TheActualDevil

joined 1 year ago
[–] TheActualDevil 13 points 4 months ago

You have thin soles so you can tell where you are in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

[–] TheActualDevil 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ps Drink room temp water and you won’t even want any cold drinks ever again.

It keeps it moderately acceptable to drink, really.

Wow, folded real quick there, huh?

Wait...

I live in hot Ecuador and no ac in main rooms

So you say room temperature, but really it's warm.

[–] TheActualDevil 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, they're the bonehead who worded things poorly...

[–] TheActualDevil 0 points 5 months ago

Ah! You got me! I made a spelling error. I concede all on your points now. I guess you're 100% right now. Man, you really got this arguing thing down.

[–] TheActualDevil 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I having a stroke or are you? I'm not sure what her having won the popular vote and lost the EC in states she didn't campaign in has to do with her "elevating trump."

The person you're replying to seems correct to me in that these are excerpts from a plan drafted by her team, but it does seem to be missing evidence they put it into action. Her not campaigning in some states isn't that, right?

And honestly, I can kind of see their point. Sure, in hindsight it's easy to criticize the idea post trump election, but most people would not have taken a trump campaign seriously. Especially in 2014 when this was written. It's a extremely normal and valid tactic to try and prop up what's perceived as a candidate that can be easily beat in a national election to cut out any real competition during the primaries.

But strategy aside, there's still nothing showing the Clinton campaign "elevated" trump. Even reading that article, the most they did was nothing. They just focused their attacks elsewhere because he wasn't a serious target. Again, that's what everyone does. Why waste millions in advertising dollars to attack someone who seems like they're going to lose anyway? Surely you want to work on taking down your actual rivals early? Turns out they were wrong, but so were most of us in 2014.

I worry that the decades that republicans spent demonizing Hillary Clinton worked all too well on even more progressive voters and people will see malice in everything she ever did, and misjudgments that we were all guilty of are viewed as unforgivable when she does it. By all accounts I remember reading, she's not terribly charismatic, but has always been a very effective leader once in position. Nobody like campaigning Hillary, but poles for her when she was in an office were great.

[–] TheActualDevil 5 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Not a hockey fan, is that because it's too cheap or too expensive?

[–] TheActualDevil 2 points 5 months ago

You can put them in between 2 bowls with their (the bowls) rims against each other to create an oblate spheroid-ish thing, then shake it real hard for a few minutes. It should remove the shell pretty eaily, if loudly.

Edit: Sorry, turns out, that's garlic cloves. Shrimp peeling is really only easier raw. You can rip the legs off and just give a squeeze and it'll pop out of the shell. In my experience, once they're cooked the shell will break up much easier. As someone else said, a stock is your best bet if you really want to avoid peeling. I mean, technically you can eat the shell if you make sure to grind them up completely when you puree them. I've never tried anything with the shell still included, so I can't speak for the taste, but you could try a bisque if you're dead set on not peeling.

[–] TheActualDevil 21 points 5 months ago

I think a lot of people here are pretty spot on with the "cats are just weird, IDK." But more than that, there are a couple things that I think it might be. A lot of cat quirks are just instincts for outdoor activities that don't translate indoors but they still have the pull to do it. IT sounds like she's "digging," which is a thing wild cats would do for a couple reasons.

Sometimes they will dig a hole to poop in, then cover it up, but since she's not then immediately taking a shit in your salad bowl, that's probably not it.

It could be a hunting action. Cats dig for bugs often.

But the most likely, I think, is for fun. Cats are pretty intelligent creatures who's minds require stimulation, which means they just find a thing to fidget with sometimes and get stuck on it, like a small child making toys out of random junk. If she doesn't have enough scratching posts, she could be getting that scratching itch out. Or could do with some more toys. Or, again what I find most likely, she did it once and found that bowl to just be a lot of fun. Maybe it's the texture or she likes the way her paws slip on it differently than other surfaces. Cats are curious, so it being a different surface may have drawn her attention and now it's a fun toy for her.

TLDR: cats are just weird, IDK. 🤷

[–] TheActualDevil 5 points 5 months ago

Also, only really works if they are "attempting to gain a higher moral authority" (as OP says). As if that's the only reason people would argue a point. I think it says something about OP that they take that as a given for arguments. I can immediately imagine scenarios that one can argue against a thing that they themselves participate in.

"Hey, smoking is bad, kid. Don't do it."

"But you smoke! And I look so cool with a cigarette!"

"Yeah, it's a habit that's very difficult to break and it makes your life worse in every way. I know from experience."

"No you."

But I agree with your main point,

But pointing out the hypocrisy is technically “off topic” if you’re arguing whether X is actually bad.

It's considered a fallacy exactly for this reason. When you're debating a thing, you're way off the map if you think that's your winning move if you're arguing in good faith. An argument should be about showing your point is correct, not that you're better than the other person. But Mr. Wang up there may only view arguments as a competition to be won morally.

[–] TheActualDevil 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How does that work, physiologically? We're talking dopamine in the brain. If what that user said was true and "overstimulation like that drains your dopamine reserves (or something)," then another person being there wouldn't make a difference.

I mean, it's because they have a misunderstanding on how brain chemistry works, obviously. Like, it can store it, but it doesn't get used up from doing things that feel good. That's what makes dopamine. And while loneliness is a problem in the general population, it's more likely that longer lasting gratification from sex isn't from the physical act or even just the physical act with another person, but the joy gained from the relationship as a whole. Pretending that there's chemically something different happening in the brain just because there is physically another person there is ridiculous. I've had plenty of unfulfilling sex with people I didn't like that didn't make me happy/content afterwards like masturbating would have.

[–] TheActualDevil 4 points 5 months ago

So.... your source to back up your point is an excerpt from a fictional book written by someone who's expertise is in writing fiction?

Personally, I try not to take the word of someone who is not an expert, or at least versed in that particular area. Just because Pratchett was very a progressive writer doesn't mean his opinions on gun control should be taken for anything more than his own personal position.

And if we're just going to cite his fiction as his opinion, we have to assume he was also pro-police violence. I don't know how much Discworld you've red, but even as Vimes progressed as a character and got better in a lot of ways, he always ended up resolving the issue by skirting the actual law and bending the rules to fit his purpose. Often he would espouse how much easier his job and the city would be if he wasn't restricted by the law. Not everyone else, they still need to follow the law, but Sam Vimes knows better. There were even times when Pratchett would start to push back on that idea like he was going to have Vimes actually understand that police aren't special and should be as answerable to the law as anyone... then the conflict would always be resolved by Vimes going outside the law and taking it into his own hands. He never learned that lesson. Quite the opposite actually.

So for those unfamiliar, Pratchett was so conservative, he was writing about rogue cops taking the law into their own hands before you kids ever heard those words put together.

[–] TheActualDevil 11 points 5 months ago (5 children)

While it doesn't work as well with or as your joke, the ATF is actually now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. So we need to add the E as well and we can spell FACET, which is less fun. Or use M for Marijuana and spell FMEAT.

view more: next ›