Epsilon

Jeez, this dramatic a change is a surprise even to me compared with where I was in 2015. There was a time where I considered myself a Ron Paul-style libertarian more than anything.

wat? Also, if you still have any quibbles as to the distinction between socialism and fascism, I'd recommend looking here. Privatizing motorways and life insurance of all things is the antithesis of socialism. I'm not arguing that all capitalists are fascists, but it's just as absurd to say that socialism and fascism operate under the same economic principles. I've heard socialism likened to both communism and fascism, often by the same person in a single conversation. It cannot be both. “Regarding the economy we are explicitly antisocialist… I will give the railways and the telegraphs back to private hands, because the current state of things is outrageous and vulnerable in all its parts. The ethical State is not the monopolistic State, the bureaucratic State, but the one which reduces its functions to what is strictly necessary. We are against the economic State.” Because it's such a common misconception, I'd also like to emphasize that most left-leaning Democrats in America (Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, myself) are social democrats, not socialists. If you're still insistent on likening socialists to fascists, I'd at least request that you keep that distinction in mind. ANTIFA may have some common ground with the Democratic Party, but there are still very clear differences (especially when you factor in New Democrats like Clinton or Obama who are best described as center-right on economic issues).

Just passing through and decided to comment on a few things here that are of personal interest. I don't think it's a coincidence that Prozac and Xanax are used to treat disorders from which mass shooters commonly suffer. That said, instead of blaming the drugs, I would first look at why the shooter is taking them in the first place. It's not as though benzos or antidepressants completely strip you of your moral inhibitions. I can't say whether you're implying that these drugs are a cause of antisocial personality disorder, but I am fairly confident that it's common for mass shooters to exhibit antisocial traits. Killing someone in a fit of passion is a very different thing from a premeditated mass shooting, and I doubt that drugs alone would create the psychological conditions needed for a person to carry through with such a thing. The causes of antisocial personality disorder are almost entirely unknown, and largely subject to speculation; I'd need some serious convincing to believe that two particular drugs were the cause. There was a story some time ago about a man who was convicted for the murder of his wife while marijuana was in his system. Naturally, some were quick to hold marijuana accountable, but the police report mentioned that the suspect had empty pill bottles in his room. Withdrawal from some other drug seems to be a likelier explanation. Of course, you could say that makes your point concerning Prozac and Xanax, but who knows how he would've behaved independent of the pills? Considering what happened here, I think it's best not to immediately blame the drugs as the root cause. The worst side effect for either drug I could find was suicidal ideation. Just to clarify, how would you propose that be done? Censoring extremist ideologies would only drive them underground and allow them to fester, as opposed to allowing them to be openly debated. I do think there should be hate speech laws, specifically against inciting violence, but outlawing anything less than that sets an awfully dangerous precedent. If you're referring to simply arresting everyone associated with those groups, I think that's more dangerous (McCarthyist, even). I have friends on Facebook who regularly post, share, Like, etc. content associated with BLM. The thought of that being enough for them to even be suspected of being accomplice to a violent crime is terrifying. I think this oversimplifies just how inescapable bullying can be. The fact that someone would become willing to kill others and/or themselves purely because of repeated words, threats, physical bullying, etc. indicates that the problem extends beyond them being a "special snowflake." Repetition is the key word here; something as simple as Chinese water torture is effective even in an experimental environment because the constant dripping eventually becomes unbearable. How much easier would it be for repeated bullying to drive someone insane? Well, we agree on this much.

Norman Thomas is alive and well: Murder filthy frogposters with socialism now

hi i'm still a man too

How I shove 10 pontourpoopoo hams in dryer? How I shove 10 pontourpoopoo hams in dryer? How I shove 10 pontourpoopoo hams in dryer? How I shove 10 pontourpoopoo hams in dryer? How I shove 10 pontourpoopoo hams in dryer? How I shove 10 pontourpoopoo hams in dryer?

I wish I could be this eloquent when venting. Seriously, that was borderline poetic. Having played versus in Left 4 Dead for three years (a wretched, scum-filled, mostly derelict community as you might imagine), I've had run-ins with players similar to what you described. There's one person in particular who's almost notorious for doing malicious things to your game/connection (DDOS attacks, making your game unplayable by altering your config files, etc.) for the most trivial reasons, if any reason at all, and then vainly trying to morally rationalize these actions by claiming that the (completely innocent) players "made him do it." I even once saw him DDOS a Russian player experiencing massive ping issues who thought he was initially being DDOS'd. However, he wasn't, and this guy, for whatever reason, felt that the Russian "made him" DDOS him. "You're falsely claiming that I'm DDOSing you (which is an entirely reasonable assumption since I'm an absolute lunatic), so let me DDOS you to prove my innocence! It's alright, guys, he made me do it. I know you're in the middle of a tournament and all but I have to assert my dominance." These sorts of people will do anything to convince themselves that their unprovoked attacks on others are somehow morally justified, or are serving some "greater good." It would be almost cute if it wasn't so depressing...

