***Official H&F LC Thread***
A valid strategy for getting ripped imo.
(From http://extrafabulouscomics.com/, kyleb's (RIP) favorite web comic)
Had to look this up, but completely baffling:
If you got sand and Allah, you're an Arab.
Well, Iran has sand and Allah. But Iranians aren't Arab.
Genetically, there is no reason Lebanese Muslims are Arab and Iranian Muslims aren't. The only real difference is one group decided to take the identity of the conquerors, and the other just took the religion.
That being said it is interesting how the dysfunction in Los Angeles or San Francisco creates such a visceral disgust reaction in "normies" as opposed to say the dysfunction of rural Arkansas; when obviously 99% of normies would choose to live in Los Angeles versus rural Arkansas in a vacuum. So the criticism of progressivism does not appear to be entirely rationale.
Circling back to Orwell, I think a couple quotes (one of them recycled from the last post) elucidate what is going on:
“The most
I think the question lies in what exactly we tear down and how much to do so. I personally oppose Obamacare and can't understand why anyone would support it. It simply delayed the inevitable push to meaningful healthcare reform and UHC, which is ultimately what everyone should want (barring lunatics). We already have this somewhat with emergency care, but I digress.
And I'm taking a rural area in a red state 100% of the time over SF. Far enough away from the neighbors that the only **** I step in will be any dookies I leave when I wanna play Indian man.
Well, Iran has sand and Allah. But Iranians aren't Arab.
Genetically, there is no reason Lebanese Muslims are Arab and Iranian Muslims aren't. The only real difference is one group decided to take the identity of the conquerors, and the other just took the religion.
Very true. The exception that proves the rule.
And I'm taking a rural area in a red state 100% of the time over SF. Far enough away from the neighbors that the only **** I step in will be any dookies I leave when I wanna play Indian man.
I mean, obviously you would be living in a suburb, and not on Market Street passing street drug bazaars walking your kids to school.
And I'm taking a rural area in a red state 100% of the time over SF. Far enough away from the neighbors that the only **** I step in will be any dookies I leave when I wanna play Indian man.
I mean, obviously you would be living in a suburb, and not on Market Street passing street drug bazaars walking your kids to school.
I'm not too aware of anything other than the drug bazaars and human feces emporiums, and South Bay. But I assume you mean South Bay? My only knowledge of Fremont is that the meme where people joke about it being a giant parking lot is done no favors when you get off the BART and see a... giant parking lot. If we're out in the burbs, why are we comparing it to rural bumblefuck? If we wanna be an hour away from a city of 500k, there is a huge amount of places in the SE that are much more affordable and have people more agreeable to my disposition. (Derail: SF is the only place where someone at a work event probed me with questions to go on a weird political rant based on the voting habits of my relatives. I find that type of behavior very weird. And would like to avoid that.) That being said, I work with two people currently who live(d) in the Market area. But yeah... I don't really get the question. The Bay Area is highly congested and living out in the burbs there seems like the worst possible option. Why wouldn't I move into a McMansion outside Little Rock or onto a sprawling farm that rich people own or retire in my 30s in a normie neighborhood as opposed to whatever the equivalent is near SF? Dallas and Houston have much larger and more affordable metros. I just don't see the appeal, minus being in a very narrow sliver of tech that is mostly based on yesteryear tropes.
I linked twelve articles detailing California's shoplifting crisis. You posted bupkis showing Trump voters to be "dumber people."
Sorry man, no statistical significance achieved in any of those articles. If I missed it, just quote it to me and let me know where. If not, then I guess that's just like your opinion man.
So we're moving into outright gaslighting. Brilliant. Do you literally not understand what a dictionary is?
Yes. You do realize that it's not the only place to get a definition of a word? And if you are looking for a detailed definition based on the specific context of a book and we're arguing about reading said book, then an entire article that explains the term is far superior for that discussion.
Here's where you went wrong. Instead of "LOL Melk you didn't read 1984", what you should have gone with something like "Look Melk, in contemporary usage the meaning of newspeak not precisely the definition in the story, instead it is (insert what you mean here)." But when you make it about what was in the book, then the definition I gave is better and you have to pretend that an entire article explaining the meaning of the word in context is somehow worse than a single line in a dictionary. Good Luck with at that. Live and learn. We both know I'm right, but I will let you make whatever face-saving insult you need to in order to move on.
You also boldly lie that undocumented is precise when you literally admitted to using it to group documented and undocumented people together.
Nope. It was you who did that. You reached for your fainting couch when I used "undocumented". I said that there are indeed both documented and undocumented people that Trump wants to deport but I was only referring to the undocumented ones. That's not "grouping". That's me acknowledging that there are two groups and making it clear that I'm only talking about one of them.
