I’m just some guy, you know.

  • 10 Posts
  • 1.37K Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 7th, 2024

help-circle
  • Tournament brackets don’t actually decide the most capable team, with NFL the teams that make it to the Superbowl being largely based on chance. A lot of the language around strategy is just being overly verbose about the literal mechanics of the game. Coaches mostly just try to keep their team “playing the game” (literally and figuratively) to give them the best chances of making it.

    It’s basically a big lottery machine powered by athletes, funded by ultra-rich team owners, and decided through arbitrary rules and procedures, and everyone wants to know who the winner will be because it’s entertaining to watch.

    But nobody burns anything to the ground, we just accept the rules, even though they aren’t really fair.


  • There’s no such thing as objectively good singer.

    I’m gonna stop you right there, chief. Singing ability is measurable, and quantifiable. You absolutely can be objectively good or bad at it. This isn’t a statement of personal taste, it’s a matter of basic observation. It is possible to dislike a song, and conclude the singing is good. It’s possible to like a song and conclude that the singing is bad.

    You can be wrong about a person’s singing ability if you are unable to separate your personal preferences for singing with an objective look at things like a singer’s pitch control, consistency, emotionality, and flexibility.

    Musical preference is a subjective thing, but musical theory is much less so.

    With that said, Taylor Swift is objectively an excellent singer. I’m not a huge fan of her music, but I don’t have to be to know that it’s true.



  • I agree entirely, in regards to politics in 1850’s Germany with its diverse multiparty political ecosystem.

    As for current American politics, where we are deeply entrenched in a societal tug-of-war in an ostensible two-party system, where third parties can swing policy in a largely undemocratic direction by spoiling the vote in close elections, I disagree completely. Third parties serve no purpose in a two-party representative democracy.

    If we can break the two party political duopoly, then I will never complain about another fringe party voter ever again. Until then, you better fucking vote for the lesser evil, because letting the greater evil win, as we learned in 2017-2020, is really fucking bad.

    If anything, letting Democrats win the next few major elections could spell doom for the Republican party as a whole, and give us a chance to introduce some actual competition to the Democratic party.

    I wish that I could snap my fingers and have it fixed today, but that’s not how societies work. Accelerationism always requires violence, and violence isn’t how you should uphold democracy, unless you are defending its pillars against a direct threat. A two-party duopoly is something we the people need to defeat.

    That means we need to abolish the electoral college, introduce universal mail-in voting, defeat all right-wing disenfranchisement efforts, and introduce ranked-choice voting to all elections. These are radical changes that will take a lot of work to accomplish, and that will face a lot of opposition.

    Under Democrat leadership, these things are possible. Under Republican leadership, we’ll be lucky if we still have elections.










  • And your hopeless manifestation approach to breaking the two-party duopoly isn’t entirely self-serving?

    It won’t accomplish anything. You will never win any election against the two-party behemoths without Democratic reform.

    But you folks don’t ever advocate for that, just unqualified spoiler candidates, and never in local elections where independents have more of a chance.

    Even if your heart is in the right place, you’re a liability to progress because you care more about Democrats being imperfect than you do about Republicans being fascist.




  • You’re falling for their propaganda.

    Republicans started this racist rumor about Haitians in Ohio.

    The media talks to city officials and determines that these claims are unfounded.

    Republicans claim that the city’s response wasn’t an outright denial, and suggest that this lends some amount of legitimacy that it might be happening.

    But that’s bullshit. Government PR (and pretty much every journalist) knows to never make statements of negative fact, because you cannot logically prove a negative. It’s the same reason newspapers use “allegedly” to describe accused criminals: because future events could hypothetically change the truthfulness of the statement.

    And that’s all these claims will ever be: hypothetical. When all you have is a hypothesis, it is irresponsible to run away with it as if it were evidence of anything.

    “Can’t be disproven” is the default state of most social issues. That alone is equivalent to having zero evidence, and so repeating the completely baseless claims that Haitians might be eating pets, while technically true in a hypothetical sense, could be said about literally any group you want, because there will exist the same amount of evidence of it being true (none).

    One can only conclude that anyone peddling this narrative solely wishes to spread racist ideas about Haitians.


  • They did that on purpose. Harris originally suggested open mics but Trump pushed back. I’m guessing she told the moderators not to worry too much about letting him get in an unsanctioned response, knowing that if he’s at the point where he’s barging in and ignoring decorum, he’s likely going to self-immolate on camera.

    She wasn’t wrong. She was concise enough to get almost every question answered, and baited Trump into humiliating himself. Some of the most damaging things he said were said during time he wasn’t supposed to be speaking.

    It’s the perfect trap. Giving him extra time sabotages him, but he can’t complain that getting extra time to speak was a trap, because, as you suggest, at face value, it was unfair to Harris.

    It also potentially saved the debate from an early conclusion. Trump has walked out of interviews and debates in the past when they forced him to stop talking or move on.

    They really played him well.