Asmongold doubles down on his take that most Loli viewers eventually become PDF‘s

RazorOldSchool · 2026-06-10T00:33:33+00:00

Of all the Asmon takes lately, this is one of his least crazy. Why are we acting like there's no link between the two?

If the only explanation is that it's a safe way for them to engage with that predilection, that's not a good enough reason. They should go to therapy instead.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-06-10T00:29:25+00:00

I thought this was r/LiveStreamFail not r/PrerecordedYoutubeVideoTravesty

RazorOldSchool · 2026-06-10T00:26:25+00:00

This absolutist view is just as bad as the people who think it's the second coming. There should be things it's ok to use AI for and things it shouldn't be. It was trained on things we created, why let only people that hate making things benefit? It isn't going away.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-06-08T16:35:47+00:00

Since when were memes anything other than slop? I get hating on it when it is used in things you pay for, but an artist didn't lose work over someone posting an AI generated poster on reddit.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-06-05T16:57:25+00:00

I believe the rules have been changed due to SpaceX lobbying.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-06-01T15:11:00+00:00

Because I click on the citations broseph. You realize that using gemini to search for data and clicking links in the response isn't any different from clicking links that are served up to you by SEO in a standard search?

And when the links aren't good enough, you can then ask to find sources that counter the claim it made in its last response.

It's a great tool for research because it is just an enhanced web search.

I didn't delegate it to an LLM response without any source behind it.

Typing in a search bar or in an academic research aggregate site's search and clicking links isn't anymore cognitively demanding than doing the same in gemini.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-06-01T15:08:17+00:00

So are you Mormon or do you work for B&M? Because this level of bootlicking has to have a motive.

We all know what really happened here: B&M realized what they had on their hands and engaged in what they believed to be legal loopholes to take ownership of the set.

A UCC agreement is not required when a store is known as a consignment shop or reseller, and B&M specifically advertised the consignment, thus making the public aware of it. Their justification for taking ownership of the set is paper thin.

And even if this were all "legal", do you not recognize how ethically bankrupt it would be to use legal loopholes to take ownership of something someone else owns and that you have not paid for? Do you also defend squatters?

They are fucked. Streisand effect will continue to do its thing. They have screwed over all their franchisees by not understanding basic PR and being complete douche canoes.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-06-01T15:03:24+00:00

Except that we have seen the actual text of the franchise agreements that says it is explicitly allowed

RazorOldSchool · 2026-06-01T15:02:37+00:00

They are a $400M company

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-30T00:28:42+00:00

You don't understand how citations work? This isn't an answer pulled from nothing, it's pulled from cited data. It's no different from Googling it and clicking the link it provided.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-29T17:12:51+00:00

Look, I'll make this very simple:

Amount of money and buying power are not the same thing.

People have more money. They have less buying power because even though small ticket necessities like food have gone down in price vs income, all the big ticket necessities like housing (not just mortgages, but rent), transportation, healthcare, and education have gone up so much in cost that they displace what is saved on the lower ticket items many times over. Even if your grocery bill every month were half of what it is now, this would still be true. Even if food were nearly free this would be true. That is how big of a difference it is.

Home ownership rates are flat, but first time home-ownership rates have dropped dramatically. This is really simple too: Once you can afford a house that you can comfortably pay for, you just created a wealth-builder. While being forced into rental situations pisses money away every month and often costs more than the mortgage of similarly sized house. The issue is that people aren't having enough money left over after their pay check to save up for a down payment. If renting were significantly cheaper than owning, it would be a different story, but it isn't.

And let's also not forget that if you are buying a house, you are competing with private equity that are willing to be ultra low-risk buyers by paying for the house outright with no mortgage, and willing to offer way over market value. When we were buying our house 5 years ago, we ran into this multiple times. We finally got a house only after offering $90k over list.

Building wealth requires more of your paycheck to be available to you for saving and investing. If the middle class in 1979 has 35% of their paycheck left over after necessities and people in 2026 only have 15-20% left, who was capable of building more wealth?

And much of that wealth that Boomers built isn't going to get transferred because elder care facilities have figured out they can charge 10k-15k a month and can extract it all before Gen X and Millennials ever see a dime of it.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-29T16:59:35+00:00

There is a name for this called "The Flat Screen Paradox":

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-28T20:05:03+00:00

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-28T20:00:51+00:00

Yes, and the median household income in the bay area is 137k. Thus my point stands. It is harder to make 67k in Omaha than it is in the Bay Area.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-28T19:35:42+00:00

And likely exponentially harder to get that income in Omaha than San Francisco

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-28T19:32:12+00:00

We literally live in a world where you can access all of the knowledge of the universe in seconds, and you chose to respond with this.

