Profile overview for feral-toes.
Submission statistics

This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):

9 submissions to economics

5 submissions to politics

4 submissions to piano

4 submissions to whatever

4 submissions to funny

This user has so far shared a total of 44 links, started a total of 7 discussions and submitted a total of 471 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 1842 and downvoted 124 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 3800 and downvoted 33 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

Elderly Britbong, submitted: 4/6/2018 9:37:45 AM, 69 points (+74|-5)

Increasingly Secular Nation Replaces Outdated Religious Ideas With End Times Prophecies, Moral Judgments, submitted: 2/28/2019 8:10:58 PM, 61 points (+68|-7)

Researchers make RAM from a phase change we don't entirely understand, submitted: 12/18/2018 10:49:42 PM, 20 points (+20|-0)

The decline and fall of brand BBC, submitted: 2/20/2019 11:39:28 PM, 17 points (+17|-0)

Ancient Breakfast Cereal from eight years ago, submitted: 4/8/2019 10:08:49 PM, 17 points (+19|-2)

5 lowest rated submissions:

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

South African Minister of Basic Education: Whites forced education down our throats, its actually not our thing submitted by dayofthehope to news

feral-toes 0 points 29 points (+29|-0) ago

Go to the actual web page, by cutting and pasting the URL for the banned domain from the archive page. Admire the busty women, but don't click the links, least your computer die of digital AIDS. Click on ABOUT, and discover that this is a satire site.

Be impressed by the way that voat detects the banned domain; I was naively going to link to the page until PREVIEW produced a bold red warning.

Most people don't have an inner monologue submitted by DeadBeatNigger to whatever

feral-toes 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago

The whole idea of mindful meditation is to shut your mind up.

That gets discussed a lot among meditaters. Mostly they disagree with it, but find it hard to articulate the alternative. Here is my personal take.

When you start meditating your thoughts are 1% the real deal, actual useful thoughts. 79% random crap 20% fucked up shit. It is a bit like the atmosphere if Argon = real deal, Nitrogen = random crap, Oxygen = fucked up shit that makes stuff burst into flames.

But the fucked up shit hides behind the random crap.

You learn to meditate and notice the randomness of the crap. You chill and stop stirring it. You chill some more and stop putting energy into it. Now it is not hiding the fucked up shit so well. That is alarming. You ask to yourself "Has meditation made my thoughts worse, or were they always like that and I didn't notice?" That is an example of the real deal, 1%.

Now you can see the fucked up shit, you can stop repeating it to yourself. When it doesn't recirculate it tends to die out. Progress looks like 1.2% real deal, 40% random crap, 3.8% fucked up shit, 55% inner peace. Cutting down on the random crap and fucked up shit creates inner peace, as expected. Not so expected is that there is more room in your head for the real deal, up from 1% to 1.2%

Maybe you stick with meditation and get yourself together in an impressive way: 2% real deal, 3% random crap, 0% fucked up shit, 95% inner peace. It is easy and tempting to focus primarily on the inner peace, and secondarily on the remaining random crap. Then you understand yourself as trying to shut your mind up. But that is potentially dangerous. You are actually trying to have more thoughts, that is, more of the good quality ones. But good quality thoughts are delicate flowers. You can only hope to grow them from 1% to 2%. There just isn't that much to think about. And they need lots of metaphorical sunlight. Most of the work is cutting down the weeds of random crap that over shadow them.

3 lowest rated comments:

Former shitlord surrenders to fatties after getting obese. A grim reminder to never let yourself get this pathetic. submitted by MyFatnessPal to fatpeoplehate

feral-toes 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago

I bet on genuine. I looked at the posting history and found this. There is lots more. Way too much work for fatfiction.

Finding that reminded me that I was skeptical when I saw it first time around, a year ago. The quality of the writing testified to intelligence. The story was most simply explained by stupidity. Contradiction!

Re-reading it today, I realised that I hadn't put proper weight on this paragraph

I was power walking through the neighborhood, sweating bullets, feeling really proud of myself for not stopping for a breather in almost twenty minutes, when some guy drove by and made pig noises out his window at me. I was broken. I've been in bar fights, I've been hospitalized, I grew up with not one but two abusive stepfathers, I'm a fighter. But I was so hurt and broken and embarrassed that I just stood there. If some guy had done that to me when I was thin, there's a good chance I'd have hurled a rock at their window. But I couldn't think of anything to say or do because this time, on some level, I agreed with them.

This post works just as well for /v/singlemothershate. It is the tale of an intelligent child who is so fucked up by his single mother and her shitty boyfriends that he turns to comfort eating and becomes a fat.

But it is an unusual tale, his mother wasn't a fat. The usual tale goes post-wedding weight gain, dead bedroom, failed marriage, single motherhood, fucked up children. Usually it is getting fat that is the root of all evil.

What's the evolutionary advantage of two identical twins fighting over mating rights? submitted by killer7 to AskScience

feral-toes 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago

This is really a question about Polyembryony: What behaviours do we expect to see in species where identical twins are so common that they influence the evolution of behaviour? For example: How do we expect the Nine-banded Armadillo to behave?

The real interest lies with social species. We anticipate that identical twins (or identical quadruplets) will form bands of brothers. And they will be closer than ordinary brothers and happy to share wives. But the Nine-banded Armadillo is a solitary species, the four brother armadillos go their separate ways. To the extent that the prediction is put to the test, it has failed.

But polyembryony is very rare. It only happens in armadillos due to special circumstances, with mating, gestation, and the right time of year to give birth being out of synchronization. I suspect that polyembryony is not an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS) in normal circumstances, but I lack the knowledge and technique in game theory and population genetics to be sure. My suspicion is that this forms some kind of obstacle to polyembryony lasting long enough for new behaviours to evolve.

In short, I agree with your intuition. There is something wrong about identical twins fighting over mating rights. They should evolve cooperative behaviour. But their is also something screwy happening with polyembryony; it is very rare. So my guess is the problem with polyembryony means that it never lasts long enough for the super-cooperative behaviours to evolve.

ETA Here is a paper about why polyembryony is rare.