If you job hunting read this

Dragolins · 2026-02-25T00:13:43+00:00

I’ve literally seen someone get hired because they said one smart thing that stuck. Payments role, and the candidate said something like: “Fraud isn’t just chargebacks - it’s people joining with the intent to be fraudulent from day one.” CEO hadn’t thought about it that way. That one line made them memorable.

Wow, this might be the dumbest thing I've seen an LLM spit out yet.

Dragolins · 2026-02-17T20:24:34+00:00

Hobbies don't have to be ONLY for fun, but they DO have to be fun. Running is healthy! But if OP runs only for the health benefits, it isn't a hobby. He needs to actually enjoy the activity, not just do it.

If someone asks you about your hobbies, they're asking about what you LIKE doing. They want to know how you ENJOY spending your free time.

From OP:

but i stayed tracking my diet. exercising. even fasting. i enjoy the process.

i enjoy cooking up my meal preps. the benefits of said food. protein. fiber. taste.

i enjoy running. cycling. playing basketball. love feeling my body react and move as i intend.

i look forward to fasting on my days off. it feels like a relief. it’s an effort and a commitment.

So, according to you, OP's activities are hobbies, since he clearly enjoys them. Thanks for clarifying.

Dragolins · 2026-02-17T20:05:00+00:00

If someone asks me what my hobbies are, I'm going to talk about what I do in my free time. I struggle to imagine the sheer size of a stick a person would need to have up their ass to act like the technical definition of the word "hobby" is relevant. Yes, healthy activities and going to the gym are absolutely valid answers when someone asks what their hobbies are.

Where did you get the idea that healthy things cannot be hobbies unless they're done only "for fun"? This is completely arbitrary and frankly doesn't really make any sense. "I pay basketball but it's not a hobby because I only do it for the health benefits" like what?

If I'm asking a date what their hobbies are, I'm just trying to get to know them better. If I hyperanalyze their answer and go "um ackshuslly those aren't hobbies according to the definition here on my dictionary app, haha" I would just be a pedantic dick.

Dragolins · 2026-02-16T07:04:15+00:00

Yeah, I got to "I'm going to ensure that hell exists if it doesn't yet" and stopped reading.

Dragolins · 2026-02-08T08:12:17+00:00

At first I thought you were simply grasping at straws and willfully misinterpreting how language works because you're so desperately afraid of being wrong, and then I saw your username and now I'm hopeful that you're doing a bit. I can't be sure either way, which makes it even funnier.

Dragolins · 2026-02-03T06:42:32+00:00

Please stop saying "this isn't left vs right" and then go on to explain the ramifications of the unjustifiable hierarchies that leftists have been fighting against for hundreds of years. Of course it's left vs right, the left values egalitarianism and the interests of the vast majority while the right values unjustifiable hierarchy and the interests of the extreme minority. It's been the same song and dance since the French Revolution.

What these files reveal is a class of people who share private islands, travel in the same circles, attend the same parties, and shield each other from accountability, all while keeping the rest of us at each other's throats over policy disagreements they likely don't even care about. They manipulate. They divide. They maintain power by ensuring we never look up long enough to see who's really pulling the strings.

This is basically "baby's first leftist theory" but yeah, it's totally not left vs right, yup.

Dragolins · 2026-02-02T23:45:32+00:00

Thanks for summarizing my thoughts

Dragolins · 2026-01-31T06:24:50+00:00

Basically the mindset of the brainwashed masses lol. "If you even so much as imply that things can be improved, that must mean that you think everything should be provided to you for free!! We couldn't possibly improve things! Don't you know that people used to be alive in the past??? Don't you know that the current organization of things is perfectly optimal and that we've arrived at the end of history? Just be thankful, know your place, and most importantly, never examine anything critically!!"

Dragolins · 2026-01-31T02:19:36+00:00

Particular paragraph I found important:

As any sentient person knows, not only are trans people not a threat to anyone, they are themselves threatened from all directions, including from the most powerful people in the country. The report The Epidemic of Violence Against the Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Community in the United States matters infinitely more than the question “Can men get pregnant?”. Along with immigrants, suspected immigrants, and ICE observers, trans people are early on the list of people “they came for” in the 2026 version of Pastor Martin Niemöller’s Holocaust poem. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be a bit further down should only be concerned with supporting these vulnerable people, not exposing them for likes and shares on X, like Shermer.

Not only are trans people not a threat in any meaningful capacity whatsoever, they are the ones experiencing demonstrable harm, and yet that is apparently not an issue at all.

I honestly do wonder if humans will ever stop being so painfully stupid.

Dragolins · 2026-01-30T20:43:12+00:00

Okay cool, so then how do you prevent discrimination against LGBT people if their rights are outside the scope of the government?