Agreed. Lower frequencies offer so much warmth and fullness to music that it's both a pity and a surprise that they aren't more widely used. Sure, there are genres like dubstep that make heavy use of them, but sometimes it's a little excessive in their case. As for research done on oktavists and other extremely low-lying basses, I haven't managed to find much since it's such an extremely rare phenomenon, and even more rare outside of Eastern Europe. Their depth and resonance seems to mostly stem from three things: years of training and learning to use their chest voice to the absolute maximum, their extremely long and thick vocal cords, and their huge physical build (seriously, a typical oktavist is an absolute giant of a man; it's a little terrifying). Zlatopolsky, however, is simply on another level. I believe Freddie Mercury actually did use that subtone/subharmonic technique I mentioned, but more to add a sort of "distortion" to his voice than to expand his range. This article was an interesting read, though. Mercury was legendary, and a good reminder that even a typical baritone can become famous in the music industry.

F3 to D5 would make you a countertenor. Have to admit, I'm sometimes jealous of you tenors and your ability to hit effortless higher notes (heh). The vocal aspect of music probably interests me the most, so I enjoy discussing it whenever it arises in this thread (admittedly, I know rather little about any instrument other than that or the piano...). E2 to A3 here, but I have discovered an uncommon technique that allows me to maintain decent volume down to an octave beneath that E2. Not exactly the best range on the planet but I do obsess a little over the lower register. If you want to hear what that technique sounds like, bass singer Pavel Myakotin uses it to great effect, filling the room with a B1, and then an F#1. What he's actually doing is producing a B2 and F#2, and relaxing his vocal folds to produce a very convincing "subtone" an octave beneath that. There isn't much in the way of scientific research on this phenomenon, sadly. Something to do with differential tension of the vocal folds, I think. Anyone else interested in vocal range and whatnot?

From what I've learned about them, it seems that the inferior functions only come out under extreme stress, in a very raw and almost primal fashion, and cause the person in question to behave uncharacteristically. ENTJs/ESTJs who have inferior Introverted Feeling (Fi), for instance, will find themselves more sensitive to criticism than usual, INTJs/INFJs with inferior Extraverted Sensing (Se) will prioritize the thrill of the moment over their usual tendency to focus on the long-term, etc. Then you have "function loops" where you only use your dominant and tertiary functions. It's interesting to be sure, and adds another layer of depth to personality typology. "INXPs forget to think up new ideas and solutions and get stuck in old behavior patterns or revisiting old material (Si)." I have several INFP/INTP friends (and by that I mean I have enough of them to form my own army), and the majority of them become nostalgic or stuck in a rut under stress. It makes sense, when you consider that the function above the past-oriented Introverted Sensing (Si) is Extraverted Intuition (Ne), which is based more on novelty and possibilities.

Most likely still INTJ/ENTJ. Regardless, I'm rather glad to see this thread alive again. I swear if we get any more INFPs....

Kim Jong-un is my favorite fat dictator. Oh, you said "fascist." BTG took the words right out of my mouth with regard to Genghis Khan (everyone's favorite murderous Mongol!), so I'll reply with my second favorite, which was Shaka Zulu: purely for how utterly crazy he was. After his mother's death, he issued a three-month mourning period during which no one was allowed to eat anything whatsoever. Afterward, he proceeded to slaughter several cows so that the calves would feel the pain of losing their mother. To top it all off, he executed over 7,000 people who "didn't look sad enough."

lgKyC22SsUE

Despite his.... debatable economic policies, I voted for Sanders on Tuesday simply because: 1. Clinton has proved herself to be terribly capricious and never maintains one platform for long. 2. Trump is a pig-headed simpleton (I think mostly everyone here will agree with this). Admittedly prone to hyperbole and "playing to people's fantasies." 3. Rand Paul has suspended his campaign, and I disliked most of his stances on social issues anyway. 4. Ron Paul is retired. The first election in which I'm legally eligible to vote is the one in which none of the candidates's words resound with me much at all. I do agree with Username, however, that he (Sanders) is the greatest champion of the socioeconomically downtrodden of all those currently running. Why anyone feels that Trump would empathize with the middle class is beyond me...

thank you for your insight And for making me choke on my Mountain Dew.

jYDoIJNgBds

I just now saw this. Belated thank you?

