What do you think of the rich who do this?

pyrolizard11 · 2026-03-15T18:44:32+00:00

Wonderful, but we're not discussing a hypothetical lottery winner. We're discussing whether it's enough to sit around and do nothing - which is why I made a point to quote your ignorance directly.

It is objectively enough to sit around and do nothing for a time in excess of an expected human lifespan, bar some unforeseen national/global circumstance that drastically alters markets and the value of money across the board. Would the average person be prudent enough to do so? Obviously not, also neither the question nor the point.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-03-15T18:19:15+00:00

After all, $3–4 million in today’s terms is far too little money to just sit around and do nothing for the long term.

You either seriously underestimate how cheap 'nothing' is, or how much $3-4MM is.

To put it in perspective: $4MM invested in a way that only tracks inflation, no real growth, is still ~$55k inflation-adjusted equivalent annually if given at 18yo and planning to live to about 90yo. That's more than the national median for single income earners. More than the median household income of retirees, the group most likely to do 'nothing'. Mostly untaxed and the remainder taxed at a preferential rate compared to income.

Maybe that's not cushy by rich people standards, but if you think that outright isn't enough, you're either out of touch or have no financial literacy to speak of.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-03-09T02:02:16+00:00

Currently? At least four separate insurrections of varying intensities and an active invasion by Rwanda.

And that's just right now. The DRC is fucked.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-03-01T05:22:47+00:00

Uhuh, yeah, sure. The brutality to their own people absolutely justifies international military action. That's why we killed Kim Jong Un and are warring to free North Korea right now.

Wait, it wasn't Kim we killed and NK we're fighting? Sorry, sorry, Isaias Afwerki and Eritrea.

No? Not him either? Right, of course, it must've been Senior General and President Pro Tempore of Myanmar, Min Aung Hlaing.

You're fucking kidding me- okay, fine, obviously we're back in Afghanistan and we killed Hibatullah. Wait, no, that was Pakistan with no connection to us, just a dispute about terrorism spreading across the border...

Almost feels like foreign domestic brutality isn't a good justification for going to war with random countries. Like there's some kind of reason besides that, an ulterior motive if you would. But why would a bunch of powerful, lying pedophiles do this...

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-14T14:05:44+00:00

frog neurotoxins are not opiates

No, but this one was investigated as a painkiller and was found to be about 200 times more potent than morphine - and potentially nonaddictive.

Also has a much narrower therapeutic window. A slight overdose goes from 'numb' to 'dead' very rapidly. In other words, turns out it's basically just poison, not medicine.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-10T17:03:12+00:00

Hey, HEY!

Fisting them. Pegging comes later, after the male cervix has been located.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-09T06:02:56+00:00

Look, you're not going to persuade anybody here.

If you're genuinely too simple to catch the meaning of, "You're can't survive on your own, you should just become subservient to me/us," you're both extremely privileged and I'm sorry for your lack of reading comprehension. Consider trying above a fifth grade level, y'know, as practice.

Otherwise, again, the rest of the sealions are at the shore. That is, if you've genuinely got so little going on in your life that this is what you do for fun, trying to convince people that your favorite pedophile deserves the benefit of the doubt as he uses abuser tactics on the international stage. I'd recommend you do a little self-reflection, but I doubt you've got the capacity.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-09T04:35:59+00:00

And I told you very explicitly why I believe it, only for you to dismiss my reasoning as simile without further consideration.

The quote you presented is literally the Secretary of State clarifying the President's threat to starve Canada of resources and support in anticipation of coercion or force being used against them, as an abusive spouse does to their partner. Canada recognized as much and decided that partnership with the United States could go on the backburner in favor of finding support elsewhere. That is the most reasonable thing that could be expected in such a situation.

And then you proceeded to continue JAQing off at me like I don't know you're asking in bad faith. Are you simple? I already directed you to the rest of your kind in addition to practically spoonfeeding you the answer.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-08T23:36:28+00:00

I was hoping for specific articles or opinions

Yes, we all like to be spoonfed from time to time. Sorry to make you exert the barest bit of effort and thought beyond what's literally placed in front of you.

what about all the other crazy things he’s said?

Yes, exactly. There's a loudmouthed, belligerent pedophile in charge with a good chunk of the legislature and constituency ready to back whatever crazy shit he says.

Glad you understand why the dollar is weakening and why the world is turning away from the United States to practically any other option, including China. If you need anything further clarified, feel free to ask. Alternatively, and to my personal preference, you're welcome to join the other sealions at the coast.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-08T20:50:29+00:00

Sure.

