[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1667869566867.png (19.69 KB, 600x450, 4:3, credit-score-ranges-600x45….png) ImgOps Google

I know people who have gotten apartments without going through a credit check, but I gather there's a growing trend to filter out applicants with poor credit score.  I have to guess there are similar filters for home buyers.

So, are you in favor of this trend, perhaps in that it will encourage people in general to be more responsible with the features that go into the credit score model, or are you not in favor?
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


People have the God-given right of not being murdered, and as a part of that they've got the innate right to adequate shelter.

If the argument is made that this mindset is supposedly wrong because it is claimed positive rights for goods and services doesn't exist, which is a take I don't agree with inherently because homelessness exists due to state violence interpreting property rules and the state otherwise organizing wealth distrubution in an oppressive way, then therefore people in the process of being murdered through lack of shelter should be able to exercise the right of self-defense and claim currently existing shelter. Taking over state controlled property or property otherwise maintained by the business interests tied to the state.

Communist oppression in which the many are forced into homelessness is ethically identical to corporatist oppression in which the many are forced into homelessness. Fight the power. Fight for the people.


The premise ignores the real issue, I think, which is just a severe lack of affordable new housing, and really, a lack of new housing in general. Piece of shit ""people"" in HOAs and special interest groups prevent this from happening, for greedy, evil, ignorant, self-serving reasons.

Credit scores would be a moot point of supply was allowed to match demand.


Of course they do.


File: 1668072964004.jpg (140.92 KB, 1169x1660, 1169:1660, pwut5ejk30z91.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Do you vote third party?
15 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I wonder what position Rand Paul still has in regards to libertarianism.

In regards to the political discourse of late, he does seem from a cursory glance to lean heavily into the MAGA crowd.

Maybe he's fallen from grace in the last few years, though.


Rand is a politician and made clear he'd sell ideals for convenience and efficacy.
It's why I didn't vote for him.
He is not his father.


I always vote strategically so I don't think I'd ever vote for the spoiler candidate if I were in the US, unless it were as a protest vote. Except I guess if I lived in an IRV state like Alaska. Then sure, my first choice would probably always go to a third party. I don't expect that system to spread over the rest of the States though. The people who have the power to change the voting system away from first-past-the-post are the very same people who benefit from keeping it in place. And by that I don't mean The Bad Party (whichever you think that is), but both of the big ones.


>Russian missiles stike Poland with multiple deaths confirrmed

It's been an honour shitposting with you guys. See you in the bunker


...it's true. do you really think poland will invoke article 5?

it could happen... the United States certainly wouldn't be happy with that, but it would not be in a position to reject an invocation of article 5. :c


File: 1668599175834.png (868.48 KB, 601x887, 601:887, ukrain1611.PNG) ImgOps Google


File: 1666481138146.png (324.04 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, large.png) ImgOps Google

So, my policy online is not to share my in-real-life face or voice.  Mostly this is because I don't have interest in the politics of which faces, voices, and presentations are appropriate and valid and which, if any, are not.

A secondary benefit is that I'm slightly more difficult to assault or harass IRL.  I've made some people very upset on the internet -- I like to think because those people were crazy, but obviously opinions vary on which party is crazy.  In any case, I want to make choices that keep people safe.

Now, some people don't care for my policy.  Perhaps they have shared an image of their face and feel it is rude not to reciprocate.  I've had job applications ask for a portrait (I think on principle I'm not doing those applications anymore).

Anyway, my question is: are people entitled to samples of your face and/or voice online?  And if so, what useful information should we expect them to extract from this image and/or sound data?
12 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Yeah. Though there is a difference between no privacy at work and "we can post employees faces and names on social media and in marketing materials". Though any company that would do the latter usually has you sign a waver for it.

Ok.  So it's perfectly fine to say -- "here's a picture of our employees."  Maybe even to put the names, but it seems gray area.

You need permission to say "Here's John Doe, who is never without our ABC brand Whatzit."



But if permission is boilerplate for every employment contract, then it's all effectively moot for employees.


File: 1666673287023.png (313.81 KB, 881x575, 881:575, 2022-03-25 04_22_51-Settin….png) ImgOps Google

Well yeah I assumed you need permission for either one.


File: 1665805348607.png (245.84 KB, 1080x964, 270:241, snapshot_1649362471256_2.png) ImgOps Google

What do you think of this argument?
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Certainly possible.
I will say there's a lot of naivety involved in regards to why someone would pay for something they know is real, or something they know suffered.
But outside of that, the industry wouldn't have, let's say, outsiders if this was how it was done.

This said, though, I'm not sure how much of the lot is outsiders to begin with.


I think the question ends up being if the increased supply fulfilling the demand ends up reducing harm, or if bringing it to the mainstream just brings more people into it. Personally, I'm pessimistic about the potential results.


The argument is that simulated sexual material of children functions as a kind of promotional advertisement that normalizes and strengthens the underlying attitudes.

So, watching a Honda commercial with animated guys driving an animated sedan has nothing specifically to do with actual cars. Watching it doesn't magically give you a car. It doesn't feel the same as driving one. However, the advertisement is designed inherently to make you want to be associated with something in real-life. Most won't watch it and buy a Honda. Some will.

That's the argument to why lolicon and other such media should be banned, even if it not only doesn't hurt actual people but helps to an extent significantly by channeling what could otherwise develop into real habits into fantasy.

I don't buy the argument personally because I believe it's factually wrong. Being saturated with violent video games, movies, television shows, and more haven't been shown like ever to make anybody more actually violent. Fantasy material that's divorced from reality... it's a difference that's simple to get. This is true in general and true in this case. Objectively speaking, evidence doesn't seem to exist that the audience who seeks out lolicon or whatever else are any more likely to be criminals than the general population. It doesn't work as advertisment.

Still, the opposing argument ought to be considered seriously.


File: 1666270547025.png (125.44 KB, 765x688, 765:688, BRUH LOOK AT THIS DUDE.png) ImgOps Google

>Becomes Prime Minister
>Tells everyone the Queen has died


I present a heartfelt congratulations to the lettuce.


Ya know?
I feel like society's polarized enough that politics is getting hard.

We're gonna see this impasse happen way more often in the coming years.


There needs to be a way to fundamentally change American politics so that if a national leader is widely despised and is actively hurting the citizens then they can just be kicked out.

Instead of the American people suffering under four whole years of pain, hatred, and misery just because the design of federal government demands it.


File: 1657236705048.jpg (45.95 KB, 694x600, 347:300, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'm sure I've created a thread like this before, but how much of politics is really debatable?

If you are a capitalist, you take a limited liability corporation and that corporate person's capacity to control private property as most needing honor.  Although people might tell others this system more efficiently manages resources than any other, implying perhaps that honor belongs to corporations only by deduction, politics feels in general to be something of a religious debate.  And it is impolite to denigrate another's religion.  (I don't mean to pick on free market folks in particular.)

I guess in order for a political matter to be debatable (in a productive way), there must be generally agreed upon values and people's political assertions should not be something like religious faith.  How often would you say that's the case, or what might indicate this is or is not the case?  What's the best strategy when you can't debate politics?
8 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Imagine you want to play a game of tennis, and two strangers offer that they'd like to play with you, separately.

The first comes to you as you're waiting, racket in hand, totally naked. He then holds out a cement brick and refers to it as his 'tennis ball'. He asks if you want to serve first. He then states that he will use his psychic powers to hit the 'ball' back at you if you go first.

The second similarly comes out to you as you wait. Everything seems normal other than how he's accompanied by a spectator not previously announced. You shake hands, and the spector holds out a submachine gun. You're now informed that whomever loses the game is to be immediately executed for their failure.

This is what debating politics amount to.

First, we have entirely different views of what factual reality exists in the world to the point where we might as well be literal space aliens to each other.

Second, the punishment for failing to properly achieve a political cause is literally either direct physical harm or death (not always, but often enough and especially on the biggest issues such as abortion and gun rights).


I've seen politics where people have what I would consider strange ideas, and if people are quite happy with their ideas, even if they are not my ideas, I can accept them.

For the second case, I feel people have a right to self-defense that goes beyond politics.  If the political folks try to shoot you, you should tell them you don't care for that.


File: 1665400383220.png (253.63 KB, 1068x738, 178:123, enpol_watermark.png) ImgOps Google

words are illusions of power
that are exploited in the world that is also an illusion
we don't live in the world, we live in hell.
that is truth of politics.