The Rich Muny and Thremp preferred term "illegals" doesn't work because (excepting edge cases) the documented people are here legally (for now anyway; Trump can undo some of that unilaterally). So if you are trying to use the term "illegal aliens" or similar to cover people who are here with valid legal documents, then you are just wrong.
There is zero misleading or dishonest about it. Moreover I have acknowledged numerous times that the people that I'm referring to are here illegally. Almost no one is reading the H&F LC. With the usage of that term I have not changed anyone's mind or mislead anyone about anything. It has zero effect other than to apparently give you the vapors.
Melk, you can do all the statistical and mental gymnastic you want to convince yourself that big blue cities in CA dont have a shoplifting problem.
That's not what happened. I just asked for Rich Muny's evidence on a very specific claim.
But for the rest of us; we walk through a drug store in Los Angeles and San Francisco, see everything is locked up, see cornerstone vendors across the street selling obviously stolen merchandise from said store, and just aren't smart enough to convince ourselves this doesn't indicate a shoplifting problem*.
That's cool and all, but Rich Muny says that proving things is hard. You can't do it unless you have multiple studies showing a statistically significant difference.
Of course, it turns out that Rich only applies that standard of evidence to things he doesn't want to believe (e.g. things I claim, which have more evidence than just personal observation). If it is something he happens to believe is true (like the thing you posted), suddenly he doesn't need statistical significance any longer. I'm sure you can guess why that might be.
While it's cool for you to jump in, I'm sure you haven't read any of these copious text walls, so you have no idea what is going on. I don't blame you for not reading (I wouldn't), but just realize the limitations of your not having done that when you're trying to pull these drivebys.
Yes. You do realize that it's not the only place to get a definition of a word? And if you are looking for a detailed definition based on the specific context of a book and we're arguing about reading said book, then an entire article that explains the term is far superior for that discussion.
Here's where you went wrong. Instead of "LOL Melk you didn't read 1984", what you should have gone with something like "Look Melk, in contemporary usage the meaning of newspeak not precisely the defin
So you don't know what a dictionary is and are mildly illiterate. Had you used a dictionary you would've actually noted that the definition you are alluding to is entirely incorrect (or you failed 4th grade and need to understand capitalization and proper nouns).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/newspeak
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Newspeak
Literacy is wild! But again you don't even know what a dictionary is. I'm sure the whole section on the technical grammar of Newspeak and its setting within 1984 including its fictional history is super useful!
Undocumented people are not in America legally. Again, get a ****ing dictionary you illiterate ****.
Rich Muny says that proving things is hard. You can't do it unless you have multiple studies showing a statistically significant difference.
How did you think differences in populations are shown to be true? I didn't make it up. That's just basic stats, dude.
Why don't you read what we're all writing to you and learn? You come across like you're here only to argue.
Not only is it not my first day on the internet. It's not even my first time dealing with Melk.
People keep giving him excellent responses to his posts. It's amazing how he doesn't even acknowledge that.
Why don't you read what we're all writing to you and learn? You come across like you're here only to argue.
I have no dog in this argument, but this is dumb. Just because it is 5 on 1 against him, doesn't mean that what "you all are writing to him" is correct.
Melk has also kept his cool remarkably well, when notthremp has gone off on him like a know it all, angry old man. So props to him for that.
I didn't say Melk should accept our replies as correct. I said he doesn't acknowledge them at all. For example, that survey he posted. I showed many ways the results would be expected to be biased in favor of Kamala voters. All four questions favored her; they were all talking points of her campaign; they were all more likely to be discussed on pro-Kamala media like MSNBC; and they were all true/false (meaning no one was proven to know the answers...they were basically asked how they felt about the questions). Melk may not have agreed with my takeaways, but he can't deny that I made some points worthy of honest discussion.
There have been many other instances of that in this discussion. Melk just argues about things, rather than engaging in a good faith discussion.
So you don't know what a dictionary is and are mildly illiterate. Had you used a dictionary you would've actually noted that the definition you are alluding to is entirely incorrect (or you failed 4th grade and need to understand capitalization and proper nouns).
I love it. The definition I'm alluding to, which cites the specific usage in the book (and remember this is what you decided to argue about), is "entirely incorrect".
I gotta tip my hat to you here. This is a nice touch. So now you're going with "I was talking about 'newspeak' not 'Newspeak'". Nice retcon. Here's the thing, the only one of those that appears in the book is "Newspeak" and if you're going to accuse me of not reading the book and therefore not knowing the definition, then guess which one that refers to?
Literacy is wild! But again you don't even know what a dictionary is. I'm sure the whole section on the technical grammar of Newspeak and its setting within 1984 including its fictional history is super useful!
Well, you're the one who thought so, right?
You should learn what newspeak actually means. It is pretty clear you didn't read 1984.
