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

/townhall/ - Townhall

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


File: 1559435267262.png (905.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Mayor,_Let's_get_galloping….png) ImgOps Google

Welcome to /townhall/! This is an anonymous-only board for debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature.

As the topics discussed on this board may deal with sensitive or controversial subject matter, we expect a higher standard of conduct than elsewhere on the site, and will enforce the board's rules with a greater degree of strictness. Inability or unwillingness to follow the rules will result in a /townhall/-only ban.


1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.

2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.

3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1653566576996.jpg (63.55 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, 1200px-Cheerilee_is_sweet_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In the Western world, there's often an obligation for kids to take up a fulltime education in schools. Some kids have the option to do homeschooling, but even then you are obligated to follow a set curriculum.
While you are allowed to take up a part time employment during your teenage years, there will be restrictions in how much hours you can be employed.

With all the criticism on education and the concerns of the state encroaching on the freedom of the individuals, do you think we should do away with this system?
Should people be free to choose whether to enroll their kids into schools and be free to allow home schooling or self education in the curriculum of their desire if they wish?
Should we perhaps look into options of apprenticeships in the actual workforce rather than a forced curriculum or even open up fulltime employment opportunity for kids of all ages if they so desire?

If a standard education would become optional, should we relieve our society of the value of a preset education? As such should standards for education become a privilege rather than a fundamental right? (id est, kind of like college right now, it will be more of a private school situation with heavier costs if you wish to pursue it, but with the basics picked up from homeschooling and apprenticeships you're encouraged enough to be productive)
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>but even then you are obligated to follow a set curriculum
Depends on where you are. I certainly didn't, and the better I am for it.
State mandated most anything is rarely good.

>Should people be free to choose whether to enroll their kids into schools and be free to allow home schooling or self education in the curriculum of their desire if they wish?
Choice is vital, and it's quite clear, at least in the US, the state doesn't make good choices when it comes to education.

>Should we perhaps look into options of apprenticeships in the actual workforce rather than a forced curriculum or even open up fulltime employment opportunity for kids of all ages if they so desire?
I'm not a huge fan of such things, as they create an obligation.
Generally speaking I think any long time obligation is a bad idea, but especially when it comes to kids who don't really have the means to measure such commitments or their benefits to their costs.

>If a standard education would become optional, should we relieve our society of the value of a preset education?
Already is worthless.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


I would say it would be nice to at the very least not have to spend our prime years in further schooling in order to get into a career or field.
Spending 4+ years after turning 18 in order to get a decent job is certainly an unfair and unreasonable expense of both time and money.


Your post seems to address a lot of ideas.  I don't know a lot, but in many places parents may home-school, although the students are still required to get tests to see if they are learning.  I think your example contrasts in giving parents the right to educate their children in a specialty and neglect other subjects.

The problems with child labor, I suppose, are really problems of labor in general: workplace safety, the only available work not helping you learn or develop, and exploitation given power hierarchies.  I guess the conventional view is adults may appropriately make choices that involve these areas, children mostly may not.  You could argue children sent out to the coal mine weren't subject to any greater or lesser harm than adults, so why the age-related views?  But I don't know.  I studied some child psychology, but it's a difficult science because you can only get scientific validity for tiny pieces.  And the questions are often in a form like yours - "what is harmful to a child's well-being?"   Well, that depends on what you consider a healthy child and healthy adult.  If a healthy adult is a coal miner or coder with maximum experience, start early.  If it's something more flexible, another approach.

If you want my opinion, it's that deleting K-12 would be a mistake.  Sure some gifted children with attentive parents would do fine, perhaps even better.  Will students with uneducated parents or overworked parents do better?  When the quality or availability of public education goes down, do things get better historically?


...i watched a documentary today, while exercising, and i got very engrossed in it. it was called, American Factory, on the Netflix.

i do not watch much netflix, but i had this strongly recommended, so i watched it.

