Fine, we'll get our A/C units installed if you fix your archaic second amendment.
October 2, 2025 at 2:58 PM
Fine, we'll get our A/C units installed if you fix your archaic second amendment.
Do you think they if they owned guns they would've won against their 'governments'? Or would it just have devolved into something even more bloody?
Look, I get the sentiment. But your government has tanks, jet fighters and nuclear stuff so your gun just doesn't hold a candle.
Look, I get the sentiment. But your government has tanks, jet fighters and nuclear stuff so your gun just doesn't hold a candle.
October 2, 2025 at 2:47 PM
Do you think they if they owned guns they would've won against their 'governments'? Or would it just have devolved into something even more bloody?
Look, I get the sentiment. But your government has tanks, jet fighters and nuclear stuff so your gun just doesn't hold a candle.
Look, I get the sentiment. But your government has tanks, jet fighters and nuclear stuff so your gun just doesn't hold a candle.
Having a fighting chance means that you're safer than if you hadn't had that chance.
So yes, you said that having a gun keeps you *safer*.
But it actually just creates a statistical opportunity for a kid to use it or as a pretext to shoot you pre-emptivally.
So yes, you said that having a gun keeps you *safer*.
But it actually just creates a statistical opportunity for a kid to use it or as a pretext to shoot you pre-emptivally.
October 2, 2025 at 2:36 PM
Having a fighting chance means that you're safer than if you hadn't had that chance.
So yes, you said that having a gun keeps you *safer*.
But it actually just creates a statistical opportunity for a kid to use it or as a pretext to shoot you pre-emptivally.
So yes, you said that having a gun keeps you *safer*.
But it actually just creates a statistical opportunity for a kid to use it or as a pretext to shoot you pre-emptivally.
I totally get that on an individual level but that logic just doesn't work when dealing large quantities of people. If nobody is allowed to have guns that's just safer for everybody, even if your *feeling* of safety is temporarily worse.
Tragedy of the commons problem.
Tragedy of the commons problem.
October 2, 2025 at 2:30 PM
I totally get that on an individual level but that logic just doesn't work when dealing large quantities of people. If nobody is allowed to have guns that's just safer for everybody, even if your *feeling* of safety is temporarily worse.
Tragedy of the commons problem.
Tragedy of the commons problem.
Yet you're basically arguing that getting into a car makes you safer from car crashes.
Which *could* be true; it intuitively makes sense that having a gun for protection keeps you safe. Only it just doesn't.
Which *could* be true; it intuitively makes sense that having a gun for protection keeps you safe. Only it just doesn't.
October 2, 2025 at 2:26 PM
Yet you're basically arguing that getting into a car makes you safer from car crashes.
Which *could* be true; it intuitively makes sense that having a gun for protection keeps you safe. Only it just doesn't.
Which *could* be true; it intuitively makes sense that having a gun for protection keeps you safe. Only it just doesn't.
How do you define self defense here? How can you ever know what would've happened had you not pulled out your gun? How come gun owners in the US are more likely to get killed than people in the US who don't own guns according to your theory? (Look it up if you don't believe me)
October 2, 2025 at 2:17 PM
How do you define self defense here? How can you ever know what would've happened had you not pulled out your gun? How come gun owners in the US are more likely to get killed than people in the US who don't own guns according to your theory? (Look it up if you don't believe me)
You can rationalize all you want but the numbers show an incredible higher likelihood to be killed in the US compared to the UK. And basically any other country. It's the availability of guns that make that difference.
Using a gun to protect yourself is basically an illusion, albeit understandable.
Using a gun to protect yourself is basically an illusion, albeit understandable.
October 2, 2025 at 2:03 PM
You can rationalize all you want but the numbers show an incredible higher likelihood to be killed in the US compared to the UK. And basically any other country. It's the availability of guns that make that difference.
Using a gun to protect yourself is basically an illusion, albeit understandable.
Using a gun to protect yourself is basically an illusion, albeit understandable.
There is no evidence that these laws are keeping you safe, in fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For all demographics owning a gun puts you in greater danger.
October 2, 2025 at 1:50 PM
There is no evidence that these laws are keeping you safe, in fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For all demographics owning a gun puts you in greater danger.
I was gonna pull this up as well. They rediscovered the Gell-Mann amnesia effect and think it's a feature of LLMs.
March 11, 2025 at 8:57 AM
I was gonna pull this up as well. They rediscovered the Gell-Mann amnesia effect and think it's a feature of LLMs.
Ah ok. Makes sense people aren't watching it. Still, very similar stories have been told about women like these.
January 25, 2025 at 11:58 AM
Ah ok. Makes sense people aren't watching it. Still, very similar stories have been told about women like these.
This is so infuriating to me. Somebody points out that in fact a film HAS been made about her, everybody just ignores this and continues to pretend people don't care about strong women, in stead of just correcting the tweet and watching the movie!
January 25, 2025 at 10:31 AM
This is so infuriating to me. Somebody points out that in fact a film HAS been made about her, everybody just ignores this and continues to pretend people don't care about strong women, in stead of just correcting the tweet and watching the movie!
It's only about 60-65%. Not 90.
Also, we like strong women just like the next person, so this explanation seems more ideological (and wrong) than factual. Poplar films like Kill Bill also easily dispell this myth.
Also, we like strong women just like the next person, so this explanation seems more ideological (and wrong) than factual. Poplar films like Kill Bill also easily dispell this myth.
January 25, 2025 at 10:25 AM
It's only about 60-65%. Not 90.
Also, we like strong women just like the next person, so this explanation seems more ideological (and wrong) than factual. Poplar films like Kill Bill also easily dispell this myth.
Also, we like strong women just like the next person, so this explanation seems more ideological (and wrong) than factual. Poplar films like Kill Bill also easily dispell this myth.
What would a global optimum even look like in natural selection?
And which student of evolution thinks this is discoverable?
And which student of evolution thinks this is discoverable?
January 23, 2025 at 6:03 AM
What would a global optimum even look like in natural selection?
And which student of evolution thinks this is discoverable?
And which student of evolution thinks this is discoverable?
That's not a bubble bursting what you're describing, that's tech being suppressed, which I think is very unlikely.
January 18, 2025 at 11:50 AM
That's not a bubble bursting what you're describing, that's tech being suppressed, which I think is very unlikely.
Move fast and break things is hardly a conservative motto.
November 30, 2024 at 9:29 AM
Move fast and break things is hardly a conservative motto.
Well, not very accurate since that building depicted isn't actually the Kremlin. It's St. Basils cathedral.
November 29, 2024 at 10:47 PM
Well, not very accurate since that building depicted isn't actually the Kremlin. It's St. Basils cathedral.
I wasn't specifically talking about denial of the sex binary, but more about human behavioral biology. It's not explicitly denied but often implicitly.
November 24, 2024 at 5:43 PM
I wasn't specifically talking about denial of the sex binary, but more about human behavioral biology. It's not explicitly denied but often implicitly.
I've personally met people who think evolutionary psychology is astrology.
November 16, 2024 at 7:00 AM
I've personally met people who think evolutionary psychology is astrology.
Would you say there's also some science denialism on the other side? (Evolution and how it impacts psychology, biology in humans, economy science)
And if yes, why hasn't that lead to a trust in science on that side?
And if yes, why hasn't that lead to a trust in science on that side?
November 15, 2024 at 2:14 PM
Would you say there's also some science denialism on the other side? (Evolution and how it impacts psychology, biology in humans, economy science)
And if yes, why hasn't that lead to a trust in science on that side?
And if yes, why hasn't that lead to a trust in science on that side?