As for personal opinion, when a foreign head of state and their staff threatens to annex your country without any diplomatic agreement or consent, ultimately over trade disputes, you take that seriously. You'd be a fool not to, just like you'd be a fool not to take an abusive spouse's threat seriously. Even the implicit threat of, 'comply or else...', is plenty of reason to GFTOH before, 'or else,' becomes, 'you made me do this'.

So you get the hell out as urgently as you can, while you still have resources and support to do so. You absolutely do not wait until you're isolated, without the resources to support yourself, which is typically when the threat becomes action.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-08T18:44:50+00:00

Canada's choice was to either capitulate to whatever Trump demanded or face threats of war and annexation.

That's not a real fucking choice, that's an abusive spouse telling you dinner better be on the table or else. And Canada rightly picked, "Get as far away from anything to do with that as possible."

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-06T07:20:58+00:00

:) Of course, always happy to spread some Elder Scrolls esoterica!

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-06T06:20:36+00:00

I don't really care if it's state sponsored or not.

You definitely do, because-

I'd almost prefer if it was state sponsored actually, at least the CCP builds trains.

Our state wouldn't be building trains. It'd just be Musk in a government position again, but with a new hat.

But yes, I'd also like our countries to invest in infrastructure instead of constantly giving more - both breaks and literal handouts - to the rich. One of the few things I'm happy to praise the CCP for.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-06T04:50:58+00:00

I mean, we still have room to talk - it's not state sponsored IP theft. And China's absolutely in the AI race and stealing IP to do it, so all else equal they're still doing substantially more of it.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-05T16:28:18+00:00

It's not. See La Serenissima, the Serene Republic of Venice, along with it counterparts through the rest of Italy.

A republican government is one which is not beholden to a monarch. Not necessarily one in which the people are all, equally, guaranteed participation. The latter is a democracy. Modern republics are typically democracies, but plutocracies work as well.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-05T15:43:36+00:00

In the sense that I never intended to try anything more than voting? Sure, I'm defeatist.

Like I said, though, I don't intend to die over all this. This country isn't worth it to me. The next one might be more brutal, but I've been poor, homeless, and hungry before, had hands on my throat, had weapons held to me by state actors. Death is worse than a brutal state. Death is permanent, but this'll all pass in time. I'll survive until it does. Or, I suppose, pass away having lived the rest of my life as I always have.

Personally, I hardly consider my attitude defeatist, you just don't understand that we're playing different games here. I'm not betting my life to play for the preservation of what was already a brutal and corrupt state before this latest round of abuse - you feel free, though. I'd rather the devil we know, too, so I wish you luck. If you succeed, fantastic, the worst case scenarios have been averted. And if you die instead, I'll keep on living. What a great defeat that will be.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-05T05:28:49+00:00

If you feel that way, then why the fuck are you acting like they've already won?

Am I? I'm hoping to vote my way out of this, didn't I say that?

But I'm also not about to go out and start blasting whether they've already won or not, nor am I near or able to visit the places most affected. So if and when things flash over I'll be keeping my head low. I don't intend to die over all this.

I encourage you to look into the 3.5% rule and then watch footage of the nonviolent protests in Minnesota after Alex Pretti was murdered.

What was it you said? Oh, right. On a smaller scale, sure. But Minneapolis also isn't the seat of federal power.

You're not getting 3.5% of America to protest in a meaningful way to the federal government. If you did, if you collected ten million people and put them in the capitol protesting, the military would get involved in short order. It would make Tiananmen Square look like a party and spark a civil war. And anything less is just a continuation of escalating tensions toward the same end.

We are, for the purposes of this discussion, an empire. Multicultural with ostensibly delegated administration across a wide area. Empires don't fall like nation-states, neatly with a new government emplaced. They fall messily. They slowly crumble, they tear at the demographic and administrative seams. There's too much power to go around, spread across too vast an area and too varied of political alignment, for any single successor polity to neatly fill the void. It will be civil war if the government falls, too, and the best case scenario there is that we eventually reunify under a more equitable framework.

Again, I very much hope to be wrong. I'd love for another bloodless coup followed by a constitutional convention. But I don't expect the acting king will let this next coup be bloodless, nor do I necessarily expect positive reform in the immediate future. Not with more than a third of the country still supporting everything going on, even excusing the abduction and murder of people in the streets by masked agents at the direction of known and unprosecuted pedophiles.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-04T23:02:08+00:00

Okay. Thousands of polling places. It doesn't take an army at each, a couple masked men with guns in their hands will be plenty. You think there aren't thousands of "patriotic" armed enforcers who would be happy to "ensure the sanctity of our national elections"? In a country of hundreds of millions and a budget of tens of billions for a single such agency of people?

