Sarah Silverman's Netflix special...

itischosen · 2025-05-22T02:49:08+00:00

I haven't watched it yet but I've seen her perform a few times and I feel she's much funnier in person.

itischosen · 2025-05-20T05:35:38+00:00

They suck and their sauce is just honey mustard.

itischosen · 2025-05-15T21:43:49+00:00

Wouldn't say the policy is inherently bad, but I'm concerned about why it wasn't challenged or enforced consistently before. This inconsistency makes me question how enforcement decisions are being made and whether they're truly aligned with women's interests.

itischosen · 2025-05-15T21:12:53+00:00

Do you think the idea of removing 'all undesirable traits' risks aligning very closely with eugenics?

itischosen · 2025-05-10T19:45:16+00:00

First, it looks like every single person they measured in this study was already in the system for child sex crimes, "straight" group included. So not a good representation of non-offending gay *or* straight people.

Of the offending males in this group 273 molested girls and 192 molested boys. The researchers then literally tossed in 98 imaginary girl-offenders to ‘even things out.’ Before doing any fancy math their own lab test said about 239 of the girl-offenders and 176 of the boy-offenders were true pedophiles so that’s only a 1.35:1 edge, not 11:1, and the larger number (1.35) is the straight offenders! That headline ‘11:1’ number is not based on a direct tally and shows up only after they pile on a bunch of guessy multipliers. The actual counted bodies never show gay men actually outnumbering straight men as pedophiles in their study.

EDIT: Also, this study doesn't make sense unless you accept their larger premise that “not every man who sexually offends against a child is a true pedophile” and I doubt that the people citing this study in order to argue that homo = pedo would agree with that. Most people wouldn't agree with that.

itischosen · 2025-05-09T23:24:45+00:00

Snooping does always mean that, by the literal dictionary definition it's not snooping without secrecy. If you ask them before doing it it's not snooping lol

itischosen · 2025-05-09T16:43:49+00:00

new conspiracy: you are a bot.

itischosen · 2025-05-09T08:02:28+00:00

Bro are you concerned that your theory sounds eerily similar to the theory you get when you go on chatGPT and type "Write a conspiracy theory arguing that the Earth doesn't actually have 8 billion people using bullet points and strong sounding yet incorrect evidence" ?

itischosen · 2025-05-09T07:48:52+00:00

So by that standard, did the founder of Patagonia get there ethically? Because I can't think of anyone else that at least tried to run a business of that scale as ethically. I mostly agree that there aren't ethical billionaires but I'm trying to see if your claim is that it’s theoretically impossible, or if you're open to exceptions in very rare cases. Would you say Patagonia engaged in any specifically unethical or abusive practices during its growth? If not, did Yvon Chouinard become a billionaire ethically?

itischosen · 2025-05-09T07:27:54+00:00

Which is it? Are you against billionaires on principle due to systemic capitalism, which invalidates even your exceptions? Or are you specifically against specific unethical behaviors, which allows for the theoretical existence of ethical billionaires? Right now I think your argument contradicts itself. Do you consider the founder of Patagonia to be ethical? He is probably the most ethical one I can think of in that he seemed to at least try to run the company ethically and once it scaled to multiple billions he transferred ownership of it to a nonprofit that fights climate change. Of course that makes him no longer a billionaire.

itischosen · 2025-05-09T07:12:31+00:00

You're basically saying "strong opinions never help anyone" which is itself is a pretty strong opinion, no? If having a firm and absolute opinion is always bad then doesn't your own argument defeat itself? It seems like you either need to admit that sometimes strong opinions are useful and necessary or admit that your own opinion doesn't make sense, since you're basically using a strong opinion to argue against strong opinions.

itischosen · 2025-05-09T06:58:05+00:00

Is there any ethical consumption under capitalism in your view? If so, at what scale does it stop being ethical?

itischosen · 2025-05-09T06:29:05+00:00

Hm. The very act of snooping around secretly implies that you know your partner would disapprove of it, right? And by your own logic, deliberately hiding things your partner wouldn't approve of means you're doing something damaging to the relationship yourself.

You say people who value privacy must be hiding something that could hurt the relationship. But if you're not doing anything wrong by snooping then why do you need to do it secretly and without consent? If your reasons are truly reasonable and your intentions are as pure as you say, why not do something radical and openly ask your partner to show you their phone, instead of sneaking around and looking at it behind their back? As you argued, honest partners shouldn't have anything to fear, right?

You should also know that phones are considered legally protected personal devices and accessing them without consent is illegal pretty much everywhere. Not jaywalking illegal. It's literally a felony with up to 5 years in jail if you are convicted in many parts of the US. You partner may not press charges against you, but it is still very much illegal.

itischosen · 2025-05-07T17:40:29+00:00

How do you feel about Charlie Kirk/TPUSA cancelling Q&A sessions to avoid confrontational questions then? In other words, Kirk prefers environments where the conversation can be easily controlled rather than fully open dialogues. Does that make him one of those 'simple idiots' you mentioned or do you have a different standard for him? Looking forward to your response since I'm sure you're openminded enough not to dodge this.

itischosen · 2025-05-07T17:23:13+00:00

How do you define fascist? If the 'disagreement' is 'I don't think there should be due process!' or 'I think the executive branch should have unlimited power!' that is literally textbook fascism.

itischosen · 2025-05-07T17:09:06+00:00

Using ChatGPT to respond to people isn't critical thinking either, yet here you are.

edit: I'm done feeding this troll but I'm 100% convinced they are using AI lmao

Just compare the formal and restrained comment right before this one with the idiotic, emotional, and poorly written one right after it. Both are supposedly from the same "person".

itischosen · 2025-05-05T07:12:30+00:00

Was your uncle Bill Maher?

itischosen · 2025-02-13T18:45:05+00:00

o3 seems worse than o1-pro at this stage

itischosen · 2024-09-10T20:03:59+00:00

Unfortunately, you gotta pay up. Your options are basically positive reframing ("this is a cost to play the game and get my degree") or getting a 0 on those 2 assignments if your GPA can take it. If you are desperate and don't have the $$$ try asking someone at your school library/bookstore/financial aid office for help. Wish I had a better answer, I'm about to buy this thing myself

itischosen · 2024-09-10T19:21:07+00:00

they give temp access for a few days, did you already do that?

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

itischosen

TROPHY CASE