Sameish. I thought soap was supposed to damage it. I boil water, use a metal spatula to help lift anything stuck on there, dump the water, wipe it dry, then add oil and wipe it one more time and leave it on the stove so it’s ready to use again.

I’ll be honest, I still don’t really understand what “season” means, but I’ve been doing that several times a week for like ~7 years now without any issues (that I’m aware of, I guess).

You’re confusing personality and morality. that’s a shitty way to put that, sorry.

Those are two separate things.

I never argued that a personality change couldn’t occur. Personality change in humans following a brain lesion from an injury is neuroscience 101.

That is not what this is.

I’m arguing that Fetterman’s support of things that contradict who he (still to this day, claims to be) are harmful to the people he is supposed to represent should not be excused as simply a consequence of his stroke.

Edit: So this ended up making me interested in just looking more into the neuroscience of morality.

Damage to the prefrontal cortex is associated with an increase in utilitarian moral judgements. Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements(2008)

Damage to the amygdala (vs frontal) actually seemed to cause a breakdown of utilitarian moral behavior Breakdown of utilitarian moral judgement after basolateral amygdala damage

Here, in humans with selective bilateral BLA damage, we show breakdown in outcome-based sacrificial moral judgements. Across dilemmas, healthy control subjects routinely opt for sacrifice, but BLA-damaged subjects rarely select the sacrificial option, even when thousands of lives can be saved. Our data suggest that value-based decisions to sacrifice another human for “the greater good” critically depend on the BLA.

Participants with hippocampal damage were also less likely to choose the utilitarian option Hippocampal Damage Increases Deontological Responses during Moral Decision Making

We found that the patients approved of the utilitarian options significantly less often than control participants, favoring instead deontological responses—rejecting actions that harm even one person. Thus, patients with hippocampal damage have a strikingly opposite approach to moral decision making than vmPFC-lesioned patients.

Conversely, this 2022 paper found brain damage itself is not a significant predictor: Intact moral decision-making in adults with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury

Our results suggest that moral decision-making ability is not uniformly impaired following TBI. Rather, neuroanatomical (lesion location) and demographic (age at injury) characteristics may be more predictive of a disruption in moral decision-making than TBI diagnosis or injury severity alone. These results inform the neurobiology of moral decision-making and have implications for characterizing patterns of spared and impaired cognitive abilities in TBI.

A 2025 study looking at both frontal and non frontal brain damage found that individuals with brain damage did indeed seem to make incorrect judgments about intention and blame worthyness and we’re more likely to be punitive to an antagonist in scenarios they were presented compared to healthy controls. They also found in that in this scenario moral judgment ratings did not differ between frontal and non‐frontal lobe damage (but note a small sample size of frontal lobe damage). Impact of brain damage on moral judgment

This wasn’t a study of brain damage, but really interesting in terms of difference in morality networks of conservative vs liberals:

Moral reasoning displays characteristic patterns in the brain, with distinctions between moral categories

They discovered that a general network of brain regions was involved in judging moral violations, like cheating on a test, in contrast with mere social norm violations, such as drinking coffee with a spoon. What’s more, the network’s topography overlapped strikingly with the brain regions involved in theory of mind. However, distinct activity patterns emerged at finer resolution, suggesting that the brain processes different moral issues along different pathways, supporting a pluralist view of moral reasoning. The results, published in Nature Human Behaviour, even reveal differences between how liberals and conservatives evaluate a given moral issue.

Mounting evidence from survey and behavioral experiments suggests that liberals (progressives) are more sensitive to the categories of care/harm and fairness/cheating, which primarily protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. Conservatives, in contrast, place greater emphasis on the loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation categories, which generally operate at the group level.

“Indeed, our results provide evidence at the neurological level that liberals and conservatives have complex differential neural responses when judging moral foundations,” Weber explained. That means individuals at different points along the political spectrum likely emphasize completely different values when evaluating a particular issue.

If it could be shown that following his stroke and recovery, his brain for example re-wired to function in a morally conservative way, it would makes him less culpable for his actions, but it also raises an interesting question. If voters elected a Democrat who then “became a conservative,” should he have considered stepped down because he could no longer represent the people that elected him?

Everything is on the table. Something like production of speech into meaning can be damaged following a stroke, so that somebody could very clearly write down what they want to say but lose the ability to verbally express the same words.

There is no single area of the brain that fully regulates or controls moral behavior. Even with global damage you would expect to see decreased functioning of several areas. You might expect randomness or inconsistencies in behavior, but this seems like a pretty consistent pattern for him. That’s what makes it hard to believe brain damage is the full explanation.

