441–450 of 582 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snow Crash came to mind, but so did several other Neal Stephenson books!
yes, I think his book "Reamde" had the concept of "Ameristan" which was the redneck-Idaho equivalent of many racial/religious/socioecon tropes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole D&D vs Christianity vs Tolkien mess of the 90s grew on this inability to tolerate fiction that proofs anyone could invent your life ordering fiction.
That is... so very nearly a sentence.
Once it finally clicked for me, I actually found it an interesting point I haven't heard before. That the main cause of the satanic panic was a fear that world-building becoming too popular would expose the likelihood that Christianity was also a fiction.
Personally, I think I find the idea more interesting, than I find it convincing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you don't have to be a scientist to directly engage with the literature. from mathematical proofs to directly observed phenomena to statistical certainties - it's all out there for you to engage with and feel secure in your findings just by having an internet connection. there's a qualitative difference in that evidence from the "sides" and therefore there is a qualitative and practical difference in the "more intell…
If the side you follow says the science community is political and biased, then "just look at the literature" isn't going to help. It's like telling an atheist they'd believe in Jesus if they'd just read the bible. We are lied to constantly by people who influence our lives. You can't even go to the grocery store without being lied to - being told breakfast cereals are healthy, that low fat options will make you less…
If you tell the nuanced truth and lose, and your opponent tells simplified untruths and wins, where does that leave you?
As I understand it (obviously a gross simplification), Jimmy Carter attempted to treat Americans like adults, but Americans did not want to inconvenience themselves by wearing sweaters
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I'd love to hear any additional ideas except those that work everywhere because that'd require big changes" When you pretend to quote someone, but you alter the quote, you're being dishonest. What you just did suggests that you don't really have any good arguments on your side - that you don't have any arguments that would stand on their own, without requiring a lie. So, if we were having a debate, I'd say that yo…
I'm not being dishonest, I'm being sarcastic. Although I can see that you ignored everything else that I said. I couldn't care less about "winning".
Well, you started by altering a quote. Is it unreasonable for me to call that out and stop there??
Try to imagine that this comment you're reading now said:
> > you ignored the irrelevant things I said
> yes, of course I did!
Try to imagine how you would respond to that. Then, try to imagine how you'd react if I said, "I was just being sarcastic bro!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can have a message and point of view, but don't put activism over comedy. The "joke" in this case is people's reactions to school shootings. And people's reactions haven't changed, so I don't see why the article should change. It's just so exhausting. This has some real "The worst thing about school shootings is knowing that The Onion is going to repost that article I personally am tired of seeing" energy to it.
It's not a joke if you repeat it 100 times. That article has some real "The best thing about school shootings is we get to have literally every article on our website be this clever headline we wrote 10 years" energy to it.
It's not the joke's fault.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would think that the right to life would take precedence Well, let's do a thought experiment to test this. Which of these two rights takes precedence: (1) life (specifically in this case, the right to not be murdered) or (2) freedom of movement That's an easy question, isn't it? (1) takes precedence. But how many 9's of protection are you willing to "purchase" at the expense of (2)? How much of (2) are you willin…
I have no clue what I just read or what kind of mental gymnastics are required to say that a right to a weapon overrides a right to live. It used to blow my mind when I moved here (Netherlands) that I wasn't allowed to use a weapon to defend myself... but then you realize ... basically nobody has weapons.
A lot of people are incapable of contending with hypotheticals or thought experiments. It's okay.
If you'd like to try again, I encourage you to read up to the point where something doesn't make sense. Quote only that sentence, and ask me to explain.
Notice how I'm not even asking you to read the whole thing - just to the point where you have trouble. This is very reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i couldn't finish "Don't Look Up", it felt like sitting through a political lecture. all i wanted from a comedy was some laughs.
Same here. There was something feeling so obviously off with Don't Look Up.. for me at least. Idiocracy did not suffer from this.. but Mike Judge is somewhat of an acquired taste I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, I think his book "Reamde" had the concept of "Ameristan" which was the redneck-Idaho equivalent of many racial/religious/socioecon tropes.
Ackshually this is "Fall, or Dodge in Hell"
If the "Right/Left" or "Liberal/Conservative" is too hot button for any kind of discussion.
He also wrote "Anathem"
Which is fictional world, with fictional sides, that can be used to explore similar concepts a little less triggering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel Idiocracy is irresistible bait for 'not like the other girls'-types. Everytime this movie comes up, droves of people mention how they get it, while others don't. It's becoming a trope in itself.
for the uninitiated: the message is that serious pimping requires two D's, for a double-dose of that pimpin'