epbart

My carbon credits will protect me.

The longest I've done is 3 days. Like you, I made an allowance of black coffee. (There was no way I was going to fight caffeine withdrawal headaches at the same time... and a cup of black coffee only has something like 5 calories, which isn't enough to trigger the stomach to go into acid production mode.)

quote:

---

What was it like and how did you do?

---

I can only speak to a 3 day fast...
- Day 1 is fairly easy. Have done 24-36 hour fasts numerous times. Almost seems easier if you're active (perhaps as a function of not having to sit still and your mind noticing you're hungry and nudging you to eat).
- Day 2: A few significant periods of very mild discomfort as the body goes through intermittent cylces of hunger pangs.
- Day 3: Aside from intermittent hunger pangs, there was a somewhat persistent low-grade brain fog and a mild unpleasant feeling in the body... a sort of weak / sluggish feeling. It wasn't debilitating or anything; more of a constant annoyance. I think this combo of brain fog & fatigue is part of what some people commonly call "keto flu".

One pro tip I read somewhere... probably some health bros on Twitter / X... is to take salt every day during a fast. This makes sense as your electrolytes can become severely depleted during a long fast-- especially if you're drinking a lot of water. I assume this explains my own keto flu on day 3 (I was not supplementing salt). This is a safety precaution that should absolutely be heeded. At a minimum, you should take some amount of salt, but really should find some way of supplementing potassium & magnesium as well. Running out of electrolytes can cause heart palpitations and possibly induce a heart attack.

I'm sure there are other good practices that aren't cheating for a 7 day fast, but I've never gone that long myself so haven't reasearched. I'm assuming you've at least done a few 1-3 days fasts already to somewhat prepare yourself for a longer fast. I don't think I would just jump into a 7 day.

Lastly, in case you don't know: don't binge eat at the end. You should ease back into eating with small amounts of healthy, lighter food.

There were anomalies in the 2020 election worth investigating. So, if you've got an actual argument that fraud happened here, I'm happy to hear it.

The Sam Parker guy you're citing may or may not be credible, but goes on to beg for money for his legal fees in post #6 of his thread (I guess Kash's girlfriend is suing him for defamation.), so that somewhat increases the odds this is clickbait to get money, but let's hear him out.

It seems, though, like the only thing the Sam guy in your OP says is Massie got more votes (19.1% more) in 2026 than 2024, and turnout was 100% more, so he doesn't understand how he could lose.

Hmm...

Someone else in the thread (a guy named Kurt) asks Grok for the # of registered voters in KY-04. Grok replies: 600,314 total voters and ~311k Republican. The May 19th primary had 105,361 votes cast... so while a 100% increase in votes from 2024 to 2026 might sound extraordinary when stated that way, in truth, a 100% increase in turnout means only slightly more than 1/3 of Republicans showed up this week. That might be high for a primary, but doesn't appear to be the type of cheating that happened in Arizona where turnout was strangely close to 100% in some areas...

If you can find counties or voting districts where unusual turnout happened, by all means bring it up. Otherwise, it doesn't sound like a big deal.

Here's that exchange / post I'm referencing, btw... if you care:

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

The same Kurt guy who asked Grok about #s of voters goes on to ask how Gallrein motivated people to show up since Massie supposedly had more small donors and Gallrein didn't draw crowds like Massie. Grok answers: it was the most expensive House primary in US history with ~$30M spent, a lot of TV ads, Trump's endorsement, and other factors driving greater than average turnout. And that this pattern seems consistent with other primaries that were high-profile and had high-spending.

So, in 2024, in a low pressure race against nobodies, Massie gets about 40k votes (approx 13% of 311k republican voters). The nobodies got approx 4%.

In 2026, in the most expensive primary in history in a hotly contested race for which people were motivated to show up, Massie gets 47.5k votes. While that's a 19.1% increase from 2024, it's still only ~15% of republican voters (47.5k / 311k), so it doesn't seem that odd.

If you disagree, please explain.

As I see it, this election was run far more efficiently than 2020. Shortly after the polls closed, the numbers were counted and Gallrein announced winner the same day... that's with a 100% increase in voter turnout over 2024. That didn't happen in 2020... where counting mysteriously stopped and restarted in the middle of the night in some places without poll watchers. In Philly, counting continued for something retarded like a week after election day.

Do you still think Sam's simplistic analysis suggests cheating? If so, how? If you think cheating was done another way... like Dominion machines and votes were flipped or illegal votes were counted, explain. I'd be happy to declare Gallrein's win as fraudulent if it proves elections aren't secure and leads to ditching crap voting machines and passing the Save Act.

