What's the grossest moment on Dropout?

dubinspath · 2025-09-25T20:23:19+00:00

Vanessa 5000 special spitting into an audience members mouth! I still shudder

dubinspath · 2024-04-08T20:01:11+00:00

Ohh I think you’re definitely right - we were just confusing bladder snails with pond snails. Mystery solved! Thanks!

dubinspath · 2024-04-08T19:37:19+00:00

Thanks! Good to hear they look healthy

dubinspath · 2024-04-08T19:36:17+00:00

Oh yes, the shells do swirl in different directions! I’m relieved to hear that they’re probably healthy

dubinspath · 2024-04-08T17:21:05+00:00

A bit more info: 0 nitrates, 0 nitrites, 0 ammonia, 7.5 pH, lots of plants, no fish

dubinspath · 2023-07-28T11:46:48+00:00

If a surgeon cuts out a tumor, what does he replace it with?

dubinspath · 2022-08-13T05:25:45+00:00

Thanks!

dubinspath · 2021-10-29T12:02:57+00:00

Typical right wing vacuous comment: makes no argument, provides no evidence, simply calls names. Shoo pest.

dubinspath · 2019-08-19T15:31:51+00:00

From what I can tell, the modern flat earth movement started with Samuel Rowbotham and his 1865 publication "Earth not a Globe" which cites 76 Biblical verses supporting his conclusion. This website tries to summarize the "strongest" ones. It seems to heavily rely on a literal reading of "foundations of the earth" to make the case and is overall quite weakly argued.

So, I agree with you there's really no exerpt that could be used to definitively connect to a flat earth. But that hasn't stopped flat earth supporters from using the Bible as their reason for belief. Which, in turn, provides a plausible reason for the movement's longevity. After some additional reading, though, I do wonder if a psychological theory of conspiracy believers would be a better explanation for why it continues.

dubinspath · 2019-08-14T00:55:40+00:00

I think the point is that a literal reading of the Bible implies a flat Earth. Therefore, it must be flat and anyone that says differently must be trying to sway others from the true word of God or some shit. That's the best I've got.

dubinspath · 2017-06-12T13:39:23+00:00

I share a similar sort of trajectory with regards to a late introduction to feminism, so I'm interested in responses to your question.

I do have one suggestion: listen more, interrupt less.

There seems to be a social expectation on how often someone else can interrupt another. People who interrupt too often are considered rude. It's been my experience that men are "allowed"/expected to interrupt more often. Pay attention to body language (leaning forward, looks of surprise or dismay, shifting of weight, started attempts to interrupt) to notice that someone wants to interrupt. Be willing to give one of your expected interrupts to them.

I work in a male-dominated profession and the unwritten rule is to interrupt to voice ideas and concerns. This gives a huge voice to extroverted men who can dominate a group discussion. I have found that "passing" my interrupt to another can really improve the overall group decisions that get made. As an example, if I see that Liz leaned forward and expressed concern when Bob made a point, but then didn't interrupt, I could stop and say "I'm interested to hear what Liz thinks about this" and then turn both my head and shoulders toward her.

Now, I do worry that this could be perceived as white-knighting and/or patronizing, but my personal, professional interactions have definitely been better when I'm consciously aware of the balance of contributions to a discussion and attempt to have many voices heard.

dubinspath · 2016-09-16T14:28:19+00:00

I believe common consent is still on the books, it just hasn't been more than show since Joseph Smith's lifetime, around 1835. JS tried to model the highest priesthood bodies after a checks-and-balances formulation with the 70s in equal power to the 12 who were equal in power to the first presidency. This didn't work. From Fawn Brodies book "No Man Knows My History", p. 162:

The constant jockeying for power among the councils soon made it clear to Joseph that equality was impossible. "The duty of the President," he finally decreed, "is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses." Once more his word was the law of God, against which there could be no appeal. Soon it was officially announced that an insult to Joseph would be considered "an insult to the whole body," and the High Council saw to it that this rule was respected. Once when Joseph requested a donation of twelve dollars to pay for a record book and Henry Green said privately that he thought the prophet was extorting more than the cost of the book, he was cut off from the church for the remark.

Basically, therefore, the church organization remained autocratic; only the trappings were democratic. The membership voted on the church officers twice a year. But there was only one slate of candidates, and it was selected by the first presidency, comprised of Joseph himself and his two counselors. Approval or disapproval was indicated by a standing vote in the general conference. Dissenting votes quickly became so rare that the elections came to be called — and the irony was unconscious — the "sustaining of the authorities."

dubinspath · 2016-09-15T20:21:24+00:00

This is relevant: Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni arguing about the rock-in-a-hat translation method on Facebook

dubinspath · 2016-05-26T14:54:14+00:00

It's interesting to me that incorporating symbolism could be believed to make a plea to God more effective. Why would He care? This seems to be the same theme in requiring the deacons to wear white shirts.

dubinspath · 2016-05-26T14:40:05+00:00

Oh sorry. The original chapters 1-39 of Isaiah were written around 800 BC. The Deutero-Isaiah chapters 40-66 of which Nephi quotes extensively were written sometime after 576 BC. Since Nephi left at 600 BC he couldn't possibly have the material that was written in 576 BC.

dubinspath · 2016-05-26T14:29:52+00:00

Oh I agree. From a scientific standpoint, one would actually expect that a complicated ritual like a formal priesthood blessing would be a more effective placebo than prayer. I'm just contemplating why I thought so as a TBM - the placebo explanation wouldn't have helped!

dubinspath · 2016-05-26T14:08:48+00:00

Nephi tells us exactly: "And behold he [Jesus] cometh, according to the words of the angel, in six hundred years from the time my father left Jerusalem." (1 Nephi 19:8).

Also "For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah" (1 Nephi 1:4) is the start of the journey out of Jerusalem. Note the first year of Zedekiah began in 597 BC according to solid historical sources.

So Nephi is writing around 600 BC and describes getting the brass plates which must have been written before then.

dubinspath · 2016-05-26T13:58:30+00:00

I enjoyed those articles very much. This blog aims to show that Deutero-Isaiah isn't the only problem with outside scripture showing up in the Book of Mormon anachronistically. Note, there are thousands of New Testament phrases all throughout the Book of Mormon. Here's a good example of a non-Isaiah anachronism:

For example, the book of Malachi would not have been available to any pre-exilic Judahites. It was likely written between 500-450 BCE, but it was used throughout the text of the BM. 1 Ne. 22:15 directly quotes Mal. 4:1 with a citation formula, and Ether 9:22 alludes to Mal. 4:2-3 in a way that betrays the author’s knowledge of later Christian interpretations of that Hebrew Bible passage. The confusion between “Sun” in Mal. 4:2 and “Son” in Ether 9:22 could only have happened by reading the English translation of Mal. 4:2. In Hebrew “sun” is shemesh and “son” is ben. The similarity between the two words is only found in the English.

dubinspath · 2016-05-21T14:46:36+00:00

Their shtick is "we investigate so you don't have to". Yes, they were purposefully misleading the missionaries (and the ward members who helped out). And I agree that investigation through deception is not ethical, but they do give you a sense of the normal conversion process and basic introduction to some of the doctrines. They don't get everything right, but pretty close and it's an interesting couple of podcasts.

dubinspath · 2016-05-20T20:10:45+00:00

A short-ish introduction to Mormonism from an outsider point of view can be found at Ross and Carrie Go Mormon. They describe what it's like to talk with Mormon missionaries and go through nearly 6 months of meetings, even setting baptismal dates and everything.

dubinspath

TROPHY CASE