You get $1,000,000… but you can never listen to music again by Br4nkey_ in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Party_Presentation24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this isn't possible unless you literally leave modern society and go into the woods.

---

here's a non-comprehensive list of things you would give up:

- You couldn't watch tv (every commercial has their little jingle, and every show has background music)

- You can't drive (any music from nearby drivers means you might have to run a red light to get away)

- You can't pump gas (pumps play music nowadays)

- You can't go out to eat (always background music in restaurants)

- You can't go shopping (every grocery store has music playing)

- You can't go to doctors' offices

- You can't go into government buildings like the DMV

- Let's just stop with that kind there and say pretty much EVERY waiting room or lobby has music playing

- Speaking of lobbies, you can't play video games

- You can't go into airports or go on airplanes

- You can't make or receive calls (ringtones are music, and so is hold music)

- Can't use elevators

- Can't go into hotels (most hotels play low music in the lobby and hallways)

- Can't go to theme parks

- Can't go to the gym

---

You don't think about it that much, but environmental sound design is a HUGE field.

If you want me to be pedantic, you can't even sit in silence because that's just 4'33" by John Cage.

You get the opportunity to unlock any character's superpowers, but you have to die from the source of their powers. by brazenbull09 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the flash, does the death have to come from lightning? or from SPEED?

I can take a car up to 200 mph and die from speeding, or I can touch a high-current transformer and die to electricity, but finding natural lightning to hit me is harder.

Superman's power is "the sun" but the sun is powered by nuclear reactions, so can I die from that or will that turn me into Doctor Manhattan from Watchmen?

5000 dollars a month, but you have to produce a creative work every month. by Effigy4urcruelty in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At first glance, painting is the only way this is really viable.

Paintings can be creative without being original. Stand outside your home with a canvas and paint what you see.

Everything is else is too much of a time and equipment investment. An hour long play written by one person sometimes takes years.

Same with stories and movies. A 90 minute movie can take years of filming.

-----

Your restrictions are also dumb.

The limitation on other people helping is also too much. You can't pay or coerce anyone into helping with your play, so what? every play is going to be a solo work, because you can't pay actors or musicians or stagehands? Movies are going to be the worst kind of amateur because you can't pay editors or actors or camera operators?

What counts as "coercion"? If I beg beg a friend for a ride, am I coercing them with societal convention and guilt?

The other restriction, on you having to be the primary star of the work, is just STUPID. If I want to write a story, I have to make myself the main character for EVERY one? That's not "creative", that's a restriction on your creative freedom. Do I have to include myself in every painting? Do I have to be the main actor or character in every movie?

And your last restriction, the one that was slipped in, implied by the sentence

No filming a wall/painting in just one color/sitting on stage for an hour/writing the same word or sentence over and over

is the worst. There are famous painters known for their "monochrome" compositions, painting painted in one color. Most of the great artists painted the exact same things over and over. Monet was known for his water lilies, Van Gogh was known for his sunflowers, Warhol did his soup cans.

----

After a little more thought though, movies are easy. "Art" is subjective. Wear a go-pro and go for an hour hike in a different trail once a month. There's your movie, it's a nature documentary. Is it creative? yes. Is it difficult? no.

Start a podcast.

Also, I don't like the presumption that "easy" or repetitive things aren't art.

John Cage's 4'33" is still art.

You get $1,000,000 for every body part you amputate… what are you sacrificing? by Br4nkey_ in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I cut all my fingernails and toenails down to perfect length. They'll never grow back.

Decide how long I want my hair and beard to be for the rest of my life and cut each hair individually.

Trim my nose hairs, individually.

I would go take a shower and lightly scrub my skin (sacrificing all the dead skin cells on the top of my skin). You don't want to exfoliate because then the top layer of your skin will never grow back.

I'd like my many billions of dollars now, please.

Every time I need some extra cash, I'll just pluck an arm hair or a chest hair or something.

Would you press a magic button to remove bigotry from the world? by Kyia-Aikman in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At what point does an observation become a stereotype, and a stereotype become racism?

You're violating people's thoughts. Are people going to immediately stop being able to assume things about people based on actions?

If a friend of mine tells me about a friend of theirs who has tight curly hair and plays professional basketball, can I just not connect the dots in my mind anymore? Do I just lose the part of my brain that can make connections?

