Jump to content

Samson's Wig

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    2428
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Samson's Wig

  1. I can at least somewhat understand the appeal of Trump to certain people, even if it's lost on me.  He says what they want to hear, has a certain kind of confidence, and has been a public figure for a long time, which carries weight for some people for whatever reason. In short, he's a populist.  It doesn't do it for me, but I can understand it and the tactic has been used successfully throughout the history of democracies.   What I will never understand is how these same folks are not concerned that someone like RFK Jr. has his hands in anything meaningful.  That man couldn't find his way out of a wet paper bag if you gave him a knife.   How is this shit even possible?  Outside of the absolute dumbest motherfuckers alive, who listens to this man and thinks, "Yep, that's the guy for the job!"  I just can't wrap my head around it.

    Anyway, back on topic.  Fuck AI, fuck tech bros, fuck private equity, and fuck anyone who profits from any of it.  Go find work that actually means something before your humanity is completely lost.  A fry cook adds more value to society for fucks sake. 

    • Like 1
  2. 4 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

    I saw some guy talking on TV about how there was a blue collar uprising that ushered in the Trump era. He then went on to say that because of AI, the next uprising will be white collar due to AI job displacement.  

    White collar uprisings, historically speaking, are what we more commonly refer to as actual revolutions.  The idiots in charge, along with the tech bro asswipes, should be doing everything they can to steer away from that situation.  It hasn't ended well for their kind in the past. 

  3. 12 hours ago, royiv said:

    I have no idea how I would act if one of my family members was a victim, but I’d like to think that I would not want to be put through the trauma of a trial. I would like to think that I would find peace knowing that this guy will never spend another day of his life as a free man. 

     

    12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    And, I think it's a tall order to resist the desire for vengeance, but I really think that trying to find some kind of solace or resolution to the death of a loved one though the "fate" or "disposition" of their murderer is probably a pretty futile endeavor.  It might serve as a distraction for a few years, but when it's over and done, you're still left with it.

    I agree with both of these statements, so I'm simply adding to this with no intention of being contrary. 

    Setting aside the ethics of the death penalty in general, the notion that it is what's best for the survivors/families has been largely debunked. 

    There's plenty of data out there that victims' loved ones, even those who support the death penalty and want it for the perpetrator, find no solace in it once it's done.   Most of the time, it merely drags the case out for years, or even decades, delaying any closure and extending the grieving process for an insanely long time.   I know I would likely want the death penalty were I ever in those shoes, and I completely understand the impulse. Still, I hope that I would be able to find a sliver of rationality about it in the moment and recognize that the death penalty is ultimately just further punishment for the surviving victims than it is anything else.  The main reason we have the death penalty at all is to satisfy the vengeance lust of the community at large.  We know it doesn't deter crime, it doesn't bring peace to the victims' families, and it doesn't serve the state's needs from a financial perspective or any other perspective.  Setting aside any moral/ethical discussion, there aren't any rational arguments for the death penalty that hold water. 

    The nations in red on this map are the ones with an active death penalty.  We can draw some pretty obvious conclusions from it in terms of what factors drive the desire for the death penalty, both from the perspective of the state and its citizens.

    image.thumb.png.32089f7b3ae9975ea6247971d167ffa5.png

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  4. 3 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

    I asked ChatGPT how much they were losing...

    image.png.3a1a9d1b2a858b177605a0793d374bbb.png

    image.png.f193ce9642d6a56fc1e03b69b87e8cf8.png

     

    So, how long is this sustainable?   

    How long before it becomes 100% subscription or it turns into google and the answers are designed to drive you to some advertiser that pays the most?

     

     

    This is sustainable so long as we allow grifters to dominate our economy.  This is nothing new, as we've been gobbling up shitty tech for decades now with little to show for it outside of PE jags laughing all the way to the bank.   Profitability?  What does that have to do with anything anymore?

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  5. 5 hours ago, Blotto said:

    The most amusing thing about this thread are all the comments singling out Mormonism as a cult, because somehow their version of  their sky fairy is weirder than all the other sky fairies out there.

    Evangelicals are every bit as weird as Mormons, but lack the introspection to see it.  Indoctrination of the young works.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 1 hour ago, Blotto said:

    New shit has come to light...

    https://ksltv.com/local-news/jake-retzlaff-lawsuit/791607/

    There is a fan conspiracy floating around the internet that the female was a Univ of Utah student and this was a setup to get him suspended. In other words, force him to claim the sex was consensual to get him suspended, and now drop the case. Sounds like bullshit, but that would be some next level skullduggery. 

    That's a lot of work to get rid of a mediocre QB at a football program that isn't exactly miles ahead of Utah.  Not to mention, that even if BYU suddenly sucked this seaon Utah still has almost no chance of finishing in the top third (or even half) of their conference.  Every fan base is delusional.

  7. On 6/20/2025 at 10:32 AM, Js1 said:

    Because unless you lived under a rock from 2015-2021 and again in 2023-24, you knew you were going to be severely targeted by the incoming administration?

