1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
sinesalvatorem
jadagul

I think one of my favorite place names is “Pendle Hill”.

In old England, it was just called something like “Pennul”. This was a compound of a Celtic word “Pen” (meaning “hill”) and the English word “hyll” (meaning “hill”).

Thus the place is literally called “Hill-hill hill.”

sinesalvatorem

This is beautiful

polyamoroustabout

There’s also The La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, which translates to “the the tar tar pits.” In a city with a big bilingual population.

Source: jadagul
fnord888

In Which I, Probably Vainly, Attempt to Transition From Trump to Trump-unrelated Substantive Topics, Specifically Age and Authority

polyamoroustabout

Bu5@slatestarscratchpad​ recently posted this analysis of Trump’s declining speaking style in a link post on their off-tumblr blog.

There’s obviously some deeply concerning implications there, among them “holy shit this guy used to be able to speak compellingly, who would have guessed” and “oh god this is our president” and “what if I’ve been mocking someone for the symptoms of a disease for the past two years.” But I’m going to try to blow past all of that to talk about weird pie-in-the-sky speculation about societal structures and hope literally anyone is interested in following along.

(pictured: everybody leaving)

So the thing that seems weird to me about this is that my impression has always been that (a) most of the people making high-level decisions are closer to 70 than to 40 and (b) most people think that’s good because Experience, apart from maybe the risk of specific age-related factors (Alzheimer’s, dying outright). But this article suggests that it’s relatively clear that the same person will have better cognitive function at 40 than at 70. Assuming cognitive function matters at all, that would suggest to me that as a society, we want the People Making The Calls to be closer to 40 than to 70. Are they?

Well, in a word, no. Congresscritters average 57 for representatives and 61 for senators. The 11 presidents born after 1900 averaged 56 years old when entering office. The average supreme court justice is 67. The joint chiefs of staff average age is 59.The average Fortune 500 CEO is 58.

So despite the assertion that “research shows that virtually nobody is as sharp at age 70 as they are at age 40,” all three branches of US federal government, the military, and the heads of industry all average closer to 70 than to 40. The reasons for this are obvious - they’ve had more time to build up political capital, experience, institutional authority, and other things that are highly correlated with being in a position of power. But do these things actually make them sufficiently more effective that it balances out presumed decline since their cognitive peak? And if not, how could we adjust our selection criteria to counteract this inefficiency? Term limits for the government offices are a potential solution, as are age caps - after all, if “you can’t be elected president before you turn 35″ is reasonable, why isn’t “you can’t be elected president after you turn 70?”

The other possibility, of course (beyond the null hypothesis that cognitive decline between 40 and 70 doesn’t happen or isn’t significant), is that the actually practical decisionmaking doesn’t actually happen at the highest, most visible level. That city mayors actually have more effect on their citizens’ welfare than presidents, that political staffers have more effect on policy than elected officials, that middle management has more effect on corporate welfare than C-level executives. But if that’s true, why do we focus our attention and financial recompense disproportionately on the wrong people?

fnord888

So the thing that seems weird to me about this is that my impression has always been that (a) most of the people making high-level decisions are closer to 70 than to 40 and (b) most people think that’s good because Experience, apart from maybe the risk of specific age-related factors (Alzheimer’s, dying outright). But this article suggests that it’s relatively clear that the same person will have better cognitive function at 40 than at 70. Assuming cognitive function matters at all, that would suggest to me that as a society, we want the People Making The Calls to be closer to 40 than to 70.

You’re assuming experience actually doesn’t matter at all (or rather than “assuming cognitive function matters at all” you’re assuming that cognitive function matters more than experience).

polyamoroustabout

Yeah, I could have made it more clear that this was proceeding on that assumption. Obviously that’s not by any means necessarily true!

Source: polyamoroustabout

In Which I, Probably Vainly, Attempt to Transition From Trump to Trump-unrelated Substantive Topics, Specifically Age and Authority

Bu5@slatestarscratchpad​ recently posted this analysis of Trump’s declining speaking style in a link post on their off-tumblr blog.

There’s obviously some deeply concerning implications there, among them “holy shit this guy used to be able to speak compellingly, who would have guessed” and “oh god this is our president” and “what if I’ve been mocking someone for the symptoms of a disease for the past two years.” But I’m going to try to blow past all of that to talk about weird pie-in-the-sky speculation about societal structures and hope literally anyone is interested in following along.

(pictured: everybody leaving)

So the thing that seems weird to me about this is that my impression has always been that (a) most of the people making high-level decisions are closer to 70 than to 40 and (b) most people think that’s good because Experience, apart from maybe the risk of specific age-related factors (Alzheimer’s, dying outright). But this article suggests that it’s relatively clear that the same person will have better cognitive function at 40 than at 70. Assuming cognitive function matters at all, that would suggest to me that as a society, we want the People Making The Calls to be closer to 40 than to 70. Are they?

Well, in a word, no. Congresscritters average 57 for representatives and 61 for senators. The 11 presidents born after 1900 averaged 56 years old when entering office. The average supreme court justice is 67. The joint chiefs of staff average age is 59.The average Fortune 500 CEO is 58.

So despite the assertion that “research shows that virtually nobody is as sharp at age 70 as they are at age 40,” all three branches of US federal government, the military, and the heads of industry all average closer to 70 than to 40. The reasons for this are obvious - they’ve had more time to build up political capital, experience, institutional authority, and other things that are highly correlated with being in a position of power. But do these things actually make them sufficiently more effective that it balances out presumed decline since their cognitive peak? And if not, how could we adjust our selection criteria to counteract this inefficiency? Term limits for the government offices are a potential solution, as are age caps - after all, if “you can’t be elected president before you turn 35″ is reasonable, why isn’t “you can’t be elected president after you turn 70?”

The other possibility, of course (beyond the null hypothesis that cognitive decline between 40 and 70 doesn’t happen or isn’t significant), is that the actually practical decisionmaking doesn’t actually happen at the highest, most visible level. That city mayors actually have more effect on their citizens’ welfare than presidents, that political staffers have more effect on policy than elected officials, that middle management has more effect on corporate welfare than C-level executives. But if that’s true, why do we focus our attention and financial recompense disproportionately on the wrong people?

why yes that title is intended as a Steven Brust reference no I don't actually expect anyone to get it probably even the other Steven Brust fans because honestly who read that series anyway posts with a target audience of literally only myself oh good tags are better the longer they are right
jaiwithani
mistyslay

heres the realest shit ever: literally no one is going to pressure you to do drugs in high school

literally no one

hipster-trichster

an encounter i had in 10th grade in a bathroom

person: hey we’re about to smoke some pot do you want some?

me: nah i got a test in like 20 minutes i just have to pee

person: alright good luck

wearetylerspeople

actual highschool party I’ve been to 

person: I brought beer!

people: aaaaaaa yyyyeeeaaahhh

person: want some?!?!

Me: no I don’t drink

person: GOOD MORE FOR US HERE’S SOME SODA

shrineart

On the bus:
Dude: Do you want a cigarette?
Me: Dude I’m asthmatic. I’d die.
Dude: Okay, cool, cool.

unicorndildos

6th period math: 

friend: hey, you want a weed brownie?

me: nah I’m good. 

friend: cool.

pvrx

Lunch

Some girl: You guys wanna smoke weed in the stairwell??

Us: not really

Girl: Okay friends, if you want any later my name’s Zoey, i always sit here

heretoslaythevampyrs

Guy: do you want a cigarette?

Me: I don’t smoke

Guy: good, don’t start

(that happened on multiple occasions with different people)

colt-kun

Seriously I was pressured into reading the Twilight books 1000x more than any drugs or alcohol

sinesalvatorem

Dude at a party with so much weed they literally had a sign saying “Amsterdam” taped to one of the doors: Hey, do you want a spliff?

Me: Nah, it gives me a head ache.

