User Profile

Forum Activity by Infinitus Corsair

Gigantopithecus
Sorcerer Supreme Nameless
Gigantopithecus
Sorcerer Supreme Nameless
Jean
JeanHey EA, have you read any research on the effects of CBT on being lazy as fuck?

I'm serious :(.


Hey, the guy with CBT over here isn't joking about the dick punching. Hop to it, Jean, your sack doesn't look like a speedbag for no good reason

Real talk, there might genuinely be a science to all of this given, y'know, testosterone


I don't understand this "dick-punching" thing in this thread. Nor would like to understand it even if you explain. Completely irrelevant to a purportedly serious thread, except for some jokers I guess. With their dick punching.

Maybe I should reply next to a woman poster seeking which meds to use to combat depression and anxiety with "pussy-punch"!!!
The fuck is wrong with you people. 100% opposite of the time or place. And not that there's anything wrong with it. But this here thread? Jesus Fucking Christ, with your talons everywhere.?


Levity makes the world more manageable. We can take a break from the seriousness here and there and, personally, I prefer something like CBT, which I'm well diagnosed with, to be taken a little more lightly as opposed to "Are you going to Chris Benoit out and murder suicide everyone?". The human body is kinda ridiculous, and yeah, I take myself very seriously given that I've spent the past 10 years trying to cope with the idea that this is something I'm going to struggle with for the remainder of what could very well be a dramatically reduced lifespan

Sorry for being lazy about it all, yeah, it does wear me the out. I've been told a loooooooot of shit in regards to my limitations and I do what I can to overcome them given the very limited information we have on the subject


Okay.

I guess I wasn't aware of "CBT" or what it means otherwise as opposed to my clear sense. To me, and what I meant to reply as, it meant "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy". Not a diagnosis, but a possible helpful technique. Wasn't sure why people trying to better themselves via my idea of CBT, which means immersion in difficult situations such as crowds or loud noises or a bus stop, should be punched in the dick or pussy. But I guess that's fair game for the other CBT.

There's a fine and probably jocular tapestry of jokes that I'm just not getting. Which for some reason includes punching males in the penis. Funny.
"Rotten Tomatoes thread: holocaust survivors, please contribute": "I lost my brother, sister, and mother...."?
"How bout them French Ovens though! Joke! Levity! How about I punch you in your Jew pussy!"

This is also kind of serious shit here.

And I wish you a long life.

You're an idiot and that's an absurd analogy. Jean's problem is that he's lazy. He's not threatening to jump off a freeway pass or something, he just spends too much time playing a card game instead of outlining his space train script.
Sep 23, 2017 6:56 AM
Gigantopithecus
Sorcerer Supreme Nameless
Jean
JeanHey EA, have you read any research on the effects of CBT on being lazy as fuck?

I'm serious :(.

Hey, the guy with CBT over here isn't joking about the dick punching. Hop to it, Jean, your sack doesn't look like a speedbag for no good reason

Real talk, there might genuinely be a science to all of this given, y'know, testosterone


I don't understand this "dick-punching" thing in this thread. Nor would like to understand it even if you explain. Completely irrelevant to a purportedly serious thread, except for some jokers I guess. With their dick punching.

Maybe I should reply next to a woman poster seeking which meds to use to combat depression and anxiety with "pussy-punch"!!!
The fuck is wrong with you people. 100% opposite of the time or place. And not that there's anything wrong with it. But this here thread? Jesus Fucking Christ, with your talons everywhere.

Chomsky vs. Dershowitz. Good, structured, important debate. Then someone swoops in on a parachute shouting "DICK PUNCH".

I would punch you in the dick so hard.
Sep 23, 2017 4:49 AM
Esoteric Allusion

"Gerrymandered by chance" is a contradiction in terms. I think what you mean is that the random partisan distribution in states allows for reduced power of some party's vote over another's. Hence the two recent times the popular vote winner lost the election.