    Other countries aren’t targeted tax paying permanent residents like the U.S. Gestapo 

    I understand what you're saying.  My wife was here for decades as a permanent resident, but after the first Trump term ended, we quickly got her naturalized.   While I'm relieved about it with everything going on now, I also wonder if we've just trapped her on a sinking ship. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  8. 37 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

    The comments on that tweet were pretty stunning.  Lots of anger from apparent Republicans, some even threatening not to vote for him next election, which of course they will regardless.

    I don't want to create an account to read them.  Are they threatening not to vote for Patrick or Abbott? 

  9. 34 minutes ago, F250 said:

    I was an SBC kid during the rise of the Religious Right. I remember the reprogramming that took place regarding abortion as a newly categorized sin. I also remember the effort to get church members to join the Republican party. That stands out because I remember the really old Southern Baptists throwing a fit while expressing Civil War/Reconstruction grievances. There was also a lot of distrust of the political coalition because of the charismatics being heavily involved. 

    I've brought this up with people that are older than me who were there for the experience and they act like it never happened.

    Shared history.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  10. 12 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

    The Southern Baptists, the types that kicked Beth Moore to the curb, may not openly say it, but they don't care for the Catholics, and I'm not just mentioning the Catholic angle by the way, - I'm throwing in that the Muslims, Mormons, etc., are liable to get stuff put in the classrooms.

    Southern Baptists, and evangelicals in general, hate Catholics so much that they were pro-choice up until the 90s or so, to make sure no one thought they were in alignment with the Catholics on any issue whatsoever.  Most of the brainwashed cult members of today seem to be operating in ignorance of that reality.  They are a political cult, not a religion. 

    • Hook 'Em 9
  11. On 6/20/2025 at 2:41 PM, LCHorn said:

     

    I, too, chortled at that one.  

     

    If I might rebut on this, there's a number of efforts going on simultaneously all working towards this goal.  I'd also suggest there's a majority on the council currently that are very pro-affordability, at least conceptually, and not in a "let's campaign on this and then overly serve NIMBY neighborhood groups."

    Bear in mind that the r/Austin crowd will accept nothing less than home values going down substantially (which would be potentially catastrophic for a number of reasons), the next best option is to have a mix of housing, including at prices affordable to the average family and/or rents that are affordable to those unable to afford a home.  At least for Austin proper, the reduction in minimum lot sizes and the parking lot minimum requirements are both steps towards that goal, and currently the council (and mayor) is enjoying the credit they probably don't fully deserve for rent stabilization due to the enormous amount of multi-family rental units that have come on the market over the last couple of years.  

    Council is also the process of reviewing future land use maps, a ton of other acronyms in regards to land use, and attempting to use Cap Metro property for the purpose of making available more central affordable housing (affordable is such a fuzzy word I'm not sure it's helpful to keep using it).  Some of the most ardent opponents, btw, aren't silver haired, property rich District 9 homeowners, but working class renters concerned that their 25 unit apartment complex will be torn down for market rate apartments.  In other words, it's all a little messier than "let's just create the right conditions for building more density."

    I'm not suggesting anyone start hanging a "Mission Accomplished" banner, but if you value these efforts I'm sure you'll find a friendly ear by reaching out to your CM and their staff.  

    I completely agree that there are council members who are genuinely pro-affordability. That isn't what I was saying.  My point was that they don't do anything about it, in large part because they can't.  No city council can, but in every growing city, they all run on some version of promising it.  It's like a kid running for student council on a platform of extending recess by three hours.  They genuinely want it to happen, but there isn't a damn thing they can do about it, and they know it.  This is why the campaign ads are bullshit, not because they don't believe it, but because they know they can't do anything about it but make the promises anyway (you know, like politicians do).  They've been campaigning on this in Austin for decades with zero success once in office.  You can blame NIMBYS for everything, like bozo does, and perhaps that's correct.  The end result is that the city leadership has never and will never do anything meaningful about it, and I'm astounded anyone is still buying the pitch.

  12. 23 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Nonsense. It’s code for “let the market build more housing.” You don’t know what or who you are talking about. Stop listening to KLBJ-AM. 

    I haven't listened to terrestrial radio in over fifteen years outside of public radio, and was never an AM radio guy outside of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell when I found myself driving late at night on road trips.  Still, I appreciate your consistency in pigeonholing anyone you perceive as disagreeing with your take on this subject.   As LCHorn already pointed out, the discussion was about the politics of the message, not the realities of property taxation or how to improve housing affordability.  "Let the market build more housing" is simply restating the affordability message into your preferred talking point on the subject, but it ignores the blatant appeal to the "eat the rich" crowd in Austin.  Perhaps I'm too cynical, or you're too naive, or most likely a bit of both.  Getting elected in this town isn't complicated.  The playbook hasn't changed much for a long time.  It's also why not much has changed in Austin for a long time.  No elected official in this city will do a damn thing to make things more affordable, because there simply isn't much they can do to make that happen. It's empty language, but it works. You hear it in political campaigns in every major city in this country, and it's as empty in every other city as it is here.  You know all this, but chose to be rude because you think I fit some NIMBY boogieman mold or something.  Sorry to disappoint.   In principle, I agree with your "build more housing" mantra. I'm admittedly a bit skeptical about developers executing the idea in a manner that improves anything for working-class Austinites, or restated, I'm unconvinced that city leadersrhip has the means to control the developers through the process in a manner that results in a benefit to the working class, but the core concept is sound.