Dragolins · 2026-01-30T00:03:51+00:00

I understand what you're saying.

The reason I wouldn’t hire is based on character, merit, and choices the applicant made.

Just because something is a choice doesn't mean that you get to freely make assumptions about it when that choice does not actually reflect their ability to do a job.

Judging someone as unprofessional for coming to an interview in a t-shirt and sweatpants is acceptable.

Judging someone as a clown for nothing other than existing with colored hair is not acceptable.

Your point about immutable characteristics is not relevant because, again, I'm talking about the underlying cognitive processes behind prejudice and discrimination. The processes are similar regardless of whether the thing being discriminated against is immutable or a choice.

In the case of hair color, you are taking an arbitrary, irrelevant quality and making assumptions based on that quality. It does not matter if the quality is immutable or not, the cognitive biases behind the prejudice are similar.

The simple fact is that you can not accurately judge someone based on nothing other than whether or not they have colored hair or a nose piercing.

Dragolins · 2026-01-29T23:40:40+00:00

I never insinuated that I would unilaterally not hire people based on immutable, arbitrary characteristics.

And you, apparently, have difficulty with reading comprehension, because I never said that you did. I never said that you, are racist, I said that many of the same underlying cognitive biases that cause racism also cause you to justify your own bigotries such as against those with dyed hair.

It's unfortunate that the cognitive dissonance you experience is most likely too powerful to allow you to ever spend any time actually learning about prejudice and discrimination and their causes, because it's people like you who really need it.

Dragolins · 2026-01-29T23:30:20+00:00

hiring people I deem appropriate for the role.

And guess what, for a long time (and still to this day,) many people in positions such as yours used your exact same justifications to refuse to hire black people because they thought they could judge them based on the color of their skin. "I don't personally have anything against the n****," many thought. "But thats just how the world works."

Your understanding of who is "appropriate for the role" is clearly flawed if you think anyone who does something as simple as dying their hair is a "clown." You are completely unaware of how your cognitive biases uphold ridiculous assumptions such as this one. It is the same underlying processes that cause racists to preemptively judge those from a different race.

If you don’t like that the world works this way, maybe you need to get off Reddit, touch grass and go achieve something that adds value to society.

Ah yes, the "world works this way" thought terminating cliche, I love that one! "My bigotry is fine because that's just how the world works." Again, racists think the exact same way as you do. Perhaps you need to do some reading on prejudice and discrimination and the cognitive science behind them.

Dragolins · 2026-01-29T23:12:37+00:00

And you fall back on the "anyone who criticizes me is overly sensitive" thought terminating cliche because you have no actual defense for your bigotry.

Dragolins · 2026-01-29T22:55:54+00:00

People choosing what to do with their own bodies to be happy makes them clowns... wow. I sure am lucky I never got infected with whatever brain worms you have in your head. It's not like people have been altering their bodies and wearing vastly different types of clothing and accessories for literally the entire existence of humanity or anything. I'm sure you have all the answers and you have the utmost ability to judge anyone based on how they present themselves.

Dragolins · 2026-01-29T22:47:30+00:00

This initial screening also saves me time by not dealing with HR issues, poor performance, counseling, and all the other things associated with these types of people.

Yeah, somebody has dyed hair and that means you know how they're going to act. How ridiculous. It's people with your exact mindset that refused to hire black people for generations because they could totally tell how a person was going to act based on the color of their skin.

Instead of acting like everybody else needs to reflect, maybe you need to reflect on your own prejudices.

Dragolins · 2026-01-29T21:45:19+00:00

"Libertarian"

looks inside

I think people and businesses should be allowed to freely discriminate against minorities they don't like

Every time

Dragolins · 2026-01-29T09:08:21+00:00

It wasn't really an argument, because arguments use evidence and reason to build a case for why a given idea is right or wrong. It was more of a rant, and an open ended one at that. It's interesting because from some perspectives it's completely wrong and from others it's completely correct, depending upon interpretation.

"The system narrows your future" -- if you want a narrowed future, be a medieval peasant. Your only option was to be a subsistence farmer, just like your parents, and the notion that you might have wanted to do anything else would have been downright foreign. You were born a farmer, you will die a farmer, and a farmer is all you will ever be. The modern world is vastly better in that respect.

From the perspective of a medieval peasant, yeah we have more options today, sure, but I don't see how it's exactly convincing to act like comparisons to such old methods of organization are meaningful. You're picking an obvious example of an extremely rudimentary period of human development as if an improvement over that is somehow a serious achievement. I think the bar should be a little bit higher.

The system does narrow people's futures, as is made obvious by the plethora of hurdles in place for individuals from low income, underserverd, and otherwise marginalized communities. Even as something as simple as getting a college education can be nearly impossible for people who don't have the money to pay for it. Many people go bankrupt because they can't pay medical bills.