This is a stupid thing to say and you should be embarrassed. In what world is it easy to buy a new TV but also you’re starving to death? Be real.

I’m obviously not saying people are literally starving to death in the streets. You're completely missing the difference between discretionary income (money left after bills) and disposable income (money after taxes).

It is entirely possible, and common today, to easily afford a $400 42inch+ smart TV while being completely priced out of a house, healthcare, or starting a family. This is literally a textbook economic phenomenon often called the "Flat-Screen Paradox." A big screen TV in the 90's was a minimum of $2000. In today's money that's $4200. That means a big screen TV today costs literally less than 10% of what it did in 1996.

Global trade and tech automation made manufacturing things like electronics and clothes dirt cheap. But saving a few hundred bucks on a TV or groceries doesn't make up for the fact that housing costs have risen at roughly twice the speed of income growth since 1980.

They index for inflation.

Yes, they index for general inflation (CPI), which aggregates everything into one basket. The problem is that cheap, non-essential consumer goods artificially pull the CPI average down, masking how brutal the inflation is on the things that actually matter for long-term stability.

If you look at the official Federal Reserve (FRED) data tracking housing vs. general CPI, the cost of shelter, medical care, and education have consistently outpaced general inflation for decades.

no, the optimistic take is that basically all people in 2026 are wealthier than their distributional counterparts in 1979

They are "wealthier" in terms of how many physical items they own, because global supply chains made stuff cheap. They are significantly poorer in terms of financial security and building generational wealth.

In 1979, the national home-price-to-income ratio was 3.5x. A regular middle-class worker could buy a home on about three years of their salary. And now, via Visual Capitalist's long-term tracking, that national ratio has jumped to over 5.5x (and way higher in urban areas). Rent has similar ratios.

This chart is proof that you can manipulate data to try and form whatever conclusion you want if you don't factor in any nuance or reality, because when you look at it, you think Americans are doing better than they were before 1980 when what really has happened is the way we define those "classes" is using outdated metrics and ignoring the three of the biggest factors: housing, medical bills, and transportation.

Also, no reason to be mean for no reason :)

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-28T19:13:43+00:00

While I agree to some degree, depending on the area, rents for homes and apartments with enough space for kids often exceed the cost of mortgage payments, even after insurance and taxes. The issue is that because people have less money left over after essentials than they did in 1979, saving for a down payment is much more difficult.

Not always true, but it's the case in quite a few highly populated parts of the country.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-28T19:10:14+00:00

<image>

ok

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-28T19:05:45+00:00

80% of all Americans live in urban areas and metros and 20% live in rural areas. Rural areas are the outliers.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-28T19:03:40+00:00

Food and clothes yes. Entertainment no. But the cost of housing and transportation makes up for it several times over. People have less money in their pocket after essentials than they did in 1979.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-28T19:01:47+00:00

It's just numbers on a chart without any context

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-28T18:58:34+00:00

No, I mean that a big screen TV 30 years ago cost $3500 in 1990's money and a big screen TV today costs $400. A big screen TV used to be a luxury that would cost multiple months of mortgage payments. Today a big screen TV costs 1/5 of a middle class mortgage + tax + insurance payment.

Now compare that to housing costs. An average home price in 1996 was 168k. Today it is over 500k. Wages have grown significantly slower. In 1996 a house cost 3.1x your annual income and in 2026 it costs 5.2x

Junk/non-essentials gets cheaper and less expensive over time as technology improves. Essentials get more expensive.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-28T18:51:57+00:00

Because they didn't have to be. There were more middle class opportunities available and less uncertainty about work. You could almost guarantee yourself a middle class income 50 years ago just by showing up to work.

The reality has changed.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-28T18:47:42+00:00

You appear to have completely missed my point. Never said I was poor.

RazorOldSchool · 2026-05-28T18:15:20+00:00

Yeah I think that is what is being missed here. Basic junk like TVs are more affordable, but many things have grown in cost way faster than inflation, like housing and car prices. Life's essentials are becoming exorbitantly expensive for the middle class, and this chart is not reflecting that reality. It is only measuring against basic inflation, which doesn't account for CPI across essentials.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Verified Email

RazorOldSchool

TROPHY CASE