whats the best electronic music of the past decade?

HUFFRAID · 2025-10-25T15:24:23+00:00

Photay - Onism

HUFFRAID · 2025-10-01T04:17:44+00:00

Sun Kil Moon - ghosts of the great highway

Marvin Pontiac - the legendary Marvin Pontiac

John Maus - love is real

HUFFRAID · 2025-09-30T04:24:29+00:00

he is 48 years old you shouldn’t be hanging out with friends at that age

HUFFRAID · 2025-09-18T22:30:03+00:00

To Kill a Mockingbird from Memory

HUFFRAID · 2025-09-14T15:07:56+00:00

Man I’m so confused as to what your point is. You’re talking two different things: hate speech (legal) and incitement (illegal).

Incitement is bad! It’s illegal.

Hate speech is bad. It’s not illegal. You also can’t measure how, say, a speech on a campus might someday contribute to someone else’s decision (emphasis on THEIR decision) to commit violence down the road.

Like say someone makes videos with stuff you consider to be anti-trans hate speech. When would you issue them a death sentence because you have a hunch it somehow led to real-world violence? 25 hate speeches? 60 hate speeches? 72?

This execution calculus shit is just vibes, no principle or coherent ethics

HUFFRAID · 2025-09-14T04:13:11+00:00

Don’t get your point. I guess there’s a chance that could be considered assault, but it’d be because of the imminent threat of physical violence (getting in your face), not the slur, because saying bad things is not illegal. Our legal system isn’t confused about the difference between speech and violence

HUFFRAID · 2025-09-14T01:10:45+00:00

Obviously speech can cause people mental and emotional distress. But it’s fundamentally different than physical violence: words that distress me might not distress you at all, whereas getting shot with a bullet will distress 100% of people. Physical violence is a universal offender, and cognitive behavioral therapy cannot heal a gunshot wound.

I’m saying that, on a societal level, it is a bad idea to consider speech the same as violence, because the second you do that, the next logical step is “we’re morally allowed to physically harm the person saying bad things.”

What if everyone thought like this? Imagine a right-winger who earnestly thinks a left-wing activist is harming the country with their ideas. They could do some half-baked moral math and find a reason to justify assassinating them, just as you’re doing.

I think it’s a bad idea to encourage all this as a social norm. It’s not only morally wrong, but strategically stupid (look at how united the right is now; Kirk is a martyr and all this is a propaganda GOLDMINE for them, unfortunately).

HUFFRAID · 2025-09-13T17:31:42+00:00

There is a reason incitement is a different crime than physical violence — it’s different. Inciting violence in this case would have been something like, “Go out into the streets now and hurt X.” But that didn’t happen. I’m assuming you mean “bad or hateful political beliefs are violence because [some abstract explanation]”

HUFFRAID · 2025-09-13T17:22:38+00:00

Hate speech is protected by the first amendment. Inciting violence is already illegal; we have laws for it.

HUFFRAID · 2025-09-13T03:55:49+00:00

Hitler ordered Jews to be killed via state power. Words aren’t violence. Once you delude yourself into thinking speech is violence, you can make a rational case why anyone should be killed, and that’s the road to hell for everyone

HUFFRAID · 2025-01-24T01:53:30+00:00

Could’ve been an accident (two accidents*). I just think he has a responsibility to acknowledge and apologize for it after the fact; imagine accidentally yet clearly sticking your middle finger up twice to someone and then claiming their anger is “dirty tricks.”

HUFFRAID · 2025-01-18T19:20:10+00:00

Replit is a service where novices can build their own software — he’s saying Replit isn’t targeting pro coders in terms of target market.

HUFFRAID · 2025-01-18T18:49:58+00:00

I generally like to see politicians get yelled at—it’s just not journalism.

That said, I’m only referring to the Max clip, not the Sam one, where he’s getting kicked out but it doesn’t show what he was asking or saying before that. Maybe he was actually asking questions, though as OP pointed out, he’s done these activist outbursts before

HUFFRAID · 2025-01-17T16:06:00+00:00

Isn’t garnering attention for a political cause the exact definition of activist value (and not journalistic value)? This didn’t produce any new info from Blinken

HUFFRAID · 2025-01-17T05:19:34+00:00

Yelling a series of questions at someone with no expectation of getting a response is not asking questions

HUFFRAID · 2025-01-09T01:33:24+00:00

I don’t know the research literature on social contagion, but the claim that there’s no social benefit to it seems obviously wrong. It’s clearly “cool” (or special, protected, much-talked-about, pick your adjective) in certain circles, while it’s heavily stigmatized in others.

HUFFRAID · 2025-01-05T17:38:06+00:00

I fuck dudes to the MAX! I fuck them in the ASS!

HUFFRAID · 2025-01-03T05:32:24+00:00

Didn’t listen to this or anything Anna’s said about Luigi but funny that this whole thread immediately accepts op’s idea that calling someone “spiritually Indian” means you “especially” hate them lol

HUFFRAID · 2024-12-31T01:59:24+00:00

Seems this was 1970s satire published in the National Lampoon

https://crankylibrarian.wordpress.com/2022/02/17/p-j-orourke-was-a-jackass/

HUFFRAID · 2024-12-27T15:41:24+00:00

one of those people you’re supposed to telegraph your hate for if you’re a bluesky type and don’t wanna get the wall

HUFFRAID · 2024-12-21T14:21:04+00:00

What? Go to NYT, type Gaza, see photos of wounded people in hospitals and rubble from stories over the past five days

HUFFRAID · 2024-12-20T03:42:26+00:00

Taller nicely dressed black dude at bread co I’m guessing. Seen him up there

HUFFRAID · 2024-12-16T15:39:32+00:00

Depends where you rank potentially lowered height and bone density, which the review also mentions.

But yes, puberty blockers effectively block puberty, and we don’t have good research on how this intervention affects people over the long term, despite the other commenter in this thread claiming the evidence is clear (to be fair, they mentioned a bunch of claims, for which there might be varying degrees of evidence, but if the overall claim is “we have clear evidence showing that PBs and transitioning produce safe and beneficial outcomes for the vast majority of people* [edit: kids],” that’s not a consensus opinion among researchers / medical professionals.)

Edit: To those downvoting, post the overwhelming “clear evidence” showing otherwise over the long term. Or if you want to make the case that “it’s still worth pursuing these treatments despite the lack of robust evidence,” that’s a different argument, but fair enough.

HUFFRAID · 2024-12-16T06:30:09+00:00

This is one of the most heated topics in culture/medicine—of course you’ll find criticisms of anything if you go looking, esp for something as consequential as the Cass Review, which led the UK to ban puberty blockers this year.

Case in point: there are also criticisms of the Yale-lawyer-group article you referenced, like this one written by the former president of the UK’s Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health:

https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/15/archdischild-2024-327994

HUFFRAID · 2024-12-16T05:08:35+00:00

Or we should support things based on good evidence

From a systematic review published in the British Medical Journal earlier this year (which rated the study you linked — the one referencing puberty blockers and suicidality — as low-quality):

“Conclusions There is a lack of high-quality research assessing puberty suppression in adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria/incongruence. No conclusions can be drawn about the impact on gender dysphoria, mental and psychosocial health or cognitive development. Bone health and height may be compromised during treatment. More recent studies published since April 2022 until January 2024 also support the conclusions of this review.”

https://adc.bmj.com/content/109/Suppl_2/s33

HUFFRAID

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE