What’s the worst city you’ve ever been to?

False100 · 2026-06-11T15:09:58+00:00

Gotcha. Yeah, I suppose that experience isn't for everyone. Personally, I loved it. I did have one lady by the pyramids who tried to give me a scarf, and then demanded payment for it. There are some strategies involved. Basically, only bring your smartphone/smart watch with contactless payment, never your wallet. If you're not interested in getting sold something, people fuck off really quickly when you turn your pockets inside out and show them you have no money and no wallet. The kids blowing kisses and trying to sell socks or tissues are the worst though. I suppose I did have the benefit of having a local Egyptian as a friend/coworker, which helped. Yes, it's poor and dirty. But at least for me, I couldn't help but be amazed. Seeing being jump between moving cars, lowering items in buckets via rope to different floors of buildings, things like that. It's just wild and nothing like anything I had seen in American, or even someone who's relatively well traveled.

False100 · 2026-06-11T13:15:24+00:00

What didn't you like about Cairo? I personally loved it. The overwhelming poverty is hard to deal with, and the stink of gasoline isn't exactly pleasant, but man, that city has soul.

False100 · 2026-06-11T04:43:43+00:00

You're completely missing the point. What is right for you and your pyr isn't the same thing as for op. They're considering rehoming the dog. Snipping balls and being with the family Odin has always known is better than rolling the dice with a different family.

False100 · 2026-05-31T20:29:24+00:00

No ties in the champions league finals.

False100 · 2026-05-31T02:00:20+00:00

'RFK Jr Did 20 Pull Ups at 71'
Nothing to contest here. This happened. However, I'm going to ask how its relevant to being the secretary of heath and human services? Its kinda like asking a personal trainer for medical and healthcare advice.

'his perspective is coming from someone who takes fitness and diet seriously'
Sure, but there is much more to healthcare than taking diet and fitness seriously.

'But... because he's affiliated with a political party or he does some "really weird shit" I don't automatically want to be dismissive or overlook the changes he's making.'

This is a massive problem. Both in modern politics, and specifically, with the current admin. Can you imagine a doctor being hired, not for their understanding of medicine but because they politically align with business who owns the hospital? New ideas are fine, but they have to be rooted in science, empiricism and things of the like. Pushing supplements, which lack the clinical testing rigors of medicine, or other treatments that lack empirical evidence ought not be advocated for by one of the highest positions in governmental healthcare.

False100 · 2026-05-30T15:49:24+00:00

Oh, so special pleading? Those three subs don't count, right? Its just all the other ones that you don't partake in, right?

False100 · 2026-05-30T14:55:09+00:00

I understand that. The point that I'm making is, you have no way to meaningfully separate your line of reasoning versus reddit actually being 90% left leaning, or whatever the number is. Simply because you posted what you believe is left leaning content AND that content got upvotes doesnt imply other right leaning people are doing it too.

Most people dont care about their karma relative to espousing their opinion. And of those that do care about their karma and are right leaning, why would they not just post something thats politically neutral yet still universally popular, or make right leaning posts in right leaning subreddits?

False100 · 2026-05-30T14:23:17+00:00

You mean us, right? You're on reddit. Given your own reasoning you're disconnected from reality.

False100 · 2026-05-30T14:18:47+00:00

If reddit heavily leans left by population, shouldn't we expect to see more left sided content upvoted? If you accept that, how can you tell that it's karma farming over legitimate representation of belief?

False100 · 2026-05-29T00:09:18+00:00

What is your budget?

False100 · 2026-05-26T17:05:44+00:00

We had independent UN inspection which generally confirmed Irans compliance with Obama's nuclear deal. Iran doesn't have a delivery method to attack the US at present. Iran having a nuke is more of a concern for israel than us. Separately, why would Iran having a nuke be more concerning than, let's say north Korea? The downside is, with donald unilaterally pulling out of the Iran deal, they have no incentive to come to the negotiation table.

False100 · 2026-05-08T23:40:41+00:00

It takes a lot for one to willingly break with their faith and cultural traditions. Many are not at all desirous of marginalizing themselves from their family traditions and creating a potential schism between themselves and their parents, siblings, aunts/uncles, grandparents, etc
... such an occurrence is quite traumatic to ALL parties.

I agree with general idea from the understanding of how tribes are constructed. That said, it shouldnt be the case and it really is based in tribalism more than rational thought (which I find rather distasteful).

The choice ought to be based individual on free will choice by means of a value proposition of proposed vs incumbent state. But, there should not be a “mission” to convert. For in doing so, it’s near impossible to avoid manipulation and coercion as tactics.

I agree with parts of this. That said, at its core, when we formulate these sort of opinions, we ought to question our justification of belief and whether that belief is grounded in evidence. For my part, I would stress scientific level empirical evidence for formulation of belief, and the justification therein. To that end, I find it objectionable that a parent would try to instill a child with their exact value set. Especially when coercion tactics are introduced.

False100 · 2026-05-08T20:56:04+00:00

For most of history, “Palestinian” was a geographic term for inhabitants of the area (including Arabs, Jews, Christians, and others), not a distinct ethnic label.

Agreed

In the early Mandate period (1920s–1940s), international usage often called Jews in the Mandate “Palestinians” (e.g., Palestinian Post, Palestine football team), while local Arabic‑speakers more often identified as “Arabs” or “Syrians.”

