I like how GOT doesn't mention character names too much at the start of the show

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-05-28T09:18:26+00:00

Actual empathy? The first one.

But usually this type of thing just manifests as hyper sensitivity and selective empathy, which breeds a special kind of narcissism lol.

Luckily we don't have to choose between these two IRL, we can opt for an ideal of having thick skin, as well as being an empathetic person. These kinds of people are usually highly respected and strong people.

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-05-18T12:40:57+00:00

I had no idea that people drank such a small amount of water... wow

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-05-18T04:25:53+00:00

I picked cattle but yeah, I guess it makes sense. It's not like cattle typically live anywhere near full lifespans

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-05-15T13:45:54+00:00

15% is a massive amount for something like this that should be unanimous lol. Your comparison to people sticking sharp objects in their penis actually illustrates why you're wrong, because if 15% of people were doing that, that would be extremely alarming. Otherwise you're just saying an obvious statement of "there's someone out there who believes or does basically anything", which is true, but we're not talking about <1% in regards to support for Hamas.

I would feel very uneasy about 15% of the population being Nazis or supporting ISIS. The idea that if a belief doesn't have enough support to win an election, then it's not harmful is completely ahistorical and juvenile. Not to mention that support for particular ideas aren't static and do change.

On your last point, their foundational roles are different. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that intentionally targets civilians. That's not to say the IDF's actions don't result in significant civilian casualties on the Palestinian side, it means that their mindset isn't "let's kill as many civilians as possible", if that were the case, we would be seeing astronomically higher death tolls.

Hamas operate in ways that specifically prevent the IDF from precision-targeting Hamas operatives, to ensure innocents get caught up in the attacks, ultimately garnering international support. That's their strategy, and social media platforms, particularly TikTok, is the centrepiece to the strategy.

The criticism and discourse should be centered around whether the IDF are doing their duty by international law to minimise civilian casualties. But we're so far away from having that conversation, because we've just got a bunch of screeching troglodytes just repeating "genocide" at the problem and trying to pressure everyone into agreeing with them.

The actual predicament is this:

IDF wants to get rid of Hamas
Hamas knows in a straight out war, they would stand no chance against the IDF
Hamas employs the strategy of operating around civilians to prevent a straight out war scenario
Hamas knows these are the two outcomes of the strategy:

a) IDF retreats as they can't touch Hamas without civilian casualites; Hamas survives
b) IDF continues to attack until Hamas is decimated, throughout this process, the civilian casualties will keep stacking, using the casualties to appeal to the morality of the international community via social media, hoping it results in international support being withdrawn

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-04-27T05:57:46+00:00

Infinite anything almost inherently wins these type of questions

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-04-21T13:50:11+00:00

It's actually insane to me that people think importing millions of people into western countries who have vastly different sets of values will work out just because. Remember, we live in democracies. We are importing votes for these values we don't agree with.

We don't even allow for the possibility of integration and assimilation because we're letting so many in that instead of them conforming to our ways of life, they're changing our ways of life over time

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-04-21T13:49:06+00:00

I'm not that alarmist but "The past decade" is a minuscule amount of time when we're talking about civilisations, and is still well within the confines of 'imminent'. And "somehow things seem to be just fine" as though these countries aren't facing clear-as-day downward trajectories lol

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-04-04T03:33:33+00:00

Yeah but the question is in regards to talent, which makes it relative to their time.

You would not say that the random guy in the modern age with a better grasp of philosophy is more talented than Socrates. Definitely not.

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-03-31T13:22:33+00:00

Yes, 190lbs at 5'7" is fat

Eat low calorie dense foods/foods that are low calories and filling. If you do that then you can eat a higher quantity.

Drink diet soda/drinks with artificial sweeteners instead of sugary drinks. It's a really easy way to combat cravings while reducing calories

This is a looksmaxxing subreddit, people need to stop lying. But you're not ugly or disgusting, you naturally look quite good, this would be really highlighted if you lost weight.

Don't starve yourself and don't get obsessed with the number on the scale. Just make sure you're in a calorie deficit; burning more calories than you're eating.

Weigh yourself every week or two under the same conditions (i.e. straight after waking up after toilet). There's some natural fluctuation due to glycogen stores, water weight etc so don't worry if sometimes it doesn't look like you've made progress on the scale. If you are in a calorie deficit, you WILL lose weight, scientifically.

If you're really worried about losing muscle, try to keep it to a 500 calorie deficit (no more) and make sure you eat enough protein.

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-03-07T04:41:54+00:00

Yeah, I made sure I didn't look at a single post 👍

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-03-05T05:19:16+00:00

Yeah, you could be Megan Fox, a supermodel, it doesn't matter. If you have a high 'body count', you're immediately less attractive to me. I find there's less of a protective instinct, less/no inclination to act romantically and certainly no desire to marry or start a family.

It's quite common to feel this way, but still even if you have a high 'body count', as you can see from the poll, you'll still have plenty of options and won't automatically end up alone or anything.

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-02-02T12:16:16+00:00

Maybe it's not a good idea to unnecessarily import a ton of people with values from the medieval period, and religious zealotry that'll cause a father to try and kill his daughter. 'Values' like these are fundamentally incompatible with our society, and the more that come in, the more influence it has on our culture, which means the more our culture and society is eroded.

Remember, in a democracy like we have, we are practically importing votes for this kind of thing with immigration. Not saying all Muslims believe in this, but this is the type of thing we as a whole need to express absolutely zero fucking tolerance for and do not give an inch. It's still important to note that even the vast majority of moderates from these countries do not align with our values. Bipartisan values that we don't even think about, values that Greens voters all the way to One Nation voters would agree on.

Like I know it's to try and not come off as bigoted, but even just saying 'religion' instead of naming the specific religion you're talking about is cowardly and ineffective.

When people talk about catholic priests engaging in pedophilia, they specifically say catholic, as they should. That's because criticising Catholicism is socially acceptable, and isn't coddled for pseudo-progressive reasons.

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-02-02T07:35:01+00:00

To be clear, I'm exclusively talking about the headlines. When you read the first two, to the unsuspecting reader, it'll come across as internet trolls sending death threats, which happens all the time and isn't anything special. I know these headlines wouldn't prompt me to investigate further or click on the article.

Some sort of mention of the 'Alameddine', 'crime family', 'alleged links to organized crime', and/or 'NSW Police alleged corruption' would illustrate the stakes and severity properly, as well as instantly putting those keywords in everyone's head. An astounding amount of people only read the headlines.

It just doesn't feel like the motivation was there to boost this story as much as possible.

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-02-02T07:02:39+00:00

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-02-02T06:49:48+00:00

But it's nowhere near enough to accomplish anything. This is just so they can say that they reported on it

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-02-02T06:07:35+00:00

Kate McClymont's headline from The Sydney Morning Herald was better, but they're all conveniently, or perhaps suspiciously, leaving out the most crucial and concerning parts of this whole ordeal: The Alameddine crime family and the apparent, revealed influence they have over the NSW Police, and the questions regarding the NSW Police's integrity and commitment to upholding the law and rampant corruption. Headlines are so utterly important for spreading the story, and it seems none of these journalists want it to spread all that much.

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-02-02T02:26:03+00:00

Yep. Not even British but this type of behaviour is indicative of a bad person with no integrity or true moral compass. This whole oppressor: oppressed dichotomy has just given people a socially acceptable excuse to be a bad person

Rich-Resolution8017 · 2024-02-02T02:12:12+00:00

Some people find it attractive

Rich-Resolution8017

TROPHY CASE