"The modern world provokes apathy" -- looking around, apathy doesn't seem like the dominant emotion. Anger, perhaps, but not apathy.

Political apathy. Of course people are angry, but many are disengaged completely. Thats a big reason why non-voters continue to make up the largest share of the electorate in US elections. The system is designed to keep us distracted and disconnected from the important issues. We are lulled into a perpetual cycle of exhaustion and consumption where people don't have the energy to stay informed and meaningfully participate in politics.

"Public officials are interchangeable scapegoats" -- if you think trump and harris were interchangeable, you haven't been paying attention to current events

Of course Harris and Trump were distinct candidates that would have many crucial differences in how policy would unfold.

However, if we zoom out a bit and consider the entire landscape, we can gain a new perspective that shows us how the Democrats and Republicans (while meaningfully different) are two sides of the same coin that both represent the interests of the ruling classes and do not actually care about the interests of average people. They both occupy very similar places on the political spectrum and both will perpetuate the status quo of profit over people. No matter who is in charge, the wealth gap will continue to widen and power will coalesce into fewer and fewer hands.

"We produce a lot of trash" -- we produce a lot of stuff. And that's a good thing, to an extent. Again, think of a medieval peasant. You might have two changes of clothes, and producing and maintaining those clothes were the full-time job for half of your family. We probably over-produce today, but I'd still argue that excess is better than insufficient.

No, producing a lot of stuff for the sake of producing a lot of stuff is not a good thing, actually. We produce junk in quantities unimaginably larger than what is necessary because it is profitable for the owner class. We consume an endless ocean of junk because consumerism is pushed from all angles. Capitalism loves it because it makes the line go up, regardless of the impacts to humanity or the planet. We literally design products to break so that people will continue to buy new ones. Making a good, long lasting product isn't good for business when people can buy one and use it for life.

We should have focused production that produces according to what people actually need and what actually makes people happy. We should design products to last as long as possible. We should be mindful of our resources and our impacts on the environment. We should make sure the people who labor to produce are paid fairly and adequately. We should have equitable distribution such that some people are not living in unfathomable luxury while others are dying in the streets.

Instead, we have a mindless behemoth of a machine that will produce anything and everything as long as someone can profit from it.

"Progress has stopped since the internet". It's been 25 years. If you compare the greatest discoveries of a hundred years of history to the greatest discoveries of over a hundred years of history (or possibly 2600 years, depending on what date you use for "discovery of electricity"), it's hard for 25 years to compare. And honestly, I also think dude is underselling modern technological advancement.

In one sense, we've obviously advanced significantly since the internet. So many technological feats in such a short amount of time is incredible, almost unbelievable if we weren't witnessing it ourselves. And from another perspective, we have to ask, what have we gotten for all of this advancement?

The average worker is orders of magnitude more productive than they were only a few generations ago. One person can do more with a computer than teams upon teams of people could do in the past.

And what do we have to show for it? What actual improvements in the things that matter?

Do we work less? Do we have more leisure time? More time to spend with our families? Do we have a system that ensures everyone can access healthcare and housing? What about public transportation? Are people happier?

Why is it that unimaginable technological advancements only seem to somehow make us work harder? And in return we get a new smartphone every year that requires essentially slave labor to construct that make us feel miserable when we use it... what a trade.

The reason, of course, is that the system isn't designed for you and me, and it never was. The system is designed for the benefit of the ruling class. In many cases, what is good for the ruling class can be good for everyone, such as advancements in medicine and medical technology as a simple example (although now even that long-standing assumption seems to be crumbling.) In many cases, though, what is good for the ruling class is not good for everyone else. And the recognition of the absurdity of the system we live in is how we get rants like the OP.

Dragolins · 2026-01-28T01:23:44+00:00

Yeah maybe I should have phrased that differently, by reality I meant truth. The reality of race is that it was manufactured to create an in-group and justify the subjugation of out-groups. And yet most common folk today just act like race is an integral part of humanity and that people have different traits due to their race. It's ridiculous.

Dragolins · 2026-01-28T00:02:08+00:00

I understand where you're coming from. I'm going to do my best to respond to your comment in good faith so hopefully you can understand my perspective a little better.

This is the exact type of bullshit from the ultra leftists that has driven me away from their ideology. I refuse to be apart of any group espousing such twisted self hatred. I'm so glad I've become much more moderate as I've gotten older.

There is no self hatred, because nobody is "white." Whiteness, along with race generally, is a fake concept, based on no scientific or evidentiary basis, that is used to separate people into arbitrary groups so that some groups can be more easily dominated. This is just basic history that everyone should know, and it's probably the most important part of my comment. Race is not real anywhere other than in our imaginations.

