psychedelics aren't that dangerous. I don't even think it's possible to OD on LSD. Could be very bad to use psychedelics if you have mental health issues though. But some people say they also help.

That said, very surprised they added those on. Feel like that's going to kill this bill.

My boy big O chillin' in the background. Can you guys see him?

> I think that most people

"most people". Not all people. So why are you responding to me as if I'm definitely one of those people, with no charity? I highly, highly doubt that banning words in, say, college classrooms will result in universal banning of entire topics or words etc. The first amendment in the US is pretty strong.

>are genuinely buying into a slippery slope fallacy

...the slippery slope isn't a fallacy, you know. It's either an effect which is happening, or isn't happening, in given societal context. I could very well envision a place in which a particular society becomes very repressive in speech because hte taboo against restricting speech has been slowly eroded. This is not saying that I believe this same thing will happen where I live, or where you live.

It does happen in places like certain "loony" liberal social organizations, but isn't likely to happen society wide in the US (where I live) just let, because there are very good constitutional lawyers to protect against things like that, and the people are generally for the first amendment (besides on reddit for some insane reason). I am a bit concerned about some restrictions on speech I've seen coming out of Germany and the UK and Canada, not because I disagree that the things they're restricting are indeed shitty (you're a huge fucking asshole if you deny the holocaust, for example), but because I'm worried that conservatives will take this weakening of standards to make it illegal to be openly, say, socialist.

This was a pretty generic leftist (not lib, leftist) take only ten years ago but now people are so uncharitable that they assume anyone arguing in defense of the first amendment defending even shitty speech means they must support the shitty speech as well, when it's usually hte opposite. It's why the ACLU has supported (legally) the KKK in the past. The hyperpoliticialization of our times.

In regards to these silly radlib groups who try to shame people for using the word "lame" or whatever...that shit is probably cyclical, and hopefully they'll realize that they're being counterproductive to their own causes soon enough.

> You also can’t say “fuck” while working in a church without being fired. No accusations of Orwell there though. People seem to understand that different places have different standards of acceptable speech when it comes to protecting their own traditions, yet when it comes to the new standards inevitably rising up as society values inclusion more, they balk. Recent generations are more offended by racial slurs than words like “fuck,” and I think that’s a positive thing. They find dehumanization of marginalized people more offensive than slang for sex. I agree with them.

I agree with literally every single word you said here. The problem is that you think someone saying "Sometimes words are banned sometimes" means they are over-the-top assholes who just want to shout out racial slurs whenever they feel like it.

It doesn't really make any sense. Indicates that people are itching for a fight that isn't there. Sometimes words are banned. Depending on the context, that's usually good. But it's just plain wrong to say that words aren't ever banned. That's all I was saying.

>You are complaining that subreddits that have moderation ban certain words

I am not complaining. It's easier to win arguments when you make up what the other person's point of view is, right?

Do you want me to link discord servers....?

There are plenty of social-justice oriented subreddits which ban specific words...hell, reddit as a whole I'm pretty sure has banned the N word at a minimum.

No, but plenty of organizations (which can be anything from a school or business to a subreddit) forbid people from using certain words^1 in either official or internal communication and you will receive significant social censure if you are in certain fields to the point where you will have projects canceled.

Perhaps the latter can't be called banning even though this sort of chilling effect has the same consequences of it, but the former definitely is.

Thankfully there isn't a serious movement to ban words legally by my federal government, despite the shocking amount of support I see for this on reddit.

^1 I dont' mean slurs and sexual slang but a significant increase of words that were very recently not considered offensive, such as the word "lame" to refer to something not being entertaining.

This map groups everything into only five broad colors. For all we know, Vermont could be .1 better than us, and within the error margin.

But as others mentioned this is from 23andme so is probably not a reliable source of data anyway.

Seems like there's a societal trend to making cities and towns more walkable. I'm excited for the future if that's so.

