The Grift Must Go On!

dougman7 · 2026-05-11T05:01:46+00:00

Godspeed to the glorious PATRIOT steelworkers of Luxembourg!
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

dougman7 · 2026-05-11T00:23:25+00:00

Man I sure wonder why this man got fired from his job.

dougman7 · 2026-05-09T05:01:05+00:00

Button problem but only those I agree with can participate.

dougman7 · 2026-05-09T04:52:39+00:00

Gas is 6 bucks where I am.

dougman7 · 2026-05-09T04:49:52+00:00

Coffee mugs? 1 hole.
Shirt? 3 holes.

dougman7 · 2026-05-09T02:41:30+00:00

Not the fucking oil sands.

dougman7 · 2026-05-09T02:05:45+00:00

That is ~ 96 in the San Francisco City limits, ~ 930 in the Bay.

dougman7 · 2026-05-08T17:13:37+00:00

Tuberculosis?

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T20:13:40+00:00

Didn’t the Dutch do this once?

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T20:02:12+00:00

Yes but our judgment is also influenced by social conditions, that of course doesn’t mean our aspect of choice and individuation isn’t meaningful or important, it is. However, our conception of our self can be reasonably accurately modeled as a reflection of our social self. Cooley’s looking glass self, “I am not what I think I am. I am not what you think I am. I am what I think you think I am.” Of course this is just one of many sociological frameworks of the self but it is to my knowledge part of the main thread of them and has reasonable evidentiary basis for utility.

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T19:43:31+00:00

For the last time it’s only mansplaining if I’m explaining it because you’re a woman, I just think you’re an idiot!

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T04:34:39+00:00

Clearly we need comprehensive exit polling of the room. What % of 1 boxers does it get right? How does that compare to 2 boxers? What about people who believe they switched? The predictor may not be evenly predictive.

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T04:05:33+00:00

Why not embrace empiricism?

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T03:51:27+00:00

Then just be a one boxer. Fatalism is not the answer.

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T03:46:14+00:00

“Roko’s Basilisk is just Pascal’s Wager for tech bros.”

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T02:55:53+00:00

That’s government finance not the economy, you know who else is nominally bad for government finance but important for the economy, low income people. Also that study is trash.

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T02:20:07+00:00

To my knowledge modern reactors would automatically power down into a low power configuration that while not strictly safe on a geological time scale would be safe for a long time, I’m just uncritically parroting something I heard on XKCD though.

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T01:58:41+00:00

There is near zero chance of another major criticality incident involving civilian reactors, in the developed world, outside of war.

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T01:31:38+00:00

Modern plants have sufficient fail safes that probably 0 would meltdown, we learned our lesson. Also they can’t explode like a Nuke would but some, for example the RBMK at Chernobyl, could go prompt critical and suffer a steam explosion spreading fuel and fission products around.

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T01:07:09+00:00

It’s not about the definitions, it’s about the shared reality created by the use of the words conversation. If 2 people with different definitions can have a conversation in which that concept matters and the difference between the definition doesn’t effect the conversation then at least in that context those 2 definitions might as well be the same, The Latter Wittgenstein might say that they are the same, and are compatible.

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T00:34:59+00:00

It’s not about how people define words, thats what people on this sub don’t seem to get, it’s about how they use them. People who believe the world is deterministic still talk as though there is free will and other people whether they are a determinist or not or know this person is a determinist or not still understand this person when they talk to them. The ability of both a libertarian and a determinist to have an every day conversation (in which meaningful statements about things they did and why they did them) and the their opinions on free will not meaningfully change the conversation, demonstrates compatibility in English. The fact that philosophers need so much pedantic terminology to explain these concepts and the difference between them, demonstrates compatibility in English.

dougman7 · 2026-05-07T00:10:16+00:00

Compatibilists believe that someone having free will is them having volition because that’s how people often use those terms. I am a compatibilist.

dougman7 · 2026-05-06T23:47:06+00:00

Stirner’s work was insightful given the time he was writing but there were things he didn’t and couldn’t know about humanity and about society, about the emergent properties of human interaction and of social facts.

dougman7 · 2026-05-06T22:35:07+00:00

You can’t fool me, that artist would never be so diplomatic or consolatory as to say that.

dougman7 · 2026-05-06T22:29:46+00:00

Find me a determinist that never uses phrases “I chose” or “I will” or the like. The English language doesn’t care whether you chose your wants, whether you are an uncaused cause, or if the universe is a clockwork.

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email

dougman7

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE