The Gaming Den

Much appreciated, to you both.

No worries.

Why are tontines illegal? Is it just because it's a form of gambling that isn't overseen?

According to Wikipedia:

Questionable practices by US life insurers in 1906 led to the Armstrong Investigation in the United States restricting some forms of tontines. Nevertheless, in March 2017, The New York Times reported that tontines were getting fresh consideration as a way for people to get steady retirement income.[3]

I'd guess that if you're a member of a tontine, you have an incentive to kill every other member could be considered an issue.

Prak wrote:No worries.

Why are tontines illegal? Is it just because it's a form of gambling that isn't overseen?

It's not gambling. Gambling requires chance, there has to be some random factor to qualify as gambling. Death rates are non-random.

Yeah. The main reason is that it encourages beneficiaries to go Highlander on each other. The other reason is that, because the beneficiaries pay up front, it's very easy for the insurance company to just spend large sums of it on bullshit like expensive parties, banking on the hope that the investors will die quickly, and then delay payment if they don't.

Basically, a tontine is a really easy way for a fraudster to get a lot of money up front. It's also a shit investment.

There's also the fact that some people figured out how to game the system and started buying tontines on other people, mostly five-year-old girls, to maximize live expectancy.

That's a really silly way to define gambling.

So assuming I have somewhere from $50 to $250 to throw to worthy causes over the next few months: Which of the following donations is likely to be the most effective bang-for-my-buck at curbing the rise of US fascism:

• The ACLU
• Planned Parenthood
• NRDC
• Alt National Park Service
• PA Governer Tom Wolf's re-election campaign
• PA Senator Bob Casey's re-lection Campaign
• Other, if so who?
• Some spead-between the above

Josh Kablack wrote:Which of the following donations is likely to be the most effective bang-for-my-buck at curbing the rise of US fascism:

Me.

I will buy videogames and play them.

That'll show 'em.

More seriously, do not donate to the ACLU. They have always been unwilling to make a distinction between free speech, hate speech, targeted harassment, and incitement to violence, and when the enemy is fascists marching in the streets chanting euphemisms for ethnic genocide the ACLU is simply not your friend. You are not the good guys when you defend the KKK's right to put their name on public property. You are furthering a campaign of harassment and intimidation targeted at minorities who will use that public property, and you can join the KKK rotting in hell. The ACLU is probably the most likely to stab you in the back with your donation of any group you'd actually consider, given the values I assume you hold.

I'd give 1/3 each to the two re-election campaigns, because those are the things that can turn the tide, then split the others according to your conscience (bearing in mind ACLU are allies of convenience at best so you'll be out of money before they're at the front of the queue before we get into whether or not they deserve a red cent).

I donate monthly to Michigan Radio, which is my NPR station.

I think I'd donate to the Satanic Temple.

DSMatticus wrote:

Josh Kablack wrote:Which of the following donations is likely to be the most effective bang-for-my-buck at curbing the rise of US fascism:

Me.

I will buy videogames and play them.

That'll show 'em.

More seriously, do not donate to the ACLU. They have always been unwilling to make a distinction between free speech, hate speech, targeted harassment, and incitement to violence, and when the enemy is fascists marching in the streets chanting euphemisms for ethnic genocide the ACLU is simply not your friend. You are not the good guys when you defend the KKK's right to put their name on public property. You are furthering a campaign of harassment and intimidation targeted at minorities who will use that public property, and you can join the KKK rotting in hell. The ACLU is probably the most likely to stab you in the back with your donation of any group you'd actually consider, given the values I assume you hold.

I have to disagree. The far right has consistently shown that they will use the tools that you give them.

Heck, Fake News started out as a complaint against 4Chan memes and Onion articles reprinted uncritically as serious journalism. And somehow Trump has transformed it into a shield against all criticism.

I don't want to give them actual hate speech laws, because they'll somehow twist them to imprison anyone who says that we shouldn't kill brown people.

There is, in fact, a world of difference between insane shit like letting the KKK buy advertising on government-owned, high-traffic public property, and putting people in prison for saying the n-word (instead of just collectively wagging our finger at them or whatever). There is, in fact, a world of difference between telling the Westboro Baptist Church that protesting at someone's funeral is targeted harassment of private individuals so they need to fuck off to somewhere else for their protest, and just banning protesting at all.

I am uncomfortable with a trend in certain parts of the left towards the distrust of free speech, but that trend is happening because fucking idiots who say things like... well, what you're saying... refuse to parse out any of the nuances and just declare that minorities have no right to not have their government publicly sanction groups that want to murder them, or not be hounded down and have obscenities shouted at them - because slippery slope! Except the slope isn't very fucking slippery, and Republicans are already attempting to chill protest mostly just by making it legal to run over protesters (in all but name).

DSMatticus wrote: I am uncomfortable with a trend in certain parts of the left towards the distrust of free speech, but that trend is happening because fucking idiots who say things like... well, what you're saying... refuse to parse out any of the nuances and just declare that minorities have no right to not have their government publicly sanction groups that want to murder them, or not be hounded down and have obscenities shouted at them - because slippery slope! Except the slope isn't very fucking slippery, and Republicans are already attempting to chill protest mostly just by making it legal to run over protesters (in all but name).

It isn't a slippery slope. It isn't a slope at all. It's a goddamn flat plane.

The government will use its powers against minorities. There's no if or maybe there. They will. They have in the past, they continue to do so today. The government will ignore crimes against minorities. They have in the past, they continue to do so.

Trusting the government to protect the rights of minorities is like trusting foxes to protect the rights of hens.