The behavior that results following brain damage usually correlates with where the brain damage occurs.

To say that this would fully explain Fetterman is to pretend that there is a single imaginary area of the brain that works as a moral compass and his was completely wiped out following his stroke.

That’s not to say he couldn’t be more easily manipulated or persuaded by outside forces because of the brain damage.

One of my best friends has had multiple TBIs. She doesn’t always make the best decisions, but she is still a good person with the same morals and core values she has always had.

In the case of Fetterman, I feel like you’re really giving brain damage too much credit for his consistent willingness to do harm to other people.

Even other people with brain damage have spoken out against this guy.

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/as-fellow-stroke-survivor-fetterman-disgusts-me-20341662.php

I agree with you 100%

And the thing about con artists is they’re in it for the money. Everything is a sales pitch to them. There are no values, and the more you allow people to do this shit without calling it out, the more ammunition you give to the argument that voting is a waste of time bc they’re all the same.

Somebody who is willing to advertise themselves as supporting something good, while accepting money from the people that are contributing to the thing they’re calling bad ::cough:: Ro Kahnna ::cough::, is exactly the same as the people they’re pretending to call out.

Their loyalty is to the highest bidder, not their values, or their party, and definitely not to the public.

Parlatore told me during a brief conversation. He added that Indyke’s “experience on the legal side of the Epstein business was valuable.” For instance, Indyke knows how to structure financial arrangements and purchase aircraft, Parlatore said. “I hired him because of that.”

He knows how to structure financial arrangements and purchase aircraft? …uhuh

Those kinds of financial skills are what the two women who sued Indyke allege were at the heart of Epstein’s criminal enterprise. In his bio, Indyke touts his experience “as general counsel to family offices, serial entrepreneurs, investors, and other ultra-high-net-worth clientele.” He doesn’t mention Epstein. Among his other capabilities: “Complex business and commercial transactions,” as well as “aviation, marine, and other exotic asset purchases, sales, and operation.”

Exotic asset purchases? Maybe I’m reading too much into that and it’s just normal rich person… stuff? But given who he is, I feel like he’s not really deserving of the benefit of the doubt. Yikes. His bio also says this: Stakeholders seek his analysis and problem-solving skills and rely upon him to ensure that their matters are handled with the utmost care and discretion. 😬

Left unsaid was that some of Epstein’s victims have gone looking for others involved in enabling Epstein’s misconduct, and they claim that one trail leads to Indyke.

Last year, Epstein’s estate, which Indyke administers with Epstein’s former accountant, received a nearly $112 million tax refund from the IRS. “With most large claims against the estate having been settled, that newfound cash isn’t likely to make its way to victims of the disgraced financier,” The New York Times reported in January. But some of the assets could go to Indyke, as well as other beneficiaries that Epstein named before he died.

Then they decide to get makeovers or permanent eyeliner like that’s supposed to make up for all the other weird shit?

I mean he keeps using Elon as tool and it’s like Elon keeps letting him? Not like Elon doesn’t benefit from it, but he made him the hated face of DOGE after planning all of that shit during Trump’s first administration. Now that Elon got everything set up for him, he’s still there reaping the benefits. He got the media narrative of “Elon has gone crazy, he’s not sleeping, he’s lost his mind, he’s a man child,” going strong and then within weeks Elon was stepping down.

When they both owned PayPal, he ousted Elon in a very similar coup while he was on his honeymoon. Coups are like his thing. He just does that over and over again to gain control. He’s doing it to Trump right now, and if/when he finishes crumbling democracy and we no longer have elections, he’s very likely going to do it to JD Vance’s dumbass too.

modern day villains don’t look like Hitler; they look like Greta Thunberg.

Of course a modern day Hitler would say that.

Lmao I literally just compared him to Hitler the other day. “Don’t look at me, look at Greta Thunberg. Eww! She’s so smug, right guys? BTW I believe I’m god, but don’t worry about that for now. Let’s all focus on Greta and the way she calls out genocide when she sees it happening, like a total Nazi!”

In their own ways, each of these developments is a response to Thiel’s thesis that the world is stuck. In his 2011 essay The End of the Future, he decries the “soft totalitarianism of political correctness in media and academia” and the “sordid world” of entertainment. The result is “50 years of stagnation” that has transformed humanity “into this more docile kind of a species”.

This is a long rant, but just my opinion:

His argument and views on “progress” vs “stuck” or stagnation are the things that make me really just shake my head at the fact that anyone buys into his BS. Like it’s just the money that gets people to listen to him right? Wtf are you even talking about? The last 50 years have been “stagnation?”