Anyone who disagrees with the above comment: yes, it's probably not the most perfect measure, especially for individuals but it's a very quick measure and let me ask you one very important question:

One town has an average BMI of 23.5. Another town has an average BMI of 28.4. In most other ways they're comparable (similar age range, poverty level, etc) Which town do you expect to have a lower death expectancy? Which town will have more health problems overall? What is the quickest way to determine this factor? Looking at average weight alone is also a good indicator, but seeing how different people groups have different average height (especially different sexes), the BMI isn't that much harder to get information for and provides just a little more information.

I don't see the problem with BMI at all. I see much bigger problems with IQ testing (which are culturally biased) and Flesch Kincaid (which is complex, very difficult to measure and ill understood and greatly misinterpreted) and pretty much every psychometric test ever. BMI is a quick and dirty way of determining which places have weight problems.

Rejecting it will just make tracking this stuff harder, less intuitive, and people more likely to embrace a more extreme version of "healthy at every size" which turned from actually pro-active health stuff for overweight people to just apologia for passive unhealthy lifestyles.

See a doctor to determine if you're actually overweight. BMI is fine.

Well the comment is more saying she's doing something risky by putting her phone number and place of work on the flier.

Which I guess I can see that but I think people greatly exaggerate the danger of having a number out there. Like if I put my address online...it's just one of many, many addresses out there. It's only a problem if someone feels the need to target me in particular.

It's also possible that the phone number belongs to a friend or something.

The linked article references many such cases, although I don't think they went to the Supreme Court. The fact that these cases didn't go to the supreme court, if anything, indicates that these laws were clearly unconstitutional and therefore didn't need to go that far.

Anyways, the supreme court has addressed freedom of speech laws as relates to billboards, such as this example last year. That case is not relevant to this case, ofc, since this bakery sign is not digital. Also, I'm not a constituional lawyer. I'm just asking questions about this because I'm genuinely curious.

Sure but does it not count as a first amendment violation?

I can understand how if the law is repealed, it could have unwanted consequences. But...is Conway really at risk of that? Billboards are pretty uncommon in NH as it is. I can't see people putting up billboards in the middle of nowhere.

And regardless of negative consequences anyway, I also don't see how it isn't a violation of the first amendment to make a law against putting up any sort of advertisement on land you own. Doesn't matter if it's a charming donut shop sign or ugly billboard for a strip club.

My grandmother absolutely 100% pronounces the word "potatoes" with not a single phoneme right except the middle vowel.

/bɑːˈdeɪd.ɑːz/ instead of /pəˈteɪ.toʊs/

Agreed, I don't actually think it'd be a geographically clean, traditional war. I'm just assuming the scenario assumed in the meme. That set of states versus the other set of states...who wins?

I don't think the right-wing larpers are necessarily super organized, agreed, but that they at least have arms (including surprisingly powerful stuff), military vehicles, camo, and a lot of them were in the military and very devoted.

Also the 18th century was basically a different world. They didn't have tanks, aircraft carriers, planes, etc. It's like how people assume Julius Caesar completely dominated the Gauls because he was from the more advanced culture. Certainly he won and he was always going to win, but since the tech level differences were smaller, it was a much harder battle than we in the modern day can truly appreciate.

So an actual civil war along these lines would involve half the military fighting the other half, with regular citizens being conscripted and sent to the front lines. It's at the front lines that the more gun-savvy and militiamen will have an advantage over the left. For the people not fighting, the conservative faction will simply shut off the roads, railroads, electricity, supply chain, and food for the enemy.

In actuality, I think any "civil war" would probably be more like small insurgencies that the government as a whole would try to take down, and it's not going to resemble the first american civil war in a "cleanly geographical" way.

Well, certainly people on the left have guns. But the meme is about how the left has far less guns than the right does.

If there were ever a civil war, the "left" would be screwed. And that is unfortuante, because I'm on the left. The right is the interior of the country and essentially control the supply chain, food, electricity, and infrastructure in general. And don't forget that it naturally works out that the "left's" powerbases are split in half by the enemy. People who join the military disproportionately are politically conservative, and lots of people go on to form militias and train to fight. The legacy of a militant left in the US died in the 70s. The modern day left is undisciplined, unarmed, pessimistic divided over irrelevant culture war bullshit, and believes that praxis is done by posting on twitter. If there were a civil war, which roughly corresponds to the last presidnetial election (extremely unlikely it'd go along state borders, but whatever), then the side associated with the democrats would lose handily. Not that that side wouldn't have some advantages but I think they would be minor compared to the more militaristic-minded half of hte country which can be more meaningfully said to make this country work.

