The film is so much clearer than the book 😄 Even Ellis said that Bateman is such an unreliable narrator that it’s not clear that any of the events happened at all. But I think you are 100% correct in that lead characters will always have a fandom that identifies with them no matter how repulsive the character is.

Up thread I made a joke about Marty Supreme. There is a character who is an unrepentant piece of shit who manipulates, steals from, and headlights every other character in the movie. I already hear people saying it’s inspirational because he followed his heart. No matter that he ruined the lives of every person around him.

I don’t think it’s because he doesn’t think Bateman is capable of committing those crimes - far from it. Almost everyone in the film is a psychopath in their way (the sex workers are notable exceptions).

Nobody wants to deal with the consequences because it would upset the gravy train they’re on. The lawyer doesn’t want to hear a confession, the real estate agent doesn’t want to acknowledge that crimes took place there etc. The world is built on ignoring things that distract from money. Everyone will lie to keep things rolling.

Eta: that’s the joke in the book and movie title - Bateman is the psycho because he feels some remorse. Everyone just wants to carry on with their lives.

Not satirizing metrosexual at all. He is the counterpoint to Gordon Gecko.

Is this a review of Marty Supreme?

This is another of a long line of these studies. The effects they get from this type of epidemiology is entirely an artifact of the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

In this case they say they controlled for formerly heavy drinkers who now abstain. Without reading the paper in detail we don’t know if they controlled for socio-economic status etc. For example that group may include a group of former polydrug users who were insecurely housed. Assigning that group to “heavy drinkers now abstaining” will tilt the results. There are chronic health conditions that arise from that lifestyle independent of alcohol use.

Epidemiology needs to be treated with kid gloves and I find this kind of advocacy unhelpful.

There are almost always two answers:

• a) custom buttplug
• b) exothermic reaction
• source: I worked in an emergency room during training.

Mangina

Worth less so harder to carry large amounts of capital.

Depends on your threat model. During speculative bubbles capital flows towards gainers no matter how crazy (NFTs anyone?). During corrections capital flows back towards commodities, and gold is … er…the gold standard. It has a lot of industrial uses blah blah blah. Copper is also good for these purposes and is an interesting contrast.

Nobody says “if you can’t touch it, you don’t own it” for copper or oil or pork bellies. That’s because that advice isn’t about using gold as an inflation hedge or safe harbour in a bear market. That advice is predicated on compete monetary collapse and the use of gold as currency. If you don’t live in a space where you can grow some of your own food, and have access to potable water from your own well I wouldn’t worry to much about it. You will starve to death or die in the food riots so gold won’t help anyways.

Paisley Lightfoot

I have an older comment that goes through Tesla’s litany of woes and the stock goes up with every piece of bad news. It is being supported by something other than reality.

Removed by mod

That particular group were called “The Fool”. They were costume designers whose clients included the Beatles.

eta: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fool_(design_collective)

Or theatre students. They used to send them out to act weird in public to get over feeling self conscious.

I agree with you. My guess is a 3" heel to put her at around 5’7". I think he’s about 5’10" based on all the pictures of him with Bill Barr. I think he has two different lift heights depending on who he’s meeting with. I honestly don’t care about all of this that much, but I find it hilarious.

With all the bots on the site why complain about these ones?

Edit: auto$#&"$correct

I’m a scholar. It means not pulling stuff from your ass and citing your sources.

Technology can therefore be defined both as an ensemble of deliberately created processes and objects that together accomplish some function as well as the associated knowledge and skills used in the conception, design, implementation, and operation of such technological artifacts.

O. L. de Weck, Technology Roadmapping and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88346-1_1

Start with your silly claim that “advertising”, as you define it, occurred 30,000 years ago. Any non-suppositional evidence please.

What are you even on about? Persuasion is not advertising. And in the absence of a material culture for advertising, there is literally no basis for the 30,000 year claim. This is pure nonsense and the worst kind of bullshit.