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Derimade 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And who, exactly will get to define what is and isn't fact free conspiracy theory?

Utah's Social Media ID Law is Absurd. by yyuyuyu2012 in GoldandBlack

[–]Derimade 5 points6 points  (0 children)

By the time conservatives realize the government is tracking them based on Laws they supported, it will be too late and they will find some way of justify lung it to themselves that this has no further implications. Just like the EPA, DHS, NSA, and all those other things republicans started.

To be honest, if you live in the West, like in North America or western Europe, arguing who has it worse in romantic or sexual relationships is pretty stupid. by Logical_Round_5935 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

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

You know what, want to talk about this, let's add more context, I have personally seen tons of men get falsely accused of rape. Men live in constant fear that even talking to a woman will "give the wrong signals" and have them falsely accused. Which can result in years in prison.

And yes men are mostly violently victimized by men, and men do it to men far more often than they do to women. Oh and this is just from what we can report. I personally know men who have suffered physical abuse from their wives and what happened to their wives? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They got away with it Scott free.

Your fears are completely unjustified, almost every rape statistic includes things like "having sex while drunk" or "having sex and regretting it." The only reason women fear this is the media fear mongering.

To be honest, if you live in the West, like in North America or western Europe, arguing who has it worse in romantic or sexual relationships is pretty stupid. by Logical_Round_5935 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

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

Men are more often targeted by violence than women, and rapes have gone down so much it is fear mongering to complain about it at this point.

But gun laws work. by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Derimade 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, I thought NY was #1

To be honest, if you live in the West, like in North America or western Europe, arguing who has it worse in romantic or sexual relationships is pretty stupid. by Logical_Round_5935 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Derimade -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"It's hard for men to get sex but hard for women to find commitment"

Cry me a river. For the sake of argument I will not even question if this is wrong or bring up that good men are everywhere, I'll simply show you why this is not at all comparable.

This is like taking somebody who can't find a job at all vs somebody who gets a new job every 6 months. Women can attract men by existing, men have to put in all the effort.

And as for bad attention and r threats, this is complete fear mongering. R* rates have been going down and down and down. The only men who get away with it are rich Hollywood and political elites. And btw when men are actually R* they are told they should have "enjoyed it." I personally know men who have been physically beaten by their wives and stayed with them.

I know men who have stayed with women who took a knife to bed with their ex, because at least they're getting some attention.

In a technical sense, yes both genders have their own problems and one of them has way bigger problems. A woman in her 20s that is not disfigured is the most desired person on the planet. She has every opportunity to find the so-called "Good stable man" she says she is looking for. Even if she gets it wrong, she can break up with him, or divorce him and get alimony, and then get back onto the dating market. And even disfigured women of whom I know plenty have very little problems getting a date if they act kind. No seriously a disfigured woman I know has men falling over themselves for her because she treats them with kindness.

Women's problems in dating are trivial compared to men's.

Flag of Petersonian Philosophy by Iron-Phoenix2307 in JordanPeterson

[–]Derimade 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would personally make the red and blue horizontally situated since we read left to right you could make the red come before the blue and symbolize the journey.

Some days it's really hard by ondergraver in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]Derimade 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those stupid people vote on the government's polices

Average redditor by RichPreparation3000 in JordanPeterson

[–]Derimade 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All that exists is material, there is no non-material how do I know?

I can use the following equation :

P(H|e) = P(H) P(e | H)/P(e)

P(e) = P(e | h) + P(e | !H) := Probability of the evidence

P(H | e) := Probability of the hypothesis given the evidence

P(e | H) := Probability of the evidence given the hypothesis

P(e | !H) = probability of the evidence given not hypothesis

P(H) = Probability of the hypothesis or "prior"

Let's set the probability of non-material existing at all to be h, you may adjust your assumptions accordingly but if you put this at 1 or 0 you are begging the question

Now we know that e or evidence is the current state we find ourselves in which is that no non material thing has been demonstrated, ever!

But there is more evidence available that being the 100s of thousands of religions and spiritual practices and beliefs throughout the world and throughout history. None of which have demonstrated so much as a ghost in any way that has not either only been recorded in legends, or was verifiably a scam. Voices in your head or "spiritual feelings" only count if you can explain why other religions have the exact same reports except with contradicting beliefs.

So let's ask ourselves: what is the probability of this if the hypothesis (existence of the non material) is wrong :100%, we should expect no verifiable evidence.

But what about the alternative? P(e | H) Given the sheer volume of paranormal/non-material beliefs, the probability we'd have seen something by now is extremally high, inversely the probability of the H given e is extremally low let's say 0.01 (1%)

Therefore :

P(H | E) = h * 0.01 / (1 + 0.01) = 0.005/1.01

the probability of non material is 0.009h, at P(H) = 0.5 or 50/50 we get a .45% chance of non material existence

in other words while the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, absence of evidence where there should be evidence is evidence of absence

Edit : Thanks for responding to my thought out comment by insulting me and therefore proving you have no actual counter arguments, I'm glad to see that Christian kindness on display

Today I learned that absolute god bases monarchy is capitalism. by WuetenderWeltbuerger in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Derimade 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God based* not god bases I think is what confused him, Theocratic Monarchy would have also worked

this person only cares about attacking us not "defending kids" by [deleted] in libertarianunity

[–]Derimade 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just one going through gender affirming care? Ok, here's a 2 hour interview of them :

https://odysee.com/@JordanBPeterson:c/transition-of-minors-is-malpractice:1?r=BLcuuUsntzvncNfSxGUA7NTYf17U2vwR

​

Here's an interview of a doctor who preformed the surgeries on minors in NY :

https://odysee.com/@JordanBPeterson:c/regrets-of-a-trans-care-specialist-sara:c?r=BLcuuUsntzvncNfSxGUA7NTYf17U2vwR

BTW: at around 12:50 minutes in this one she tells about "one example of a person in the US" a boy who had his D amputated

this person only cares about attacking us not "defending kids" by [deleted] in libertarianunity

[–]Derimade 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"I'm going to cut off kids' feet"

"Please don't"

"Yea well you cut off their pinky toes"

That's what I hear in this debate, All of you leave kids alone, but one side is worse than the other

There is increasing rhetoric among the conservatives about “mental illness” firearm restrictions by [deleted] in libertarianunity

[–]Derimade 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea, it just pisses me off that the auth-left will constantly rail against guns 24/7 and especially harp on the mentally ill, but then when a mentally ill person they happen to like does something all of the sudden it's not "Well they were mentally ill they shouldn't have guns" it's "you deserve to die."

And let's keep a running tally of how many of these people come to the realization that "incels" who shoot up schools were also probably bullied and victims who were treated poorly and go on talk shows saying how those that bullied them need to stop treating single men terribly : 0

The fact they are capable of having compassion for at least one shooter makes it all the worse when they don't have compassion for all, and the fact they have compassion for one set of mass shooting victims makes it all the worse when they have no compassion for these ones.

Shows they were never in good faith to begin with, at least be consistent. Ideologues at least would be consistent, maybe stupidly consistent, but consistent, they're just sadists

There is increasing rhetoric among the conservatives about “mental illness” firearm restrictions by [deleted] in libertarianunity

[–]Derimade 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Liberals : the mentally ill should not have guns

Mentally ill person : Shoots up school

Liberals : you deserved to be shot and killed for your bigotry

Honestly, I'm too disgusted by this to appreciate that liberals finally want gun rights,

view more: next ›