Aapje58
4d ago
Pre-modern combat was relatively brief and with dangers that you can generally see coming. The sword is attached to a man who is standing near you. You can see the arrow fly in the air.
Very different to the kind of 24/7 combat that happens in more modern wars, with dangers that you cannot see coming.
Aapje58
5d ago
First of all, your entire premise is ridiculous. 'Palestinians attacking Israelis' is something that is always going to exist at some base level, just like 'Israelis attacking Palestinians' or 'Israelis attacking Israelis' or 'Israelis attacking Dutch people (and vice versa)' or whatever groups are in contact. So any claim that one will do X once Y is achieved, where Y is impossible, effectively just means that one does not actually ever intend to do X. Or in this case, that one falsely claims that one side has control over their faith, when that is not a reasonable thing to claim.
Israel has a history of refusing to work towards normalization, by demanding the impossible, and refusing to honor any deals that do not deliver the impossible. An example is the 2008 cease fire, where rockets attacks dropped to a tiny fraction of what they were before the cease fire, but Israel refused to adhere to the agreement unless Hamas was able to stop all Palestinians from using violence, which is not realistically possible. This is like demanding that the police stop all crime. A ridiculous ask that has nothing to do with reason or reality.
Secondly, the idea that if there is a brief period of no attacks at all, Israel will trust Palestinians enough to just open the borders and let everything through is absurd. The only evidence one needs to disprove this, is the Gaza peace plan which already demands that no attacks will be launched from Gaza (see point 1), yet does not promise any more than to let through specific goods. So the ending of the blockade is not part of the peace plan.
Finally, fact is that Israel perceives all kinds of fairly innocent things as attacks, so the idea that no actual attacks means that Israel won't perceive any attacks is also highly doubtful. Examples are: driving in a UN-marked convoy where Israel was notified of the route that they would take. Clearly marked ambulances riding around with alarm signals. People approaching food trucks to get food. All cases where people were considered treats and attacked with lethal force, and no evidence exist of any reasonable casus belli.
Aapje58
6d ago
all they have to do is stop attacking Israel and shortly thereafter the hostilities will entirely cease.
This is false, the blockade will obviously persist. A blockade is a form of hostility.
Aapje58
10d ago
When she drove towards him (into him seems presumptuous).
The phone recording from the cop who shot, as well as the original footage, does suggest that she at least grazed him. With that fairly rapid acceleration when pedestrians are that close to the car, that is very dangerous driving for sure, regardless of whether she hit him hard, grazed him, or barely missed him.
The question is still whether she knew he was standing there when she started. The vehicle starts moving with the wheels turned towards him. That was used to argue that she intentionally drove towards him. But then the wheels quickly turn to the right. It's hard to tell how exactly that turn intersected with the ICE agent. We don't know how much contact was made.
She likely saw him as he starting walking across the vehicle, but he stops while she looking down. She may have assumed he kept walking. She also may not have actually noticed him with the first glance.
This is all just apologia. As a driver she is in all circumstances obligated to drive safely and not come this close to hitting people with her car, and not accelerate this fast near pedestrians. It doesn't matter if she assumed that he had moved far enough to the side, misjudged her turning circle, pressed the go pedal too hard because she was agitated, was high on drugs, etc. Once you put someone's life in danger, they are allowed to act like their life is in danger. I don't think that shooting his gun was necessarily the best way for the cop to react to it, but she chose to flee from the police in a way that endangered a cop, and from a legal point of view that seems unlikely to result in a conviction of the cop (given the perspective of the cop and the brief time for him to act).
But then the wheels quickly turn to the right.
This would have been impossible to see from the perspective of the cop in front of the car, given how close he was. He would only have been able to see the hood of the car.
He could potentially have seen the wheels pointed to the left earlier, when he was still to the side of the car, and then taken that into consideration when he saw the car moving towards him, but whether that is actually true requires knowledge of what the cop was thinking.
Aapje58
11d ago
It is just that you have different value and definition of merit.
