Isn’t that statistically what most twitch streamers do

The idea of being a loser or winner in life, and that there is an objective consensus that could accurately rank your value as a person, is fake. People as a whole don’t take the time to come to agreement on what matters, they don’t understand each other, and you don’t have a ranking, even theoretically. It’s only in your imagination, so make an effort to cut some slack and imagine yourself in a kinder way.

I suspect games tinker with the formula behind the scenes, to accurately place people faster if nothing else. The more players the longer it could take for the skill of any one to show up in the numbers, so I bet they factor in other game specific metrics at least at first. There would be some risk of this being abused, but that’s less if they keep it a secret and maybe the progress numbers shown to players aren’t quite the same as the real numbers used to decide who to match them against.

Personally I wish there was a way to filter out all the comments by people who haven’t read the article.

I had one in most of the apartments I lived in, but I was always having problems with them and needing to contact the landlord to fix it (some of this was my fault but still). Now that I have my own place I’m not going to install one, I don’t want to spend money if the result is mostly to get to maintain yet another thing, just to avoid shaking a drain trap over the trash every once in a while.

When I was a kid my father would always mute the ads, which was annoying to me because the images still demanded my attention and it was frustrating not knowing what they said. Now I don’t watch TV and know how to use adblockers so it’s a mute point.

Well I mean, what defines the meaning of “Redistribution of wealth doesn’t work” in the context of this meme is explicitly the intent of an imagined propagandist. A defining feature of mainstream political discourse is to refuse the problem of wealth distribution as a topic of consideration at all, it’s redirected to some narrower conception of the problem or made about values. I think what you are saying is not quite the same as a defense of the statement as delivered.

But anyway it’s still wrong; even if bureaucratic mechanisms of wealth redistribution were unavoidably self defeating, it is not the case historically that wealth redistribution doesn’t happen, it just tends to happen via traumatic collapse.

I guess there’s two distinct possible interpretations of the OP statement: that you can’t do it, or that the results would be bad. For some reason it makes more sense in my head that the standard propaganda would be more about the results being bad, or the idea of even trying being just unthinkable.

I think a common conclusion in general, I dated a woman once whose mind went to that explanation constantly for all kinds of things and it was basically always a distorted picture of reality. I think people just don’t get needed validation due mostly to arbitrary bullshit and the world sucking and that makes it easy to buy into toxic self hating memes.

Well I guess he will find out based on whether or not she ever contacts him again.

Really though this does seem like the kind of thing where “it’s because you’re sexually repulsive” only seems like the obvious explanation because of insecurity brainworms.

If “history told you wealth redistribution doesn’t work”, then that doesn’t make sense. It can’t show you it doesn’t work by not happening, that’s more like showing you it isn’t achievable, at best.

But is chicken-ness actually defined by genetics? An important characteristic of a chicken is its domesticated status, if you consider the birds they descend from, they are remarkably similar, and it’s hard to imagine that any one mutation would have been what caused people to start calling them by their own name or considering them as a separate species. It’s possible that the first chicken became the first chicken when it was captured by humans, and so preceded the first chicken egg.

Arguments (especially political/ideological ones) framed as personal advice

I’m glad to see it at least, though maybe it would also make sense to be posted on [email protected]

I’m still on Reddit too, and I bet a lot of people who came here from there are. Lemmy just isn’t a fully viable replacement yet.

That’s the thing about that sort of censorship though, you can only guess what it might have been. Your guess seems plausible, but it’s just a guess, and when the guess that Reddit mods were acting in good faith turns out to have been wrong, they don’t want you to know about it.

I assume it’s ultimately serious (they want to drop the pretense that it’s about the value of the life of a fetus) but a use of irony poisoning on some level. Some real zero self awareness assholes regardless.

Supposedly it was coined by some right wing influencer and went viral

I found a source that includes the second half which makes it more obvious:

Dr. Macho believes #42’s behavior is intentional and aimed specifically at him. “I caught him laughing at me once while I was trying to sort data he’d fucked up. I know what you’re thinking, ‘Can rats even laugh? And what would it look like?’ Trust me, when a rat laughs at you, you’ll know.”

When asked why he doesn’t simply exchange #42 for a less malicious rat, Dr. Macho explained, “You can’t just use an infinite number of lab rats. They start to think you’re a psycho if you keep asking for more.” Dr. Macho sighed. “I feel like I’m living in an annoying Pixar movie where I’m the bad guy – oh, wait….I’m the bad guy. I’m the evil scientist performing experiments on a sassy, smart rat. And my name is Dr. Stu Macho? Oof, yeah, I’m the wrong one here.”

Just behind Dr. Macho, #42 winked and walked directly into his food bowl.

The diet experiment is presented as present tense. The cat smell experiment is described with “I once ran an experiment”, part of the speaker’s “thesis”, which is in the past. They are clearly keeping #42 alive to be used in totally separate research, in this fictional The Onion esque scenario.