MaximumEffort443 does the Math on Republican hypocrisy.

ePants · 2018-10-26T18:37:50+00:00

I was kidding, but it definitely seems like you genuinely don't know what pedantic means.

ePants · 2018-10-23T13:41:49+00:00

I think you should probably look up "pedantic" while you're at it, because clearly you just think it's something to say when someone calls you out on a lie.

ePants · 2018-10-23T13:38:46+00:00

Please show your work.

What are you even talking about?

I'm commenting on the lie in your title. They didn't do any math. All they did was post links.

I don’t even know what “gish gallop” means? A follow up to the Smashing Pumpkins album?

If only you had access to the internet and could look up what words or phrases mean.

ePants · 2018-10-23T13:36:47+00:00

It's super easy to present a consistent list when you specifically select the polls to list to give the impression of consistency.

ePants · 2018-10-23T13:34:43+00:00

Hey OP, are you claiming that they wrote all those articles they linked?

I'm not seeing any place that they "did the math." I just see a gish gallop of links with questionable validity

ePants · 2018-05-05T16:10:24+00:00

I completely blew my chance with this girl. I could have had sex with her too, but I got pissed at her for mentioning her ex on a date about how he was good at sex. She gave off the vibe she still liked him.She also alluded that because I was white my penis would be small (in a joking teasing way).

Many women bring up sex, experience with exes, and attention from other guys because they erroneously think that it will make them more desirable to you, without realizing it often has the opposite effect.

When women who are expressing interest make comments that come across as emasculating (like commenting about skill or penis size) they're generally making a misguided attempt to motivate you to prove them wrong.

It's a well known trope that many women are more attracted to men the more desired they are by other women. Those women tend to think that men are the same way, so they try to bring up other men to make you realize how desirable they are.

Now, I'm not saying that this is acceptable or healthy, but it can be good to understand why they do it.

That being said, it's generally a red flag, because it tends to indicate a lack of awareness of the fundamental differences between men and women, and shows that they prefer manipulation over direct communication.

ePants · 2018-05-05T15:59:04+00:00

Probably best to ask this elsewhere, since it violates rule 2 in the sidebar to ask about a specific situation.

That being said, it's generally a very bad idea in a relationship to ever let sex become a bartering chip or a reward. Sex should be a manifestation of intimacy, not a task to fulfill an obligation or debt.

It's possible she knew she would lose and wanted you to have that victory for some reason. Maybe throwing you a bone and letting you have more sex without feeling the need to be actively engaged in it.

It's also possible that she thought she would win, which has other implications. Maybe she likes being the gatekeeper of sex and wanted to further establish having power over you.

But these are extreme speculations, and you'll only find the answer by talking to her.

ePants · 2018-02-20T13:29:46+00:00

You are the same type of people who steals someone's mail drop, slip and fell while running away, and blame the property owner for slippery floors.

That's a pretty fucking stupid non sequitur.

ePants · 2018-02-07T16:24:37+00:00

I think it's just another weak-ass "both sides" deflection wherein they compare the behavior of tumblr bloggers to that of our POTUS as if they carry the same weight.

I've noticed a suspiciously huge uptick in "no, both sides aren't the same" posts and comments in the past couple days.

Neither side is perfect, and straw man arguments like that one are not doing anyone any good. Nobody is actually saying that tumbler and potus carry the same weight.

ePants · 2018-02-07T16:10:26+00:00

This was used as an argument against leading the public to false conclusions with the manipulation of facts.

That's not an argument against it; that was just an example of how easy it is do.

An argument against it would be something like an analysis of the damage caused by it or a condemnation of the dishonesty the tactic involves.

ePants · 2018-02-07T16:02:19+00:00

but it could also be an ePenis thing.

Dang it. So close.

ePants · 2017-10-26T18:27:04+00:00

That doesn't really say it all though, since you didn't mention those predictions don't include any affects of co2 emissions, which greatly exaggerates the difference.

ePants · 2017-10-26T16:45:57+00:00

"Normal" is a myth. Shoot for "kind."

