Libra00

What we have seen before are small, narrowly focused tariffs. This is about as not- that as it’s possible to be and still be tariffs. So if Trump is somehow right the response will be to question everything we know about economics because we are now living in an alternate time line where taking a hammer to a complex issue that needs a scalpel will have somehow worked for literally the first time in human history. But, ya know, ask silly questions, get silly answers.

Pinky! Are you thinking what I’m thinking?

‘AI is making us dumb!’ -2025

‘Social media is making us dumb!’ -2020

‘Smartphones are making us dumb!’ -2010s

‘The internet is making us dumb!’ -1990s

‘Television is making us dumb!’ -1970s

‘Books are making us dumb!’ -1500s

You’d think we’d know by know that that’s just how technology works - it makes us ‘dumb’ because we don’t need to spend the effort to do things we’ve automated away with technology and thus can focus on shit that is more important to us. If I don’t have to sit around thinking about math because someone invented a calculator, that’s more time that I can spend doing the thing I want to use the math for. The math is a tool, not the point itself.

He’s here, he’s there, he’s every-fucking-where, Roy Kent!

And you’re saying the lessons from one thing aren’t directly applicable to the other when they are. It’s like saying no one who was ever physically abused as a child can ever talk about why hitting a child is bad because they’re just giving survivorship bias for two completely different situations. The lack of belief still hurts whether it’s an isolated incident or a pattern, and OP needs to know that.

I don’t think you’re a jerk, but I think you’ve handled this badly and you’re using ‘objective and realistic’ to justify it, but that’s just code for not believing in him. Were you great at 16? Or were you merely good enough to get signed and thus benefit from decades of training and coaching that improved you? Do you not believe he will also improve? That’s literally what not believing in him means.

It’s one thing to inject some realism, to manage expectations, to encourage him to have a fallback, etc, and quite another to effectively say ‘You’re shit at this so you should just go get a job’ or whatever.

Listen, there are assholes everywhere, and even mild centrists can be dicks and break the rules. We can speak about tendencies and generalizations if you like, but there are plenty of people who aren’t bigots who are giant flaming assholes on social media.

It isn’t a purity test, it’s a necessary accommodation of the fact that people in the US (and I say this as an American) think that the left ends at progressive liberalism, while everyone else in the world sees progressive liberalism as center-left at best because they acknowledge that ‘the left’ extends quite far past the bounds of Liberalism (the philosophy, not the political leaning), because Liberalism is about individualism and property rights but most people to the left of that are collectivist in some way shape or form.

Good point, many think left = liberal = US democrats who are centrists at best from the international perspective. So no, most people on here probably aren’t actual leftists, but I’m guessing when they say they ‘lean left’ they mean US-liberal-not-conservative, not socialist or whatever.

Not me, I’ve only been a person for the past couple years. Prior to that I was a caffeine-powered AI.

Like everything on the right, decentralization is a means to an end, not a value in itself. They only care about it when it’s useful for helping them get ahead. Just like they only care about free speech when it’s them speaking to people who don’t want to hear their bullshit.

I am extremely left-wing, so probably skew the average all by myself. :P

I think most people feel this way, right? Like you are left-leaning if you like the policies in left-wing platforms put forth by left-wing parties, so you vote for the left-wing candidates who advocate for them. Likewise, candidates are left-wing because they are members of such parties and advocate for such policies. So saying ‘I only vote for people on the basis of their policies and voting record’ is like saying ‘I only drink water when it’s wet’—technically true, but it misses the point that you chose it because it was wet.

LOL, yup, this.

deleted by creator

OP asks how to explain to kids about terrorism:

How do you go about explaining terrorism and evil to young kids without storybooking it?

Guy says kids don’t need to have terrorism explained to them:

Bro kids today are fully aware about terrorism

Guy provides a reason why kids don’t need to have terrorism explained: they already learn about it in the form of school shooters, who are terrorists:

School shooters are … terrorists

Guy makes an assertion in the middle of the previous sentence that doesn’t really have much to do with it:

mainly right wing

Whether or not that part is true has no bearing on the rest of it. But what his second sentence had to do with the question in that it provided context/an example showing how kids already learn about terrorism.

Press the pad of your thumb and the end of your middle finger together with some force. It helps to offset the finger to the left side of the thumb (looking down at the thumb). Hold your thumb still, and try to pull the tip of your middle finger down to your palm, until it overcomes friction and snaps against your palm at the base of your thumb.

it gives a reason for the first sentence. ‘The sky is blue. Blue light gets scattered more than other colors.’ Same idea, only the guy stated it in a very terse way so I can see how it would not be easy to follow the logic implied therein.

That… really depends on your politics. It could range from ‘There are bad people who want to hurt us’ to ‘we are bad people who hurt people and sometimes they decide to try to hurt us back.’

0.03 is 7.5x more than 0.004 tho?