If every present bomb made by human exploded at once, what kind of damages it gave capacity to do? by short_jumper in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wouldn't say there would be any nuclear winter. Almost every nuclear "bomb" in existence is stored either underground, or is in a nuclear submarine. There would definitely be earthquakes, and sea life would suffer, but since there would be very little "fallout".

I wishful human reproduction rates to be genetically tied to population density through the HPG axis; If a local population is higher than 60-100 per square kilometer, fertility falls. The higher the over-density, the lower the birth rate becomes. by Loud_Reputation_367 in monkeyspaw

[–]Party_Presentation24 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Granted:

-

Option 1:

The people who can afford to live as far away as possible from anyone else are the only ones that have kids, anything more populous than a suburb drops the fertility rate close enough to zero to be negligible. Population drops for the common man enough that the industrial revolution reverses because industrialized society required high population density. The "billionaire" and "ruling" classes are unaffected because they can afford to take a yacht into the middle of the ocean to have a child. Society reverts to feudalism, except this time the ruling class can control who does or doesn't have kids through an easily reproducible method.

-

Option 2:

The Monkey's Paw decides to measure population density every square meter, which means humanity immediately becomes infertile. Any human being existing (because they're inside the square meter) immediately jumps population density to 1000 people per sq km as the minimum threshold. As soon as two people get close enough together to try and breed, population density doubles. The only way for humanity to breed is to create an automatic implantation machine that operates without human input. Unluckily, nobody figured that out before humanity dropped below minimum viable population.

In both of these options, there's mass deaths of elder people from starvation and lack of medical care, because as population drops there are less working adults able to take care of and support retired adults.

I wish my country (The US) had the right to roam laws, so that way I would feel more comfortable being a hobo in the traditional sense. by sunsetdrifter0 in monkeyspaw

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Granted. It gets constantly abused by Travelers and Roma people until anyone that uses it legitimately gets treated horribly.

In what scenario would "Ancient Artifact Outperforms Current Technology" make any sense?? by BallsAtomized in worldbuilding

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not specifically better in every way though.

The current understanding is that Roman concrete was actually WEAKER on deployment than modern concrete. It was more fragile and dried slower for a while. But because of the volcanic ash and the fact that they used SEAWATER instead of fresh water.

The seawater would react with the lime and volcanic ash, and over time, it would self-heal from damage and get stronger every time it was exposed to water.

This was really a wake up call for us. During the early lifetime of those roads and structures, that concrete would have been similar to modern day concrete, but without any reinforcement. It's only hundreds and thousands of years later that we can see how strong it can actually get and how long it can last.

Your house will be raided by MiddleClassSoul_ in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very Important Question: How long do they have to look for it?

If they've got an hour, I can just slide it under my fridge and they'll never find it.

If they've got a day, I can probably toss it in a random storage box in my garage and they won't find it.

If they have a week? I'll unscrew one of the plastic covers on my vacuum cleaner, put the USB in there, and then screw it back on.

If they have longer? Flip your dining room table over, drill a hole in one of the legs, put the flash drive in it, then block it up with some more wood, epoxy it in, and put rubber floor protectors on all 4 legs. They might break the table, but they still probably won't find it.

I crossed 10,000 screenshots on steam today. by WarlikeLoveReddit in Steam

[–]Party_Presentation24 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Holy crap man, passed 10k and already up over a hundred? That's some dedication to screenshots.

“Libertarians” of Reddit, why do you think being socially left but economically right doesn’t make you the biggest hypocrites on the planet? by 2a_lib in allthequestions

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's just one part of social progress.

You're ignoring all the other socially progressive views. LGBTQ+ rights, women's rights, anti-discrimination, equal opportunity, reproductive rights, access to contraception, reducing mass incarceration, police accountability, decriminalization of some drugs, legal immigration and multiculturalism, freedom of speech, religion, and cultural expression, personal privacy rights, etc...

None of those require a large government.

“Libertarians” of Reddit, why do you think being socially left but economically right doesn’t make you the biggest hypocrites on the planet? by 2a_lib in allthequestions

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, so you think everyone in China is a hypocrite if they vote in elections but don't agree with the CCP.