...it is about an American factory that shut down, and was replaced by a Chinese owned and operated factory, but in the United States

it showed the cultural differences between America and China... and much more. i felt the translations were a bit unfair, but i do not think the ... interpretations of the cultures were far off point.

as an asian american... Chinese/Taiwanese American, to be precise, i felt very torn between two worlds i can recognize.

i wonder... have you seen this documentary? maybe you can watch this trailer to get a sense.

and maybe, we can discuss!

i'd like to think this is not a very political discussion or anything, and its not a debate.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
46 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1653456704045.jpg (297.23 KB, 1289x1060, 1289:1060, Screenshot_20210118-113102….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Reading through this thread I just want to comment that I find a lot of arguments about collectivism vs individualism kinda pointless and rooted in a flawed reductionist framing wherein the two concepts are treated as mutually exclusive and that cultures are treated as exclusively one or exclusively the other when in reality most cultures fall somewhere in between the two and analyzing and comparing cultures is more productive when one ask questikns like how each culture is collectivist or individualist or when it's more one than the other.

Would certainly be a whole hell of a lot better (and frankly more honest) than stand-offish arguments about whether or not one should even exist or arguments over who's was worse. It's especially absurd given that there really isn't such a thing as a truly homogeneous culture.


Personally, I'm an absolutist about individualism.
So it'd probably not pan out any different for me.


Not gonna lie, every time I post here I worry that some day this place is going to show up on the evening news.


File: 1652057904580.png (78.57 KB, 615x615, 1:1, 6403268.png) ImgOps Google

"3D video games are running enough math to compute and draw an entire three-dimensional world with tens of millions of triangles and complex interacting physics, and they're doing it SIXTY TIMES EVERY SECOND (at least! More than twice that if you're using a 144Hz monitor). That is, they're doing it once every ~16.67 miliseconds. (6.95ms at 144 frames per second). Consider that fact, next time you open some boring 2D software on your computer and it takes a couple seconds to load a dozen flat buttons and images, and then you click on a menu and it inexplicably hitches for a few hundred milliseconds."

More at: https://AstralCodexTen.substack.com/p/why-do-people-prefer-my-old-blogs/comment/6403268
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


This person may know nothing at all about computers. I don't know anything about computers but I know enough to disregard anything that they say on the topic.

Visual rendering happens almost entirely on the GPU, as stated above. Less stated is that 3D rendering is almost entirely the same calculation. Rendering is fairly unique in that it involves thousands of fairly trivial calculations that don't impact each other so they can be run on thousands of minimal processors simultaneously. Traffic management is minimal and solved in hardware. Some of your most expensive operations you can do are read-writes that are not generally necessary in how a GPU operates. And the 3D rendering possible has strict rules to simplify the linear algebra involved and make it as convenient for a computer as possible. It's why rendering "polygons" are always triangles and never squares. I recommend skimming the Red Book even if you only play games. It's a fascinating read and easy to find free.

By comparison opening a menu is an enormous operation that is limited to a single logical thread. It isn't hanging up because rendering a rectangle on the screen is that hard. It's hanging up because rendering that rectangle is the last step in an enormous data operation and I feel like anybody who even knows what programming is would be aware of that. Word processors and other data programs don't hang up because the letter 'a' is soooo hard to render.

Also there's the priorities. If a primitive just vomits all over itself and the rendering goes tits up for a single frame, or if a frame gets pushed out half finished or missing completely then nobody will care. It matters for 16 milliseconds. In other applications, especially online where packet security is important and data may arrive corrupted or missing portions and so there may be expectations to recover damaged or missing data through a communications delay that can be noticed by humans. Again the lag isn't in rendering a rectangle with letters on it. The lag is in the work you don't see solving other, generally more urgent problems that are designed so you don't notice anything went wrong but a brief second of unexpected waiting.


File: 1652810111504.png (209.53 KB, 676x943, 676:943, input-lag-latency.png) ImgOps Google

>By comparison opening a menu is an enormous operation that is limited to a single logical thread. It isn't hanging up because rendering a rectangle on the screen is that hard. It's hanging up because rendering that rectangle is the last step in an enormous data operation and I feel like anybody who even knows what programming is would be aware of that.
25 years ago, CPUs were 10 times slower just by clock speed alone, but they were still pretty snappy at 2D GUI rendering.  My home machine running Linux on 8-year-old bare metal with a lightweight desktop environment is pretty snappy.  I think Windows is slow due to bloat, useless eye candy, built-in spyware, and no real attempt to keep latency under control.

Somewhat related: https://danluu.com/input-lag/


That's interesting.  That's a kind of slow.

In your original post, I was thinking more of cases where you select Edit in Microsoft Office and it takes 7 seconds to draw the menu, or something.