1. Take responsibility for my actions (though they're usually not my fault). 2. Learn to slowdownandnotrushthrougheverythingIdo. 3. Follow through with everything that I plan (actually, I'll hold off on this one). 4. Attempt to keep my mind on one thing at a time OH LOOK A BIRD 5. Remain open to the ideas of others (wrong though they may be). 6. Be a little less perfectionistic (did I spell that correctly?). 7. Finish everything I sta

X6wIczLWZew yoomahsthavthuhstickuhz

The only problem I have with Finn is that lightsabers are weightless, and without the reflexes of a Force user, the wielder is as likely to kill himself as he is to actually hit something... and it was mentioned that he was merely a janitor (something about sanitation, if I recall correctly). At the start of the film, it's his first day in any sort of actual combat scenario. He couldn't have had too much melee training, considering how easily he's overpowered by the nameless stormtrooper with the vibroblade. Ren is a little more understandable, but she should nevertheless stand absolutely no chance against someone who's had extensive training in either side of the Force. Not to mention that she intuitively "knows" that she's Force-sensitive, is capable of resisting Kylo Ren's interrogation techniques, and is capable of mind tricking.... I was hoping I could say that I was completely satisfied with this film since I'm young enough that I've never actually had the chance to see Star Wars in a theater, but it raised too many questions throughout.

The strong resemblances to the original trilogy were part of the reason that I wasn't absolutely blown away by The Force Awakens. It struck me too much as heavy-handed fanservice and a lack of innovation more than it did adherence to the entire idea of Star Wars or any sort of policy resembling "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." I laughed knowingly at Han Solo's comment that "There's always a way to blow it up..." not only because it was comedic, but because it indicated just how trite the entire idea of "destroy this large, menacing superweapon built by the big bad and win For Great Justice" has become. The First Order feels like a carbon copy of the Empire (only with less exposition as to WHY it's being rebelled against), with Kylo Ren as a watered-down, morally challenged, temper tantrum-prone Darth Vader with daddy issues. He was practically a metrosexual teenage boy cosplaying as Vader (seriously, what Sith that strong in the Force manages to still be youthful and physically attractive?), but he never felt nearly as menacing. Snoke, the ACTUAL primary antagonist, has very little screen time and does nothing of any significance (I take it he'll be a little less forgettable in the two sequels). He's allegedly stronger in the Force than anyone else in the film, barring Luke, and yet he's only seen as what I assumed was a hologram. And considering Kylo Ren's comedic incompetence, I doubt his master is much more threatening in direct combat. Ren simply never struck me as particularly powerful, and his impeccable, wholly uncorrupted physical features only add to my impression that he was never all that great a threat to begin with. Merely a mad dog who was only imposing to his unquestioning lackeys. Speaking of strength in the Force... I'm still trying to wrap my head around the two protagonists wielding lightsabers with absolutely no prior training or experience (one of whom was merely a non-Force-sensitive grunt)... and standing toe-to-toe with Kylo. Even Boba Fett only has limited proficiency with a lightsaber (I don't know if this is canon but I've certainly heard it before), and he is arguably the most skilled bounty hunter in the entire franchise, putting up a decent fight against Obi-Wan... so how is Finn able to wield one at all without disemboweling himself? Last of all, it's never elaborated upon as to why finding Luke is vital to defeating the prepubescent buffoon that is Kylo Ren. At all. I understand that he was deliberately left as merely a legend, but Rey does manage to find him at the very end of the film... and even then it's never explained why he's needed. I'll simply have to leave it to the sequels to answer these questions, I suppose.

Glad you liked it. k barber's channel is a hub for ensemble music not particularly well-known in the West, so you may like some of his other uploads as well. Currently listening to: hj6pL1mJUIU

nbsWQqnWS_s

nkL9Dp2rRw0 Some of the lowest notes ever recorded in a choir here... an unamplified C1 from Mikhail Zlatopolsky at 4:50 (it's actually close to B0....). The baritone soloist is also quite a nice touch.

After having just finished writing an essay on MBTI for my psychology class, I'd hazard that it's because this one is based more on cognitive functions than it is your actual temperament. I'm not an extrovert, but I still primarily use Extraverted Thinking; I'm decisive and I enjoy having closure over all else. The primary function of ESFJs is Extroverted Feeling, which pretty much revolves around ethics, groupwork, and being able to realize how your actions impact others (which I think sums you up quite nicely). As for sensing vs. intuition, I can only guess why you changed. Si is based more on making conclusions from past experiences ("We've always done it this way" would be the catchphrase of Si), while Ni is based more on creativity and less so on proven facts. It's certainly an interesting foil to the test in the original post, which is based almost completely on your external behavior. This is probably the most entertaining description of the functions that I could find. I'll admit, most of the sites are rather bland and verbose: http://funkymbtifiction.tumblr.com/cognitivefunctions