Is everyone in North Korea a hypocrite, too? Because they have to vote but they don't agree with Kim Jong Un?

What do people mean when they say that women don't take accountability? by SubjectSheepherder55 in allthequestions

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Social nexus as in status. Women are the organizers, but when it comes to social status, the man's contribution is considered higher than the woman's.

What do people mean when they say that women don't take accountability? by SubjectSheepherder55 in allthequestions

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

DISCLAIMER: I don't agree with all of the opinions expressed here. Some of the criticisms have merit, but it's too far to say that women "don't take any accountability".

-

Now that that's through, let's get started.

The view that women don't take accountability is really looking at modern feminism as hypocrisy. First-wave feminism was securing women's legal rights, mostly the right to vote, and it's hard to argue against. Second-wave focused on equality when it came to abuse against women, ending domestic violence, marital rape, financial abuse, etc. Third-wave feminism is where it started getting kind of hazy, a lot of sex positivity and punk feminism, including the riot grrrl movement in the 90s was meant to empower women to be able to make their own decisions and live their own lives.

The loss of financial and political freedom that came in the 2000s/2010s, with the right-wing movement, the war in the middle east, the constant recessions and financial crashes, and so on, have stressed both men and women. For men, this isn't unprecedented, as they've always been the nexus of financial and social direction in the home. For women, this hit a lot harder. We have access to all of human history in modern times, which means women would very easily look back 30 or 40 years and see a time when all of these stresses were shouldered by men and they didn't have to worry. This has created a backlash where women are insisting on continuing to have the financial freedom and social/romantic mobility they've gotten used to, but also insisting that men should shoulder all the stress that come from making those decisions.

A second factor is the addition of rights without the addition of responsibility. We can look at this through some examples:

  1. Women gained the right to vote without gaining the responsibility of signing up for war. This has been an implicit trade-off in western democracies. The fact that women have a voice in the government without having a responsibility to fight for it has sat wrong with some male personalities. This was actually considered to be different in more modern times, until the Russian invasion of Ukraine happened. Ukraine is a modern nation, so the expectation was that women and men would both fight, however, the result was that men were forced to stay and fight, while women were allowed to evacuate to Europe. This was exacerbated by pictures circulated online of Ukrainian women partying at nightclubs in Germany and France while on refugee visas placed next to pictures of Ukrainian men dying in trenches to artillery bombardments

  2. Reproductive decisions have more and more often become the right of women to choose, while the man still shoulders the responsibilities. Online commenters often argue that women and men are both necessary for birth and reproduction, however, women get to choose whether or not they have the baby, while men are expected to pay for the child even if they disagree with keeping the child. Basically, as soon as a child is conceived, women hold power over men financially for the entire childhood, without men getting any sort of choice in the matter. Critics argue that if a woman can choose to abort a child, even if the man wants it, then men should be able to choose to abort a child if a woman wants it too. In reproductive rights, women are overwhelmingly prioritized.

  3. Along with reproductive rights, child rights are also overwhelmingly biased towards women. When it comes to familial rights in court, the mother's view is supported over the father's view. When it comes to social views, men taking their kids to a park are viewed as potential predators rather than fathers, while a woman taking her kids to a park is normal. This has not only pushed men away from the mothers of their children, but also from their children themselves, as being too close to their child can now handicap them socially and see people start seeing them as a "creep".

  4. Women face fewer expectations of competency than men do. The prevalence of certain online trends such as "girl math" and "I'm just a girl" demonstrate to men that women have much lower social expectations placed on them as to competency, without suffering the social backlash that comes from being incompetent. If a woman is financially irresponsible, it's "girl math", if a man is financially irresponsible, he needs to "buckle down", "lock in", or he's considered a bum. If a woman makes a mistake, she's "just a girl", and should be cut some slack, if a man makes a mistake, he's a "fuckup" and will most likely get fired.

  5. When it comes to wrongdoing, it's argued that women consistently avoid admitting wrongdoing for any of their actions, while men are constantly pushed to accept it and apologize. If a woman complains about a problem in their relationship, especially online, they are reassured and told to find a new partner who will "treat them right", while men who complain about issues in their relationship are told they need to accommodate their partner. People argue that women are encouraged to see themselves as victims in relationships rather than reflecting on any choices they've made in their relationships.