Yes, but a key part of having a respected and useful institution is to pick values and definitions of merit that serve a fairly clear and respected outcome, and then cast aside those who refuse to serve that goal.
Aapje58
11d ago
If I had my way, I would make big changes to the scientific reward structure (both funding and the 'impact' scores).
The end result should then be fewer original studies, but those should be done with more rigor (larger experiment sizes, having the preregistered experimental plans judged by an organization separate from the universities with very strong statistical expertise and specialized in finding those and other experimental weaknesses). And strong rewards for replication studies, with a base reward based on the impact of the original paper and then diminishing rewards if many replications are done, to encourage replications, in particular for very impactful studies.
Scientists could then still do investigative studies with less rigor, but those would also be rewarded less and be considered 2nd tier. To become a professor, one would then presumably have to have done at least one big boy study with the higher standards.
Aapje58
11d ago
Psychiatry is a good example. Since for the most part the diagnoses are based on symptoms, the experiments tend to check whether symptoms are reduced after treatment. However, it is very easy for the experimental setup to influence how people report things (since people's opinion of their symptoms tends to be fickle) and for the treatment to not allow for double-blinded experiments. For example, if you want to investigate whether transgender treatments have a positive effect on mental health, there is no such way to do things. And I know that there is a culture among at least a subset of transgender people of lying to medical professionals to get the care they want. The scientific field has a lack of focus on biased errors in their experiments, in contrast to random errors (for which p-values are often used).
Aapje58
23d ago
People who occupy fields which make pretenses of scientific rigor but are actually just bullshitting may very well feel that all the application of statistics etc is just performative.
Perhaps they are right. Statistics in itself doesn't produce facts. It just transforms detailed data into aggregates. But if the detailed data is bad, the aggregates will be bad too.
There are fields where proper experiments are very hard, and usually the conclusions you can draw from the experiments they can do, are generally very limited. Then actually doing science properly will result in the field correctly being judged as being rather useless and funding being withdrawn. So the only way these fields can exist is by fraud and thus that it what they'll do.
For these fields, fraud is simply an evolutionary adaptation.
Aapje58
23d ago
I generally think people underestimate just how hard modern science and engineering is compared to what people where doing in the 50's. The sophistication of what we need to do now completely outclasses anything from back then. There's a very good recent pop-science video on EUV lithography
I feel confident in claiming that at least 99% of modern science and engineering falls way below that complexity (and the only reason why people didn't give up on EUV despite the complexity was because the stakes are so high). Gino is a good example. Her study on cheating based on whether people sign before they cheat or afterwards, is a kind of study that has been done time and time again. It doesn't require a lot of intelligence to come up with it, just a little creativity (and even then the emphasis is on 'little').
Also note that specialization has increased, so the overall complexity of certain fields may have increased, but that doesn't mean that the complexity of specific jobs has increased as much.
The optimal strategy then is to do the ones you're most interested in
No, the optimal strategy is then to game the top-N that will be selected.
Aapje58
23d ago
95% accurate is pretty horrible. In a country of 348 million that means you have over 17 million people improperly classified.
It's not a death sentence. And the system to move classified people to the right jobs is far from perfect as well.
Arguably, imperfect classification helps solve that issue so jobs that require a high classification, but are really more suitable for the less capable get filled with the proper person, and vice versa.
In our system, we also have no good solution for exceptions, like the union leader who needs to understand the situation of the workers in a way that can only come from having done the job, but who needs to have skills beyond what the job requires. It would be a bad idea to require a standard for all workers far beyond what the job requires, but also to not have any people who can successfully advocate for those people, at the level of the more classified, where decisions get made.
Aapje58
2mo ago
There is such a thing as a contract, where people can legally bind themselves to a payment.
Aapje58
2mo ago
My argument is simply that the phrase "cultural Marxism" is pretty devoid of meaning and when used in common parlance has essentially nothing to do with Marxism at all.
