!dramatards !oldstrags

Seems like this post inspired more concerned citizens !nooticers to come out of the woodwork to share their findings about Portland. If this was one of you guys, thanks for doing the lord's work. Ill probably start making these kinda posts in certain Bay Area subreddits.

@Redactor0 @911roofer

How should I matricide? Burning at the steak? Beheading? Some anime shit? Please post your suggestions below

!g*mers !nooticers

completely and totally over

https://www.reddit.com/r/WaltDisneyWorld/s/FEtKt2K88N

https://twitter.com/thinkmickey/status/1792542257876246901

https://twitter.com/ScottGustin/status/1792512476849795352

Most haven't gone through the process yet at Disneyland cuz of the time difference but here's previous discussions

https://www.reddit.com/r/Disneyland/s/6k75mFZzCc

https://www.reddit.com/r/Disneyland/s/ssOqBNUYTQ

TLDR: Disney's old DAS (DISABILITY ACESS SERVICE) pass was abused to heck once the parks reopened during the pandemic and became even worse once Disney took away free fast passes and introduced genie+ and lightning lane. People would make up excuses like ibs and anxiety so they didn't have to wait in long lines. Now Disney says it's only for developmental disabilities like autism

!g*mers

incredibly funny development:

the indians threatening to hunger strike if they aren’t given immediate permanent residency in the smallest province in Canada have now found a way to sexually harass women using their protest group chat and the organizers are begging them to stop https://t.co/0e5wj5xAIM pic.twitter.com/5lCnMbDNNf

— pagliacci the hated 🌝 (@Slatzism) May 20, 2024

!fellas !r-slurs remember: Redditors adopting antinatalism and childREEEE ideologies is a good thing, less genetic trash in the gene pool, and less children raised by absolute r-slurs and indoctrinated into the Funkodisneyheckinrightsideofhistoryinoantichudgenderspecial cult

Chief Idiot Joe Rogan has blessed us with an interview with the dumbest gorilla r-slur yet, Terrence Howard!

Joe, who claims to have a great bullshit detector (https://old.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1cwhybt/joe_rogan_is_immune_to_bullshit_watch_til_the_end/?sort=controversial), lets Terrence babble off nonsense about frequencies and straight lines, never making a clear point or providing any evidence.

Here's a sample of some of the dumb shit he said.

1. 11=2. Why? Because he says he feels like it should and goes through implications like sqrt(2)^3 = 2sqrt(2) which for some reason shouldn't be that way.

2. Multiplication is broken because straight lines don't exist. Ok Terrence well nothing in the real world is 1 inch exactly either (although your tiny peepee comes close) so are numbers broken as well?

3. Statically charge balloons picking up dust disproves gravity.

This is clear evidence that only Jurnos should be allowed to have a platform. "New Media" morons like Joe have all the audience and none of the responsibility that CNN has. It seems even after Joe's earliest guest Hanpeepee was exposed as a crank in front of him Joe still doesn't get that he is a simian r-slur who has no idea what is real or fake. Now some idiot drama tards are going to say something like "oh are you implying that jornos are perfect?". HEY R-SLUR SHOW ME A JURNO THAT HAS A TRACK RECORD HALF AS BAD JOE ROGAIN!!!

Free thinking of the kind found on the internet is a belief that you know better than all the experts on a topic just because you drooled through a couple of podcasts. It is hubris and should be beaten out of the American population cultural revolution style.

Upmarsys to the left, thank you

Any body of academic thought whose paradigmatic communication medium is video rather than text is prima facie suspect. Might you please link a written statement of the salient position(s) of any one of these gentlemen?

-

I think it's pretty elitist to judge the quality of a content via whether it's in a book/journal or not. In fact, the recent wave of scientific fraud discovery shows that one can hide data manipulation pretty effectively in an academic journal. I'd much rather scientists spend their time making eli5 videos.

-

Just curious, why do you write like that? Reminds when I was 11 and wanted to sound smarter on the internet.

-

My reply is an attempt to address the original comment with precision. To diagram its intended meaning:

alternative theories of consciousness

"Any body of academic thought" [I accede the scientific legitimacy of the domain of discourse, rather than dismissing it.]

know where to go to find well-argued positions on the topic.

"whose paradigmatic communication medium" [This is the beginning of my challenge to the Original Commenter, by granting the information provided authoritative status, which they perhaps cannot fully defend.]

On YouTube you can find plenty of discussions

"is video rather than text"

it's particularly important to explore these discussions as dispassionately as possible if you regard materialism as the only theory of mind that has any scientific credibility or validity.

"is prima facie suspect" [The Original Commenter has asserted that discourse and engagement are important, yet provided only time consuming, low signal-to-noise sources of information.]

As Christopher Hitchens reminds us in his legendary oration on John Stuart Mill and free speech [2]

"Might you please link a written statement of the salient position(s) of any one of these gentlemen?" [The only written citations are 1) generic and 2) ancillary to the core topic. I invite the Original Commenter to further his argument more substantively, without demanding exhaustive citations.]

-

OK, let me rewrite it:

Any body of academic thought whose paradigmatic communication medium is video rather than text is prima facie suspect. Might you please link a written statement of the salient position(s) of any one of these gentlemen?

Academic content is usually in text, not video. Do you have links to written work from them?

Shorter and the exact same meaning. Also doesn't sound like you've been perusing your thesaurus all day.

-

No, the second approach's meaning is more obtuse. What does "usually" mean? Are there acceptable alternatives? If content is in an alternative mode of communication, is it acceptable?

These vagaries permitted in your revision are clear and inherent in the original commenter's motion. Therefore, I submit your adjudication of "shorter and the exact same meaning" is woefully superficial in it's drive for simplicity, to the point there is no thought left that is clear in the original garden. Further, exact and technical communication is what separates Hacker News commenting from the hordes of subreddits that thrive on imprecise babble.

-

At minimum, this does not capture that I _am_ challenging the Original Commenter ("prima facie suspect") to more rigorously defend his position, but doing so respectfully. "One salient" written source is a carefully chosen framing: the OC cannot meet it by replying with support peripheral or meta to the main argument, but neither can he dismiss my request as burdensome, demanding multiple links.

The proposed revision suffers from its terseness, losing both nuance and completeness.

-

Communication is about being understood. Not about crafting the perfect sentence. Even if you craft the perfect sentence, that will be the perfect sentence _for you_, and it might be completely lost on many people, some perhaps even more intelligent than you.

The subtext of "Academic content is usually in text, not video" is "I don't trust this because it's in video, not text". Now if you say that is not clear, sure, but the subtext of your comment is "I opened a thesaurus and tried to seem smart", which is why this conversation derailed here. You can't ignore the subtext to craft a mathematically perfect sentence..

-

Communication is about being understood.

The subtext of "Academic content is usually in text, not video" is "I don't trust this because it's in video, not text". Now if you say that is not clear, sure

Indeed, relying on the implicit when the explicit is sufficient [0] does a disservice to one's readers, in whose ability and charity to comprehend my surface text, without presuming confounding subtextual meaning, I have every confidence.

[0] It is not always; some things can only be gestured at, not grasped.

-

I hope some day you realize how cringe your comments are.

There's more in there... !clinklickers but I got sick of trying to copy the formatting right because the HNewses also love their >

EVERYONE IN HERE UPVOTE THE FRICK OUT OF EVERYBODY!

!dramatards !fellas !pinggrouplovers

Whole thread filled with coomers and people like this