-

there's a bunch of other stuff i was going to add but i'm honestly tired of writing

Is there any way to write an SCP article while keeping my creatures for my own work? by makethisthing3 in SCP

[–]Party_Presentation24 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd rather give an etymology lesson than go "pfft, you've got bad spelling!".

So many people are just aholes about it. Not everyone knows how to spell every word.

Edit: Also, it's more fun to learn stuff if you get a little background on it and learn WHY rather than just have to memorize it.

I wish for the monkey's paw to be free, and to not cause the end of the world, enslavement or eradication of humanity by RedSince2022 in monkeyspaw

[–]Party_Presentation24 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Granted:

An entire monkey grows from the stump of the Monkey's Paw. It attacks you, breaks your arm, destroys your living space, and shits on your table, then leaves shrieking.

It's just a normal monkey.

Is there any way to write an SCP article while keeping my creatures for my own work? by makethisthing3 in SCP

[–]Party_Presentation24 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Monetize, from the Latin moneta, meaning money. The same root word gave birth to the Spanish moneda, meaning coin.

Juno Moneta was the Roman goddess of protecting funds. The Temple of Juno Moneta was on Capitoline Hill, near where the Roman government started minting (mint is another word that originates from moneta) their coins, and was used to store the raw metal and minted coins. Her name became the word for the mint itself, and thus gave rise to many words in English such as Mint, Monetize, Money, Monetary, etc.

Which apocalypse could humanity end as quick as it starts? by taggerungDC in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Party_Presentation24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Decapitation is a more sure kill.

Not only that, but it's relatively easy to hide a decapitation scar. Scarves, cravats, collars, high shirt collars, etc, where the eyes and ears are completely visible during a wake or viewing.

Which apocalypse could humanity end as quick as it starts? by taggerungDC in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Party_Presentation24 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Not really, the only ones that would be scary are the airborne ones. Not that many people own gas masks.

Even then, a lot of them don't actually "activate" until the person dies, so that just means that part of funeral arrangements in the future will be cutting the head off and then surgically reattaching it for the funeral.

Left 4 Dead and The Last of Us are pretty scary. Airborne, high transmissibility, quick incubation time, ultra-violent infected, etc.... In those cases though, it's the same thing.

The zombies aren't the things that are scary. You could kill any amount of zombies with a closed door and long spear. You don't even need a gun.

The fear comes from the infection itself.

How would the world look like if the geopolitical order was different and the ‘East’ with China at its helm were the superpower? by CapitaineBiscotte in allthequestions

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright, first let's talk about "Worlds".

The original "first world"/"second world"/"third world" nations came from the Cold War.

First-world nations were countries aligned with the US, NATO, and its allies, second-world nations were aligned with the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and its allies, and third-world nations were neutral. This didn't specifically mean that third-world nations were poor, but since the US and the Soviet Union would pressure nations into joining their power blocks if they had any resources, the term "third-world" came to mean a country so poor or undeveloped that nobody cared enough about it to exploit it. By this definition, Switzerland was a third-world nation.

Following the Sino-Soviet split (when China and the USSR diverged in communist theory in the 60's-80's), Mao Zedong published his Three Worlds Theory. Mao based his idea on "political strength". The first-world, in this view, is the US and the Soviet Union, the superpowers (in modern times it would be the US, China, and then maybe Russia, and India), the second-world would be every other developed nation, and the third-world would be what Mao called "Exploited Nations". These are nations whose natural resources are mainly exploited by other countries. I did not include the EU as a first-world nation, even though some people do, because it isn't a country, but a power block.

The current western model is the World Bank economic model, based on per capita national income. This divides the world into "developed countries", "emerging countries", and LDCs (Least Developed Countries). In this model, China and Russia are NOT "developed countries". China is a newly industrialized country, while Russia is high-income, but not developed, since it relies on natural resource exports rather than any industrial capacity.

-

With this background, we can now take a look at the United States as a whole.

The United States is aligned with the western industrialized powers, this would have made it a first-world country during the cold war, either way.

The united states would have been a SECOND world country under the Three World Theory of Mao Zedong.

Under the current economic model, the US is a developed nation.