     

    4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    I’m just relieved that we didn’t adopt a strong Mayor system. Watson would probably do OK, but in general, well paid  professional City Managers and well paid County Judges and Commissioners run a far tighter ship than poorly-paid mayors and council members chosen from a pool of those willing to do a thankless job for nothing, on the basis of whoever performs the most pleasing mouth-noises for the worst people in town.

    Agreed. 

  13. 10 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

    I've been wondering why aspiring CM's haven't been trying a "lower taxes" platform.  Maybe affordability is a code for it but lower taxes is clearer.  

    "Affordability" is 100% not about lower taxes in an Austin political ad (or any other big city political ad).  It is code for "I promise to tax "rich" people more and then pretend to give free shit to poor people while endorsing policies that make things more expensive for everyone."  It's bait for burnouts and bottom dwellers.  It's lower than buying votes, as it is just an empty promise to buy votes.

  14. On 6/14/2025 at 12:28 PM, Pato del Muerto said:

    Does it need to be flawless, or does it need to do as well as the average licensed driver?  Because drivers make mistakes and ignore rules of the road all the time. 

    I sincerely hope we are setting the bar significantly higher than the average licensed human driver.  The average licensed human driver shouldn't be licensed at all.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Rage+1 1
  15. 3 minutes ago, troph said:

    reminds me I sealed the deal with my current wife on an offshore fishing trip in Mexico. she saw me with my feet up relaxing, maxing life out catching wahoo or something like that, and thought damn she's got her life figured out. I want some of that.  fishing is always the answer. 

    The friends I've had over the years who were the most naturally attractive to women were always the ones who were the most relaxed and positive.   Be chill, know how to smile and have fun, and remember that people, regardless of gender, are all essentially looking for the same thing.  The rest will take care of itself without a ton of effort.  Too many young men get caught up in their heads and worry themselves to the point of fearing women while simultaneously becoming a beatdown to be around.  That negative headspace isn't anything new.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  16. 46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Which raises the real question here: what are we going to do with our mediocre men?  Because, by definition, "mediocre or below" is at least half of all men.

    Now, I see plenty of loser dipshits do just great with women....because there are plenty of loser dipshit women out there, too.  Really, the issue seems to be in that middle third of men and women.  As mid-range men fall behind and have less success, mid-range women don't see great partner prospects out there for them (see the dating app stat -- the top 20% of guys have their pick of the top 50% of women, and are pursuing them.  Those numbers don't match up well).

    I'm glad someone finally brought this up.  Lost in these discussions is that the same things apply to women (at least half of them are mediocre or below, just like the guys). This discussion, every time it comes up, whether tacitly or explicitly, puts women on a pedestal by default and assumes the very traditional notion of women being the one who sets expectations that men must meet, when in reality it cuts both ways.  You reach a certain age, as most of us here have, where you've either been through a divorce or seen many friends and acquaintances go through one.  Can anyone honestly say that in every situation it's predominantly the man's lack of effort/attractiveness/etc. that leads to the split?  In my experience, at least, it's about right down the middle in terms of which partner was the piece of shit.   That's a hetero couple only observation.  All of my gay friends who settled down have stayed happily married, so whatever secret they've figured out, they need to share it with the straights.

    Being toxic, or even just boring, is not a gender specific state of being.   Many aspects of traditional male/female gender roles are in the process of flipping or altering in some way, and mid-tier women will have to recalibrate their expectations just like mid tier men have done for most of modern history. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  17. That article reads like little more than the classic complaint certain women have when they set unreasonable expectations and then lose their shit when the men in their lives do not meet them.  Or perhaps just a shift from "he wont' share his feelings with me" to "I don't have time for his bullshit feelings".  Ultimately, this seems more like a siloed problem for a handful of women and not a widespread problem.   Buzzfeed/Huffpost probably should have been the first clue on that front.

    Young men are certainly facing some serious hurdles these days that they didn't before, but framing that as just another problem for women to deal with is top-shelf feminonsense. 

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
  18. 7 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

    No, not really.  I think we're going to find though that he was largely a one issue (pro life) nut job.

    Let's call him what he is.  An evangelical.  Evangelicals are no different than Islamic terrorists.  It's way past time we start treating them as such instead of giving them a pass due to their inherent stupidity.  Their insanity is not harmless. 

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Drool 1
×
×
  • Create New...