This uneven partisan split is relatively minor and because of random fluctuations isn't likely to create a situation where one party owns a lot of population, but a small pool of electoral college votes. We can see what we saw in 2016, but you're unlikely to see a drastic gap where one candidate wins the popular vote by a lot and loses the electoral college. The slight weighting towards small states was intended to function as a nudge and so far seems to work as intended in that respect. ?It's just getting increasingly out of whack as population grows. The real problem is that it isn't small states that get slightly outsized influence. It's swing states that are way more influential. ?That's a "winner take all" problem.

Allocating by congressional district when congressional districts are drawn by self-interested parties allows parties to actively reduce the power of people's votes. You end up with a situation where you can get much more drastic differences between electoral college % and popular vote % via deliberate crafting on the part of the winning party.

Since 2010, Republicans have been making unsuccessful attempts in several states to switch to proportional representation by Congressional district in states they either have heavily gerrymandered or in states that have gone blue in presidential elections but that they control. PA, which is absurdly gerrymandered to Republican advantage, probably came the closest to going this route. After the 2012 election, I read a study showing that if this plan was adopted nationwide, Romney would've won a comfortable electoral college victory over Obama despite Obama winning by 4 points.

State borders are arbitrary. Partisan drawn congressional districts are created to actively advantage one party and suppress another. It's not quite the same thing when we are thinking about how to create geographic boundaries of local autonomy.

I oppose the winner take all format and would prefer that at a minimum electors were apportioned by popular vote %. This would further diminish the influence of the issue you are worried about. I think states do have a right to determine if they want to apportion their electors by congressional district or winner take all or proportionally. But we can have opinions about if what states are doing is fair and advocate for the system we favor.

What I mean that the result of the current EC mechanism results in a situation that is just like gerrymandering without the intent--uneven concentrations of voters playing havoc with the general preferences of a jurisdiction's electorate.

A state with 9 reps and a 55/45 party split ought, assuming a general distribution of voters, send 5 of one and 4 of the other to the House. But if you draw the districts with deliberation, you can get two hyper-minority districts, a few safe majority districts and a few lean-majority districts. Or somesuch. And, other than accomplishing that result, these distinctions are basically arbitrary. Just as having hyper-Democratic states like California and New York and Illinois and several other big states that are much more competitive but lean GOP or are true swing "districts." The effect is basically the same--the preference of the overall electorate is misrepresented. The evil of gerrymandering is that misrepresentation so even if it's achieved by happenstance, that also seems a problem.

At any rate, there's lots of interlocking factors--gerrymandering (the real thing, practiced state-by-state) is a huge stumbling block to allowing states more discretion to allocate their EVs because it taints the makeup of the districts and the state legislatures making these decisions.?
Sep 23, 2017 4:11 AM
Sprague Dawley
Infinitus CorsairThis is weird--I never received my apology for the existence of this thread.

The senior forii members should hang their heads in shame. This is on them. According to the latest ROLL CALL, the rarefied cohort of I.C, King of the Saddoes, with his 80,000 post count, remains those on 65,000-odd posts, the Bigwigs, the Zubens, and these are the negligent few who should be supplicating themselves with slavish apology at the cloven-hoofed feet of I.C.

**DISGRACEFUL BEHAVIOR** from the senior memebrs. A poor example for us junior boys to look up to

"IL DISGRACIO", as they may well say on the steaked fields of the Argentine pampas.

This guy gets it.
Sep 23, 2017 1:58 AM
Esoteric Allusion
Paquito
Infinitus CorsairAn electoral college with proportional voting would also make a lot more sense. In 2016 Clinton won New York and Trump canceled that by winning Florida--29 EVs each. But Clinton won New York by almost 25 points and Trump won Florida by barely 1 point. This makes no sense as a representation of the will of either the people voting in those states or the states themselves. Again, we don't require, as a matter of federalism, that the Florida congressional delegation vote as a bloc. If New York goes something 18/11 for Clinton and Florida is 15/14 for Trump, that's a much more reasonable system.