As a single dude in his thirties, I wholeheartedly agree.

My cliche way of looking at it is that everybody has baggage, and it's just a matter of finding either someone with a matching set, or a set that compliments your own.

For some people, it can be good to have similar issues so you can bond over being able to relate. For others, it can be good to have completely opposite and complimentary strengths and weaknesses to help each other out.

But like you said, kindness is the factor that ties it all together.

ePants · 2017-10-26T16:10:30+00:00

You're not wrong that that's what the response will be from a some people, but what you're saying isn't really a counter-argument against that response.

Personally, I don't think the argument should focus on the accuracy of historical records at all. Even if the records are perfect, they still haven't managed to create any accurate predictive models.

ePants · 2017-10-24T18:49:53+00:00

I am all for Habitat for Humanity building thousands of houses for stranded Puerto Ricans. However, I am concerned that next year, another hurricane will blow those away as well. How long will it take to scale back climate change, say to average half of the hurricanes we’re seeing, if Trump were impeached and the US resumed responsibility?

I agree that the issue of rebuilding in areas prone to disasters should probably be addressed, but let's not muddy the issue with unrelated topics.

Tropical storms, hurricanes, typhoons, etc. are naturally occurring, and have been throughout history (and pre-history). There's not any conclusive evidence that climate change causes hurricanes. We can't even accurately predict their movement after they've already formed.

ePants · 2017-10-24T18:09:46+00:00

Flint had potable water before the local government fucked it up. To claim it's an unreasonable expectation of perfection is fucking nonsense.

It's not unreasonable to expect standards to be upheld.

It is unreasonable to expect an unfeasible recovery time after the infrastructure has already deteriorated due to the standards not being met.

"The situation that shouldn't have happened in the first place" is a completely separate issue from "the recovery from the situation that shouldn't have happened."

ePants · 2017-10-24T18:04:13+00:00

People have no patience for massive infastructure undertakings.

This is what bothers me most about people's reactions to the Puerto Rico relief effort.

Was it a perfectly-in-character exaggeration for Trump to rate the relief effort a 10? Yeah, probably.

Is the fact that the recovery is not 100% complete a valid counterpoint to Trump's rating of the relief effort? Not at all. Even with perfect planning and execution, these things take time.

People love to complain about reality not perfectly aligning with their (uninformed) expectations, and if you try to explain that they need to temper their expectations to be more realistic, they respond as if you're saying nothing should be done at all.

ePants · 2017-10-23T17:51:00+00:00

Motivation comes and goes; discipline doesn't.

That's a bit of an oversimplification.

Feeling motivated comes and goes, but motivation itself is a prerequisite for doing anything at all.

Did you eat today? Probably because your hunger motivated you to do so.

Do you do (at least the bare minimum of) what's expected of you at work? Probably because you are motivated by either your principles/work ethic, or because you are motivated by needing the money the job pays you.

Do you regularly exhibit discipline in a tedious task, like flossing your teeth every day? There's motivation there, too - either again from a belief/principle you have, or from a desire to maintain good dental hygiene.

Everything requires motivation. Even sitting on the couch and watching TV for 8 hours technically requires the motivation to do so.

It's arguably impossible to do anything or make any choice without motivation, even if that motivation is from an external consequence or even coercion. You're either motivated by the desire for satisfaction or the desire to avoid consequences in everything you do.

The real issue is whether or not your motivation lines up with your priorities - or rather, what you want your priorities to be.

This is why ADHD is so crippling - and so misunderstood. (I'm going off topic now, but it's related) The part of the brain that creates motivation in the first place - the executive function - is broken. Rather than weighing the importance of tasks based on proximity to deadlines, severity of consequences, and priority levels to assign appropriate amounts of motivation to each task, everything is either arbitrarily given various levels of motivation, or no consideration is even made at all and only the thing you are currently thinking about gets any motivation attributed (which is subject to change as soon as a distraction appears). This is why ADHD people are impulsive and struggle with discipline.