File: 1650070703590.png (441.31 KB, 1400x951, 1400:951, Moony Money.png) ImgOps Google

For discussing the other thread, in /pony/, concerning Elon Musk
54 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1652516723346.png (514.46 KB, 924x987, 44:47, 1020350.png) ImgOps Google

What did I say!? He's tanking the deal just as it comes time to sign his name on the cheque, and the next thing we'll know the money will be all gone!


How so?


File: 1652736841988.png (214 KB, 680x880, 17:22, 8ea.png) ImgOps Google

Because he suspended the sale?

It's pure speculation for the most heavily romanticized, least likely scenario. I had a freaking essay analyzing it but I deleted that because all I really care about is how money moves, not the personalities involved. If Musky Husky *really* wants to buy Tweetie Bird then I guess he can? I don't know why he would but he can. But if it were me this would all be an extremely public very dramatic pump-and-dump. That's a more fun scenario for me to envision but in reality it's just a publicity stunt to drive down the $44b figure. Which if Twitter weren't fucking dead already (financially) would blow up in his face? That's the broad consensus on the Street at least (reflected by share price). It's just boring.


File: 1651618165794.jpg (23.5 KB, 800x600, 4:3, Full-Moon-Image.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This is not ideological, political, social, religious, philosophical, or anything of the sort, but it's a serious topic so this is the place to bring it up probably.

Recent news came out about the head of NASA, Bill Nelson, asking the U.S. government for an investment of $26 billion for the fiscal year 2023.

What are the goals? Main thing appears to be the NASA Artemis III mission, which aims for a scheduled 2025 moon landing. Other important advances are coming.

Is this a good idea? I'm personally not sure if establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon is a good investment of time, money, and resources? What else should be happening? Thoughts?

< https://www.clickorlando.com/news/space-news/2022/05/03/watch-live-at-10-am-bill-nelson-testifies-about-26-billion-nasa-budget/ >
11 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Is that value based in anything but the novelty? Because if it's based in novelty, the value will plummet once it becomes an automated system and it becomes the norm. Plus, we want the moon where it is and how it is. Don't want to fuck up the oceans and ruin eclipses and stuff.


That's the transit costs in relation to how much they brought back.
They didn't bring much to begin with, and besides that, they weren't in a dedicated cargo hauler.
Real prices will be significantly lesser


Especially if there aren't humans aboard.


File: 1651703159203.jpg (100.6 KB, 800x640, 5:4, Supreme_Court_Front_Dusk.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Hypothetical:  A law is passed in 1900.
In 1910, the court rules the law unconstitutional.
After 1910, people violate this currently unconstitutional law in ways that leave evidence, but the state will not punish.
In 1950, the law is judged constitutional again.

Are those violations from the past now subject to prosecution since the law is constitutional?  The law was broken after it was passed, so this is not a clear ex post facto situation.
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Probably not new laws, but the charges would need be after the changed decisions.


Ok you're trying to answer hardcore constitutional law questions that are going to be up for serious legal debate for years with some middle school civics.


Are you arguing with Sweet Panda and/or Mellow Eagle's answer or my restatement of their answers?


File: 1651629099427.jpeg (305.87 KB, 1400x584, 175:73, w.jpeg) ImgOps Google

What would be perfect society at the absolute pinnacle of advancement be like? Not the most perfect realizable civilization, but the actual best life imaginable for everyone?

Would it be completely free of pain and struggle, with all things we covet and pray for, all manner of sensual gratification, the deepest love and the greatest sense of achievement, absolute enlightenment, available at a mere thought or less?

If you could personally change and improve anything about life, society, technology, to the limits of your imagination, again and again to the unlimited future, what do you think your ultimate, final version of reality would be?
10 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


If you'll pardon the song form, I think this does a good job of exploring that notion;

War is not pleasant, to be sure, but conflict and violence are not inherently wrong.
There's a time and a place for such things. What we must always remember is the cost, that we don't act unduly.


Would you consider that a maximally progressed society, or would those people strive for progress themselves? Would you imagine such a civilization would remain indefinitely, unchanged for millions of years, or might they have their own ideas of advancement? I don't mean to suggest these are easy questions, but it bears putting forward the implications of a "perfect" utopia being reached.


