Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About plotthickens

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign


  • Homepage
  • Biography
    I wear a size 40 shoe.
  • Location
    Bay Area, California
  • Occupation
  • Personal Text
    Don't stick beans up your nose.

Recent Profile Visitors

68,207 profile views
  1. In your world, people go directly from one bad decision to buried corpse without anything inbetween? Hm. That's not how the rest of the world works, thankfully.
  2. There have been numerous studies on whether needle exchange programs increase needle use, drug use, risky behaviour, etc. They do not. Thus the term evidence-based policymaking.
  3. I think that "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" are mutually complementary in the following way. If you look at the evidence that spending $X on a certain social program nets you $XX, then that's a liberal cause that saves money. For instance, every $1 spent on needle exchanges saves $4 on healthcare, rehab, and crime. Spending $1 on family planning saves $3.80. Spending $1 on HIV prevention saves $5 in treatment costs. And giving children good educations from pre-K to college means that our populace makes more money, which increases both private happiness and public tax coffers. Conservatives used to be against free education, but after a few generations education became "traditional" and so now they like it. Your average conservatives don't like spending money on needle exchanges or family planning or HIV prevention, so they're OK with us not saving those monies and lives. Hopefully fully funded healthcare will eventually become as accepted as education is now. This is socially liberal but fiscally conservative: choosing to spend money on "social welfare" programs that actually save society money, make us healthier and happier, and/or increase our ability to earn. Another way to say it is "evidence-based policymaking". Any way you say it, it's where evidence, liberal and empathetic long-views, and conservative spending meet.
  4. I had three requests. Support for your claim that the recovery was solely in part-time jobs at the expense of full-time jobs. A line drawn, with citations, between Obama and/or his administration and these shitty jobs, seeing as how The Sharing Economy is the darling of "smaller government", union-hating, deregulating Republicans. I was asking for sources such as mine, which was the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Haven't gotten one of those yet. I'm looking forward to it, though.
  5. Interesting. In which areas are these losses and gains concentrated? I.E., are the Boomers, with their full-time jobs, retiring? And how many of the gains in part-time jobs are due to people going to school in ever-greater numbers, or even Boomers who are doing semi-retirement? Or are the full-timers really being replaced by part-timers? Here's a different view. US participation in the labor force is better now than it was in the 70's and the first half of the 80's among 25 to 54s. Which indicates that the opinion of your piece -- that the gains in the laborforce was mostly part-time -- is probably not true. It might be, but there's no stats to back it up. More likely the part-time and full-time gigs both gained, and pretending that no full-time gigs were added because of Obama is flat-out stupid. The Sharing Economy that Libertarians just LOOOOOOVE would have happened no matter who was in office... though I do note that many Uber drivers are moving to unionize. :) :) :) Once again, simplicity is the enemy of understanding. Please provide stats for the (entirely plausible, but disputed, considering the source) claim that the gains under the Obama administration have been part-time, sub-par, crap work. And, if you don't mind, how it's Obama's fault that the deregulation and union-bashing that the Republicans delight in actually came to fruition?
  6. Hey, Leesh!  Here is the link to your blog.  When you get there, click FOLLOW so it'lll always show up for you.



  7. Interesting, and plausible, but this is still an opinion piece, where are the stats to back it up? I'm looking myself. It's entirely possible that both full-time and part-time work has gone up since the recession; focusing only on one of those numbers would be disingenuous but result in such a story.
  8. Plausible. What stats show that, Dangime?
  9. Assuming the numbers weren't massaged -- which, frankly, why would they massage them only for this president? -- then... Thanks, Obama!
  10. This appears to be a thread full of treasured generalizations being flung about. That is neither helpful nor realistic. Allow me to point out that the vast majority of action movies and games have elements of or are explicitly science-fiction. Every crime show features "identity tracking" software that ID's a foreign national in seconds from a grainy photo of a profile, or goggles that are x-ray vision capable, etc etc etc. OP's generalization that Science Fiction is too (something) for the average person ignores the fact that Science Fiction is the flesh and/or bones for most of our creative media.
  11. In some VERY backward areas of the U.S., the unwed mothers are immediately dropped to the lowest rung of their respective ethnicity. They become, and I'm using these terms exactly and precisely to convey the stigma: niggers, rednecks, or beaners (and worse names). They are literally not welcome in many people's homes. They will be denied school access. They will be turned down for jobs. They are, frankly, dehumanized, and the attitude towards them is that the sooner they die the better.
  12. She's still better than Trump, in the racist field, and every other.
  13. Ah my pardon, sorry, the quote system is a little odd at the moment getting used to. 

    1. plotthickens


      Yeah, it's funky as hell.  No worries.  :)

  14. No. That post was made up of four parts, all of which were addressed to Shadeylark. In the first quote in that post, Shadeylark tells you you're "demonizing all whites" because you point out that 40% of trump followers are racist. Then I tell Shadeylark he's ignoring what you already said about that. Then I quoted those comments of yours from from earlier in the thread, so that Shadeylark could see what he ignored before. Then I said that Shadeylarks' arguments, logical inconsistencies, and irrationality make him seem the opposite of what he would apparently like us to believe about him. I was sticking up for you, TA, and sticking it to S, all at the same time. I'll try to go back and bold the pertinent sentences to make the procession more clear.
  15. Let's stipulate breastfed=likes women. If this were true, the history of humankind would show that Lesbians would have been breastfed, but men and heterosexual women were bottle-fed, and those who were nursed by milch animals (such as goats) were into beastiality. Since this is not the case, your premise is patently stupid. Please learn the difference between socially acquired biases VS hardwired biases. Your confusing one for the other, usually via an apparent fixation on female secondary sex characteristics, is embarrassing.