passntrash @ passntrash @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

9

Joined

2 yr. ago

Interesting take. I wonder if the headline was:

"New Father and former Porsche Executive Throws Newborn Off Balcony"

Your first thoughts would be how the system failed him and that Germany needs to do more to support fathers.

Probably, but none that I'd actually invest my own time and effort into. I was just making an offhand observation, not starting an investigation.

The furthest I might be willing to go, would be to provide some constructive criticism, but I'd even have to mull that over i.e. weigh the risk I'm just helping fine-tune a LLM model, for free...so...yeah...

I genuinely can't tell if you're an elaborate troll, LLM, or just autistic.

I don't mean any of those as an insult, just to say that you have a very distinct prose that really comes through when you write more than a sentence, or two.

Given your post history, I'm leaning towards LLM, but I'm open to being wrong.

That, and it's often cut and pressed with other stimulants, like amphetamines.

The trick was to get hard before you peak, or get some little blue pills to stack with.

Although, if you're already hypertensive, probably not a good idea to mix them - or take either of those in general.

But all of this is based on my rather hazy recollection of people I was around quite a long time ago, so take it all with a grain of salt.

No, it's not inherently a fallacy. Case in point, the Patriot Act and everything that followed.

Yes, it can be used to support idiotic arguments like that legalizing gay marriage will lead to beastiality, or anything that Megan McArdle will use it to support, but it shouldn't be automatically dismissed as an invalid concern.

That's a question you'd only ask if you haven't read any of her writing...

Might I suggest starting with her pieces on The Handmaid's Tale, the Grenfell Tower Fire, and anything to do with kitchenware.

Megan is a national treasure.

You can always count on her to selflessly use her to name to publish the most absurdly dog shit arguments to defend corporations and the powerful.

She's also pretty dumb.

That's not what I said, but I love how you misquoted me in the framework of your own personal warped version of reality.

Read the subtext of the article. This location was obviously selected for a politically motivated reason, and I'd be interested to know what that was i.e. was it a general show of power (boring), or was it some hyper specific personal conflict with a prominent member of the club and a CCP party member (interesting).

That doesn't mean the intent behind the CCP policy isn't good, well intentioned, or positive. But that's not surprising to me, so it's not very interesting. What drove the politics behind the decision to raze a Golf Course to spite HK elite, is very interesting, at least to me.

While I loathe golf courses and am always happy to take the piss out of the "elites", this feels like something more.

This might just be the CCP flexing political power over Hong Kong in general, but I'd be curious to see what the primary motivation behind this decision was. Obviously it wasn't building public housing, that's just a good cover story with a positive side effect.