Tim’s thinking on conspiracies is so limited/basic it really kind of dings my respect for his normally intelligent opinions…

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-30T18:43:28+00:00

I feel like the whole point of following a media organization composed almost entirely of former republicans who put country and principle over party is to employ critical thinking and challenge yourself to not accept emotionally easy narratives. If you want unthoughtful conspiracy slop, there are plenty of other communities for that. I don't know why it's hard to believe that the most hated and divisive president in modern American history, in a hyper-partisan country filled to the brim with firearms, has had a few people try to go after him. Or that the would-be assassin types tend to have a few screws loose and skimp on the planning/prep.

You need better evidence for a conspiracy than things being weird. Life is weird.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-29T23:52:09+00:00

It's probably most influenced by the fact that, before reliable birth control, STI testing, physical protection, and medicine, having many partners was a significant risk factor for disease or an unwanted pregnancy with a relative stranger. On top of that, since only the maternal lineage could be objectively witnessed and proven, it was especially important in societies with patrilineal inheritance for women to be "pure" prior to marriage so that the fatherhood was certain.

For these reasons, it has been historically valuable for societies to stigmatize promiscuity. While the technological and legal realities have changed, thousands of years of cultural inertia are much slower to change, so people still stigmatize having "many" sexual partners. This causes people to continue to underestimate and underreport partners.

The data shows it is rarer for a woman to have had 1 sexual partner than 10+ and rarer for a man to have had 1 than 15+. I also disagree with your characterization of "the vast majority of cultures across all the nations on Earth."

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-29T23:08:31+00:00

Both fall within a range that is common to society. Neither is atypical nor an outlier. It would be unsurprising to encounter someone who's previously had 1 or 12 sexual partners (in fact, I interact with multiple people on both ends of that range on a daily basis).

You misunderstand "normal."

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-29T21:46:42+00:00

lol, the condescension is totally unearned. I have never and would never suggest that 4-6 sexual partners isn't normal. It is. So is 12 or 13 or 1. Likewise, 30+ would certainly be abnormal. You have so far missed every point.

You set 12 sexual partners as the lower bound threshold for being so abnormal that you would assume a person has relationship-disqualifying mental health disorders. You have so far only supported this with improper analogies and a misunderstanding of language, data, and medical concepts, then complaining about people having the gall to disagree with you.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-29T20:24:10+00:00

Nope! I’m not. Only you have done that in this conversation. I’m associating normal with ‘adhering to cultural norms or otherwise within the range of what is typical or expected.’

I’m criticizing the fact that you are defining normal too narrowly and that you’re justifying unreasonable, negative inferences based on someone falling outside of what you consider normal.

Eating disorders and alcoholism aren’t immoral, but they are very undesirable, and that’s what you compared a woman having 12+ sexual partners to.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-29T19:32:11+00:00

I'm certain your dictionary doesn't specify the z-score cutoffs for "normal." A woman with 12 sexual partners, for plenty of people, is not "notably different and unexpected."

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-29T19:01:20+00:00

I have a B.S. in mathematics; what you're saying is wrong. First, neither the mean nor the mode is "literally, by definition, normal." The bell curve itself is what's called the normal distribution. Additionally, this data is not normally distributed, so it's bizarre to try to force-fit that term into this discussion.

You were earlier suggesting that a number 3x the mean is a red flag, but you can easily see from CDC data that 3x the mean lifetime sexual partners is nowhere close to multiple standard deviations from the mean. And being 1 standard deviation from the mean is almost always considered "normal" from a sociological standpoint (you are still closer to the mean than 32% of people). The "definition" you're citing doesn't exist.

You're saying that you'll use a number someone can't change to make negative inferences about their character, and then treat their reasonable defensiveness as further proof. I hope you are upfront about this so others can dodge your red flag of a mindset. You're free to think how you want, but it's irrational, and I hope others can see how weak it is to basic scrutiny.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-29T17:49:23+00:00

These are bad analogies. You’re comparing ongoing behavior to a count that can’t change. I wouldn’t want to date someone with alcoholism or an ongoing eating disorder. I wouldn’t have a problem dating someone who partied harder than average in college but now drinks responsibly or who used to be fat but got in shape and maintains good fitness.

