ObjectivityIncarnate

The US’s incredible levels of prosperity back then was essentially a unique period of time created by extremely specific circumstances (i.e. the US was THE superpower, and the primary economic force on the planet for decades). There’s a reason the ‘baby boom’ happened then. It was literally a unique slice of world history.

It is unrealistic to expect to ever return to that level. Comparisons between now and then are all disingenuous for that reason.

Instead of framing the changes we want to make in terms of ‘but we had X back then’, they should simply be framed in terms of what improvements are beneficial, feasible, and sustainable, in the present.

Probably because you’re making references to a ~30 year old episode of a cartoon, as if it’s your own joke.

But you did say it. Everyone knows what the word is. You went out of your way for literally no reason, to accomplish nothing but making people wonder why you did such a pointless thing.

Why are you proposing scenarios other than the ones I used to specifically exemplify the fact that the measure of sexual assault/rape was massively overinflated?

Do you think “but what about the situations that are rape” is a counterargument to that? My point is that they counted a lot MORE in ADDITION to those legitimate scenarios, and that’s why such a scary number was arrived at.

The bottom line fact is, no survey etc. that doesn’t massively dilute the definitions of those terms has ever or will ever reach a conclusion like “1 in 5 female college students have been sexually assaulted or raped”. There is a reason that figure isn’t being thrown around anymore these days–it’s been debunked thoroughly.

In my college there was a flyer in the restroom about how something like 1 in 6 women will experience sexual assault or rape.

And that was shown to be complete horseshit arrived at by defining ‘sexual assault or rape’ in a survey more broadly than any reasonable person ever would.

It’s similar to the survey in the 80s all the ACABers cite to claim 40% of cops are domestically violent–in that survey, even if a voice was raised one time in the past six months, and it was the cop’s spouse yelling at the cop, that survey dumped the relationship in the domestic violence bucket. Big surprise that 40% figure has never been replicated since, lol.

One example: at the end of a first date that you weren’t really feeling, the guy goes in for a kiss and you decline? Guess what, even if he ‘graciously’/completely accepts the denial and the date ends without incident, that went in the “sexual assault” bucket, regardless of whether the woman herself felt anything bad had happened.

Ever had sex while less than stone cold sober (keep in mind the entirety of the surveyed considered to arrive at this figure were college students)? Survey says you were raped. Doesn’t matter if you were just tipsy, doesn’t matter if you and your partner were equally drunk, doesn’t matter whether you think you were raped/assaulted, nope, we decided you were.

Stuff like that is the only way to get to a figure so absurd.

It’s probably people who think no matter what, every single life is precious and should be preserved.

I doubt it’s that, simply because the OP is not talking about doing anything to anyone in the real world.

The type of ‘anger management’ described in the OP is unhealthy and doesn’t even help you feel better, short or long term. ‘Blowing off steam’/venting literally does the opposite of what most people believe it does.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-angry-chilling-out-helps-more-than-blowing-off-steam/

Edit: Looks like some people don’t like being called out for their unproductive behavior, lol. I answered the question.

It’s getting harder and harder each day to tell this place apart from Reddit, lol.

It’s unfortunate the Viagra and Cialis didn’t do the trick, but we do have an alternate treatment we can try.

It’s exactly as long as it needed to be to explain everything it explained, and it is a completely dry comment with no real tone at all, the “rudeness” is of your own invention.

Ironically, “Firstly you could read user names before going off” is far ruder than anything I wrote. Also, you’re assuming I’m the one who downvoted you–have you considered that maybe your tone earned that from someone else, maybe?

But it has to be for something. And in Balatro, there simply isn’t any gambling. You never wager anything to win anything based on that wager. All you have are points, and you can neither wager them, nor lose them in any way, chance-based or otherwise.

There is zero gambling in Balatro.

Minor correction, the three stages in an “ante” are the “blinds”. The game instead uses “stake” to describe its ‘ascension’ system (a common mechanic in roguelixe games, where going to a higher ascension/“stake” adds difficulty modifiers to the game, for those who don’t know what I mean by that).

Going off? Yeah, you asked a question, and I answered it. What are you talking about?

A game just has to show characters gambling for it to be gambling imagery.

Okay. Well, Balatro doesn’t do that–no gambling of any kind happens in the game.

So, what’s your point, exactly?

“Antes” are what Balatro calls its levels. Each level consists of 3 stages, which the game calls “blinds” (small/big/boss).

In poker, you don’t “beat” an ante, it’s part of what you bet. You also don’t “reach” blinds, nor is there such a thing as a “boss blind” in poker. And the word “bet” or any synonym should be pretty conspicuous by its absence in Balatro’s description. There is no gambling without betting/wagering, after all.

So yes, if you’re familiar with poker, that description should make it obvious that the words have different meanings in the game than they do in poker.

The only actual ‘mechanic’ that’s actually the same in Balatro as in poker is what comprises the different hands, and their relative value. And even then, there are also hands in Balatro that don’t exist in poker at all (five of a kind, flush house, etc.).

Yatzhee is dice.

So is craps, one of the most popular casino games on the planet.

Also, the simple fact is that there is no reason that any entity promoting their product has to choose any of these platforms over the other–you can just post to all of them, every single one that has enough users to be worth posting to.

You literally do not make antes in Balatro, in any way.

You should know that you’re talking about before drawing conclusions.

If you truly believe that it is naive or ignorant to have a problem with any individual hoarding

Well, here’s an example of the ignorance I was referring to: no billionaire is “hoarding” anything. Their net worth comes from the value of their investments, investments into businesses that function within the economy. And investing into a business, and in turn owning a piece of it, is absolutely not “hoarding” that piece. To define it that way would be to define that owning anything equals “hoarding” it.

Ownership and hoarding are not the same thing. The fact that I have something you don’t doesn’t mean I’m “hoarding” it. That is a ridiculous notion.

so much wealth that they could solve just about any problem where money is the limitation

You have zero perspective on just how costly those problems are, nor the fact that there is almost no major problem that an injection of funds can fix all by itself.

The US government spends more each and every year than the net worth of every US billionaire combined. Over $1 trillion (which is ONE THOUSAND TIMES the amount of wealth that ‘qualifies’ someone as a billionaire) was spent last year on welfare programs alone.

It’s just not as much as you think it is, in the grand scheme of things.

I don’t think we can have a meaningful conversation.

Until you become more familiar with the facts of the matter, I definitely agree.

Billionaires should not exist.

You’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that there is always going to be someone with the most wealth. And in an economy that is constantly creating new wealth, the peak will also be constantly growing.

This is an incredibly naive and ignorant sentiment.

Total net worth of top 10 richest is ~$1.6 trillion: https://ceoworld.biz/2024/03/15/richest-people-in-the-united-states-2024/

That makes a net worth increase of $64 billion an increase of ~4%…which is the same amount the S&P 500 is up over the past few days.

“Stock market surges following Trump’s victory and billionares’ stocks go up the same amount as everyone else’s” just doesn’t make as good a headline, huh?

This is a big pile of nothing, nice job taking the clickbait and spreading it. The outrage farmers thank you.