Excellent goalpost shift. So we're going from "You don't know what newspeak means. Obviously you didn't read the book" to "Who gives a **** what's in that book". More importantly, when I brought it up (see below), I said it wasn't like Newspeak in the book. But you are correct, I didn't capitalize, despite the fact that I referred specifically to what was in the book. My bad. I guess you got me!
Presumably you've read the book you're alluding to. In it, using anything other than newspeak is discouraged.
Undocumented people are not in America legally. Again, get a ****ing dictionary you illiterate ****.
I have said that probably a half dozen times explicitly. As our long-forgotten comrade SS used to say, I'm not the boss of your reading comprehension. Everyone knows that I'm talking about people here illegally, except for you apparently.
Well, according to the dealer in facts, Rich Muny, we need multiple studies showing statistical significance.
I didn't make it up. That's just basic stats, dude.
Oh, good. Then you can cite the portions of the article describing the statistically significant difference in crime rates, arrest rates, prosecution rates. I'll take any rates at this point. So, where is it? Just copy/paste and give me a link. It should take like 1 min tops.
I didn't say Melk should accept our replies as correct. I said he doesn't acknowledge them at all. For example, that survey he posted. I showed many ways the results would be expected to be biased in favor of Kamala voters. All four questions favored her; they were all talking points of her campaign; they were all more likely to be discussed on pro-Kamala media like MSNBC; and they were all true/false (meaning no one was proven to know the answers...
No they weren't asked about how they felt. Why do you keep saying this? If they misinterpreted the questions, then that's a different kind of dumb than being misinformed. The were asked four questions that had objectively correct answers. You're saying "Well obviously Kamala voters would be more likely to know those things". I'm not disagreeing with that part. Yes, they would. I'm disagreeing with the 'why'. It's because they're less dumb and better informed.
It wouldn't matter to you that Trump voters get their information from Orange Man who always says stuff like "inflation like we've never seen before..." , "crime like we've never seen before...". The reason Trump voters don't know is because they listen to him and thus they are less informed (which is a different kind of dumb).
We've already done this back and forth several times. If you don't think that is an "honest discussion" you've got your head buried in the sand. If you want me to, I can find you plenty of links to sources making that same argument. But I'm sure you'll just say lol mainstream media and brush them aside as biased. However, if you think it would help, let me know.
Where are thou Soulman? In his safe place in the great white north, thinking about his next 3 star michelin meal. Ah, the good life.
Forgot about 2+2 for some days as I'm wont to do and then
Sorry, I don't have the heart for this. Beaten down by my 2 year old's sixth cold/covid/whatever bout in ~2 months. Will to live low, please send caviar and champagne.
I think he’s emerging from a sauna to have a threesome with two nubile, multilingual blondes
Wrong country, but I appreciate the thought!
Melk has also kept his cool remarkably well, when notthremp has gone off on him like a know it all, angry old man. So props to him for that.
No one can outpost Melk, and since 2+2 apparently doesn't move out of context posting anymore, this is likely to go on until the other guys get tired and stop posting.
No they weren't asked about how they felt. Why do you keep saying this? If they misinterpreted the questions, then that's a different kind of dumb than being misinformed. The were asked four questions that had objectively correct answers. You're saying "Well obviously Kamala voters would be more likely to know those things". I'm not disagreeing with that part. Yes, they would. I'm disagreeing with the 'why'. It's because they're less dumb and better informed.
It wouldn't matter to you th
So, according to you it's not possible to bias the outcome of questions about anything? No wonder you sheep follow whatever the media tells you. 😃
Well, according to the dealer in facts, Rich Muny, we need multiple studies showing statistical significance.
I didn't say multiple. Try one study. Or, just say it's your opinion, because that's all it is.
Oh, good. Then you can cite the portions of the article describing the statistically significant difference in crime rates, arrest rates, prosecution rates. I'll take any rates at this point. So, where is it? Just copy/paste and give me a link. It should take like 1 min tops.
Except I wasn't talking about the IQ of Californians. I was talking about their shoplifting issues, which I documented as being a major issue to many there.
my grilling repertoire was limited to steaks and burgers for a long time. i got pretty good at it, but the menu was lacking. in recent years ive started including chicken, pork, and fish.
last night i grilled a tin foil pan of asparagus oiled with salt and pepper for 15 minutes while i prepped a 1.1 lb swordfish steak with soy sauce, worcestershire, brown sugar, black pepper, garlic, and ginger all in a zip lock for 10 mins before it hit the grill. i think it came out really good. it was exactly done when i cut it to check, which is best for moisture retention.
i noticed something that ive never put my finger on till now: when cooking a good piece of fish, theres a short period of fish doneness that results in a strong ocean flavor without any bad fishy flavor. before this window the fish might kill you, and after this window the fish quickly loses the ocean flavor as it dries.
if this is fish 101 just tell me stfu. im winging it.
