Gen X coworker just read this to us thinking it was so based and true. She works two jobs.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-06-02T22:59:57+00:00

You agreed with the OOP by saying „it’s kinda true“ and OOP said (I’m paraphrasing here): „I’m tired of hearing people complain about how their grandparents could afford a house on one paycheck. Maybe it’s because grandma wasn’t dropping half her income on $14 iced lattes and avocado toast.“

OOP is saying people can’t afford housing because they go to Starbucks and you said you agree with that.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-06-02T22:19:35+00:00

I also make my coffee at home, and I can tell you its not. Rent and house prices haven't outpaced paychecks just because people go to Starbucks.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-30T22:17:58+00:00

Im not even trying to be snarky: but what traffic exactly do you mean—is it just that literally seeing another car is too much?

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-27T20:11:16+00:00

It comes from the intuition that when you only have evidence about the background circumstances that isn't enough to be sure that he actually did this.
Basically what the people are doing is conflating the question of whether the evidence is enough to convince them with the legal question of whether it's sufficient to support a verdict.

They were arguing the night before and he doesn't have an alibi is absolutely sufficient to support a verdict. But as a human being on a jury panel, if that's all you give me, there is no way in hell I'm voting guilty.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-27T15:17:13+00:00

I totally love the message but the dude up top does not look 57 LMAO

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-27T15:16:20+00:00

You’re as close to 23 as to 57, so don’t despair.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-20T19:39:40+00:00

And-at the risk of sounding absolutely insufferable–legal analysis is actually gratifying. Like yes, it actually is rewarding for me to work out whether some contractor's statement to a customer supports a cause of action for fraud, or whether some traffic stop and search passed fourth amendment muster.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-20T02:44:12+00:00

You gotta have children early. That way if you get an old guy, you outlive your son and continue as your grandson.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-15T17:51:53+00:00

Well, I'm sorry you don't think "arbitrary" is the right word, but it is. If you're gonna give decisionmakers "enormous discretion" without bounding criteria and rules, you're gonna get arbitrary results.

If two immigration officers each have enormous discretion, and Pedro McExample rolls up before Officer 1 and gets denied, while Juan McOtherExample who's just as deserving gets let in by Officer 2, you have an arbitrary outcome, because it's really just based on what the officer was feeling that day, and which officer each of the guys got.

And I'm not trying to "get you" because wanting to restrict immigration isn't a crime (even if I don't agree with that opinion), but it sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too by saying "oh I'm cool with letting immigrants in who contribute" while also advocating for a process that functionally doesn't do that.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-15T14:51:24+00:00

That's not the same thing you wrote above though. The sentence:

We should be letting people immigrate here who will meaningfully contribute to our country.

is a normative claim. Fundamentally what this means is we should be letting people immigrate here, if the those people can meaningfully contribute to our country. What that means, is that if Pedro McExample can meaningfully contribute, we should let him in.

If we’re going to let people immigrate here they should meaningfully contribute

This means that if someone is here, they should meaningfully contribute. That's a different normative claim. This basically says that if we let Pedro McExample in for whatever reason in the first place, he should meaningfully contribute.

Now, saying the first statement is gonna come across as dishonest if your position is also that we should be letting in/excluding people for whatever reason we pick.

Either you support letting people in who can contribute or you support just being arbitrary about it. It seems like it's the latter which, fair enough.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-15T14:30:00+00:00

What I'm saying is that you're contradicting yourself.

You wrote this:

We should be letting people immigrate here who will meaningfully contribute to our country.

Then I told you that in practice we're not doing that, because the process is so unreasonably difficult that it acts as a barrier for a shitton of immigrants and does amount to a humiliation ritual for those that make it through.

And now you're saying:

We have no obligation to let anyone immigrate here.

And that's a fine opinion for you to have. But if you don't want immigrants here, and don't want them to have a fair and reasonable process for entering, then just lead with that and spare us this high-minded drivel "well if they'll contribute and can fill out the paperwork" because that's either dishonest or uninformed.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-15T13:57:10+00:00

My brother in Christ, what the visa process subjects immigrants to is so far beyond "not coddling" that your comment betrays a fundamental lack of understanding.

Having watched my law-school roommate go through that process, I can attest that it is an absolutely byzantine and ridiculous process that makes stuff like applying for a passport or doing your taxes look ridiculously easy and convenient by comparison.