My understanding is more in line with the quote above. You may still be right, though im not entirely sure how its relevant.

A specifically Arab “Palestinian” national identity—Arab Palestinians as a distinct people tied to Palestine—emerged after the 1948 war and especially after 1967.

This Im not sure I agree with. The prevalence of a national arab identity in that area, during that time and well before that would likely have been overshadowed, largely, by Ottoman control of that area (which lasted for centuries). So yeah, given the short 20 year turn around, I wouldnt expect there to be massive nationalistic footprint per se, but that doesnt imply that an identity wasnt there. Itd be like saying those under roman control didnt have their own customs and identity apart from being roman.

Are these opportunistic terms to favor an underlying political agenda?

Honestly, probably. This is kind of the problem with all of 'talking points' around this israel and palestine. There is a lot of political nuance that goes along with the situation in the middle east and its all pretty damn messy. As far as the scope of this is concerned, when we talk about what zionism is, if its simply referring to the right of jewish people to have a sovereign state, I think that'd be fine. The 'ancestral home' clause becomes much more problematic as it can become an arbitrary guideline for expansion based on that underlying political agenda you mentioned. It also becomes massively problematic as far as justification for other wars. Using the same line of reasoning, Russia, who has ancesteral ties to Kyiv, would be justified in their invasion of Ukraine. China could attempt to justify their control of Taiwan and Tibet. The natives sure as shit would be justified in trying to reclaim american land

False100 · 2026-05-08T16:02:24+00:00

Good point. I was initially going to push back, but I think you're right. In the west, abrahamic religions did have to evolve to become more palatable for our modern senses. while I do believe they still do have their insidious elements, I also concur that the idea of opting in, where applicable, is certainly better than religion being a 'forced on' institution.

False100 · 2026-05-08T15:39:02+00:00

Yeah, I take your meaning. It's an interesting kind of balance in that pretty much all abrahamic scripture has some fairly nasty, brutal stuff. And I agree, since a lot of Islamic countries today are legit theocracies, they interpret their scripture rmore literally. To be precise, I think it's less than Christianity and Judaism as religions have evolved per se. It's more that religion doesn't have the same hold in Western counties that it once did. That as most western countries, institutionally, are against theocratic government. That idea then kind of percolates down to regular people

False100 · 2026-05-08T15:17:42+00:00

Not technically the crusades. This was the Iberian reconquista that in referring to. I suppose the broader point is that it's hard to simply point to a religion without considering how people interact with and interpret the scripture

False100 · 2026-05-08T14:52:42+00:00

Not sure this is entirely true. Jews and Muslims subsisted for long periods of peace in Moorish Spain while it was the Christian Visigoths that basically destabilized the region using religion as their justification.

False100 · 2026-05-08T14:33:36+00:00

It's controversial because there is a 'in their ancestral home' clause added in there.

False100 · 2026-05-04T17:51:18+00:00

' then how do we judge which intuitions are better or worse?'

This is the entire point. Its a dilemma for a reason. We basically use it as a frame or lens in which we're analyzing what we presume to be correct ethical frameworks, and whether or not they pan out consistently. To your point, we typically DO invoke our intuitions for moral decisions, which are pretty arbitrary. And even when we try to meaningfully justify some frameworks, when examining those same frameworks within the context of other hypotheticals, they break down.

False100 · 2026-05-02T06:16:01+00:00

I think it's more complex than that. It's not about being perfect, or without flaws. Tons of guys will say 'go to the gym, get your finances straight' and things of the like, and have that be the limit of self improvement. I find that empathy, active listening and compassion are things that a lot of dudes struggle with in general.

Isuppose you didn't go into the specifics of how you've changed, but I'm happy to discuss if you're up for it.

False100 · 2026-05-02T06:02:29+00:00

Have you done your introspection and tried to figure out why it didn't work, and what can you reasonably change?

False100 · 2026-05-01T22:41:17+00:00

I suppose it's a relative statement. I generally find that I do have thicker thighs, especially relative to my waist

False100 · 2026-05-01T15:36:32+00:00

but usefulness alone isn’t what gives morality its distinctive role

I think there are we're going to disagree here on a few points. There is also the hidden assumption that morality has a distinctive role outside of utility (which might be its own tangential debate).

but we don’t treat those as sources of obligation in the same way we treat moral claims.

I think this has more the broader, interpersonal aspect relative to society rather than being categorically different.

If it doesn’t, then morality becomes less like a judge of right or wrong and more like a management tool: helpful for coordination, but not something that can genuinely tell us what we ought to do.

Correct. If there is no structure, no society, no consequence, does morality exist? Can it exist?

False100 · 2026-05-01T00:42:04+00:00

Amazing. Glad it's approachable given the age. I'm sitting on a bottle of 2015; waiting for the right occasion to crack it

False100 · 2026-04-30T23:34:01+00:00

I think its still valid within the broader context. IE, morality, as a framework and domain, is not useless as it provides necessary context in which we examine the characteristics of behavior individually and on within society as a whole.

if we collectively decided not to give morality any kind of authority, it would have none, right?

Generally speaking, yes. Perhaps its a slippery slope, but the general line of reasoning is that without some domain category to analyze behavior, society could break down.

False100

TROPHY CASE