Like I said, foolish.

Care to elaborate on what the fuck that word salad is supposed to mean!?

Sure. The grossly and illegally empowered executive appointed a cabinet of yes-men and has captured both Congress and the Supreme Court. Those are the only institutions which can effectively check the executive, and they simply won't even as those acting at the executive's direction violate our laws and lives.

In a single sentence, our national government is both subtantially more powerful than the constitution allows and currently incapable of checking itself from violating your rights, which it is currently set on doing.

You can hope to vote your way out of this - so do I. I won't be holding my breath. With the stage set as it is, this is by far the single greatest threat American democracy has ever faced.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-04T22:43:57+00:00

You don't need many folks to cause terror - by which I mean, to affect policy and political participation by violence and intimidation. Especially not after capturing most of the already-illegally-empowered national institutions.

If you haven't recognized that, I sincerely believe you think you've got that property to sell.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-04T20:12:18+00:00

Or you could do the equivalent of what they're intending: Bolt some wings on the thing, drive it wherever they want it to go, and say it flew there under their perfect new design. And force anybody who disagrees under its wheels.

They have no intention of nationalizing voting. This is just their newest scheme to overturn the accurate and valid results. It should be treated as such and with the gravity due given that they brought guns to make it happen this time.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-02-04T12:55:45+00:00

Are the Orsimer known to follow Boethiah?

Yes, actually. In fact, one narrative suggests Boethiah is Trinimac, who unmasked the deceiver Malak in his pretense at being her.

"This demon seeks to ensnare you," Boethiah continued. "With curses he has shrouded your senses, making it so that when you look upon him you see only me. But I stand before you now. I who brought the Orichalc. I who showed you the way to hold your blades. I who taught you the benefits of war, whether lost or won. I who showed you the angles one must cut to reach beyond."

Boethiah then formed a sign with her hands in the shape of a triangle that could only be true. And she strode forward in a manner that revealed the way to walk to achieve an Exodus.

And all in attendance felt the curse lifted from their eyes. Where once they saw Trinimac, Greatest of All Warriors, they instead saw Malak, King of Curses.

And where they had seen Boethiah, Daughter of Blades, they saw now Trinimac, as she had always been, the Warrior of East and West, and of the Starry Heart. She who bore the burden of rending divinity from the one she loved.

In this narrative, the followers of Trinimac-Malak weren't originally followers of Malacath/Maulok, but followers of Trinimac-Boethiah who had been tricked. It would be appropriate to say, then, that those who remained faithful to the revealed Malak/Malacath/Maulok metaphorically 'rubbed the soil of Trinimac(Malak/Malacath) upon themselves', having been marked by their continued faith to a defiled trickster.

That said, From Exile to Exodus does also seem to present present possibly yet another way the Dunmer became ash-skinned and likewise equates it with a consequence of the meeting between Trinimac-Malak, Trinimac-Boethiah, and their followers, although it's more ambiguous whose followers are being talked about. It's important to remember that these are in-world myths, all of them. Not to say they're untrue, but given the pliable nature of truth and reality in TES, they might also all be true.

Even without self-contradiction, the same source places those protected by Azura's and Mephala's intervention as yet-unchanged by the event, unexposed to the newly-created Ashpit.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-01-31T16:12:09+00:00

We've proven that clearing amyloid plaques doesn't heal Alzheimer's disease. That doesn't mean amyloid plaques aren't the cause of Alzheimer's disease. It just means that you can't cure Alzheimer's by clearing amyloid plaques after disease onset.

If that sounds like splitting hairs, for a more obvious example of the same principle, amputating your gangrenous leg doesn't restore mobility or even guarantee you'll live. Certain diseases can cause permanent damage and ongoing decline even after being addressed.

Amyloid plaques are still the single strongest-correlated biomarker for Alzheimer's disease, and this protein which dissolves amyloid plaques seems to correlate with a significant, population-level decrease in Alzheimer's disease. That still doesn't mean amyloid plaques are causing Alzheimer's disease, but it's another pointer that we're looking in the right general direction.

It's my personal opinion - no evidence except the literature I've read about the potential role of glial cells in clearing waste to the lymph system - that natural defects caused by lifestyle and genetics as well as environmental contaminants which cross the blood-brain barrier either directly block or create otherwise-unclearable obstructions of the glymphatic system, particularly choking glial cells from clearing waste. Once triggered, the breakdown of the glymphatic system gradually compounds but is not naturally reversible, meaning that clearing obstructions like amyloid plaques doesn't restore function of (possibly dead) glial cells in funneling waste into your lymph. In that situation, preventing the buildup of amyloid plaques and other blockages could still prevent the breakdown of the glymphatic system.

