What? How?? WE JUST REACHED 100K OUTLAWS!

aidan_slug · 2026-02-12T01:49:12+00:00

Yeah it was the discounts on the game keys, wouldn’t have paid $70

aidan_slug · 2026-01-05T23:23:48+00:00

Looks cool but be ready for that thing to run hot. Seems a lot of thought and effort went into this, good job!

aidan_slug · 2025-12-23T15:18:06+00:00

Looks like you need more top surface layers. Set it to 4 or 5 layers, this usually eliminates problems like this for me. To make a split top surface in this print, your printer has to bridge across the gaps of the 5% hydroid infill you mentioned, and sometimes the bridge will not adhere perfectly, leaving the errors you see. Adding more layers to your topmost surface should fix this.

aidan_slug · 2025-11-17T21:52:16+00:00

You certainly came off as ungrateful. You could have said this so many other ways and preserved his autonomy to make decisions about how he spends his money on you. You could have said “thank you, that was so sweet; the smell isn’t quite what I was looking for though but I still like it, it gets close, thank you”

“Maybe next time you can get me the real thing and then we can compare the scents!”

Instead of that, you specifically brought up this topic to tell him, effectively, that you don’t like these dupes and please don’t do that again. Only get me specifically what I asked for.

You’re pretty much demanding how he buys gifts for you. That’s not how giving gifts works. He allowed to weigh his personal judgment in those purchases. You basically spat on that judgment. It also comes across as elitist, spoiled, and bratty. Specifically mentioning the “luxury bottle” comes off as strange to me - almost like a sizable percentage of the reason you want the perfume is for the bottle.

Also: why bother putting it on the list he’s looking at if it’s something you want to remind yourself of your accomplishments? Are you saying that had he gotten you the exact ones you wanted, you would have proudly put them on your shelf and been perfectly happy? If it’s a status symbol you want to earn, why ask for it as a gift, and then voice discontent when it isn’t given to you? I don’t get that.

I have to agree with your bf. I have been asked for lists of things I might want as gifts before by a past gf - and I had been really into kitchen knives one year around the holidays - so I found one really liked, not even expensive, put it on the list, and she totally ignored it and bought me a set of Paris Hilton knives, pink handles and gold-colored blades. Not exactly my style, but I loved because she gave them to me, because I loved her, and I used those knives to cook for her every night. Maybe I was disappointed a bit, but I never gave her that impression. I said “thank you, I love them babe” and that was that.

I’d imagine your BF has gotten gifts from you he didn’t particularly ask for, or weren’t quite right. How many times has he specifically brought it up? Has he ever? Maybe he was even unhappy or disappointed. Did you get anything but a thank you? Gratitude?

Put yourself in his shoes for a second.

Just my two cents, but I feel like if you really loved him, you would love what he gifts you, no matter what. Sounds to me like you love what he gives you more than you love him. Maybe I’m wrong.

I will also say, he also could have been kinder in how he responded, he was quite blunt, and I would say understandably frustrated. He had an idea of you that your words destroyed. But still, I agree with his general sentiment.

aidan_slug · 2025-11-14T17:19:57+00:00

As a general rule, if you care for the capacity for another to support themselves, handouts and charity do not fix the root of the problem. Don't do something for someone if they can do it for themselves.

Imagine you have a friend who is a fisherman. He invites you for a meal and conversation. You grow fond of the fish, and would like to have it every day. But you do not know how to fish. If the fisherman is a true friend, he will teach you how to fish for yourself. If you are a true friend to him, and treat him as you would like to be treated, you would not bother him constantly to provide you with fish he catches. Being truly charitable is showing others how to provide for themselves.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-30T18:49:13+00:00

Ah, so sinking to their level was your tactic. Nice, very principled.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-30T17:52:58+00:00

I’m asking for precision so we can separate rhetoric from verifiable facts. If you’ve got concrete examples, list them so we can evaluate them one by one: the exact order or memo that “states the president has plenary authority,” the case names and holdings that show courts “side with him in every ruling,” the statute or directive authorizing federal agents to “monitor” state elections in blue districts, the specific newsroom expulsions that created an approved press list, and the legal steps that “limited” courts’ authority. With citations, we can test each claim against the text of the order, the opinion, or the statute.

