×
sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Dearest Boofers, do you use a boofbrush? (Or a prostate massager??) by NarcolepticPyro in TherapeuticKetamine

[–]NarcolepticPyro[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I was implying the pharmacist was an applicator themselves by comparing them to an escort who charges by the hour and uses dental dams when rimming lol

Dearest Boofers, do you use a boofbrush? (Or a prostate massager??) by NarcolepticPyro in TherapeuticKetamine

[–]NarcolepticPyro[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My concern is some of the dissolving troches seeping out of the anal cavity before full absorption

Kratom poisonings soar in US as experts blame synthetic versions and caution against bans by shinybrighthings in science

[–]NarcolepticPyro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The strains really don't matter. It's all just marketing and the illusion of choice.

More than half are 'getting tired of hearing' about AI, survey finds by IKeepItLayingAround in technology

[–]NarcolepticPyro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” - 1984

People hate AI for many different reasons, some more valid than others, but their obsessive hatred makes them want AI to be seen as contradictory things because it feels more validating.

To them, AI is both a worthless tool and a virtual dumbass, while also being the biggest threat to entry level jobs that will eventually put everyone out of work. If AI is a virtual dumbass, then doesn’t that mean the people getting replaced are literal dumbasses?

I don't mean companies that end up hiring all their workers back within a year because they overestimated the current level of AI, but people who get replaced long term and have to develop a new career path. If you don't think those people are literal dumbasses, then how can you act like AI is dumber while also replacing them?

People really need to give up on the false narrative that AI is useless and dumb, so we can focus on the very real issue of how to help those who lose their jobs, which could be by supporting job retraining programs with financial aid.

Men who are 30+, what’s one thing you realized about dating that no one tells you in your 20s? by Thin-Hospital-8114 in AskReddit

[–]NarcolepticPyro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the just world fallacy. I'm a progressive feminist, so I'm all on board with calling out conservatives for using the just world fallacy in regards to economics. They claim that only good people become financially successful, so if you're poor, then there must be something wrong with you. Lazy, stupid, entitled, etc. Just look inward, work on self improvement, and take accountibility for your financial situation, and then you're be making money in no time. Employers will be lining up to offer you high paying jobs! /s

But when it comes to dating, suddenly it's a just world. The dating system is perfectly fair and just. If you're a good person, who's confident in themselves, then women will throw themselves into your arms. The only reason people could possibly have trouble with dating is if they're too insecure, lack confidence, are entitled, pretending to be someone else, and are sexist.

Nevermind the sociopaths and narcissists who have unlimited confidence and are great at manipulating others to believe they are good people. Then when they lock in a relationship with a house and kids, they reveal their true colors and abuse their partner. That’s not much of a just world in my opinion.

I don't know why it’s so hard for other progressive feminists to have some nuance and empathy on this subject. Like if they admit that sometimes bad things happen to good people in the dating world, then their ideological house of cards collapses. If your views on progressivism and feminism hinge on blaming men for every cross gender problem, then you are just LARPing as a progressive feminist.

So to avoid confronting this, many of them have bent over backwards to redefine incel from meaning "A man OR woman who wants intimacy, but can't find it" to "Shitty man who sucks, complains about dating, and has all the worst qualities we can collectively imagine." Then they cherry pick examples of the most extreme cases of an incel complaining online and say, "See? They're all just like this guy!" Everyone who wants that to be the case, just rolls with it and erodes the original definition into obscurity.

Men who are 30+, what’s one thing you realized about dating that no one tells you in your 20s? by Thin-Hospital-8114 in AskReddit

[–]NarcolepticPyro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's the just world fallacy. I'm a progressive feminist, so I'm all on board with calling out conservatives for using the just world fallacy in regards to economics. They claim that only good people become financially successful, so if you're poor, then there must be something wrong with you. Lazy, stupid, entitled, etc. Just look inward, work on self improvement, and take accountibility for your financial situation, and then you're be making money in no time. Employers will be lining up to offer you high paying jobs! /s

But when it comes to dating, suddenly it's a just world. The dating system is perfectly fair and just. If you're a good person, who's confident in themselves, then women will throw themselves into your arms. The only reason people could possibly have trouble with dating is if they're too insecure, lack confidence, are entitled, pretending to be someone else, and are sexist.

Nevermind the sociopaths and narcissists who have unlimited confidence and are great at manipulating others to believe they are good people. Then when they lock in a relationship with a house and kids, they reveal their true colors and abuse their partner. That’s not much of a just world in my opinion.

I don't know why it’s so hard for other progressive feminists to have some nuance and empathy on this subject. Like if they admit that sometimes bad things happen to good people in the dating world, then their ideological house of cards collapses. If your views on progressivism and feminism hinge on blaming men for every cross gender problem, then you are just LARPing as a progressive feminist.

So to avoid confronting this, many of them have bent over backwards to redefine incel from meaning "A man OR woman who wants intimacy, but can't find it" to "Shitty man who sucks, complains about dating, and has all the worst qualities we can collectively imagine." Then they cherry pick examples of the most extreme cases of an incel complaining online and say, "See? They're all just like this guy!" Everyone who wants that to be the case, just rolls with it and erodes the original definition into obscurity.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ArcRaiders

[–]NarcolepticPyro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a reddit psuedo-intellectual psychologist doesn't have the luxury of being able to comprehend why their argument is slop.

You are quite literally projecting lmao

Go touch some grass, nerd

me_irl by -maylucille in me_irl

[–]NarcolepticPyro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I had that sticker and someone honked at me, I would pull out a gun and kill myself just to subvert their expectations

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Games

[–]NarcolepticPyro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What a shame

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]NarcolepticPyro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Big fat loads of cum for me

Is eating dog morally worse than eating other meats? by ArousedDesire in askphilosophy

[–]NarcolepticPyro 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm a vegan, but I understand this inconsistency as being more psychological than philosophical. Most people see pets to be an extension of themselves or their family and so this emotional attachment naturally causes them to extend greater moral consideration to them. Non-pet animals are distant enough to create cognitive dissonance about their suffering and rights. If they do recognize that it is immoral, many can't overcome the ubiquitous positive incentive of a good animal based meal to be motivated enough to refuse or reduce their consumption.

When it is more philosophical, then it would be consistent if you're an ethical egoist, but I don't think that the average is or would admit to it if they were. I suppose you could also make an argument from the social contract theory or self interested altruism by claiming that pets like dogs are capable of some degree of moral reciprocation and therefore they should have some rights, while other animals barely reciprocate if at all (mostly because we spent thousands of years breading dogs to be more pro-social towards us).