I would accept this as a compromise.

How do you feel about the way Maine and Nebraska divide their electoral votes?

It's a terrible system that would allow the presidency to be gerrymandered.

This is true, and yet:
(a) The presidency is essentially gerrymandered by chance under the current system;
(b) Allocating EVs by congressional district is a choice made those states that is no more or less valid--or reflective of the will of either the state or federal electorate--than the winner-take-all default defended above as a legitimate manifestation of each state's particular rights and power under the federal system.
Sep 23, 2017 1:38 AM
This is weird--I never received my apology for the existence of this thread.
Sep 23, 2017 1:14 AM
Sorcerer Supreme Nameless
Meow
Zuben
MeowCan I vent for a sec? I've seen a lot of guys on twitter insisting they're queer, not gay, and I don't get the distinction. I'd ask but I guess that would be unwelcome? Like I get the term as a general catch-all for non-straight people, but as a personal label, what's the actual difference? I'd inquire but I would get tarred and feathered. It seems like the label became vogue among white gays who wrestled with identity politics and lost.

The people I know who insist on being termed queer as opposed to gay do so because, while more or less being gay, they would have sex, or have had sex with the opposite sex. So they're like "I'm not gay or straight, I'm more nebulous." I'm not telling you that this is the answer; just what I've noticed.

But isn't that being bi?

I think the big difference there is, for me at least, that I mostly likely will not find myself in a relationship with another guy. I'm more comfortable around women, in general, and consider myself to be more psychologically female than male. This gets weird for the women in my relationships because many aren't looking for that but someone who is more masculine in their gears. I'm very submissive and find it fun to draw dominant aspects out of my partners, not because I wish that they are guys but because I feel like people have these psychological sides to them which don't get... exercised, and it's what turns people on to sides of themselves which they are unaware of. In being comfortable with myself I've been with a lot of people who are not, and vice versa, and those binaries get tempered over time through experience with what works and what does not, while struggling with the messy subjectivity of your partners involved along with the societal constructs when it comes to dating, being in a relationship, having children, fucking, etc. Sometimes I feel like my sexuality is less my sexuality and more casting a wide net as a byproduct of loneliness, and that my identity becomes more firm when a relationship is formed, as is revealed in the act of relating. I call it being "David Bowie Gay", and that some people go through phases and that their identity is still cement which needs settling. We all dance on the line before falling on which side works for us as individuals

Queer, to me, sounds like someone who is struggling with that equation, and that there is a developing language of being unsure, like, you just can't quite put your finger on it. For example, why do I need to write a bloody chapter each time I sit down to think who it is exactly that I am? Why did this question become so thoroughly complex? WHY AM I SO QUEER? Well, I can sure list the reasons

The big one: being feminized growing up by Troy, my uncle's boyfriend now husband. I was always "feminine" to friends and my uncle had that husband who took thorough advantage of me growing up, never letting my idea of myself settle and instead acting like a bull in a china shop regarding the development of my attractions. Sorry, dude, I'm not into fat old bears, fuck off. That's what I wanted to say all through growing up. I love my uncle, despite all of that, and otherwise he had a pretty good taste in guys. His boyfriend before that was a staple growing up, dude was great but maybe not so much behind the scenes. The big point in all of this is homosexuality is normal in my family and has been since birth, it's no mystery to me and only became a mystery when I found out how contested it still is via the internet

And in being "feminine" to friends, what exactly does that mean? I grew up in a small town and a great deal of my friends growing up were women, my mom would be the one who would go on trips with me up island and road rage a bunch, I grew up further in Victoria with my step-cousin who was essentially my sister. Women are very normal to me, more normal than guys who I never related with - I was the "best sportsman" in sports growing up, I had no sense of competition, in fact competition turns me right off. I like to participate in competition and I'm not lacking in talent, but I would never feel pride when it comes to being > or < to another team. I'm just stoked to play the game, I get thrill out of the process... kinda submissive, no? I would just accept defeat while the big guys who are just so invested in the season would all be crying because they are so overwhelmed by this act of slamming our bodies into one another. Atlus just shrugs