File: 1665013640479.png (7.25 KB, 200x200, 1:1, circle.png) ImgOps Google

Let's try a thread where you answer the question: "How are you?"  Your answer need not contain detail.  Your state will be grouped into at least three categories based on how good you seem.  Sympathy will be offered if you seem mostly bad.  Gladness will be shared if you seem mostly good.  If uncertain, a part of your answer may be repeated with a phrase such as "I see that you are" added.  If you do not welcome this process you may specify that you opt out and request no response to your post.  This preference must be clearly specified, welcoming response will be considered the default.

Other unspecified discourse may occur based on the discretion of users.  If you do not care for this thread, for whatever reason, you must create a new thread to discuss your issue.  This thread is not for existential discussions of this thread.


File: 1665057878212.png (7.25 KB, 200x200, 1:1, circle.png) ImgOps Google

Probably one has to prime the pump, as a metaphor.

>How are you?
I've been better.


File: 1665096622278.png (7.25 KB, 200x200, 1:1, circle.png) ImgOps Google

>I've been better.
I see that you've been better, Magnificent Octopus.


Perhaps I am asking for too much information.  I'll create another social thread without the status request.


File: 1661189996805.jpg (978.35 KB, 2122x1412, 1061:706, sub-buzz-1450-1637280411-7….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I've heard people say that because of tipping culture, the service worker will do better trying to serve the customer to get as high as a tip as possible.

But is this actually true?

Do you know if the service in say an average American bar is way better than in an average European or Asian bar?

Also, feel free to share your thoughts on tipping culture in general.
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1663236227723.jpg (1.75 MB, 980x1415, 196:283, 9b77cb53d54bb89645ca0868b3….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So the concept of "quiet quitting" has been coming up lately, and I'm thinking of it together with the idea of "better tips better service". I'm going to consider "refusing to do your job well without a little something on the side from the end client" a more toxic but less cringeworthy version of "quiet quitting". And my question is this:

Don't these people have managers or supervisors? Isn't there somebody whose job it is to make sure the required work gets done to a satisfactory quality?

I'm not faulting the workers here but rather a rash of passive management that I've noticed has become more prevalent. Of course workers aren't going to go above and beyond if you just shove them in a box half trained with a rough idea of what they're supposed to do and then go home. If you don't give a crap then why should they? You're the one here who is actually invested in this operation going well, they're just punching a clock. Instead everybody is laser focused on some spreadsheet that came from on high with some arbitrary metrics that are ambiguations of how somebody else did something else so we must meet these same metrics too.

Walk the floor. See how the staff treat the customers, and if there is a problem either fix them or fire them. Stop expecting your customers and your employees to do your job for you.


I feel the problem with quiet quitting is just that companies are just constantly downsizing and squeezing every penny out of their workforce while work schedules and demands are getting more and more eggregious.

I feel every worker should have the drive to perform their work properly, but it's necessary the workers can work in a proper environment, no expenses are spared to give people the tools to do their job and there is plenty enough organisation that people can find time to close off the work for the day.

But companies are downsizing, taking up new obligations, but refusing to expand the workforce or provide the proper tools. And there are working spaces where there is no more room for respect and kindness.
And then people are surprised when the workers refuse to take on all that extra workload for free?

Quiet quitting to me doesn't sound like unsupervised workers loafing around and not doing their work. It sounds like the bosses want their workers to work 18 hours per day and do it with a smile, while their pay gets cut in half again.


My work promotes the notion of tipping to workers, yet few people actually tip.  Those who do tip generally tip so little as to be a negligible supplement to income.  Those few people who tip well are so few and far between as to be an anomaly yet drive up the averages from ~2% tip rate to ~5% tip rate.  I make zero additional effort for tips because I know that my effort has almost no bearing on tip rates.  Also, people who outright say they will tip generally don't, and are in fact just looking for additional unpaid effort or special favors out of the worker.  After their service ends, they will simply "forget" to tip, and the extra effort/favors will be for nothing.  Tipping is simply used as a hypothetical benefit to equivalent employment and as a substitute for real income paid by the employer.  As such, I accept tips, but I do not "work for tips."


File: 1664090089415.jpg (294.24 KB, 1265x1692, 1265:1692, 2473257.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'm reading books about the Chinese use of surveillance technology.  The Chinese state-truth is that these technologies are helping prevent terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism.  While I'm sure the books I'm reading would be condemned by the Chinese state as western propaganda, and I suppose we are to be as respectful as possible, some believe instead surveillance is being used by the state to oppress, torture, and eradicate Uyghurs in China, and sometimes outside China.

I used to have a job in electronics security about 15 years ago [in the USA], and I didn't see anything too worrying.  Camera systems were buggy, somewhat analog, and required authorities to physically transfer files when something of interest happened.  But everything has improved since then.

Do you worry about the increase in surveillance technology, or do you think some groups should worry?  Or do you instead think this technology is making the world safer -- for everyone?


File: 1664153409027.jpeg (216.49 KB, 840x1200, 7:10, 08023cffc06e1ef3e0c6eb040….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Like all technology, surveillance cameras can be used both for good and for evil.


I guess we are moving into the abstract, so how are good and evil summed?  That is, if tech is used for 1/2 good and 1/2 evil, should we worry about the evil, or consider it a net neutral and of no concern?


I don't trust states with it.
Helps that governments have historically done more damage than terrorists, separatists, and your typical criminals.

Ultimately cameras can do significant good.
But the downside to them is whoever controls them can omit the parts that don't like.
Bodycams are the most obvious example


File: 1663701692910.gif (479.05 KB, 704x591, 704:591, 889389__safe_screencap_flu….gif) ImgOps Google

Lately I have following a bit more than usual news coming the USA, specially those about an specific ex-president and his careless management of documents.

However, lately Youtube has been suggesting me news from both right and left leaning media about how some governors in that country are playing hot potato with people coming from my country, I mean people that I could actually walk by while doing errands downtown but for some reason they decided to enter the USA.

Does anyone could tell me what is going on?

Left media seems to be blaming Texas governor for sending those people to a very fancy place called Martha's Vineyard and other locations around the country.

Right media is calling out the alleged hypocrisy of people living in those places for not offering accommodation in a place that supposedly can due to its status as touristic hotspot.

Regardless, quite sad all of this if you ask me...    
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The long and short of it goes; People who aren't affected in the slightest by things are suddenly affected, and they don't like it.

People calling it "human trafficking" is funny to me, given the state's been relocating people with little to no say like this for ages.
And not even non-citizens, as memory serves New York got in big trouble a while back for doing it with their homeless.


Does that make it ok to do?


It makes me uninclined to care.
As others have said, it's a publicity stunt to demonstrate hypocrisy.
The harm done seems quite mild, and again, because of hypocrisy, ignored on the other side.

Ultimately I find no cause to care for the moral outrage of those who lack principle.


File: 1662641019610.jpg (106.21 KB, 857x1024, 857:1024, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This is a tread for ponies who do not need a college degree to be happy.  Or maybe more generally for ponies who learn and succeed without feeling a need to involve state authorities.

It's not really a debate, if we suppose happiness is subjective and the best authority on happiness is oneself.  If you wish to debate either of these suppositions, you may start a new thread.  It's more a support thread.
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1662952442338.png (276.82 KB, 1080x1062, 60:59, Screenshot_20220911-173116….png) ImgOps Google

I'm okay.  Do you follow any rats/postrats/TPOT on Twitter?


Not really much on twitter.  I do Facebook a bit, but I mostly keep to myself.  I want to do an original take on ponies (so nobody can stop me from expressing myself because of copyright) and stick to posts about science, technology, math, and nature on social media, and write about books in the public domain.  I find what I create is boring to most people, and I'm working on accepting that and not feeling sad.

Do you like Twitter?  What kinds of things do you write about on Twitter?


File: 1662982926979.jpg (226.06 KB, 800x600, 4:3, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Picture that was suppose to go with the post.


File: 1662417405025.jpg (68.68 KB, 800x335, 160:67, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Evildoers must be punished [by authorities].  That is the essence of Justice.

Evil ponies are those that choose evil.  Evil is not a misunderstanding, or the result of mental illness or brainwashing, or a pony that harms only because that harm was the lesser evil they were allowed to choose [eg. trolly problem].  Evil can only be a conscious, active choice when good was an option.

I guess...do I have that correct?  And if so, what can be said of this evil or is it beyond reckoning?
9 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1662595779218.jpg (209.95 KB, 1044x1599, 348:533, a70d4291c89fadbf7d827467bd….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Is it not the role of authorities to settle what is evil in cases with disagreement
Yes, that is supposed to be their role, but they are not always perfect at it.  Sometimes the authorities themselves are evil, for example, when they impose and enforce gun-control laws.


If you follow the blog post you don't see evil as a moral choice.  You would see it as behavior subject to conditioning.  Perhaps that's part of what is confusing to me, because the views of evil require totally different kinds of thinking.


File: 1662652915969.jpg (10.71 KB, 480x360, 4:3, evillaugh.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

If it weren't ME doing evil, someone else would be here doing it worse! My evil has scruples, and if I stopped doing it, that void would be filled by someone without those scruples!


File: 1654039501586.png (8.34 KB, 315x277, 315:277, Screenshot from 2022-05-31….png) ImgOps Google

I've been going through some books on rampage violence in America.  It's a subject on people's minds on social media, and is generally one of the top 5 or so common debate topics in the USA.

Different ideas about the shape of the curve in the graph [image] account for much disagreement.  You first have to ask what sources may be admitting in filling out the graph, potentially including feelings as a source.

Another element of the debate is over natural rights.  I personally don't see a lot of room for rigor in theories of natural law and natural rights.  But in theory, all the particulars to a God-given right to private arms are self-evident and only tyrants have anything to add.

You are free to share your opinions.  I think I'm in a discovery phase on this issue.
37 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Oh, and I guess I should link Ctrl+Pew as well.
Guy actually designs some bits from time to time, memory serves, and is also probably a better goahead for finding the raw files if you're so inclined.


Thank you for the videos.


File: 1660234207342.png (459.06 KB, 1080x1467, 120:163, Screenshot_20220803-131352….png) ImgOps Google

>I've only ever heard that 3D printed weapons are pieces of garbage and fail after being fired once, though, so if you disagree with this please let me know why and show links.
Depends.  If you 3D-print a barrel out of PLA, you're going to have a bad time.  But in the US, only the receiver is the regulated part.  You can 3D-print an AR-15 lower receiver and buy the rest of the parts.  You can't 3D-print a whole gun out of plastic -- at least the barrel and firing pin need to be metal.  There are 3D printers that can print metal, but they are very expensive.  


File: 1656107606313.jpg (84.47 KB, 586x600, 293:300, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Fluttershy knows best.

Question: should the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade be looked at in isolation -- a technical Supreme court issue of no great concern to non-experts -- or does it signal deeper meaning about human rights, state political directions, or concerns over American demographics (Elon Musk: “Population collapse is potentially the greatest risk to the future of civilization.”)?

Do you think other supreme court rulings based on the 14th Amendment (&etc.) will also be found to have been mistaken in the near future?
57 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It is true that there's some flaw in arguing for abortion only on the exotic cases of the pregnancy posing a danger to the mother.

But even outside those cases, it's worth to ask whether a woman should be forced to carry a baby if they are not in a good place to be a mother (too young, too old, having mental/physical disability / not able to provide a good environment for a kid /...)
heck, if they refuse the responsibility for taking care of the baby/kid, should they still be forced to bring a baby in the world?


It's not exotic, pregnancy IS dangerous. Of course we have better medical care now than we did in the past, but there are many complications and reasons why a women may decide to not become pregnant. But there's also those grey areas, that that video mentions, where what if the women goes into labor and the doctors know, KNOW, the child is not going to live outside of the womb. Can they abort? Maybe, but some doctors or nurses may hesitate for fear of getting sent to jail or prison, risking their own careers and lives. And then the mother dies as well.

Or all these people who are not able to get life changing, or saving, medications because those medications are capable of causing abortions.

There are too many grey areas, and no experts on the matter (doctors) seem to have been allowed to weigh in and provide more clear answers and solutions to those grey areas.


The problem is that the US is a common law country. What you say is completely valid... in a country following a Napoleonic Legal code like France and the rest of Continental Europe where disputes are resolved by statutes and laws are written in a rigidly codified format. We follow an English legal tradition where disputes and discrepancies are resolved by tradition and by the courts. An argument that judges shouldn't be deciding doctrine is less an argument against a particular ruling and more an argument against the Constitution and the Anglo-American legal system.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]