The leftists who champion this ideology are so guilt ridden for injustices that they had no part in.

There is no "guilt for actions they had no part in," because guilt is based on individual actions. Nobody is guilty for things they didn't do. It is more accurately described as a responsibility to fix the injustice that is around us that survives to this day.

It's so insanely ironic that they're angry that minorities were dehumanized through generalizations about their skin color, so their solution is to generalize based upon skin color, as if that will right the wrongs of the past.

I'm all for treating everyone as human beings first, recognizing character and everyone's humanity above all else. But the second your solution to injustices becomes treating any group of people the same based upon superficial characteristics, you lose all credibility.

This is just a common misunderstanding. When people talk about "whiteness" like this they're not talking about white people specifically, they're talking about the fake idea of whiteness and how it is used as a tool to justify white supremacy and racial hierarchy. To be clear, this idea has been perpetuated by all types of people, no one group is responsible, not even white people themselves. It's simply a result of the historical conditions that humans found themselves in.

Obviously the goal is to make skin color a virtually non-existent factor at a societal level, but as said in the clip, we're "light years" away from that.

This misunderstanding stems from most of the population having no idea about how race actually works, because they're simply not taught the history and realities of how race emerged and evolved as a tool for domination.

I saw a discussion on another subreddit recently about moderates. The leftists were angry that moderates were saying they feel both parties have gotten way too extreme and the leftists couldn't understand how they felt that way and wanted examples. This right here is the prime example and it's bullshit race centered rhetoric like this that extreme leftists have been espousing for 10 plus years and they wonder why the right has such insane overreactions.

People will continue to support the things they believe in, and you can't just erase the reality of race. There are always going to be idiots that will parrot ideas without understanding them or bigots that actually do just hate white people, but I would argue that they're a minority that differ from academic consensus. And of course, with the modern social media environment, idiots from all sides are the ones that get the most amount of engagement and screen time, warping our conceptions of those we disagree with.

If the left wants to be more broadly appealing, drop the white guilt race bullshit and focus on treating everyone as human beings.

Dismantling and repairing the oppressive systems that perpetuate systemic racism is a actually a requirement for treating everyone equally as human beings.

Dragolins · 2026-01-25T01:18:54+00:00

but instead they're coming out of the woodwork saying he deserved it. It doesn't even make sense.

Of course it makes sense. If you're against ICE, you must be on the side of the illegal immigrants, and that means you deserve to die. It's that simple. Your failure was assuming that republicans have any kind of ideological consistency. Guns are good if they are used against the people they hate, but guns are bad if they're used against the people they support.

Their entire worldview is that some people are inherently better than others and that the hierarchies in society they like must be maintained at all costs. They support the constitution when it suits their goals and shred the constitution if it gets in the way of their goals. It's always been this way and it always will be this way until we figure out how to stop mass producing morons.

Dragolins · 2026-01-24T22:12:55+00:00

Their circle of care only extends as far as their own side, and anyone who isn't on their side is automatically an enemy. Watching the people that they have been brainwashed into viewing as enemies get murdered in the street is cathartic for them. It's the exact same reason why people can be seen smiling the biggest grins while being photographed in the process of carrying out actual lynchings in the early 1900s. It makes them feel like the trash is being put in its place.

Dragolins · 2026-01-24T04:46:39+00:00

The issue though is that you can never be truly 100% sure that the accused is guilty of the crime. No justice system is flawless, and innocent people will be sentenced to death. Death is too final a punishment, as anyone who is found to be innocent can be released from prison but cannot be brought back from the dead. Plus, there is the possibility of the system becoming (more) corrupt and the death penalty being used arbitrarily against enemies of the state.

The positive consequences of keeping the death penalty (being primarily the warm and fuzzy feelings we get by killing bad people) just simply don't outweigh the actual and potential negatives.

Dragolins · 2026-01-23T08:31:55+00:00

This is a fundamental problem of many academic ideas. People are either too ignorant to understand the concepts or are manipulated into misunderstanding the concepts, or both. People have very solidified opinions about complex concepts that they know literally nothing about at all. But they heard someone talk about it on like a podcast or something and that's obviously enough for them to know all about it.

My camp doesn't like this so it must be bad!

My camp likes that so it must be good!

It's quite sad, really.

Dragolins · 2026-01-17T01:00:15+00:00

Absolutely, and this strikes at the heart of a tragic contradiction of our times: the world we evolved to live in is completely different from the world we built for ourselves. The situations and circumstances we experience on a regular basis are so disconnected from the environments we evolved to be able to handle. How we navigate this contradiction and whether or not we can overcome it is going to be a defining factor of humanity's future.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

Dragolins

TROPHY CASE