The submissiveness is generally a byproduct of being taught, idk, overwhelming sensitivity? I was always taught to respect Troy and his differences, and that he had a hard upbringing being gay and that it's just who he is and can't help his behavior towards me. So I kinda just sucked it all in and let it happen as my rage developed over the years as these questions began to intrude on my own whims regarding relationships and attraction in high school. Over the years I've experimented on both sides but land on the side of women. Men, in general, make me uncomfortable and this stems from both Troy and my dad - and them's the polar ends of sexuality right there. Nothing like being sexually abused and physically abused by the two father figures in your life to really make you feel like a little bitch

Recently, I've been realizing that maybe, just maybe, my anger is real and not just the conditional validation my dad imposed on me, that my anger is righteous to the point of legal intervention. My sense of identity shouldn't be this thoroughly dinged up, and there is no comfort whatsoever when it comes to me just going with the flow... because I'm always trying to go back and sort out what exactly it is which shaped me. I've had more than enough help and time to sort that out but here I am. Really, I just want a girlfriend who is comfortable with doing her own thing, and letting me do my own thing, while having that connection where we want to be around one another and include each other in our respective things from time to time, and that includes sexual expression. I want to have that base of stability where it's just one and the other, and all of the messy mercurial confusion, transition, translation, etc occurs while we provide one another with an anchor in order to find our way back to the surface, because it's a trip up there in this space. It feels like I'm still a square of wet cement tempting the hands of those more mischievous than I

What a long post.
Sep 23, 2017 1:09 AM
briggmIf I were to speak with anyone on the phone it'd be wirthling, because I picture his voice to be the musical tone used to communicate with aliens at the end of Close Encounters Of The Third Kind.

Fuck you.
Sep 23, 2017 1:01 AM
Gigantopithecus
Infinitus CorsairI haven't been on depression meds since law school (law school, everybody) but one of them made it really hard to climax and I once spent 30 or 45 minutes trying to get there (instead of reading cases) and it was by far the best one of my life. I don't remember which one it was. Lexapro maybe? Anyway, you guys keep that in mind. Really put your back into it--it's worth it.

Are you volunteering?

Det will field this one as well.
Sep 22, 2017 5:45 AM
Detrimental
Infinitus Corsair
JeanHey EA, have you read any research on the effects of CBT on being lazy as fuck?

Dick-punching works. Hire a dick-puncher. You'll need an ironclad contract because otherwise it just doesn't work. But if you commit to it, you'll see results. I nominate Detrimental of this very message board. He's big, he likes you, and is willing to relocate.

Hold up, I am not willing to relocate unless i'm getting paid premium. If i'm not getting premium he can get one of those low-rent dick punchers like Angelo Mike.

You get room and board and you get to punch Jean in the dick. Come on, man. It pays for itself.
Sep 22, 2017 5:45 AM
DetrimentalI'm super hungry.

Thirsty. The kids say "thirsty."
Sep 22, 2017 5:23 AM
JeanHey EA, have you read any research on the effects of CBT on being lazy as fuck?

Dick-punching works. Hire a dick-puncher. You'll need an ironclad contract because otherwise it just doesn't work. But if you commit to it, you'll see results. I nominate Detrimental of this very message board. He's big, he likes you, and is willing to relocate.
Sep 22, 2017 5:20 AM
Meow
Infinitus CorsairI haven't been on depression meds since law school (law school, everybody) but one of them made it really hard to climax and I once spent 30 or 45 minutes trying to get there (instead of reading cases) and it was by far the best one of my life. I don't remember which one it was. Lexapro maybe? Anyway, you guys keep that in mind. Really put your back into it--it's worth it.