So, what's your actual argument here?

quote:

---

But one thing for sure, if 60 fellow Texas republicans vote in favor of bringing the charges, that means that this guy is not well regarded among Texas republicans.

---

That's inaccurate as stated.

It would be fair to say that he is not liked by a large percentage of Republican party leaders in TX-- many of whom are aligned more to either Bush, Cornyn, and similar factions of the party.

It is not at all fair to confuse that with the sentiments of Texas republicans in general.

In many regards the will of everyday people is not represented by party leaders on either side. Something like 80% of Republicans, and similar numbers of the black community, want voter ID laws passed. Democat leaders are universally against it. Republican leaders are not much better.

quote:

---

To start, I ended up voting for Massie yesterday. I had waffled back and forth, the decision could have been a lot easier if they picked someone that seemed a little less NeoConish than Gallrein, but I probably could have gone either way. I had family and friends that went separated ways as well.

I will say that Massie losing was clearly his own doing. No one worked harder to get him out of office than Thomas Massie. He simply stopped trying to do his job and represent his constituents and work within the framework of our political system to push his ideas and agendas forward. He chose to go on a self-destructive mission, that often times looked to be driven more by personal qualms than any sort of principles.

The optics just simply were not there for him. It appeared he was doing everything in his power to make Trump ineffective, which was not going to fly in a district that overwhelmingly voted for Trump to get his agenda pushed.

This goes back to the classic problem with libertarianism. It’s great at offering critiques of existing policies. But absolutely terrible at coming up with concrete action plans “that will actually work in reality” on how to get their agenda passed.

---

Though this thread has derailed, just want to say I appreciate your attempt to add perspective.

If I lived in KY, I would've voted for Gallrein, but I don't dislike Massie. I used to like him quite a bit, but agree generally with your observation that he went on an almost inexplicable self-destructive mission.

I can't help but wonder if his previous wife might've had a better grounding effect on him, or if he sort of went off the rails when she died, or the new girlfriend/wife was a bad influence (relative to how he comported himself). Not trying to make excuses for him... just curious. Little things like not shaving after his wife passed are little things in and of themselves, but do point to some level of change.

Regardless, when he decided to take Trump's barbs personally (speculating) and attempted to play a PR game against Trump by grandstanding on some issues and trying to get in the spotlight more, he massively (Massievely? lol) screwed up. That's Trump's game, and if the Dems and the MSM haven't been able to unseat Trump with their relentless insults and attacks, I don't know what Massie thought he was going to accomplish. Maybe he started to like the attention / camera too much. Maybe he thought he could gain something more out of it. Whatever the case, he Icarus'd himself.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, I can assure you there are exponentially more assholes than “suicidally empathetic” people in our civilization.

I’m a bit disappointed that you’re indulging the idea that a significant portion of society harms itself out of excessive empathy for the undeserving. There’s little evidence that this phenomenon exists at any meaningful scale, let alone to the extent that it warrants serious concern.

---

Your first paragraph is an over-generic abstraction that is unprovable as stated (I doubt we'll be able to agree on what an a-hole is, much less count them.). Worse than that, it's a rather shoddy example of a relative privation fallacy (a disengenuous appeal to a different problem to ignore the stated problem). It fails on many levels, not the least of which is that an a-hole can often be not only a productive member of society and good to his family, he might also do other good works that benefit others... he just might be a dick personally.

Your second paragraph is relevant, but your "little evidence that this phenomenon exists at any meaningful scale" quip is also disingenuous, though it's more of a dishonest reductive framing or minimization.

- The OP already gave a good example with the woman getting raped by the Haitian people she was trying to help. Of course, this isn't good enough for you.
- I can point out the woman who didn't want to put another black guy in jail in NYC last week, so she doesn't report the guy and he pushes an old man down the subway stairs and kills him a little later. Won't be enough for you.
- I can point out the recent story of Estíbaliz Kortazar, a left-wing activist in Spain, who let a North African migrant stay in her apartment as an act of humanitarian solidarity. He stopped paying rent, subjected her to psychological and sexual harassment, she fled in fear and he changed the locks and took over her home. Probably not enough for you.
- I could easily find dozens of stories of muslims raping girls in the UK and throughout Europe, and the criminal behavior is excused (with suicidal empathy for Islam and total disregard for the girls).

- I could probably find 50 to 100 other example: rape, murder, theft, assault, etc., here and abroad. You just don't really want to accept it because you're conditioned to not want to believe this is a problem.

The fact is that this phenomenon of suicidal empathy is not even a new thing. Before Saad's book and clever turn of phrase, it was already a well enough known archetype of human psychology that it had its own fable... the story of the frog and the scorpion.

I would like to think this is still a commonly known story, but just in case it's not (since the powers that be in education have tried to strip out common sense and morality), here's a summary:

A scorpion asks a frog for a ride across the river because it can't swim. Frog says no, he can't trust the scorpion not to sting him. Scorpion says "c'mon, if I do that then we'll both drown." Frog sees the logic and wants to believe so agrees. Halfway across the river, the scorpion stings him anyway and as they both start to sink the frog asks, "Why?" to which the scorpion says he couldn't help it. And they drown.

Like any fable, there is a moral to the story... And the issue isn't about the scorpion; the scorpion was acting according to its nature. The point is that the frog was dumb-- perhaps naively idealistic as suicidal empathy sorts appear to be-- to believe that trying to help the scorpion wasn't going to bite him in the arse-- almost literally.

If this psychological phenomenon has its own fable and has struck people as true and important enough to teach to kids throughout the world since this story arose some hundred years ago in Russia, then you're categorically and emphatically wrong about it not warranting serious concern. The new spin of suicidal empathy just speaks to the specific context of modern progressive politics that seeks to excuse bad behavior by criminals and illegal immigrants.

quote:

---

And you call this suicidal empathy instead of poor discretion?

---

There are times when it's better to generalize a concept to understand it in different contexts. And there are times when it's better to be more precise with language. "Poor discretion" is too general in this case and speaks to many types of bad decision making beyond the specific political contexts Saad speaks to. It will not do. I've provided additional context to understand the psychological concept more broadly if that's really your concern. I don't believe understanding is your concern, though. I've seen enough of your posts to know you're a bit of a bleeding heart suicidal empathy sort yourself, so you're just clumsily picking around the corners of the argument in an effort to undermine it-- illogically. Suicidal empathy is appropriate in this context.

It isn't my intent to simply insult you here. You do have talent at creating threads with topics that get traction and go several pages, and different perspectives should be heard. And in one of your recent threads about one of your charges/patients/parolees/whatever lapsing his way into trouble, I noted NC_Tigah specifically being nice to you and encouraging you for trying to help people. He made me reconsider you as a poster, and you do deserve credit for trying to live to your values.

That being said, it doesn't make you right in this argument. If you read my reply here objectively, I don't see how you can argue with me in any meangingful way. Pretty much everything you've said here is argumentatively weak and presented in a way to irrationally minimize things. You might not like me saying that... I might not sound nice... I might even sound like an a-hole... but I'm arguing from a perspective of valuing morality and truth over feels. Truth matters, and that's sort of the point... Empathy is itself good, but so is being rational. Forsaking society and abandoning rationality to be "nice" is suicidal and it is a moral failure that serves nobody well.

Not 100% sure, but think most states draw the line at 750 watt motors & 30 mph top speed.

If under that cap, it's considered a bicycle and a license isn't necessary.

If above that, then motorcycle laws & license requirements apply.

There's always a little bit of an adjustment period with news programming as you get used to a different talking head and to a different production aesthetic.

I tend to have Newsmax on during the day when working from home the past few years. And on the rare occasions I switch to Fox, I find Fox to be more "Great Value" looking now-- again, as a function of familiarity.

Not sure about their morning shows or talent. But once you get to noon, they're mostly solid if you're looking for right leaning news networks. And most of them are veterans of other networks with a polished delivery. I find them much better and more professional than OAN, who....at least when I'm checking them out... seem like they're trying out interns for lack of a experienced anchor.

The right leaning bias is always apparent, but they're more objective from noon thru 5pm. It becomes more editorialized / pundit driven from 5pm - 10pm.

quote:

---

Also boxing matches turned into a couple punches then a bear hug.

---

Agree.

I stumbled on Team Boxing League (TBL) recently, which was somewhat refreshing in that regard. The format of a team (like Houston v NYC), each team having something like 10 boxers (give or take), and each boxer getting one round to fight, minimized clinching. When fighters get one round or maybe two (some of the better fighters got a second "money round" later in the contest), it eliminates slow "feeling your opponent out" early rounds and poorly conditioned fighters excessively hanging on to slow the action.

It kind of misses in some ways... I didn't know any of the fighters and wasn't really invested in the teams, so wasn't really rooting for anyone. You also don't get the building drama of an Ali / Frazier war for 15 rounds that pulls you in the longer it goes. And some of the fighters were very amateur, so a few rounds were duds. Still, it was kind of cool to see everyone stepping into the ring with a sense of urgency.

I don't see this style overtaking traditional marquee matchups of individual stars, but I did find it watchable.