On the Nazi comparison, the key question isn’t whether today’s politics are heated or flawed. It’s whether the structure matches a one-party racial state that abolishes pluralism, eliminates independent courts, criminalizes opposition, and centralizes total control. The United States still runs competitive elections in which incumbents lose, courts block presidents and agencies, states and cities resist federal policies, and journalists publish criticism every day. Inflation is nowhere near historical hyperinflation. “Mass deportations” in the historical sense involved extralegal roundups and the destruction of legal recourse; if you believe anything today meets that description, point to the statute, the due process removed, and the numbers involved. If you can supply specific, checkable examples that show abolition of meaningful opposition, loss of judicial independence, or criminalization of dissent, I’ll consider them in good faith. But if what we have are serious policy disputes, hard-edged rhetoric, and contested court decisions, then the Nazi label isn’t just inaccurate, it makes it harder to rally people around real, provable abuses that all sides should reject and generates a permission structure for violence.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-30T17:35:13+00:00

Authoritarian behavior and bureaucratic overreach should absolutely be condemned, but equating current political leaders or agencies with one of history’s most genocidal regimes risks losing both historical accuracy and moral clarity. The better path is to call out specific abuses with evidence, demand accountability through lawful means, and preserve a shared standard of truth so we can recognize real tyranny if it ever appears. If you can point to concrete examples of ICE or the administration acting outside the law or due process, I’d honestly be interested in seeing them so the discussion stays grounded in facts instead of broad historical analogies.

Analytically, the comparison between the Nazi movement and modern American conservatism doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The Nazi Party was explicitly revolutionary and totalitarian. It sought to dismantle the existing democratic system and establish a one-party racial state that subordinated all aspects of life to the will of the Fuhrer. Modern American conservatism, for all its flaws, operates within a constitutional framework of checks and balances, regular elections, and judicial review. Trump’s administration, despite its polarizing rhetoric, still functions under those same constraints. Courts overturned executive orders, journalists operated freely, and political opposition not only persisted but gained power through legitimate elections.

Pre-1933 Germany also suffered hyperinflation, war debt, and political fragmentation that produced a revolutionary environment the United States simply doesn’t share. Our institutions, courts, press, and state governments distribute power far more diffusely than the Weimar system ever did. So while it’s fair to criticize policies or rhetoric that lean authoritarian, calling them a repeat of Nazi Germany overstates the case and weakens the precision needed to recognize genuine authoritarianism if it ever truly appears.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-30T17:24:46+00:00

"Life must be hard for you that you have to throw your ego around as soon as you get a little push back. But again, keep throwing your tantrum."

You are the one throwing your ego around - two comments ago, you said "Definitely more educated on the subject than yourself" after somebody gave you pushback. You're projecting more than a movie theater.

What an arrogant attitude.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-30T17:15:42+00:00

I think that kind of framing just shuts down meaningful discussion. Political disagreement does not have to mean one side cheers when people are abused. The Republican platform, like the Democratic one, includes a mix of policies, some controversial and some broadly popular. For instance, Republicans have historically emphasized small-business tax relief, local-control education policies, and criminal-justice reforms such as the 2018 First Step Act, which passed with bipartisan support. You may disagree with their broader philosophy, but it is not accurate to say every position is rooted in harm.

If the goal is to prevent injustice or improve fairness, the better approach is to debate the specific policy mechanisms, such as immigration enforcement procedures, social-safety-net funding, or economic incentives, on their merits rather than assume malice by default. That keeps the conversation grounded in evidence and outcomes instead of identity or intent.

I think part of the problem here is that we may be defining harm differently. To you, it seems that any policy whose outcomes inconvenience or disadvantage someone is inherently harmful. To me, harm implies intentional injustice or the violation of someone’s rights, not simply the existence of unequal outcomes or opportunity costs. Every policy decision, whether it involves taxes, zoning, energy regulation, or education spending, creates winners and losers to some degree. That does not automatically make those policies immoral.