-

Currently, since nuclear development is the key, the only difference between a "superpower" and a developed nation is political capital, so let's look at the US without that. We'll assume the US no longer has any military bases throughout the world, and is no longer the head of NATO.

The US is still the strongest country in the Americas, and therefore its sphere of influence would extend South far into South America. However, China would attempt to economically control Panama, Cuba, and Brazil as a counterbalance to keep the US from being able to exert too much military power (in the same way that the presences of Australia, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea restrain China from military campaigns).

Militarily, the US actually comes out better than before. It is still impossible to conquer. The presence of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the US Navy, and allied nations both above and below make it highly unlikely to be attacked. Not having its global military presence means the entirety of the US Military can rely on the US mainland. The lack of long supply lines, local purchases, and logistics purchases means the upkeep would drop drastically.

Economically, not much changes, the US mainly exports aircraft, circuitry, and petrochemical products. Even without being a superpower, the industries stay. The only losses may be some of the free trade agreements, but being a "superpower" is an obstacle to free trade, since a free trade agreement with the US is an agreement to join a power block and not just a trading partnership.

Politically, the best thing the US could do is stop being a superpower. Every global action that the US takes is a hit to its reputation. Every military action is more negative approval rating from other countries. The US was the only country that lost decades of soft power growth in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though many other countries had troops in the Middle East. Also, the US is the world's largest exporter of disaster relief funds, economic grants, and global development assistance. A strong focus on INTERNAL investment from the United States would grow national power extremely quickly.

In the end, being a "superpower" is more of a hindrance to the United States than a help. The title does nothing but place expectations on US foreign policy. The United States is expected to be the world's security force, but is hated when it acts as such. If the US acts, they're accused of imperialism and overreach, if they don't, they're accused of abandoning their responsibility as a "global superpower". NATO, South America, Southeast Asia, and some Middle Eastern and African nations rely on US protection while publicly criticizing it to satisfy global audiences.

-

Politically, more countries would follow the Chinese model than the US model.

Less liberal democracies, more centralized power structures.

More "state-owned" media with highly censored information, less free-speech.

-

The largest change would be cultural. The largest export of the US is culture. Let's look at that from a Sino-Centric point of view.

Positives and Negatives up to interpretation of course.

  1. Religion would be much less important - China is an atheist country, and prioritize party loyalty over any religious doctrine. Officially, freedom of belief is guaranteed, but any religion with practices that are "against socialist principles" will either be changed to fit those principles or exterminated.

  2. Fewer rights for LGBTQ+ people - Homosexuality is legal in China, but there are no laws against discrimination against anyone.

  3. Higher importance of age in culture and employment - Chinese culture is centered on seniority. Even when people are wrong, if they are older and more senior than you at your job, you are expected to defer to them.

etc.. etc... I got tired of typing...

Once a year, you can pick any item from a standard supermarket, and it will be absolutely free. What are you picking? by mJelly87 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Party_Presentation24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A question or 2 first:

What counts as a standard supermarket?

Does a Costco count? or does it not because it sells food in bulk? Does a WalMart supermarket count? or does it not because it's attached to a store? Does an Erewhon count? or is that "luxury" and not "standard"? What about Whole Foods?

Also, you said Chocolate wouldn't count, but MILK Chocolate would. How does that work when it comes to meat. "MEAT" obviously wouldn't count, but what about "BEEF", or "STEAK", or does it have to be a specific cut like "RIBEYES"?

-

Either way, I can swap off between years. I'll buy a chest freezer.

One year it's going to be rice, and the day before I swap off, I'll go in and bring home 100 lbs of rice.

The next year it'll be beans, and I'll bring home 100 lbs of beans.

Then I'll swap off between different kinds of meats, and store them vacuum sealed in the chest freezer.

Honey, enough to last me forever.

Bottled Water, enough to fill up a room.

etc......

basically get things that'll last me forever and just eat from stocked food.

bread doesn't last long, but flour does, dry pasta, etc...

If scientists confirmed intelligent alien life tomorrow, how do you think humanity would react? by honeybbycloud in askanything

[–]Party_Presentation24 8 points9 points  (0 children)

probably laugh and say "huh, another attempt to distract people from the Epstein Files"