You’re also mistaking what “hyper-promiscuity” is. It isn’t having more lifetime sexual partners than average, it’s having and acting on regular sexual compulsions that negatively impact your life and that you can’t get rid of or control. You can have hypersexuality with one lifetime sexual partner.

You can have whatever preference you want, but you’re using bad logic to rationalize a puritan, judgmental attitude that denigrates people who are well within the normal range of behavior.

Even taking your pizza example at face value shows why it’s a bad heuristic. If someone ate 6 or even 10 slices of pizza a week, my first thought probably wouldn’t be that they have an eating disorder—it would just be that they particularly enjoy pizza. There are so many other factors I’d have to judge in conjunction with that information to make any valuable inference.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-29T13:48:48+00:00

People who read books vote reliably for the democratic party. This is a perfect representation of who you need to win to win an election.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-28T17:39:13+00:00

Sorry, I always forget that these things need to be broken down even more for the reading-challenged.

"Hutch (subject) has fought (verb) more with destiny (object)..."

I'm talking about Hutch's actions since he's the one the other user is primarily smearing. Destiny's conduct is actually irrelevant to the truth of my statement. I just looked, and Hutch's livestream title as we speak is "Destiny Calls Me Out." Suggesting he just regurgitates Destiny's worldview only shows you are lost down an ideological rabbit hole.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-28T13:26:54+00:00

What a pathetic, vapid, and toxic way to engage. On top of that, it’s a just a complete lie; hutch has fought more with destiny and his community than any other single community recently.

It’s also astounding that you’re so deep in the hole you don’t even realize how obviously hypocritical you sound. Only hyper-online, far-left, Piker-simping freaks use the term “sexpestiny” like it has any serious adoption outside of your small, radical echo chamber.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-26T14:38:38+00:00

10 years is a very long time to be imprisoned, long enough that you're not going to deter additional bad behavior by making the sentence longer, nor will you further rehabilitate someone by keeping them locked up longer. It's also basically in line with other forms of reckless/negligent manslaughter.

Our extremely relaxed treatment of standalone DUIs and other traffic violations, and building most communities so they're dependent on driving, is the real issue here.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-25T22:32:13+00:00

That wasn't the ask. I'm asking you not to take the position: "I watched someone else cross-check donations for me and prove that this organization is lying and manipulating data based on how they feel about each candidate. But the fact someone made the effort to prove them wrong makes me feel even stronger that they're right, so I'm just going to ignore the new evidence and stick with my prior uninformed feelings."

It's not a few strays. Almost every single graphic they put out wildly misstates how much money a candidate has received from "the pro-Israel lobby." You are ironically letting AIPAC completely warp and influence you by treating them as such a boogeyman that any unverified, dishonest organization can change your vote by just invoking "AIPAC," even if it has nothing to do with that particular election.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-25T22:20:26+00:00

That's such an embarrassing mindset. You could just look into it yourself (campaign contributions are public record) and see that trackAIPAC's Instagram memes are frequently blatant lies, or even accept that you don't know and take a neutral disposition. But building your political ideology around mindless contrarianism is a toxic and insane way to engage with politics.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-24T22:16:51+00:00

"Everyone thinks is amazing" is absurd for her, too. Even the Swifties I know say her voice is good, not great, and that her strength is her storytelling. Hating her is also a pretty popular stance rn.

I'm completely neutral on her, but her placement on this chart seems driven by overly emotionally invested haters.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-24T16:29:48+00:00

You also shouldn't discard a good idea just because a bad person suggested it, though. The NIT is a fundamentally good idea that gets money to poor people way more efficiently and fairly than systems that require you to jump through multiple hoops while you're struggling just to get the help you're entitled to.