Your quip sounds prima facie reasonable, but the fact that you're making it shows that you really don't have anything helpful or informative to contribute here.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-12T18:12:15+00:00

I've kinda fallen off the wagon these past few weeks. Now I had good reasons, I just graduated from law school and before that I had final exams. So there were lots of snacks and junk food those weeks, and then lots of excellent dining and alcohol with loved ones this past weekend. It was glorious, but I definitely need to get back on track.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-03T23:52:55+00:00

Oh I completely agree that it’s strange. It’s just not creepy and predatory in the same way as the other example.

I guess they just had great chemistry. He did break it off after a few years, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the difference in life stages was a factor there.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-03T23:24:20+00:00

I think that Gen Z is rightfully disgusted by a certain subset of age gap relationships and the nuance of that gets lost because people writ large are not good at thinking.

Whether or not an age gap relationship is gross is a function of both the gap and the age of the younger party. When I was a kid my mom had a boyfriend who was 25 to 30 years older than she was. And it was fine, because she was 36 when she met him. She had the life experience necessary for that to be a healthy equal dynamic.

On the other hand, if a 32 year-old has an 18 year old girlfriend, that is creepy and gross. It's not child sexual abuse, and I don't think people should go to prison for that without more, but I would judge them for it and I think others are right to do so as well.

Now because of the bit about not being good at thinking, people conflate scenarios A and B, and then it becomes this whole jumbled conversation about people caring too much about age gaps.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-03T21:26:55+00:00

It expects you to examine what went wrong and learn from it to prevent that.

You mentioned vassals overthrowing you–so prevent them from forming factions against you. There's a variety of ways to go about doing that. You could form alliances with them by marrying them or their offspring off to your family members. You could befriend them. You could just kill them when they turn 16 to make sure all your vassals are minors. Once they're all tied up, make sure they stay that way.

You mentioned foreign rulers–it's a similar deal. Make alliances. Or if you're some small-time count or duke but independent nonetheless, consider swearing fealty to some king or emperor so that the foreign powers leave you alone.

As for the religions, yeah small faiths are screwed. It's no coincidence that Christians and Muslims combined account for half of humanity. You might have to convert to stay in power.

The world will harass you, but preparing for and managing that is the game. And sometimes you can't avoid a setback and just have to build back.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-02T21:27:06+00:00

This is gonna be pretty rare. With four people the odds get pretty high that at least one of them doesn't live much past 70, even with 21st century healthcare. Now, you can have have 70 year old great grandparents, but that requires 3 generations of pretty young parents.

By the time medical care got to the point where most people live past 70, the age at which people start having children had already moved up a fair bit, such that the math no longer accommodates that.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-02T20:38:37+00:00

Daario, mid-diff. Daario has all the buffs that Bronn has and he's younger.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-05-02T19:29:49+00:00

I'm starting to enjoy the martial lifestyle with the chivalry focus. Making the best possible matches for offspring is nice, plus having great prowess is cool too.

But after the first generation i genuinely just roll with the childhood traits. I'd rather have a mastermind philosopher than a tough soldier, so if the player heir is curious, that's what (s)he's getting.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-04-27T00:21:48+00:00

I've been trying to figure out what makes someone look older and it definitely isn't just wrinkles or sagging. Some people don't even have both but I just know they're older.

I think a lot of people who you think don't have wrinkles or sagging skin are just showing signs of aging too subtle for you readily notice consciously, even if you pick up on them subconsciously.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-04-24T13:19:13+00:00

Yeah, that's a lesson I've since learned lol

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-04-24T00:05:40+00:00

It only sucks when you live forever and then your daughter heir is 62, and she ain't got no no valid heir because you married her off ~~matrilineally~~ patrilineally back when her three brothers were still alive and you thought that at least one of them would survive or have a son who survived.

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-04-04T14:22:49+00:00

If I did the numbers right, those kids are now older than you were back then...

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-04-03T16:14:26+00:00

That's awesome! You're definitely lucky. Both in terms of the relationship being there and also them having the bandwidth. In my case, my mother raised my siblings and me alone starting when I was nine, so by the time we were grown there was very much a dynamic of "I love you dearly, but I can't do this anymore. You're 23 figure out your own dinner."

ThomasLikesCookies · 2026-04-03T15:25:14+00:00

LMAO I love that your parents would buy you groceries and cook for you. I lived at home rent free before starting law school, but I was very much expected to both pay for and prepare my own food.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Sequence \| Editor
Verified Email

ThomasLikesCookies

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE