(Part 2) Best products from r/circlebroke2

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, [megalodon.jp*](http://megalodon.jp/pc/get_simple/decide?url=https://www.amazon.com/Repel-Windproof-Travel-Umbrella-Coating/dp/B0160HYB8S "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), archive.is
   
   ^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))

Amazon page for the type of backpack the guy has.

Someone get in touch with the FBI, me and /u/apudebeau just cracked this case wide open.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0976697238/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_yjX3BbA7G3DV9

I've found parts of this book rather helpful in that regard but it has its strange moments, given the perspective it's written from, and your mileage may vary.

>I don't see white person written over it

Funnily enough, this mindset is born out of drumroll

>fragile

Something called white fragility! I recommend reading this book:

White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism https://www.amazon.com/dp/0807047414/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Sn5lDbJC4T56B

That should have all the answers you need.

Are we really talking about the availability of tee shirts to purchase as proof that we now live in a matriarchy?

https://www.amazon.com/Back-Kitchen-Men-T-Shirt/dp/B07BP9ZSKF

https://www.zazzle.com/women_know_your_limits_sexist_t_shirt_tee_shirt-235467207839148909

https://www.amazon.com/Cool-Story-Babe-Sandwich-T-Shirt/dp/B014RXCKK8

But yes, "girls rule" is soooo much worse, isn't it?

Not looking to be superior. It's just a statement that in nearly all cases, when someone prefaces a statement with "Not to be racist," or "I'm not being racist," or "This statement might seem racist but it's not," then the statement that follows after is usually racist. It's a positive correlation, and there are many people that will back that up.

For example: a book about it, another book about it, a rationalwiki article about it, and a Washington Post podcast about it.

>Thorium.
The miracle solution to all the world's problems that just wasn't used because 'you can't make weapons out of it' (spoiler; you can)

You could eat 1kg of Ghost peppers if you really wanted to.

LFTRs produce Uranium 233 (U233) a weapons grade material poisoned with Uranium 232 (U232) which is a proliferation prophylactic. LFTRs are not designed to be appreciable breeders, they will produce only as much U233 as is required to continue their operation and no more, removing U233 from the equation means the reactor will eventually shut down.

----------------------

"However, taking into account the overall fission rate per capture, capture by other nuclei and so on, a well-designed LFTR reactor should be able to direct about 1.08 neutrons per fission to thorium transmutation. This delicate poise doesn't create excess, just enough to generate fuel indefinitely. If meaningful quantities of uranium-233 are misdirected for nonpeaceful purposes, the reactor will report the diversion by winding down because of insufficient fissile product produced in the blanket."

Thorium Energy Cheaper Than Coal - Robert Hargraves

https://www.amazon.com/THORIUM-energy-cheaper-than-coal/dp/1478161299


Robert Hargraves teaches energy policy at Dartmouth an Ivy League school.

Robert Hargraves graduated from Brown University (PhD Physics 1967)

--------------



http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/downloads/American_Scientist_Hargraves.pdf


"The uranium-233 produced from thorium-232
is necessarily accompanied by
uranium-232, a proliferation prophylactic.
Uranium-232 has a relatively
short half-life of 73.6 years, burning
itself out by producing decay products
that include strong emitters of high-energy
gamma radiation. The gamma
emissions are easily detectable and
highly destructive to ordnance components,
circuitry and especially personnel.
Uranium-232 is chemically identical
to and essentially inseparable from
uranium-233."


...

"Only a determined, well-funded effort
on the scale of a national program
could overcome the obstacles to illicit
use of uranium-232/233 produced in a
LFTR reactor. Such an effort would certainly
find that it was less problematic
to pursue the enrichment of natural uranium
or the generation of plutonium."


---------------

"the proportion of U-232 would be about 0.13% for a commercial power reactor. A year after separation, a weapons worker one meter from a subcritical 5 kg sphere of such U-233 would receive a radiation dose of 43 mSv/hr, compared to 0.003 mSv/hr from plutonium, even less from U-235. Death becomes probable after 72 hours exposure. After ten years this radiation triples.

A resulting weapons would be highly radioactive and therefore dangerous to military workers nearby. The penetrating 2.6 MeV gamma radiation is an easily detected marker revealing the presence of such U-233, possibly even from a satellite.

For personnel safety, any U-233 material operations must be accomplished by remote handling equipment within a radioactively shielded hot cell. This can be designed to make it very hard for any insiders or outsiders to remove material from the hot cell."

Thorium Energy Cheaper Than Coal - Robert Hargraves

https://www.amazon.com/THORIUM-energy-cheaper-than-coal/dp/1478161299



-------------

Ultimately any fission reactor's neutron flux can convert U238 to Pu239 or Th232 to U233, but the best designs make that incredibly difficult and expensive.

There is no way to prevent a determined government from building a weapons program from a modified power plant. This is why they are inspected by IAEA. IAEA monitoring (or refusal thereof) makes this public knowledge.

Any government that has the resources would opt to go the proven route of U235 or Pu239, rather than have to deal with potential U232 contamination.

I don’t think Barney’s toxic masculinity is unironic. That would mean this book is actually offering a code to live by, as opposed to the humor coming from how ridiculous it is.

This episode definitely touched on why toxic masculinity is a bad thing. When you go around getting in fights (in this case taking credit for one they didn’t even participate in) because it’s “manly” bad things happen.

Actually, unless that guy knows the guy (or composite of people) that wrote Death to the Dictator! he's just lifting it from the book. There are an incredible amount of similarities between the two stories.

Also for a website that is so obsessed with calling out logical fallacies they have absolutely no problem with utilizing slippery slope arguments for things that benefit what they're trying to argue.

If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading Well Played 1.0, or the youtube series "Great Levels in Gaming."
Well Played 1.0 is a collection of essays by 22 different people discussing videogames and how the medium allows different stories to be told or experienced.
Great Levels in Gaming is much the same kinds of discussions, but video based rather than book words. The linked video is discussing how the interactivity can be used to make you feel amazing, and how it can be used to make you feel like a piece of shit.


I'm running from memory and I'll apologise now for any mix-ups I make.
There's essays/discussions about how Portal is essentially tutorial for 90% of the game, and how the design is geared towards slowly introducing new tools and techniques towards the player.

In Shadow of the Colossus, how a specific early Colossus is placed atop a giant platform that you can survive the fall from. How players early on see the black tendrils as a negative thing to try to escape from, but always fail to escape. Because the Colossus is high above a survivable fall you're able to escape for a longer amount of time but it's still inevitable, reinforcing that the slow descent into darkness is something you can't escape from forever.

Kane and Lynch is a enforced co-op game (similar to Army of Two) and has an interesting moment during the bank robbery mission. In one section the character Kane separates and searches for more money, while the character Lynch is made the guard hostages. At one point Lynch goes to another room, has one of his characters mental/psychotic breakdowns, returns to the hostages and finds they've all been rescued by the police. Once Lynch starts shooting at the police Kane returns to find.......Lynch murdered all the hostages during his psychotic break. If you're playing with a friend, the person playing as Lynch will have seen police while the person playing as Kane will have seen hostages and a fucked up friend.
Kane and Lynch also has a gamemode that is essentially game theory. You work with your partner to rob a bank (or get money somehow) and can escape without issue, but you are well within the game to kill your partner and steal their share of the loot. Killing your partner doesn't decrease the amount of enemies or the difficulty of the mission, but if you do it earlier rather than later you're more likely to get yours and their set of the loot.


Lastly I want to mention Splinter Cell Convictions co-op story. Throughout the entire game you play as two Splinter Cells working together, then you get to end of the story. In the final level just before the game ends an objective will show up on your screen saying "Kill your partner." This will happen to both you and your partner, and turns the what has been a co-operative experience into a deathmatch. If you're playing with a friend for the first time through you might lie or actively try your best to kill them, reflecting the thoughts that the characters are going through where you're turning on someone you've worked with for so long.

Remember a couple minutes ago when I said, "Memes are easier to make than good arguments"? That's mainly because this little dance you want to do where you throw sources at me, I throw sources at you, and absolutely nothing productive happens; it's exhausting. You're not going to listen to anything I have to say about how privatization actively works against those less-fortunate and born into systemic oppression and I'm not going to listen when you spout something about equality with NAP and such bullshit.

But fuck it. I wrote a bunch of shit, literally hit the 10k word cap, and then I realized that I went off on a lot of tangents about how great publicly funded social services are, and how useful UBI is, and then I realized that none of it really matters. Because Libertarians are such a diverse group of people that seem to all rally behind "fuck taxes" until you get one guy who goes "we should have taxes" and suddenly that's Libertarians loving poor people.

>The welfare state, supposedly designed to aid the poor, is a growing and parasitic burden on all productive working people, and injures rather than benefits the poor themselves. We propose the elimination of all government involvement in welfare and relief programs. Any aid to the poor should be conducted on a voluntary basis.

That's from the Libertarian Party of Canada's statement of Policy, which may I add is horribly written and desperately needs to be reviewed considering they don't even use their numbered bullets correctly.

Honestly, how is it that taxes are theft, and then you want an income tax in order to provide UBI. Who's going to be the one distributing the money? Would it be a centralized institution that collects this "negative income tax" and distributes it? And as for this claim, "it is fairly extraordinary to claim that the government could guarantee every adult in America an income even if they did zero work of any kind, and that somehow this would not reduce work effort" which goes against MINCOME's findings. It's just a crazy hypothetical with really no data behind it while UBI legitimately does have pilot programs, including one going on right now.

And that's great that you love UBI or whatever the fuck you want to call it. I'm perfectly okay with that. But the rest of the Libertarian party's policy goes against the welfare of the impoverished. It also completely disregards any semblance of systemic oppression that works actively against minorities who are impoverished on a much larger scale. This idea that "the free market" will somehow enforce itself goes completely against what we've seen in reality. People will always go towards whoever is cheaper, that corporation will rise up, and you've created a kleptocracy. Congrats?


>I tell people that I am not against helping the poor I am however against robbing some one else to do it.

Which would include taxation towards publicly-funded social services which absolutely work towards helping the poor out of poverty when done properly. This guy is just hoping someone else deals with the poor.

>We love helping poor people. We just don't think the government is the proper avenue to give aid.

I mean, is there a better way to do it? Taxes working towards helping out poor people is a wonderful way to make sure that everyone is being provided for on a national level.

>If the person asking this question owns any luxury items whatsoever (tv, mobile phone, game console...) then I'd ask them why THEY hate poor people

Where's that comic about the guy who points out this is a dumb argument.

>You either beleive that no one should be allowed to own personal property beyond what they need for survival, or you believe that people should be allowed to keep what they earn regardless of the needs of others. Anything in between is just drawing an imaginary line (usually in just the right place to benefit the person drawing it) and is intellectually dishonest.

I mean that's just blatantly false and seems to be a really round-about way of saying, "poverty is someone else's problem."

>Most "poor people" live more luxuriously than I do. How am I supposed to feel sympathy for people whose standard of living is higher than my own?

Ring ring. Yes, hello? Oh hi "poor people are the real rich people". How's it going? Oh terribly? Of course it is because you're constantly playing the pity Olympics.

>Libertarians don't hate poor people. They just don't like Marxist-sounding class rhetoric, and considering poor people as particularly special is a step down the path of discussions on class and class warfare.

Equity will always be more important on the road to equality than whatever this is. When a system has actively worked against you for years, you need a little extra help. And then equality happens (theoretically) and all those scary "quotas" go away because there's no need for it anymore.

>Why can't that safety net be provided voluntarily? Why does it have to come into existence from the barrel of a gun?

Because y'all aren't going to help unless there is a gun.

Anyways I'll just now throw some links at you with absolutely no context and pretend like I've won some moral victory when I've actually wasted hours of my time researching US and Canada welfare programs and how privatization hurts the impoverished.

https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/InthePublicInterest_InequalityReport_Sept2016.pdf

https://www.amazon.ca/Privatization-Decision-Public-Private-Means/dp/0465063578 (it's $0.01)

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC_Office_Pubs/bc_2005/pains_priv_summary.pdf

http://progressive.org/op-eds/scathing-report-finds-rocketship-school-privatization-hurt-poor-kids/

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Criticism_of_libertarianism

https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/09/the-moral-and-practical-failures-of-libertarianism-and-small-government-conservatism/

>In fact, it is the current system that creates the poor!

Oh shit, welp my mind is completely changed now. Thanks The Ontario Libertarian Party for pointing out that classes are a capitalist invention.

>When licensing laws and minimum wage laws destroy jobs

How do you even argue with something so unsubstantiated? Fuck I've wasted my life.

>http://www.ruwart.com/poverty.lpn.wpd.html

What is it with Libertarians and not using pleasant formatting? Is making your site readable also against the NAP?

A review of his book basically said as much:

>Grammy-winning musician Davis gets taken for a ride by the KKK in this futile and pointless volume. When a friend of his says he is joining the Ku Klux Klan, Davis approaches a few local heavies hoping to find "common ground'' on which they can stand. Surprisingly, Davis is able to form friendships with some of the racists he meets--or so it would seem. What never occurs to Davis is that he may be being used by these people. For instance, Roger Kelly, who is still active in the KKK, is depicted as a white "separatist'' as opposed to a white "supremacist.'' Davis seems oblivious to Kelly's smooth way of talking out of both sides of his mouth and casts him as a victim in an episode of "reverse discrimination'' at Howard University, where Kelly is denied entrance to a talk show on racist groups. In the most ridiculous case, Kelly names Davis godfather to his newborn daughter. Nowhere during these scenes does the author consider that his book might be the perfect vehicle by which Kelly can gain new members. In another truly offensive scene, Davis visits the National Holocaust Museum, where he interviews several luminaries on the hate scene who are protesting the museum but neglects to mention their purpose--the protesters deny the Holocaust took place. Indeed, the anti-Semitism of the KKK is a massive blind spot for Davis. Finally, he endlessly makes excuses for Klan members who are no longer violent, as if this somehow mitigates their continued membership in such a terrorist organization. The dual dangers of this book are that some readers will find tacit support for their beliefs that blacks are easily led and others will view the Klan as "not all that bad'' and perhaps join where they otherwise might not have. (16 pages photos not seen) -- Copyright ©1997, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.



https://www.amazon.com/Klan-destine-Relationships-Daryl-Davis/dp/0882821598/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1537834016&sr=8-1

Also there's a clip from his documentary that I can never seem to find where he won't even consider Kwame Rose's extremely valid points against him. This guy is bad.

Fuck this BS. At least my state said they are keeping the "preponderance of evidence" rule because that makes the most sense. You are being expelled not fucking sent to prison. Just like they use that standard of evidence in civil trials. Which is why O.J. lost at civil trial but won at criminal trial.

But I guess those rules are okay when we are taking your money but not kicking you out of school. Fuck them thinking due process applies to schools, but only in rape cases. Not in plagiarism or cheating or vandalism or the dude I know who got kicked out for smoking weed. Did he get a trial of a jury of his peers that were asked if he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Fuck no.

I might be biased because the city close to me was a big impetus for this letter and a bit of a precursor. They were doing so bad with rape (both the school and the sheriff's office) that the Feds basically came in and changed things. Before if you had been raped outside the city you were told not to go to the sheriff unless you wanted to be victimized more. Wrote a book about it.