dondawest

Exactly. You still need to detect which person is in the photograph in order to determine that it is a person who has opted-out. This feature is an incredibly half-assed PR attempt.

You don’t think statues of anyone should exist? What about Michelangelo’s David?

>Youthful rebellion needn’t always exist.

Respectfully disagree. Youthful rebellion appears to be driven by hormone-related factors (elevated risk tolerance) rather than being driven by reactions to anything in particular about a society.

Source: https://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17135

Wow, Ghiridaradas coming so correct. I tried to read his book “Winners Take All” multiple times and found it absolutely unreadable, he kept restating the same point with different overly-complex words and name-drops. But here he writes with real clarity and real precision. Just wish he’d applied that same clarity to the writing style in his book!

Thank you. Praise Yeezus. :)

>Caves are an entirely different context

Respectfully disagree.

>A sick society inclines people towards damaging the structures built around them because they see those structures as symbolising their own oppression in some capacity.

If you don’t think oppression exists, and that it can be symbolized by structures, I don’t know what to tell you. Are you against the toppling of sculptures of Saddam Hussein?

What do you think of advertising? Do you not consider billboards “damaging to structures”? How do you think advertising differs from graffiti and do you really find advertising non-oppressive? No ad agencies ask my permission to assault my visual field with a billboard, and neither do graffiti artists. All’s fair in art and war.

Disagree, even Ancient Rome had graffiti. As did caves. Are you trying to say that humans in caves had “profoundly sick societies?”

Graffiti is a natural instinct. REPRESSING that instinct signals a sick society.

Ancient Greeks were “bombarded by unrealistic image ideals hundreds of times a day” as well while passing sculptures and murals in public places. Yet these “unrealistic image ideals” served as a font of inspiration! The “unrealism” and “idealism” served only to heighten their positive effects on their viewers! Be like an Ancient Greek!

What’s next, protesting the Venus of Willendorf for being too thicc? “Unrealistic image ideals” have millions of historical precedents. They are fertility symbols and they can serve to inspire if only you choose to be inspired! Choose to be inspired. :)

His height, for one. Very inspiring!!

You could begin by choosing to feel good when seeing an inspiring (even “unrealistically” inspiring) image like Michelangelo’s David. :)

“8% of the variance in sexual orientation is determined by genetics” is literally a quote from the study. I don’t have a personal viewpoint one way or another. I’m literally just reading the facts as they’re presented and saying “many types of variance exist.”

Obviously some people choose to be gay, Cynthia Nixon for example, who got in huge hot water for saying that for her, being gay IS a choice. She was specifically not “born that way.” Others clearly are. It’s a spectrum. :)

This is a ridiculous criticism. Ancient Greeks didn’t look at sculptures of ripped dudes and “feel bad about themselves.” They got INSPIRED and felt GOOD about themselves. Be like an Ancient Greek.

I completely believe you when you say you are “born this way.” I know many people in that boat. However, it still makes sense to me that only 8% of the variance in sexual orientation is determined by genetic factors. Some are “straighter” than others, some “gayer” than others, and some are more (or less) “born this way” than others.

I agree. The “rape rooms” did not justify the war. My point was that the war had APPARENT reasons, not valid reasons. There were no valid reasons.

No apparent reason? What about the “rape rooms”?

>"We are dividing into hostile tribes cheering against each other, fueled by emotion and a mutual disdain that jeopardizes our future, instead of rediscovering our common ground and finding solutions."

This describes the entirety of human history. And CERTAINLY the history of America.

Hypnosis is real. No question. Learn it for yourself and you’ll simply be astonished what you can accomplish.

However, in many ways hypnosis is synonymous with “learning.” Your father hypnotized you into learning math, physics, and chemistry... as do all effective teachers.

All those claims are proven to be incorrect. Not even the best hypnotist in the world can hypnotize someone into doing something against their will.

I agree “intimidating a creature with primal fear for fun and profit” is not that cool.

But the claims you once believed were never true in the first place.

The landmark is how little they paid.

IMO, the fine is appropriate because J&J was an inappropriate scapegoat in the first place — the damage they did is nothing compared to Purdue, for example.

NICE open-mindedness in acquiring your hypnosis knowledge man.