When Trump pushes his "both sides" narrative, do you think that means that he's going to enforce hate speech laws fairly and impartially? Because that's not what I'm getting from the "Both Sides" narrative, personally.

In 1968, Black Panther national treasurer Bobby Hutton was assassinated by the Oakland Police department.

It's 50 years later and we still don't live in a country where the police refrain from murdering black people who get too uppity. And we still don't live in a country where the police don't get away with it.

The KKK is a joke. The Westboro Baptist Church is a joke. They do horrible things, but they have no power. Even in the age of the internet their political influence is nonexistent.

The police, on the other hand, are not a joke. Trump isn't a joke, either, though he acts like one. These people people with real power who are capable is exercising that power in ways that do tremendous harm and who have shown illness to use that power against people who criticism them.


People who do things that the government agrees with don't get prosecuted. An alt-right friendly government is not going to use hate speech laws against the alt right, it just isn't. If it uses them at all it will use them to target people who disagree with them.

We already live in a world where police respond to left-wing protests with mass arrests. I'd rather not give them more ammo.

Also, you know, 200 protesters and 2 journalists are still under arrest and on bail and/or in jail for protesting. And the state is trying to give them, including the journalists, 60 years in prison for being at an event where someone else broke windows.

Also Lauren Southern (a dumb right winger "journalist") was also rounded up with all those protesters and the other journalists, but she was released. Also she gave her footage to the prosecutors to help them convict.

Also, you know who else gave the prosecutor footage? Project Veritas! They had footage for the prosecutor from a planning meeting. You know what happened when the defense asked for unedited footage? Prosecutor said they don't have that!

BUT HEY GUYS, THERE ISN'T A RIGHT WING CONCERTED EFFORT TO JAIL PROTESTERS OR ANYTHING!

So.... let's complain about how manifestly nonacademic useless pieces of shit aren't given an infinite number of platforms to constantly shit on minorities and call for genocide.

So, this is kinda random, but... Could a humanoid organism have a cartilaginous lining in it's esophagus? Like, would that be biologically feasible?

These kinda things seem so pressing when they wake you up at three in the morning.

Shrapnel wrote:So, this is kinda random, but... Could a humanoid organism have a cartilaginous lining in it's esophagus? Like, would that be biologically feasible?

Sure, but what would the purpose be?

Such a creature would not be able to use muscular action to move food up or down. Maybe a creature that swallows dangerous prey whole (Sarlac)?

Shrapnel wrote:So, this is kinda random, but... Could a humanoid organism have a cartilaginous lining in it's esophagus? Like, would that be biologically feasible?

You already do.

deaddmwalking wrote:Such a creature would not be able to use muscular action to move food up or down. Maybe a creature that swallows dangerous prey whole (Sarlac)?

Or uses suction!

angelfromanotherpin wrote:

Shrapnel wrote:So, this is kinda random, but... Could a humanoid organism have a cartilaginous lining in it's esophagus? Like, would that be biologically feasible?

Sure, but what would the purpose be?

Because it would be weird and alien. Like I said, this popped into my head at 3am, and that early in the day you don't really think about silly things like "yeah but why?".

deaddmwalking wrote:Such a creature would not be able to use muscular action to move food up or down. Maybe a creature that swallows dangerous prey whole (Sarlac)?

Hm. So would it always need the mouth open, a la sarlacc or basking shark, or could it be more like a snake, with a mouth that closes and can unhinge to swallow things?

Hypothetically, the creature could also just manually push the food down it's throat, though this would work best if it had some manner of breathing that doesn't involve the esophagus.

Seems very impractical. Given that food is often not just liquids and could get lodged in there, you want to be able to apply flexible pressure to move it. Plus the fact that a muscular tube can move stuff in *both* directions fairly well for when you need to vomit.

Compare and contrast the larynx and trachea (which Greks picture actually shows - the esophagus is behind that and has no cartilage). The chief objective of the airway is that it shouldn't collapse, so it's lined with cartilage. For generating force, the lungs rely on negative pressure when the diaphragm contracts; the lungs themselves are elastic and collapse with normal pressure. I'm no engineer, but I don't think that would work very well for the digestive system that needs to handle a lot more volume than the lungs. Muscle is the way to go.

You could have cartilage plates and muscle, but that would take space and limit motility - maybe if that species eats a lot of stuff that could pierce their internal organs before it's digested, but they'd be more prone to having larger meals stuck in their throats.

Shrapnel wrote:a snake, with a mouth that closes and can unhinge to swallow things?

Not that relevant to your point, but snakes can't unhinge or dislocate their jaws. They just have a different jaw mechanism to us, such that it's basically an elastic joint that stretches and bends really far naturally without needing to unhinge. The trade-off is that the bits involved spread across further and so there isn't room for ear development so they can't hear as well.

Or in other words, the trade-off for us being easily pissed off by loud noises is that we can't swallow cakes whole. DAMN YOU EVOLUTION!

What do you mean you cannot swallow cakes whole already? Just a matter of applying enough pressure and tea or milk.

Shrapnel wrote: Hm. So would it always need the mouth open, a la sarlacc or basking shark, or could it be more like a snake, with a mouth that closes and can unhinge to swallow things?

Either would work. The external mouth opening doesn't matter as much. It can be any shape you want or covered, depending. I'm imagining an armored mouth that closes to prevent prey from escaping, which might be what you're thinking of.

Then it has a number of armored tongues attached to its stomach, which grap and wrap around the prey, pulling it through an armored throat that is lined with spurs and blades, effectively ripping it apart on the way down.