I like the song.  It's a good point -- if you are building a utopia without war you have to ensure there aren't reasons people would want to go to war.  I suppose at the very least you'd have to say no war, and no oppressive police state.

In the end, I do believe violence is wrong.  Or maybe more generally trying to hurt people is wrong, as your song talks about starving people, which might not be violence exactly, but I think you have to count that as under the umbrella.  Or more generally still, trying to hurt people who are not credibly trying to hurt you is wrong and, even then the hurting should be at a minimum and preventative of harm.

And if my utopia starts at peace, nobody will have a reason to make war.  I have to assert there will be societal organizations and sufficient per capita resources to keep people reasonably content, so although there will be rivalries and conflict, things will be stable enough that groups will not desire the extermination of other groups.  Which I guess is utopian, but that's the tread.  :)


File: 1649553007574.jpeg (110.66 KB, 900x1163, 900:1163, 3FA790F6-02B9-448D-811A-7….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Will got banned for 10 years
7 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


In a just world, it would be up to Chris.


The wealthy rarely do anyway. In a practical sense, this may well be a stronger punishment.
Assuming he remains banned for the set time, anyway.



File: 1651260032666.png (711.45 KB, 959x616, 137:88, Disney-CEO-Bob-Chapek.png) ImgOps Google

Have you followed the Disney company losing its special legal status in Florida due to the corporation expressing opposition (especially in terms of CEO Bob Chapek's comments) to recent legal changes by the state's sitting Governor on children's education?

Context: https://www.wesh.com/article/desantis-reedy-creek-wakeup-call-disney/39859459#

Apparently, millions of dollars are at stake. It's not clear who will be left holding the bag. Disney's previous situation had both advantages and disadvantages in terms of taxpayers.

Do you fundamentally think that corporations should speak out about discrimination and prejudice against people who're Jewish, LGBT, and disabled, particularly when it comes to education?

If that does happen, should said company fairly receive pushback from Americans who hold to social traditionalist views against people who're Jewish, LGBT, and disabled, particularly parents who don't want inclusive views on minority rights taught to their children?

In this specific case, what will likely happen to local Floridians with the legal changes? Is it a fight worth having for Disney? For the Governor?
62 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It's not an irrational fear. It's fact. Conservatives are engaged in bigotry in terms of political actions such as this Flordia measure, and people are dying as a result. It should all stop.


I've yet to see evidence that this particular bill is killing anyone.


i'm not even gonna bother linking all the violating posts, just yeah, you were asked to tone it down and completely ignored that warning. You have a history of this kind of posting on townhall and honestly i think the place is just bad for you and your mental health, so i'm issuing a permanent ban (townhall only). You are free to appeal if you want.

Also, locking the thread since we already gave it a chance to recover once.


I heard today trump in court told they judge abs other that he would tell his guards to be aggressive if protester through tomatoes at him appearanlty he is scared of friut And tomotoes
26 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Fascists are antigovernment, though, that's why they organize as militias.
Fascists are authoritarians first and foremost.

>They're also against tyranny and oppressive states.
Definitely not.  No.  What is your definition of fascist, if it's not most simply first and foremost a totalitarian state?

>Hence why if you look up the Oath Keepers specifically you see them justly described as far right and fascists.
By who?

I can find sources calling Obama an Islamist. Didn't make it true


Are you really not able of understanding that Amercisn fascists claim to be patriotic, libertarian, antigovernment, and so on in opposition to the current U.S. government as a part and parcel of their agenda of replacing it with a right-wing state to benefit right-wing people?


It just appears downright contradictory and conspiratorial besides.

I've no cause to believe these groups want to replace the US with a fascist totalitarian government.


File: 1651259326518.jpg (157.64 KB, 999x575, 999:575, Chickens-Being-Studied.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Are you concerned about the proliferation of the H5N1 disease known as "bird influenza"?

Context: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/highly-contagious-bird-flu-detected-person-first-time-us-health-offici-rcna26581

Health experts in the U.S. state that the danger to humans from the afflictions rapidly spreading among avian species is minimal. Are they right? Maybe they're too cautious?
25 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I agree. Shame you take such strong issue with it.
Pointing out the objective fact that the MSM has significant bias in pharmaceutical interests shouldn't be controversial.


Pointing out the objective fact that scientific reporting still exists that educates shouldn't be controversial.