Dude: Shit, well there’s a lot of second hand smoke here. If you start feeling anything, hit me up for an aspirin, OK?

jaiwithani

My parents pressured me to take adhd medication? I was assured that all the cool kids were doing it.

polyamoroustabout

The closest anyone’s ever come to pressuring me to do drugs iss forgetting I’ve turned down the bong and offering it to me again. And by that standard I pressure people to drink water basically every time they come over.

Source: 1-800youwish no I don't drink water out of a bong or pass water glasses around routinely you assholes know what I mean arguing with myself in the tags combining contrarianism with trend-following: tumblr IRL
loki-zen
memecucker

LMFAO neolib centrists on the run

taxloopholes

I love how these people don’t even pretend to support democracy anymore

apparentlyeverything

I mean, this dude is a neoconservative, but I know that distinction is irrelevant on the left, since “neoliberal” means anyone to the right of socialism

Also curious if anyone read beyond the headline since most of it is about Brexit, and how this was not the kind of issue that should have been put to popular vote.  Or have leftists now decided Brexit is a good thing since Corbyn is on board with it, regardless of the motivation? 

ranma-official

Neoconservatism is a foreign policy, and neoliberalism is an economic one, they are perfectly compatible.

Also, it’s perfectly fine to be critical of the EU, because austerity sucks.

loki-zen

‘Too much democracy’ is a stupid way to phrase ‘direct as opposed to representative democracy’ and if you do that you should expect people to get the wrong idea about what you’re saying.

I also contend that the problem isn’t even that, the problem is referenda - random bursts of direct democracy in a country that is used to and designed around representative democracy.

I mean, direct democracy on the country scale is an idea with some serious issues, sure. But at least if it was the norm, people would have some idea of how to deal with it and we’d probably have a system in place for people to educate themselves from a source as unbiased as we can make it. 

polyamoroustabout

California is about 3/5 the population of the United Kingdom, and has a much greater degree of ‘normal’ direct democracy. There’s even a system in place to provide relatively unbiased information about what people are voting on. It’s still a horrible scourge on state government.

I don’t think I’m really disagreeing with you here, but the serious issues can be really really serious even when the coping mechanisms you mentioned are in place.

Source: memecucker
h3lldalg0

Question for poly people and/or people who’ve been hurt by the thing I’m describing

h3lldalg0

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about what I want from relationships.  I want this: 

-no veto power on my other relationships

-no defaulting to any given relationship when considering my priorities, just a case by case approach

-no bundled assumptions based on other things we decide to do together (i.e. deciding to raise children should be a commitment conducted independently of variances in how romantic I am with my coparent, etc) 

-limited monogamy for any duration if I ever decide to try it again (maaaybe “i’ll be monogamous for the next few weeks/months with you and then reevaluate”)

-No obligation to share when, how, or who I have sex with or am dating or am being affectionate with unless I agree to that arrangement specifically (but I still probably won’t.  I’m a chronic oversharer but I hate being obligated to disclose goddamn near anything in my personal life.  Even where I went for lunch.  I want the option of privacy even if I don’t choose to exercise it)

This is basically how I conduct my other relationships like family and friends.  I’m not opposed to exclusivity, for instance!  I am almost exclusive with my parents when it comes to spending the holidays together.  But that arrangement doesn’t imply any other arrangement.  My concern is that this might be a particularly asshole-prone way of doing sex and romance.  As far as I can tell, this is what’s called “non-hierarchical polyamory” or even (ugh) “relationship anarchy.”  I don’t want to find myself being a jackass and using “it’s just what I need from relationships” as an excuse to not examine myself.  Have you run into particularly bad formulations of what I’ve described? What would’ve helped the situation? The last point is the most fraught-with-danger, IMO, and I don’t even know if it’s reasonable. 

polyamoroustabout

This is more or less how I do relationships, and I totally sympathize with the worry that you’re somehow being an asshole.

On the last point (disclosure), make sure you’re willing to disclose enough information that people can make informed definitions about sexual consent. My default is telling people about any new sexual partners since we’ve last slept together before we do it again. I suppose you could do it with less information than that in a responsible way, if you negotiated that in advance, though.