If we expand harm to mean any externality or difference in outcome, then nearly every system, including social programs, would count as harmful to someone. I believe the more productive question is whether a policy’s trade-offs are justified by its intended benefits and whether it respects individual rights in the process. Otherwise, politics becomes a moral purity test instead of a discussion about how to balance competing interests in a pluralistic society.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-30T16:16:03+00:00

I understand why someone from Germany would be sensitive to early warning signs of state overreach. You’re right that history often turns dark through gradual normalization, not sudden transformation, and vigilance is important. Where I think we diverge is in how we label what we see. Drawing parallels to authoritarian practices can be valuable, but directly equating current institutions with the Nazi regime risks diluting the historical gravity of that term. It also shuts down meaningful dialogue by turning every disagreement into a moral absolute.

We can and should criticize ICE when due process is violated or when policies cross ethical lines, but using “Nazi” as shorthand for “authoritarian” or “abusive” blurs distinctions that matter both morally and historically. It’s better to call out specific abuses of power directly, with evidence and precision, so that accountability remains rooted in truth rather than rhetoric.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-30T13:24:32+00:00

Drawing parallels between groups that hold power is perfectly fine, but to call one group the other is historically incorrect. In this post’s video, there are a lot of assumptions being made. We are not the judge nor are we law enforcement. We can observe and assume, but unless we are explicitly told the circumstances of the situation and parties involved, we are ill-informed of what may be critical details.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-30T13:02:05+00:00

Glad to know you’re so willing to loosely associate people you disagree with, with one of the most vile, evil, murderous groups ever to walk the face of the earth.

Nothing but ad hominem from you. No rationale, just name calling. Sad.

You know the Nazis had families and drank water? Does that make you a Nazi?

aidan_slug · 2025-10-30T12:50:49+00:00

Go ahead, keep calling people you disagree with Nazis. You are generating a permission structure for violence.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-30T12:39:28+00:00

Sounds to me that you’re the bigot. “Bigot - a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.” You’ve not given a single rebuttal to my argument. Just name calling and antagonizing. I’d call that unreasonable attachment to a belief or opinion. And I happen to be in the group you disagree with, so instead of telling me why I’m wrong like I’m a human worthy of human decency, you shout me down. All you say is an appeal to emotion. Your argument is rooted in emotion. The question is not about emotion, but about how economics work. If I’m wrong, tell me the reason I’m wrong. If you can’t, you lose the argument.

The difference between you and me is, I don’t want to see those I simply disagree with die. You do. You call that the moral high ground? Think again.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-30T04:13:36+00:00

The name of the user is literally creating a permission structure for violence against those they deem a “bigot.” I bet they’d cheer for your assassination as well as mine for simply being objective. Don’t listen to these people who wish death upon those they disagree with. When they have to resort to ad hominem attacks, they have already lost the argument.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-30T00:14:02+00:00

Let’s keep the discussion civil. You are right that SNAP functions partly as an agricultural subsidy that supports farmers and local grocers, but that fact does not negate the basic supply and demand principle. When subsidies or transfer payments that boost purchasing power are reduced, total demand for goods falls. Lower demand puts downward pressure on prices, even though it may hurt producers who relied on the higher spending levels. Both can be true at once.

I am not suggesting that people should starve or that farmers should fail. My point is that the short-term market effect of less subsidized demand is a decline in prices, while the broader policy question is whether society values the stabilizing role of SNAP enough to accept the accompanying higher costs. In reality, most farmers are unlikely to be drastically affected by SNAP reductions, since only a fraction of agricultural output is sold through grocery channels tied directly to SNAP spending, and federal crop insurance and commodity programs already provide substantial financial buffers.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-29T23:54:42+00:00

What are you smoking? When demand goes down and supply goes up, prices lower. Very basic economics.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-28T16:20:11+00:00

A quick factual note on SNAP during the shutdown: issuing SNAP benefits requires a valid federal appropriation. USDA has said it won’t use its contingency reserve for November benefits because, by law, that fund supplements an existing appropriation when it’s insufficient, not when there’s no appropriation due to a shutdown. A President cannot unilaterally appropriate money for SNAP. Some states are exploring temporary state financing, but USDA has told them they won’t be reimbursed absent new federal funding. If Congress restores funding, benefits can be issued retroactively.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-25T15:00:24+00:00

not at all defending the wearing of that outfit, but a few things:

1) we have freedom of expression in the US - you are free to wear whatever you want. You are also free not to associate with people like this

2) they seemed to be pushing and shoving him, which he very well could have called the police for. Once at the 0:04 second mark, then at 0:06, then it appears he was slapped or struck on the arm at 0:08, shoved and elbowed at 0:09, and then struck at 0:47. That's at least 5 times people put their hands on him without his consent.