Also for New Hampshire in particular...it's silly to say that NH would definitely be on the left because of the last presidential election. It is a purple state. I would say it's probably, though, because it's closed off by the rest of the country by Vermont and Mass, and the entire region is cut off by New York, so NH has no chance at all, not to mention the fact that New England has the highest ratio of food imports. We can't produce our own food for shit, and if the conservative army cuts off our territory at the seaboard, then the entire new england region would slowly starve to death, especially during the winter.

So yeah, dismal stuff.

Watched that movie yesterday. Definitely very good. I'm liking that there's now an American entry to the canon of world-famous-detectives after Sherlock and Hercule (I'm sure there are other, American ones, but I haven't heard of them).

Even though the actor himself isn't actually American. Still a very charming character.

I've been wanting to create a blog where I read one chapter at a time, trying to document all the possible clues, and then trying to reason out the actual solution.

Am a bit worried about all the people in this thread saying that's impossible to do with Christie. Are these other series more solvable?

Yes I do believe marxism is a rational choice

I don't hate billionaires. That was part of my long-winded comment. That was the point of it.

Good neologism with "dislocutive" btw, I like that word.

It's not hatred; the existence of a billionaire class is just inherently incompatible with my political ideology. unlike most socialists on this matter I try not to be overly simplistic...I recognize that people are more complicated than solely good or solely evil (although obviously people like Hitler or serial killers have so much evil that it's counterproductive to talk about what little "good" they have). I recognize that someone like Bill Gates is probably a kind person interpersonally and has done a lot of charity work. But as CEO of microsoft he still did a lot of damage to the world especially with his anti-competitive behavior and anti-open source bullshit. Hell, George Washington was a pretty decent guy in lots of ways...was a great general, had a strong sense of virtue while in office. But he literally owned slaves. Was the norm at the time. Never heard any rumors of him raping them. But nevertheless, his wealth came at least in part from literally owning human beings.

If I believe that capitalism is about taking the value of someone's labor away from the laborer, and that capitalism results in private property^1 owners simply using their capital to accrue more capital at the expense of the general population as a whole, then anyone who owns a business is inherently exploiting their workers. Even if they're a very nice person who goes to church, gives to charity, pays better and is kinder to their employees than the norm. To get to billions of dollars, you'd have to do a lot of worker exploitation--no two ways around it. And we know that Jeff Bezos is below the norm for private property owners. The conditions for Amazon pickers are horrendous, and his drivers have to piss in bottles, and he's a complete asshole to his employees interpersonally.

The fact that he gives to charity could be to alleviate guilt, could be to get clout, could be to improve his brand, could be because he feels bad and just wants to feel better about himself. And sure, a world where Jeff Bezos gave moneyy to a soup kitchen is better than a world where he didn't give money to a soup kitchen. But since he still profits off the exploitation of workers, he's still not really, like, a good guy. He's still contributing more to the world being shitty than the world being better. What he could have done is instead of resignng as CEO last year was to make Amazon a worker's co-op. But instead he just union-busted and treated his employees like trash, while accumulating billions for himself.

But yeah I'm a socialist, so I'm sure it's just a vapid hatred of rich people without any real thought behind it. It's just that an act like this is sorta like seeing a story of a serial rapist donating money to a woman's shelter.

^1 in academic socialism, "private property" refers to things like factories, railroads, mines, apartment complexes, etc, not personal possessions or even your own private home.

Only billionaire i can think of who might be considered a decent person is Paul McCartney. Truth is that it's very difficult to accumulate that kind of money without exploiting your workers, even if you're a "good boss".

I saw that but there were like 6 of them.

Yeah I was thinking this is in no way a 60s look. Very 70s going into early 80s I'd say. And he looks slightly too old to be in a trendy 60s pop-rock band in that photo (not that it's impossible but there really weren't that many popular rock/psych/pop musicians in their 30s)