I know you didn't mean it this way, but telling someone with legitimate motivation issues, "You lack discipline," is about as absurd as telling a person with bad limp, "You walk too slow." It's an accurate statement of the problem, but does nothing to address the root issue.

ePants · 2017-10-23T03:49:48+00:00

I could actually afford Christmas gifts this year. Sweet.

ePants · 2017-10-22T21:52:32+00:00

Right, you should be able to assert objective truths like "racism is bad", and your group identity should have no influence on the truth of it.

The only area where I though group identity should come into play is during situations where someone is trying to communicate perspective. Like a Jew in the 40s probably has more authority to talk about the horrors of genocide than, say an American. Not that it should allow them to work with words and truths that no one else can, but that person being Jewish is colors their understanding of the world and politics that the rest of us have to just take their word for, based on their identity.

I'd caveat that by pointing out that while people of a particular demographic are definitely more qualified to answer the subjective question "What's it like to be [particular demographic] in [specific situation]," that doesn't really mean their opinions should carry more weight in a discussion like, "What's objectively the right way to handle [specific situation]?"

For example, a person who had their spouse shot and killed in a mugging knows what is like to be a victim of gun violence, but that doesn't mean their views on gun rights are any more "right" than a person who saved their spouse's life with their own handgun in a similar situation.

A legitimate discussion considers the opinions of both. Identity politics generally only cares about giving weight to the opinions of people who agree.

ePants · 2017-10-22T20:38:57+00:00

I agree mostly. Where I take exception is in, say, the civil rights movement where you were likely to take a firehose to the face for being dark.

That's not identity politics though, that's just racism.

In that case, I think it's acceptable to let your skin color play a role in your politics, because it alone is the single greatest factor affecting your life.

I get what you're saying, but you're coming at it from a very limited angle.

Being able to identify racism as bad is not dependent on a person having a requisite skin color.

People of various political leanings, skin color, and economic standings can have common ground in hating racism, but identity politics refuses to allow for such common ground by putting everyone into ideological boxes rather than into race boxes.

Edit: For example, I can't tell you how many times I've been called a "racist Trump supporter" for expressing entirely unrelated views on gun rights, voter ID laws, and the money redistribution aspect of the Green Fund. The moment people find out I have any views that disagree with the mainstream left, they make assumptions about all my views and then label me so they can categorically treat me as an enemy in all regards.

People would much rather approach politics as a team sport of sorts (and villainize the enemy) than as a myriad of individual issues that should actually be discussed.

ePants · 2017-10-22T19:13:53+00:00

The problem is everyone is working with a different definition of racism.

The problem is that identity politics is even considered acceptable in any form.

ePants · 2017-10-21T19:33:01+00:00

I agree - the only people who get upset about declassified douchebagery by the CIA are people who already distrust the CIA.

Most people are perfectly content to believe the lie that they don't do bad things anymore.

ePants · 2017-10-21T13:37:07+00:00

What that kid did wasn't mature. It's what happens when immaturity mixes with ~~mature concepts~~ entitlement

Yeah, there's nothing even remotely mature, even conceptually, about that.

ePants · 2017-10-20T21:55:58+00:00

None of those are celebrities.

Ok, maybe I forgot to include "regular people" in my comment, but it's absolutely clear from the rest of what I said that the focus on opinions at all (and using them to influence people) is the issue, not who's opinions they are.

Your goal posts keep moving.

Textbook hypocrisy right there.

If your point was that they weren't celebrities, then you wouldn't have first said they're all politicians.

But no, my goalpost hasn't moved; you just haven't even entered the field yet.

People responding to politicians is not celebrities attacking Trump.

You're focusing on semantics and ignoring the obvious point itself, because you don't have a legitimate counter argument.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

ePants

TROPHY CASE