>I’m still largely puzzled as to why it might have a naturally selected basis.

Well, you just said it yourself: reading is a form of auto-hypnosis. All communication has a hypnotic component. In many ways, hypnosis is synonymous with “learning.”

It has a naturally-selected basis for the same reason that being able to read has a naturally selected basis: it’s just advantageous to be able to learn quickly.

I would argue that while some forms of hypnosis could be considered a vestige of a less cognitively-complex time (thinking of “highway hypnosis” which has no clear evolutionary advantage), other forms of hypnosis represent the absolute pinnacle of cognitive development: everyone who learns a programming language must first hypnotize themselves into learning that language.

It is definitely real hypnosis. The definition of hypnosis is so vague and nebulous that this absolutely falls within the umbrella of “hypnosis.” To be specific it is visual hypnosis.

Can I get a non paywall link?

Yes. I believed MJ’s innocence too... I so desperately wanted to believe in his innocence because he was such an incredible artist... until I saw the documentary and did more research. He had “child companions” one at a time, alone in his room, with a silent alarm to let him know if anyone approached. That moment of Jimmy Safechuck describing how he cried on the bed as he realized he was no longer Michael’s favorite “companion” was absolutely heart-wrenching to me. It wasn’t a “slumber party atmosphere.” It was a one-on-one predation atmosphere.

To me, Diane Dimond said it best: “Is Michael Jackson the incredible victim of multiple extortion attempts? Or is he simply a man that is a pedophile?”

I can’t believe the amount of MJ truthing in this thread and Im glad you’ve seen the light. I agree that the stories in the doc may not be 100% credible, but Jimmy Safechuck is simply not a Machiavellian personality type, IMO. I strongly believe Safechuck and Robson, strongly believe that MJ was guilty as hell, and thanks for circling back to discuss your findings.

Yes, a museum director is fundamentally a tax guy. They’re not paying for the work that gets “donated,” so a museum director is a negotiable third party who is highly willing to appraise works at values the Donor suggests.

The incentive for the Museum to inflate the value of the work that gets donated to them is inflating the supposed value of their holdings. The incentive for the Donor is tax evasion.

OH WAIT I meant “tax avoidance.”

Exactly. Reserve buyers exist for exactly this purpose

Schwab is your move, IMO. I know a ton of people who moved from WF to Schwab and never looked back. Zero international ATM fees and great customer service. Solid app too.

The problem with this entire concept is that every stoner I know is actually a safer and more risk-averse driver while stoned.

The problem with this entire concept is that every stoner I know is a safer driver while stoned.

>Do you actually dispute that colonialism has caused more harm than emigration? Wow. Holy shit.

I don’t dispute it, I just don’t claim to know because I’m not omniscient, and people who claim to know are actually just taking it on faith because it’s unquantifiable.

>I’m not a dude

In 2019 it’s a gender neutral term, no need to gender it.

>Nationalism is bad

Eh, again, we’re not omniscient so we can’t know this. Do you really think nationalism was bad for Japan when they were rebuilding their economy after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I think nationalism helped Japan a lot in that circumstance.

>Internationalism, caring about all workers, is good

Again we’re not omniscient so we can’t pretend that we actually care about people we don’t even know. Also, “all workers” is a weird generalization. Jeffrey Epstein was a worker but is he really worth your care?

>you’re the one who talked about “rapid onset gender dysphoria”

I fully support trans people. I have many trans friends. I’m open minded. Can you convince me that “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” does not exist? I’m totally open to the possibility of it not existing... however, I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. For me the thing that’s important is to LISTEN TO TRANS PEOPLE, and the trans people I know are the ones who introduced me to the term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” They believe it, so I believe it, because I listen to them. Can you convince me to ignore trans people and what they tell me? I don’t know why you’d want to, but feel free to try.

What a weird and contradictory “take-home message.” They literally just showed that drinking water WITH SODIUM was the way to go, and then at the end they concluded to drink water “with food,” but the preceding article had not pointed to that conclusion. The entire article was pointing to the conclusion “drink water WITH SALT” to stay hydrated, and then at the very last paragraph they switched food for salt. Weird. Cool article though.