I have also have a very memorable climax the involuntary edging Paxil brought on, so don't feel alone, IC.

It's after midnight on a work night, I'm drinking whisky, watching Cheers reruns, and arguing about the electoral college on a vbulletin message board. I've never felt less alone in my life.
Sep 22, 2017 5:18 AM
Esoteric AllusionI think federalism is good because I think government functions better when its scale is smaller and is represented by people closer in proximity and culture to the people being represented. I think this is a naturally democratic impulse at the end of the day, as what this seeks is increasing a person's say over how they are governed by having a larger number of representatives per person who are better able to reflect the desires and interests of their constituents. One of the best ways to do this is by nesting governments inside one another and devolving power to local control when possible. Having states with meaningful power inside a national government is reasonably good step in accomplishing this.

There's no pat answer on how much federalism is the right amount, but I have a hard time seeing some state government level protection in presidential election being inherently bad. I wouldn't miss it if it went away, but I have a hard time signing up with an argument that contends any amount of federalism in this part of our democracy is bad.

I don't really see how the EC protects state governments. It just treats state populations as monoliths for purposes of voting for president. This, again, is a function of an EC that has evolved and ossified into something that lacks the best features of its original intent. If the electors actually made their own choice, we'd have a different conversation. If that was combined with meaningful elector elections--instead of picking off the first 11 alphabetical names pledged to my preferred candidate--that would also be a much different game.

The principle of nesting governments is a good one but I think it's telling that we don't actually choose any other chief executive this way--I'm reasonably sure that every governor is popularly elected. There are, as you've mentioned, plenty of other federal checks that empower the states, such as the Senate. The EC has devolved into a Rube Goldberg contraption that sacrifices so much of the will and preference of individual people through a winner-take-all system based on a system of internal national division that is outdated and economically and culturally disconnected.
Sep 22, 2017 5:16 AM
I haven't been on depression meds since law school (law school, everybody) but one of them made it really hard to climax and I once spent 30 or 45 minutes trying to get there (instead of reading cases) and it was by far the best one of my life. I don't remember which one it was. Lexapro maybe? Anyway, you guys keep that in mind. Really put your back into it--it's worth it.
Sep 22, 2017 5:01 AM
NimChimpskyThough apparently a proportional electoral college would actually further magnify small states and diminish big states.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/pondering-pennsylvanias-proportional-plan/

That doesn't seem great.

But just a minute ago you were arguing in favor of quasi-separation of powers between large and small states. Put that in your note.
Sep 22, 2017 4:59 AM
NimChimpskyEA points out the second rationale, so I won't reiterate it. I think that rationale still holds water. Horizontal separation of power between the federal branches, vertical separation of power between the states and the federal government, and the quasi-separation of power between populous (liberal) and less populous (conservative) states are all vital structural necessities, and the true source of the liberty you discuss. I mean, Russia has a Bill of Rights. A bill of rights ain't shit unless you have a government structured to constantly limit the power one faction can wield. I do think the EC is a crucial part of this.

I think current events would illustrate that the true source of the liberty I discuss is common assent and belief. Russia's bill of rights is a dead-letter because that country and its people have no robust tradition of civil liberties whereas ours was, literally, founded on the notion of a strong protection of those liberties.?
Sep 22, 2017 4:58 AM
An electoral college with proportional voting would also make a lot more sense. In 2016 Clinton won New York and Trump canceled that by winning Florida--29 EVs each. But Clinton won New York by almost 25 points and Trump won Florida by barely 1 point. This makes no sense as a representation of the will of either the people voting in those states or the states themselves. Again, we don't require, as a matter of federalism, that the Florida congressional delegation vote as a bloc. If New York goes something 18/11 for Clinton and Florida is 15/14 for Trump, that's a much more reasonable system.

