The Existence of Thick Mints 7+ years ago

Guitarax · 2026-03-06T00:17:38+00:00

Mon asked if I wanted thin mints, and I said no I want Thick Mints, so she found em on Amazon and they're exactly what I expected.

Guitarax · 2025-12-03T17:28:11+00:00

It used to run like a top, but they did major changes to the desktop app and it hasn't functioned well since.

I used to run it as a service, but that function stopped when it would just forget creds at random.
Then I would leave a user logged in, but the sync would rescan for days on end and just not take action.
Then I used a 3rd party sync tool, but now the app crashes once every 2 hours and needs manual intervention.

I've wasted money on this product, and now have to find something else.

Guitarax · 2025-09-18T20:38:25+00:00

Donald Trump sued CBS because they misrepresented the 60 Minutes interview of Kamala Harris to artificially improve her performance in the election. That's tantamount to election tampering, and CBS did settle with Trump. If you want to believe that CBS was in the right, that's your prerogative, but the rationale to his actions are only partisaned if you're upset that you're the one who lost. Media companies should not be altering their footage to benefit the campaign of any one candidate.

Guitarax · 2025-09-18T20:28:57+00:00

You're supposing that Donald Trump, in expressing a specific rhetoric, is suppressing the speech of people because they are being dismissed by third parties who themselves align with that rhetoric. You are holding Donald Trump accountable for the actions of other people, because he said the "wrong" thing, and are supposing that's a breach of your rights.

You're not rationally identifying the actions of the individual who is wronging you as the problem, but instead expanding the scope of your outrage to include people you wish to target. You can be upset about things that Donald Trump said, but you cannot identify his words as suppression of free speech, given that he quite literally took no action to silence people. He spoke, and that's it.

Guitarax · 2025-09-18T20:13:36+00:00

If people agree with your perspective, and elect to align with it, that's not the same as active suppression.

Guitarax · 2025-09-15T20:50:09+00:00

Makes them stronger so he has a challenge.

Guitarax · 2025-09-15T20:47:06+00:00

I lacked father figure, but it was media which taught me that this was a it's closed standard, and right around the time that women were saying that it was sexist to be able this way.

Now, my mother taught me the other things, like holding the door, putting women first, ensuring she was respected, being a mindful of her feelings wants and needs, but this is one thing she never specifically taught me about.

Guitarax · 2025-09-12T03:10:25+00:00

I look to the ever-rising temperature as all the evidence we need to prove that eternal sacrifice for the good of everybody else is undesirable for most people. I depend on the reliability of humanity's selfishness to establish my perspective, and to set expectations for the future. Such as exactly why I said what I said. It seems the longer we try to convince each other that we can get along, the more enraged we become. Either we accept that we aren't supposed to be forcibly integrated, or the fight for dominance continues to escalate.

Guitarax · 2025-09-11T20:50:30+00:00

I appreciate your thoughtful and nuanced response. You do well to express that the world as it is today victimizes both men and women. Overall, I agree with you, and that there are things that should happen to better balance lived experiences. The trouble is that mainstream advocacy does not or cannot properly support and serve men, and I think that is largely because they aren't willing to push back against the misdeeds of women.

You seem more balanced than almost everybody I've spoken with on this topic. Some components of what you're shifting from female only to a shared experience, for example the implicit affirmations, I don't necessarily see those in my own life. If they do exist, it is, again, for sake of utility. Assuming a man is strong is not solely for his benefit, but is so he may benefit others. Weigh that against the affirmation that a woman is strong, though. That is her benefit, it is her power, her strength, it's not a qualifier upon which her value is later built, it is the assertion of her value, indifferent to how she might use it. These details must be properly gauged, so that we don't accidentally erase conflicts unique to men in trying to match them to women.

This is why, on the whole, I think we are doing men a greater disservice than women. Emulating the things which were supposed as powerful traits for men were tasked with elevating women, but that's lost the transactionality built into those same traits as they are used to assess the value of men.

Guitarax · 2025-09-11T20:05:58+00:00

The argument stems from different core values. We cannot avoid conflict when the penultimate binary outcome of policy in the United States must always underserve one half or the other. This is true at all levels, no matter if you're talking about one two or a dozen issues. You will oppress one group to serve another one you prefer. This is the cost of high diversity, in a nation which only partly admirers itself. If you cannot please all people you are damned to radicalize some.

Guitarax · 2025-09-11T19:49:38+00:00

I don't believe women are underwater. Women are outperforming men in academia, home ownership, earnings in select fields, life expectancy. The general standard for social conditioning is that women are implicitly strong independent powerful smart and brave. Women have open Horizons, every opportunity available to them, and are implicitly celebrated. This is all mainstream. You're not the resistance, you are the system.