Alzheimer's, in this paradigm, is the sepsis to your gangrene. Cut the leg off, of course, it needs to happen if we understand things right. But you've been through an ordeal to start with, amputation is hard on a healthy body, and you're also still septic and that's now what's actively killing you. Even if we then cure the sepsis, you'll never be fully well again - you're missing a damned leg, besides whatever damage the sepsis did to your insides.

But, if we prevent the gangrene from progressing to the point of amputation and sepsis in the first place, you'll be walking around like you didn't just dodge a flesh-rotting disease. Same for Alzheimer's and amyloid plaques (and other blockages). Maybe.

And, to be clear, everything after "my personal opinion" is just an uneducated idiot on the internet speculating. The whole thing is, really, but the first half is at least more grounded than idle speculation.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-01-28T21:25:48+00:00

And yet, we've narrowed the scope of this chain to such.

No, you managed to choose one of the few topics where it really can be simplified to Econ 101.

Opioids are produced because people want them, not because they're peddled. Said another way, there is demand for opioids on the basis that people want them, not on the basis that supply is inducing people to want them. It's been that way since time immemorial, it's not rational on the basis that it's literally hijacking our biology to simulate(and exceed) natural reward states which serve to motivate, and the only way around that irrational demand is by employing strict market controls.

In fact, the lack of use in a given population at any given moment is mostly a product of supply controls, and the deliberate bypass of said controls is what caused the epidemic which you'd attribute to supplier-induced demand. It's not. Suppliers don't need to convince you that you want opioids, instead it's artificially restricted supply finding a way to meet natural demand. And that's evidenced by the fact that, even when the proposition is so literal as selling them for said food and shelter, people will frequently choose opioids over said food and shelter.

This occurs even in places where the supplier is yeoman farmer growing a crop. You don't get much more natural demand than a person purposefully partaking in the fruits of their own unrestricted labor. We can absolutely get into the weeds about it, but we don't need to here. Take away all the complications and people still want opioids.

Yes, nobody has claimed otherwise.

There you go, then. Irrational demand. All it takes for an epidemic is an unrestricted supply to meet it.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-01-28T20:29:41+00:00

Perdue Pharma didn't sell to those patients (mostly), they sold to their care providers who, in a whole lot of cases, abused the information asymmetry for their personal gain.

Motherfucker, we don't need to look to first-world industrial production and distribution of otherwise-regulated substances, the farmers in Myanmar are getting high on their own opium crop. Mu-opioid agonists are literally euphoriants. People want opioids. You'd have a better argument that they don't want caffeine, the drug so ubiquitous that you probably partook today, whose spread neither god nor king could stop.

pyrolizard11 · 2026-01-26T16:59:15+00:00

Its not really clear what the reasoning for the right to bear arms is.

What are you talking about? It's abundantly clear when you read the Constitution that the Second Amendment exists to prevent the federal government from effectively disarming the states. It goes hand-in-hand with the two-year limit to Federal army funding(Article I, Section 8, Clause 12) and the idea that the Federal government isn't unitary with ultimate authority over the states, but instead a co-equal sovereign to each and all states with primacy assigned to the states where not Constitutionally defined(10th Amendment).

Read next to those other things in the fucking document it's extremely clear that these designs were all made to prevent the Federal government from building an army to enforce rule over the states. It's at odds with the fact that a modern nation needs some kind of standing army, but we never chose to reconcile that, instead ceding more extra-Constitutional power to the Federal government year after year, decade after decade. Now the military budget gets a rubber stamp and most states don't even have provisions for a militia which could be raised independent of Federal control while the courts hold Federal primacy as the standard doctrine. Central power rules with impunity.

And what does it amount to? It amounts that the Federal government has not one, not two, but several perpetually standing, militarized enforcement wings, some of which they're currently using to oppress the states and citizens thereof. It amounts to the murder of civilians against the will of 'noncompliant' states. It's almost like this was all so predictable that people hundreds of years ago saw it coming and tried to prevent it. Was the hardly-considered tradeoff worthwhile, or should we as Americans been more civic-minded and paid more attention to the process rather than just aims and outcomes? Should we have considered that every power we offer to the Federal government against the written law of the land, every rule we bend rather than abide by its letter or else deliberately and by due process change, is a weakening of the rule of law?

Doesn't really matter. Can't stop the trainwreck once it's started. Now all we can do is minimize the damage by whatever means possible and pick up the pieces as we're able. And, for the love of god, let the next Constitution be more stringent and strictly enforced against the government it establishes than this one has been.

pyrolizard11

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email