Again, I hope to God you wake up at some point and put down the kool-aid.


I agree. It's a good thing I never said it didn't exist. You keep trying to make these gotcha's out of stuff I've never said nor ever stood against.

There's no Kool aid beam drunk here, you are jumping at ghosts


File: 1651087843551.png (211.78 KB, 1080x1115, 216:223, Screenshot_20220426-153655….png) ImgOps Google

I found this an interesting blog post.  Any thoughts on it?



This is a great argument, and it's well presented. Thank you.


I like it.


File: 1648154945520.png (655.39 KB, 1514x1220, 757:610, commentorsentiments.png) ImgOps Google

I get a sense of political sentiments on Facebook usually, as it's the site most regular folks seem to use to express these kinds of opinions.  So sometimes you click down to the comments section of news stories.  In these two news stories, I looked at about 30 comments and quickly put them in categories.  I believe they are roughly representative of what I see on Facebook on other stories.  Russia seems to have a fair amount of support.  I come from a little different perspective sentimentally, but perhaps I can ask some open ended questions here to try to understand better and overcome my biases.

Please, if you like, answer which best describes your sense of the Russo-Ukrainian War, especially as escalated a month ago.

a) There is no such war, or there is no reliable way of affirming any significant military force is being used, has been used since 2014, or will be used by Russians in Ukraine.

b) There is some conflict, but it's not significant because Western nations have done so much worse.

c) The conflict is real, but Ukraine is not a legitimate state, so it is really a conflict with Western forces that are attacking Russia through the Ukraine territory, attacking Russians in that territory, or hurting innocents in horrible ways.  The West's evil started this war, basically.

d) The conflict is real, Ukraine is a state, but Russia is responding in self defense to Ukrainian aggression or general evil.  (It is rare to see people believe Ukraine is sufficiently independent for this to be true, but I'll make it an option anyway.)

e) The conflict is real, Ukraine is real, and Russia is the instigator invading a sovereign nation.

What I'd like, if possible, is amplifying information as to why you have your opinion, since I can already access volumes of opinions elsewhere, but they are rather short and repetitive.
62 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It's rather likely that mass use of advanced electronic technology in justice is such a new thing in terms of human nature that it can't be scientifically studied yet, even if we have ideas right now? We need more time? Maybe? I agree with you. I wonder how it all shakes out. All very interesting.


I guess I just think it's interesting because I've been trying to think of ways to use smartphones and other small devices to do science.  And you think about all that data that's out there, or could be out there.

The counter-arguments that come to my mind are: encryption and bottle-necks.

If the Nazi's had encrypted everything they recorded, they would have only needed to destroy the crypto keys.

And then, although there are countless cameras to record war-crimes, assuming you plan to take control of the region and take possession of all digital storage what matters is the data getting out before then.  And that data is mostly going to go through cell towers or broadband internet.  If your fist move severs those connections, you may be able to render the region just as information-dark as if you were marauding a village in medieval times.


It's certainly possible that all that could happen, agreed. Not sure what future post-2000s/post-2010s military conflicts will look like.


File: 1651591560393.png (1.5 MB, 1259x885, 1259:885, Politico.png) ImgOps Google

Have you followed the harlots losing their ability to terminate lives at will due to a leaked SCOTUS ruling indicating the impending overturning of Roe v. Wade?

Context: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

Do you fundamentally think that people should speak out about this restriction of previously liberated sexuality among irresponsible females, pedophiles, and terrorists, when it comes to the inevitable consequences of careless promiscuity?

Should the Supreme Court receive preemptive pushback from left wing individuals in the form of "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" to force the Supreme Court to overturn its impending decision, in what would be another legitimate use of "the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives", and thereby defend the inalienable rights of harlots, pedophiles, and terrorists?

In this specific case, what will likely happen to the harlots following these legal changes?  Is it a fight worth having for Leftist pedos?

This thread is a demonstration of how manipulative framing both poisons the well and is a ridiculous basis for debate/discussion.  If you notice, no arguments are presented.  Things are merely implied.  It is intended to be absurd and demonstrate the point that this is not useful.


File: 1651593863206.png (236.14 KB, 730x720, 73:72, 2797815.png) ImgOps Google

This thread blatantly violates rule #2 (ad hominem and straw man arguments), locking.

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