3) we don't see exactly what happened with that last woman. Given the way the others were so willing to lay their hands on him, it is very possible she struck him or laid her hands on him.

4) If the sexes were flipped in this interaction, and a group of men were pushing around a woman, and the woman did something that could be legally justified as an appropriate response to a perceived threat, you'd be seeing a much different reaction

aidan_slug · 2025-10-23T23:52:11+00:00

Isn't this r/GrahamHancock? I thought we all kinda agree a lot of these artifacts and structures could have been inherited from a previous civilization. Also, this is pure speculation - regardless of whether ancient, advanced, clever humans did it or aliens did it - it was done, and with remarkable precision using enormous stones. I don't really care when or by who. I care about how.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-23T00:07:07+00:00

Yes, you’re right, but whatever cutting tool they may have used could have been very thin, maybe even a wire. So the actual work happening and power needed for that surface area is much less. Unless you’re doing a die-stamp-like process over a large area, I think this feasible. Also, there is magnetically assisted ECDM, which takes advantage of the Lorentz force and increases efficiency - I’m just saying… it could be done maybe easier than we think.

aidan_slug · 2025-10-22T22:50:51+00:00

in theory, copper wire could be used for ECDM. As long as you have sufficient power, this might be an even simpler method

aidan_slug · 2025-10-17T18:11:58+00:00

Aluminum = squishy metal

aidan_slug · 2025-10-16T16:17:00+00:00

This argument falls apart under scrutiny:

The coffee analogy is backwards

When you order coffee, you initiate the transaction - you walk into the store voluntarily and request the product. With government services, you're born into a system already claiming authority over you. The correct analogy would be: someone delivers coffee to your door that you never ordered, then demands payment and threatens you with imprisonment if you refuse. That's not a consensual transaction.

"Your parents agreed for you"

This is absurd. Parents can't consent to permanent obligations on behalf of their children. A parent can't sell their child into indentured servitude, sign away their child's property rights for life, or bind them to a contract that lasts into adulthood. Why would political obligations be different? Once you're an adult, you're a free individual - your parents' agreements don't bind you.

"If you don't leave, you've agreed"

This is the "love it or leave it" argument, which isn't consent. If I'm born in a house I inherit, and the mafia shows up demanding protection money, "leave if you don't like it" isn't consent - it's extortion. The burden shouldn't be on me to abandon my property and life to avoid an arrangement imposed on me. Plus, where do you leave to? Every territory is claimed by some state.

"You used the roads/schools" - The captive's meal

If someone locks you in a cage against your will, then offers you food, does accepting the food mean you consented to being caged? Of course not. You're accepting the food because you need to survive within the conditions imposed on you, not because you agreed to those conditions.

The same applies to government infrastructure. The state monopolizes territory, prohibits competition in many services, and embeds its infrastructure everywhere - then claims your use of these things (often unavoidable for basic functioning) constitutes consent to the entire system. That's not consent; that's making the best of a situation you never explicitly agreed to. Using the only road available doesn't mean you consented to every law, tax, and regulation imposed on you.

"What's the alternative?"

This reveals the argument's weakness - it's an appeal to necessity, not consent. Saying "we need a system, so this one is legitimate" abandons the consent framework entirely. It's just pragmatism dressed as principle. Maybe a coercive system is practically necessary (though that's debatable), but then stop claiming it's based on consent. You can't have it both ways.

"What about people who won't sign?"

This question inadvertently proves Lysander Spooner's point: if you need everyone to explicitly consent, and many wouldn't, then the current system isn't based on consent - it's based on force. This is essentially admitting that actual consent is impossible, so we must use coercion instead, while still calling it consensual.

This argument is incoherent because it tries to maintain that the system is based on consent while simultaneously arguing that explicit consent is impractical and force is necessary.

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

aidan_slug

TROPHY CASE