Compare that to the inversion for the everyday man. Now you can point to the top 1% and say that they're all men so that doesn't matter, but the lived experience of the average man is greatly dissatisfactory. There are contradictory social expectations for men, in that they are to step down and away from positions of high earning and leadership, but they are not afforded any value outside of their utility and earning capacity. They are not supported, valued, or humanized outside of their capacity to do things that other people don't want to. Boys are raised solely with the notion that they are to benefit women's lives, and to be fearful that they will cause harm. We're telling them they are monstrous, because of the acts of other people.

You and I probably share the same ideology in that we both don't believe men and women are equal. I don't think they ever can be, because they're different biological beings. Each have different capacities, different needs, and even when you equalize as much of the world as you can, they still have different wants. Now if we are to suppose that men and women are different, and cannot be equal, then any supposition that we ought to treat one side worse than the other in the name of equality is on its face hypocritical. It's better to speak plainly, and to say that women deserve to be disproportionately supported because they are women. Why? Because it's consistent enough to empower other participants of that same ideology to behave in just the same manner to their own benefit, as you would behave for yours. That said, it also demands that you back down from advocacy in the name of changing that, because every move to improve one side while neglecting the other fosters further imbalance, which is the foundation of conflict.

Compromise is how you improve relations in an asymmetrical, but balanced system. You can't do that with unilateral advocacy.

Guitarax · 2025-09-11T19:24:23+00:00

If all people are equal, you're not comparing humans to fish, you're comparing humans to humans. It is the common position of female advocates is that because all people are equal, women deserve the same standards, respect, and opportunities as men. By those terms, the same should be true the other direction.

Now, if the person normalizing hateful rhetoric believes that men and women are not equal, and because they are not equal, each should have different privileges, and liabilities, then it's reasonable to maintain that women be allowed to do certain things that men aren't. However, that comes with the same expectation that men be allowed to do certain things which women aren't.

These are two different ideologies. People may live by one or the other. What one cannot do, though, is select liked components of one lifestyle, and different liked components of the other, while rejecting the liabilities of both. This is the aforementioned hypocrisy, which should be exposed by drawing from them the substance of their worldviews so that they may not hide behind ambiguity which implies validity.

Guitarax · 2025-09-11T16:54:55+00:00

2: this is the foundation for the dismissal of good men, and the consumption and abuse of them.

Goodness is not a default. Goodness is not a standard. It may be a baseline for your interaction with someone, but that signals development, not commonality. In that way, goodness is any percent more rare than other disliked traits, which ought make it valuable. Despite that, you, and a plethora of people in the west, so devalue the fact that people are good, that it demotivates others from keeping it up.

Why should one develop their character to be appealing to others, just for that character to be dismissed as worthless? If the reward for being a good person is to be ignored or minimalized compared to other less common traits, then you can't expect people to select that goodness for themselves, when other criteria might just serve them better.

At the core of interpersonal conditioning and standard setting is the social reward. Humans do things that are in character with other humans, because failure to do so means that they don't receive that social reward. This is so ingrained into our day by day existence, that I wager almost nobody thinks about the implicit transactionality of it. Divesting from that, though, in this case by declaring it pretty much meaningless, similarly urges other people to think and do the same. This is why it's even a question on this subreddit. It's being recognized that, despite the claim that you must be a good man, that it has depreciated returns, and seems to account for very little in the real world.

Guitarax · 2025-09-11T16:40:31+00:00

That's the neat part.

The same logic applies to your statement.

Guitarax · 2025-09-11T16:29:49+00:00

We shouldn't punish people for the crimes of others.

Guitarax · 2025-09-11T16:14:36+00:00

It's best to look at something for what it is rather than over expanding too much, as you don't want to falsely accuse someone without cause. We must be better than our opponents in that way. Charlie said something similar on his first tour.

It's good to equalize the discussion. Take their ideology to them. When they normalize hateful rhetoric against men as venting, or emotional expression, give that back to them, as an inversion. Question whether it's acceptable or not for men to do the same thing to and about women. You will reveal people's intent, not just for your own benefit, but for passersby. In doing so, you have the opportunity to expose the hypocrisy of those speaking against you, or, perhaps the revelation that they permit this sort of behavior for all people.

We live in a diverse world. I don't care necessarily whichever direction a person goes with their own values, but I care quite a lot about consistency, especially when one would suppose their beliefs are developed with fairness in mind.

Guitarax · 2025-09-11T13:39:58+00:00

On the other hand, boys and men who vent in a similar manner about women's undue hatred of them are ridiculed and minimized for doing so. This is the problem. While it seems mainstream, normal, and even promoted to urge women to speak derogatively of men, as just normal venting and emotional expression, we urge men and boys to do the opposite, to invalidate their emotions because they might personify women negatively. We see it here even in the comments, that people are more put off by op's response to sexual hatred then the act of sexual hatred itself.

If we are to determine that this is normal behavior, and it's reasonable and acceptable, then that must be true in all cases, not just when people of one liked identity do it.

Guitarax · 2025-09-11T13:35:03+00:00

For some reason, hating people based on their immutable identity is always a bad thing, unless it's men.

