ObjectivityIncarnate @ damnedfurry @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

601

Joined

1 yr. ago

Did Musk declare himself President? No. Did he shut down the government? No.

If I convinced my friend to ask that girl out he's interested in, would it be accurate to say I asked her out? Also no.

My statement stands. The headline is bullshit, ragebait bullshit I might add.

"All strawberries are fruits" does not imply "all fruits are strawberries" .

Saying "white people are a threat" is not the same as saying "these people who are a threat are white".

The former is the statement you agreed with, and now you're desperately trying to paint it as the latter.

It's not. You're rationalizing racism.

No value judgment about an entire race is a fact.

You're racist.

how can you think it is even possible to be racist against white people?

Very easy. If you make or agree with sweeping generalizations about a race, you are racist.

That's what racism is.

False analogy, no one said anyone was racist against white people for saying they don't support the US.

If you're agreeing with someone who literally maligned a race, you are racist too. Period.

The article doesn't show any evidence of Musk 'declaring himself President', and he didn't (and can't) shut down the government either.

What the fuck is this headline?

Not much, what's on with you?

Men prefer women to do it because women are the only ones with non-permanent options that are 99.x% effective.

Fact is, only the female body has a built-in 'mode' that naturally shuts off fertility, that pharmaceuticals can 'trick' the body into activating, making creating effective contraception for females extremely easy compared to the difficulty level for males.

There is no one to blame for these biological facts of the matter. They are as they are, all we can do is work with what we've got.

There's another wrinkle: pregnancy is a health risk for females, and is the consequence for unprotected sex for them. Males have no equivalent thing that happens to their body as a result of unprotected sex. Contraception needs to be at least as safe as the alternative to be viable. Therefore, female contraceptives need only to be less risky than pregnancy to be viable, while male contraceptives need to be less risky than doing nothing, to be equivalently viable.

Again, this is not anyone's fault. That's just how it is.

Oncome

Despite the current wealth inequality

It's not "despite" the gap, because the gap itself does not cause poverty. If the poorest person in the US made $75k/year (in other words, poverty completely eradicated), the size of the gap would still be pretty much exactly the same (after all, the difference between zero and 75k is nothing compared to the difference between 75k and hundreds of billions, which is the current net worth of those with the most wealth).

After all, 50 years ago, the gap was significantly smaller, but the overall incidence of poverty was much higher.

Someone's always going to have the most. And new wealth is constantly being created. And net worth is a valuation, a price tag, not an amount of cash (which is the primary reason it can go up as fast as it can--cash money simply can't do that). Given these facts, expect this gap to always exist (and almost certainly continue to widen), even after poverty is eradicated.

Looked it up:

McDonald's double cheeseburger hasn't been a dollar for over 15 years (started in 2002, and in 2008, the McDouble replaced it, which had one fewer slice of cheese). And the McDouble itself stopped being a dollar in 2013, over a decade ago. Bit more than "a few years ago"--I think Covid screwed up everyone's perception of time more than usual, lol.

That said, I get lunch at work several times a week at Wendy's and always pay less than $5, not too bad all things considered imo.

Yeah, the gap between the wealthiest and everyone else literally does not matter at all, when it comes to 'motivation for revolution'.

The overall level/amount/condition of poverty is what matters. And let's be real, things are not nearly as bad in the US today as they were in France before the French Revolution. Not even close.

Fact is, if you magically bumped everyone up so that no one was making less than $75k a year, the wealth gap would be essentially identical to what it is now, because the gap between zero and 75k is nothing compared to the gap between 75k and hundreds of billions. But no one would be suffering in poverty, so would anyone care about the wealth gap, then? I seriously doubt it.

It's exactly as long as it needed to be to explain everything it explained, and it is a completely dry comment with no real tone at all, the "rudeness" is of your own invention.

Ironically, "Firstly you could read user names before going off" is far ruder than anything I wrote. Also, you're assuming I'm the one who downvoted you--have you considered that maybe your tone earned that from someone else, maybe?

But it has to be for something. And in Balatro, there simply isn't any gambling. You never wager anything to win anything based on that wager. All you have are points, and you can neither wager them, nor lose them in any way, chance-based or otherwise.

There is zero gambling in Balatro.

Minor correction, the three stages in an "ante" are the "blinds". The game instead uses "stake" to describe its 'ascension' system (a common mechanic in roguelixe games, where going to a higher ascension/"stake" adds difficulty modifiers to the game, for those who don't know what I mean by that).

Going off? Yeah, you asked a question, and I answered it. What are you talking about?

A game just has to show characters gambling for it to be gambling imagery.

Okay. Well, Balatro doesn't do that--no gambling of any kind happens in the game.

So, what's your point, exactly?

"Antes" are what Balatro calls its levels. Each level consists of 3 stages, which the game calls "blinds" (small/big/boss).

In poker, you don't "beat" an ante, it's part of what you bet. You also don't "reach" blinds, nor is there such a thing as a "boss blind" in poker. And the word "bet" or any synonym should be pretty conspicuous by its absence in Balatro's description. There is no gambling without betting/wagering, after all.

So yes, if you're familiar with poker, that description should make it obvious that the words have different meanings in the game than they do in poker.

The only actual 'mechanic' that's actually the same in Balatro as in poker is what comprises the different hands, and their relative value. And even then, there are also hands in Balatro that don't exist in poker at all (five of a kind, flush house, etc.).

Thinking about this hypothetically is making me laugh.

Imagine setting things like how often your employees are checked for STIs, and the cost for that, etc., lol

The irony is that you can't really teach someone who doesn't know anything any poker anything more than what the hands are, and which are considered better than others, by playing Balatro.

Everything else in Balatro is completely divorced from poker. There are a few other shared terms, but they're defined completely differently in Balatro than in poker (e.g. a "blind" is a stage, 3 stages in a level (small/big/boss), and the levels are called "ante"s, also totally different from what an ante is in poker.