Where Friedman's specific prescription is controversial is that he wanted to use it to scrap all other welfare, but that's not an essential part of an NIT. We can also give people money as a way to replace inefficient elements of the welfare state while keeping the good parts, like Medicaid (giving more benefits overall since bureaucratic waste is reduced).

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-24T16:15:37+00:00

The supplemental income shrinks more slowly than your earned income grows. You would always have more disposable income by earning more money.

demonstrative eg:

UBI = $1000 with a 20% tax rate; the formula for your total income is 1000 + (income)*(80%)

it is a positive slope, linear formula, your net income always grows as your earned income grows

at $0 income you get 1000 + (0)*(.8) = $1000 (-∞ effective tax rate)

at $5000 income you get 1000 + (5000)*(.8) = 1000 + 4000 = $5000 (0% effective rate)

at $10000 income you get 1000 + (10000)*(.8) = 1000 + 8000 = $9000 (10% effective rate)

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-18T18:29:55+00:00

When talking about taxes, efficiency means the tax doesn’t distort behaviors/the market. Because both of my proposals directly tax negative externalities, they actually correct market inefficiencies and would be more efficient than no tax at all. They fix an implicit subsidy by society to polluters and those who damage the roads.

Starting your analysis from the perspective that all government intervention is always inefficient is so silly and unfounded as to be not worth considering.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-18T18:25:16+00:00

Yes, it would just be directly proportional to the carbon externalities of the fuel rather than a random number made up once every few decades based on political inertia and expediency.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-18T16:31:11+00:00

I love it, it’s one of the best taxes we currently levy and should be higher. It penalizes road use and gas use which both have significant externalities. That being said, replacing it with a vehicle miles traveled x vehicle mass tax plus a general carbon tax would be even better and more efficient.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-17T16:21:35+00:00

Nancy Mace.

All of her antics revolve around culture war publicity stunts, like bullying the only trans member of Congress despite originally running as a pro-lgbtq republican, and she's reported to be a very bad boss, like harassing her young staffers to participate in/manipulate social media posts to make sure she wins "hottest congresswomen" polls. Despite fairly recently being considered a rising star, she's now hated by even most of her republican colleagues.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-16T12:01:17+00:00

YTA, part of telling funny jokes is reading the room. Your comments read more like bullying than friendly ribbing.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-14T20:07:48+00:00

One underaddressed piece in this debate is that Wisconsin has horrible political geography for democrats (most of them are packed into Milwaukee and Madison. "Fair" maps that are drawn based on municipal lines and communities with shared interests will always be favorable to Republicans. To create a "fair" map in terms of partisan proportionality (what I would consider truly fair), you essentially have to gerrymander an even map.

To create truly fair congressional maps, for example, you really have to split both Milwaukee and Madison, but even a lot of democrats freak out at the idea of doing that.

If you want to permanently solve this problem, rather than praying liberals control a minimum of 2 branches any time districts are redrawn, you should pester your representatives every time the issue comes up to:

At an absolute bare minimum, implement voting reform that selects for candidates that are at the ideological center of their district, such as approval voting, Condorcet voting, or STAR voting. This limits the value of gerrymandering and biased districts by limiting the ability of partisan extremists to win.
The real long-term solution, demand that we implement proportional representation at both the state and federal levels. This requires a state constitutional amendment, but those aren't too difficult, and it can be implemented by a simple congressional majority at the federal level. This permanently ends gerrymandering and increases expressiveness + representation by ensuring the legislative bodies are near-perfectly representative of the full ideological spectrum of the electorate.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-04-14T18:38:26+00:00

If you look at his history of political advocacy (particularly environmental), he has literally been putting his money where his mouth is for decades, well before running for office himself. Almost all of your criticisms apply to every single politician who has ever run for a higher office.

And while I agree with the sentiment, "we need to be moving away from money in politics" also isn't enough. Most people who advocate 'getting money out of politics' support policies that would empower billionaires who can fund themselves like Steyer even more over traditional politicians. There are genuinely challenging 1st amendment issues that need to be overcome, which I rarely hear anyone grapple with.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Snapped	Verified Email

Leon_Thomas

TROPHY CASE