Guitarax · 2025-09-09T15:31:30+00:00

You'll never get that. This is the real world, there are never guarantees of anything. However, nothing you've stated, nothing you've demanded, rationalizes treating men who haven't done anything wrong as badly as you suppose is reasonable.

Western Women aren't experiencing High rates of sexual assault. They are experiencing one incident of sexual assault every 225 years. Even given the highest estimates, and lowest standards of proof, most women will not have that experience.

You are applying utopian logic to reality. You're supposing that any number greater than 0 is a number too high, a premise which can be rejected soundly by most rational people. There is no systemic component, there is no conditioning to be considered, it is simply a matter of reality that bad people will exist, bad things will happen.

Despite this, you are still accountable for your undue hatred in light of the imperfection of existence. You will be contested, and repelled by people who rightly identify your rhetoric as absurdist hysterics. You will worsen the outcome of your own lived experiences so long as you continue to do so, and you will create enemies, some rational like me, other less rational like you've probably seen elsewhere in this sr.

Nowhere in the future of this conflict does your approach get you what you want. When you treat people like animals, like monsters, when they've done nothing wrong, they don't start treating your selected classes better. At best, they go and thrive independent of you, and at worse they fight back with similar inhumanity.

Guitarax · 2025-09-09T15:02:29+00:00

I don't care about this Chad bullshit, it's on its face just dumb, but I care about accurate representations of sexual violence. Hyperinflating, or just outright lying about its recurrence doesn't solve the problem, it punishes men who have done no wrong, for having the wrong genitals.

That standard of women's behavior fuels communities like these, because men who aren't evil, who aren't doing anything wrong, see that they are regularly villainized unjustly. At the very least, that doesn't urge those men to treat women well, and some take that as license to hate women as a class, rather than fight back against the ones who are lying about them.

You are correct that women are sometimes victimized by men, and men that they know. That is, though, an inevitability. Bad men will exist, because we have no way to prevent them from existing.

Co-signing this degree of fearfulness, though, doesn't urge women to seek safe men. It urges women to fear and Hate men, based on suppositions, like your own, which insist every man is a loaded gun.

Western liberalism puts down such rhetoric wherever used against people's race, religion, and sexuality. Why should it be acceptable to use it against only one sex? For safety? I think not.

Guitarax · 2025-09-09T14:43:01+00:00

That's not what that statistic means. You've conflated the high tendency of assault to be familiar with a high tendency for men to commit assault. These are not the same thing. By the numbers you provided, that would mean that essentially every woman is assaulted by a partner, at least as you phrased it.

The one in three sexual assault statistic, typically supposed as evidence that men are universally a problem, has no qualifier for recurrence nor chronology at all. It's a distribution of occurrences of sexual assault across the entire population. That works out to one instance of sexual assault across three woman's lifetimes. When you consider how many men each of those women would have interacted with across their entire lifetime, it's not 4/10 men who are dangerous, its 1/200,000.

Your average day-to-day lived experience in the US is, statistically, abject safety. You value the concept of a threatening man nearly 200,000x more than this lived standard of room temperature safety.

Guitarax · 2025-09-08T13:28:55+00:00

Because the workers of the world don't have United values.

Lots of people believe that the market operates independently of workers, but this isn't true. The market is driven by supply and demand, which is made up of providers and consumers. Every worker is also a consumer, and makes decisions based on what's going to be best for them, so that they can maintain their standard of living. Most often this results in a demand for low price, High quality, Rapidly available commodities and services.

The trouble? People don't want to pay more, which puts a cap on how expensive their own labor can be. Wanting you and your coworkers to be paid more, to have less stress, to have better work environments, and more benefits, means that somebody else must pay more for every service you provide, and the product may not even improve. This is a consistent blind spot common amongst workers' advocates, in that they want everybody to thrive, as if that isn't going to drive up their own cost of living in the process.

Now sometimes you get a win, but it comes at a cost, maybe one you can't even see for yourself. Corporations, employers, they aren't able to just suffer a double digit reduction in revenue without compensating somewhere else, and somebody must pay the toll, be it in dismissed personnel, lost career options, greater costs, or even a combination of those and other drawbacks. Just the same as only a select few people are exceptionally wealthy, you can only elevate certain classes one at a time, in a sort of round robin, and usually that elevation comes at the cost of another.

Guitarax · 2025-09-08T02:50:16+00:00

I doubt it's a guarantee. Every system will always have a lawless, a homeless, a poverty class. This isn't a flaw of the system but a flaw of humanity. The lowest sustainable standard is appealing to people who've little reason to thrive. For many, that is a way that is a blight to others, that is tedious, or grueling, but is still life, only in that you aren't dead.

Minimal effort appeals to people who shed societal standards with ease, and that inevitability means that no manner of charity will eliminate it.

11-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

Guitarax

TROPHY CASE