Everything else looks good, as long as you realize that this is going to restrict you to dating other people who are willing to do relationships this way. That’s a bigger set than you’d think, but it’ll still end up not including some people you really want it to.

femmenietzsche
femmenietzsche

Here’s a drug control policy I’ve always wondered about:

Government-sold “illegal” drugs, but only for people who can show that they are already taking (or maybe that they are addicted to) those drugs from an actually illegal source. So, for instance, if you’ve been buying heroin from a drug dealer you could go to a government-run clinic and basically get a note authorizing you to buy heroin from the government. It would be sold at roughly street value and you couldn’t take it off the premises, perhaps. Treatment and methadone and whatnot would be provided for free or at low cost. Obviously the specifics would vary depending on the drug.

But the real point of the plan isn’t treating the addicts (though that might be a nice side benefit), it’s to undercut drug dealers. Drug use (or so I understand) follows an 80-20 rule. That is, 20% of drug users account for 80% of drug use. It’s the hardcore users who keep the drug dealers afloat. If you provided these hardcore users with their drugs then the market for illegal drugs would largely collapse. It would become much harder to find a drug dealer to get started in the first place as most of them are forced out of the market. Ideally, the clinics would mostly be empty and the mere fact of their existence would be enough to permanently cripple illegal drug sales.

The users would have every reason to go to the clinics, since paying the same amount for a drug as you would on the street but with no risk of arrest and no risk of dangerous adulterants is a strictly superior alternative. (And presumably most addicts don’t actually want to be on the wrong side of the law.) But by making it that only users who reach some threshold qualify (working that out might be harder than it looks, IDK), you preserve most of the disincentives in our current system that keep people from getting started in the first place. It’s still expensive, illegal, and a little dangerous. So drug use would still be hard to get into but it would be easier to get out of.

You’d also want to be careful about incentives – the people running the program shouldn’t benefit from more people buying drugs from their clinics – but that’s beyond the scope of talking about the basic idea. And it might work better for some drugs than for others, but I think it’s an interesting idea, and if it’s been proposed elsewhere I haven’t seen it.

femmenietzsche

spiralingintocontrol said: This has actually been done IRL: theguardian.com/society…

Well, if it’s not an original idea, at least it’s a possibly sensible one.

According to this Vice article on the Netherlands from a few years later:

It was in the 1990s when the Netherlands started a program that provides long-term addicts with free government heroin.

In practice, this means that addicts are allowed to inject or smoke heroin three times a day in a solemn, no frills room in a building run by municipal health services.

Combined with a specified care program, it has been responsible for almost the complete disappearance of heroin addicts from public view.

In the United States, heroin is on the rise like it’s 1983, while an ever-shrinking group of Dutch addicts is only getting smaller and older.

In a 2002 study, there were an estimated 25,000 addicts in the Netherlands (out of a population of more than 10 million), but only about 2,000 were considered hardcore addicts, according to the Central Committee on the Treatment of Heroin Addicts.

Heroin use under the age of 40 is practically non-existent, according to Amsterdam’s health services.

In 1992, more than one million needles were exchanged for clean ones in Amsterdam alone, according to the city’s Department of Health. In 2013, it was less than 200,000.

In 1985, nearly 100 percent of methadone patients were aged below 40. In 2014, almost all of them were older than 40. Aid programs are so abundant, it’s now hard to find an addict who hasn’t been in touch with one.

Interesting that they provide it for free though. Might reduce property crimes, but the article implies that that makes it harder to quit altogether.

polyamoroustabout

In addition to reducing property crime, I’d expect it to seriously raise their standard of living, which I’d then expect to make it easier for them to quit in the long term.

evolution-is-just-a-theorem
evolution-is-just-a-theorem

Keep reading

polyamoroustabout

I have experienced that how lonely I feel has much more to do with how emotionally intelligent the people around me are, and how much emotional labor they’re capable of, than it does how similar they are to me. I’m not going to presume to suggest that this is what’s happening for you, but it might be worth ruling out as a cause at least?