I would accept this as a compromise.
Sep 22, 2017 4:51 AM
NimChimpsky


The winning candidate has to appeal to enough people to win a large number of states. You might not think this is as good a prospect as having to win the most votes, but it's not like a candidate wins by appealing to nobody, as your use of the term "artificial" suggests. The electoral college was designed as a sort of separation-of-powers feature between states. It is still useful and important in that regard, just for unanticipated, but similar, reasons.

I haven't actually heard this rationale. The electoral college was designed as a break on the popular will by putting a layer (or layers) of representation in between the voters and the final decision. Which is consistent with a representative democracy. But it hasn't operated that way almost since the inception of the republic. It now does nothing other than occasionally thwart a majoritarian preference due to arcane mathematics which are basically arbitrary--state lines, population groupings, etc.

A robust electoral college that actually did its job would be a valid control on the passions of the majority. But since it doesn't do that, all else equal, I'd at least prefer that the president be the choice of the plurality of the people to be reflect the actual desires of the people the president is charged with governing.

Because as a defense against the tyranny of the majority, the current EC makes no sense. Enshrined principles like free speech and equal protection ensure fairness and political liberty regardless of the passions of the day. But there's no reason to believe that, in the instances where the EC math works to elect a slightly-dispreferred candidate, that candidate is the one less subject to irrational passions. As an illustration of this point, I present: the 2016 election.
Sep 22, 2017 4:44 AM
Bigwig
Infinitus Corsair
NimChimpsky
Infinitus Corsair
NimChimpsky1. Capping representatives definitely warped the effects of the electoral college. A state like Wyoming essentially has 50 times the influence of its proportional place in the population.

2. I do still support the electoral college, at this point mainly for practical reasons that mirror the initial federalism considerations. It was designed to balance the influence of the states, which, at this point in time, essentially equals a proxy for party.

3. Eliminating the electoral college now would essentially enshrine a form of partisan gerrymandering at the federal level. It would be much, much less likely we'd have a Republican elected president in any given election cycle. I happen to think this is bad, whatever the evils of Trump. A successive chain of Democratic presidents would not only completely skew executive policy, it would skew how parties ran for the national office, and most importantly, it would completely transform the Supreme Court. All of these changes would move the entire federal government sharply to the left, in ways that would be very difficult to counteract. There are a lot of problems with our politics, but they are not ones that would be fixed by an increase in direct democracy, further favoring coastal metropolises, and disenfranchising middle America even further from the economic and political spheres alike.

1. No, the warping is far more limited than this and there's much more distortion from the inclusion of senators in the elector calculation than in capping the House. You'd have to raise the number of representatives substantially (and probably impractically) before the effect of the two senators is washed out.

And your calculation about Wyoming is far off. Wyoming has 0.18% of the US population. It controls 0.56% of the electoral college--that's about three times the influence it "ought" to have. The problem thus isn't that dramatic.

2. But it pretends that a state speaks with one mind--where is the sense in treating Clinton's win in a New York that decisively chose her the same as a relatively narrow win in Florida? In the EC, those very different results cancel each other out. Even for purposes of federalism, that's an insane approach to representative democracy. How do I know this? Because we don't make states vote as a bloc in Congress.

3. This is poppycock. It's literally the opposite of gerrymandering because there isn't any drawing of district lines anywhere. The fact that a majority of the country may consistently favor one party over the other is not an argument for creating an overly-complex anti-democratic system of voting, it's proof that this system is frustrating the will of the people. If a popular vote were electoral doom for the Republican party, they would have to change their policies in order to create a winning national coalition. It would force them to do this in good faith instead of through voter suppression tactics and actual electoral gerrymandering. The country would be drawn politically to the left either through Democratic governance or through moderated Republican governance because that is the will of the majority of the people. That is how democracy works.

We're not a democracy, and you're begging the question by stating "that's not how democracy works." Yeah, no shit. It's up to you to make a case for more democracy. I don't want it.


?A representative democracy has no moral authority for governance

I agree with this.
:)

There should be a roll-eyes emoji.
Sep 22, 2017 4:37 AM