Especially in terms of science and technology, like have you been paying attention to anything? Or are you just throwing another hissy fit bc they haven’t figured out how to upload you fast enough, and you’re so scared that one day you’re going to have to accept your own mortality just like everyone else?

Look at how we even got to this point. Look at how educational, economic, and social changes after WWII led to an explosion of innovation and ideas. Changes to society following WWII opened up opportunities for people to offer a new perspective in so many areas that had become homogenous and stagnant.

Does he think it was the war itself that just did that? Like he believes if he can play god, the recipe for greatness just calls for him to make a “big bang” and the only possible result that can follow is a boom of progress and of innovation???

If that’s what this is, it actually make so much sense. At his core, he is somebody who desperately seeks power and control, but never actually learned to build or create anything of his own. Like he wants the things, and is quite successful at getting them. But he gets them through the only strategy he knows. Throwing money at them, joining something that already exists (like a company or organization), and strategizing a takedown of the internal structure, so that by default it becomes his.

But, he has no idea how to create something from scratch. This would be his attempt to model himself after greatness, but make it his own. He studied the history lesson, but either completely misunderstood it, or, he is arrogant enough to believe repeating it like an experiment, but with his own selfish spin, will lead to the same or better outcome. Almost like he’s banking on technology being able to achieve everything human innovation did after WWII.

The Manitoba Development Center?

But not related to Epstein’s case right?

That’s why it matters if they release all the files or just the ones Trump okays.

I think it’s just CYA

We know his name is in the files, but since the files haven’t been officially released (I think some have been leaked?) we don’t know why.

We only know he is named repeatedly throughout files related to Epstein’s case. If somebody’s name came up repeatedly in any criminal case, it would seem pretty likely they were involved somehow. Since he’s been suing everybody left and right they don’t want to be accused of making unsubstantiated claims.

Exactly! Why TF is he doing this?

I mean like I know as a distraction, but as far as dangerous and stupid distractions go, this is like a dumb guy swinging around a weapon as a show of force, but if he accidentally “trips” he sets off wwIII.

It’s just harder and harder to comprehend how this man is allowed to keep doing the things he does.

Like the dumbest fucking history being written before our eyes, and there’s nothing we can do to stop him bc he’s in charge.

“Your honor, would a “monster” help her wealthy pedophile boyfriend secure underage girls for his trafficking network?”

I was going to say, I hope is more kayfabe. I still don’t like anybody “moving” nukes anywhere as a threat, real or theatrical.

One day he’s going to be the boy who cried wolf, and ended up wiping us all off the face of the earth.

Fuck organic chemistry in particular. That is the only class I’ve ever taken where it felt like I was arguing my grade before a judge who had already decided I was guilty. Like even if you’re right, you’re still wrong. You know it and the judge knows it, but what are you going to do about it? It’s his courtroom.

I hope he just continues like that everyday for the rest of his career, even once he gains confidence to know what he’s doing.

Like every class his students have to talk him off a ledge, and then when he nears retirement after 50 years he’s just known as “that crazy professor” every campus seems to have.

Timeline of predictive policing and facial recognition surveillance in New Orleans:

~2012-2018: Palantir has secretly been using New Orleans to test its predictive policing technology

2015: Meet The Man Who Runs New Orleans’ Entirely Privatized (And Controversial) City Surveillance System

2017: ProjectNOLA plans to expand crime camera network, work more closely with New Orleans officials

2018: Months after end of ‘predictive policing’ contract, Cantrell administration works on new tool to ID ‘high-risk’ residents

2020: New Orleans City Council bans facial recognition, predictive policing and other surveillance tech

2022: Mayor Cantrell moves to reverse bans on facial recognition, predictive policing and other surveillance tech

2023: Wholly ineffective and pretty obviously racist’: Inside New Orleans’ struggle with facial-recognition policing

May 2025: Police secretly monitored New Orleans with facial recognition cameras

June 2025: City camera technology not useful for facial recognition: Project NOLA founder

Lagarde says he believed a proposed new ordinance would “free up NOPD to tap the Project NOLA network without concern” as needed.

Future surveillance across America as of 2025:

June 2025: Trump’s Palantir-Powered Surveillance Is Turning America Into a Digital Prison

Palantir, long criticized for its role in powering ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids and predictive policing, is now poised to become the brain of Trump’s surveillance regime. Under the guise of “data integration” and “public safety,” this public-private partnership would deploy AI-enhanced systems to comb through everything from facial recognition feeds and license plate readers to social media posts and cellphone metadata—cross-referencing it all to assess a person’s risk to the state.