Funny you should say that in defense of a ramshackle mausoleum. As if we think it's ugly because it's some kind of new vision.
Retard--we think it's ugly because it's ugly.
You're not looking at "low openness"--this is something different. It's called "aesthetic sense", or sometimes "taste".
@MickKavanagh83@Mr_NateMurphy Good. I'm not a Scot, but I want your people to survive and thrive. So have a good time here, you're welcome whenever, and then get back and preserve your amazing home.
@SGOffworld@AmazonMGMStudio@PrimeVideo YES YES YES. In all the talk about SG-1 (which, fair enough, respect on its name), I haven't seen enough about Atlantis and the SUPERLATIVE Universe.
@justicenow_alan@FloppingAces I live here, and the reflecting pool has been a green, smelly slime pit since this renovation you seem to think so highly of.
@patriot1776tex@TheMagaHulk Fucking nonsense. Planes at the time were made of paper and wood. Nobody was dropping fucking INCENDIARIES, for God's sake. "Historians agree"? No they don't . Try reading primary sources. And in case you didn't know this, LLM's will affirm whatever the hell you want them to.
You're doing grade-school arithmetic and imagining you've said something. The real world doesn't work this way--a dollar doesn't pass from Jeff Bezos or whatever to some teacher in Springfield. It transits a gantlet of bureaucrats, grifters, overpaid functionaries, middlemen, "facilitators," "coordinators". It's taxed and shunted to a million silly earmarks and initiatives that predate the Vietnam war. It's squeezed and shredded up in ways you don't know and couldn't understand.
So, when you post what your unsophisticated ratiocination deemed an insight, you're really telling us we shouldn't take you seriously. And we don't.
@avidseries@ignor3th1s This raises the question: why do you insist that their statistics and narratives hold explanatory value? You see the problem, but then you perpetuate it. It's puzzling.
Directionally, this is obviously way better than silly normative thinking.
I think you evince a blind spot, though, in that you often deify (and reify) a bunch of numbers as credible "data", which you then accept as proof of a position.
Agreed, many arguments can be definitively resolved by positivist analytical methodologies. But much of the "data" foisted off on the public is artifactual not of impartial scientific inquiry, but rather pervasive ideological capture.
A good example of this is the "right-wing violence" studies you have cited recently. A cursory examination of the study methods reveals credibility-annihilating choices, including not only the decisions made about timelines and start and stop dates, but also in the most basic definitions and classifications of the underlying stats.