There is a lot of meaning, but most of that meaning is indeed in the meta: these people blame entire groups for the alleged oppression of other groups, based on a very poor analysis, and see the solution in giving power to these supposedly oppressed groups with the assumption that this will solve the alleged oppression (and not create new oppression). As people have explained to you, the initiators of this movement actually saw cultural Marxism as a meaningful name, that they chose for themselves, where they shifted their Marxist reasoning and methodologies to a new field.
Imagine that there is a group in Indonesia who wrote the Protocols of Sino, blaming Indonesian problems on a secret cabal of Chinese elites and think that the solution to Indonesian problems is to kill the Chinese. And imagine that they initially called themselves 'anti-Chinese Nazi's', but ran into the issue that Nazi has a rather negative connotation outside of their own little bubble, so they rebranded with a different name. Not because their beliefs fundamentally changed, but just to get more acceptance.
Then it makes perfect sense for the critics to use the original name. Not because it falsely links the ideology to another ideology with a negative connotation, but because that link actually exists and is strong.
Aapje58
3mo ago
Women and men make different errors while driving.
This used to be true, but nowadays where I live, women drive very aggressive as well, and make 'manly' mistakes a lot now.
Aapje58
3mo ago
is comparable to inciting basically genocide.
The claim is not that he was inciting genocide, but that a genuine desire to harm people merely for having a different political opinion is not compatible with a position of power. Especially being an Attorney General, where he would be required to serve the legal interests of all Virginians, not just those that agree with him politically.
Aside from that, there is also the issue that these statements make him a risk to the safety of government employees and politicians that he would encounter in his job. If he sees lethal violence as a solution to conflicts, then a workplace conflict could logically lead to a workplace shooting.
Aapje58
3mo ago
which raises a lot of questions on how that mechanically actually happens.
We still have people who are pronounced dead, but weren't, despite modern medical knowledge and tools. So it probably happened a lot more often in the past.
The bible explains that the Roman soldiers didn't follow the correct crucifixion procedure, where the legs of the person were broken. So it makes sense that Jesus could have barely survived, recovered a bit after being placed in a cool tomb, then wandered around a little in a stupor, and then died.
Then add a bit of embellishment and you have a resurrection narrative, with him transcending to heaven (aka actually dying) shortly after a faux death.
Aapje58
3mo ago
For the same reason why Venice is no longer Italian. Too many tourists driving out the natives.
Imagine that your hobby spot gets disrupted constantly by tourists who gawk at you like you are a zoo animal. I bet that you'd find a more obscure spot that they can't find.
It's just as likely that men who are forced to become fathers become inattentive or abusive fathers.
That is a different topic and one that I cannot do justice with a brief reply. The point is still that sex-having tends to heavily correlate with being in a long-term relationship, and those are very much on the decline, in part due to reasons that I mentioned.
Also, you are completely wrong on the fact that mot men don't want children; actually, more men want children than women do.
The studies on this topic do not capture the fairly obvious reduction in willingness to sacrifice/compromise to actually have children. Also, I never said that a lesser interest in being a parent doesn't also affect women, although not for the exact same reasons, although the male and female reasons do interact in various ways.
First of all, why the fuck is this arrangement good for men? Why do men need to be "groomed" into being better people by women?
Good relationships require men and women to be attractive/pleasant to each other, which requires grooming. Note that this grooming is just one specific form of civilizing enculturation, which is needed for people to be able to live and prosper together in general.
Traditionally, a lot of this was done by women to their partner. Of course, society could have come up with a different arrangement, but it didn't, and in modernity, the societal grooming is often counterproductive, teaching men to act in a way that is not attractive to women.
Note that women are affected by bad societal grooming as well, with female 'incels' often being confused why acting how feminists say they should act, is often anti-attractive to men. However, due to a bunch of reasons, women are less affected by this.
This is utterly toxic and manipulative; most men would take the modern arrangement.
I don't get the impression that young men/boys are generally very happy with very high standards for getting into a relationship, and a lack of (actual) guidance of what those standards actually are and how to meet them. Supposedly, young men are increasingly seeking out traditionalist or semi-traditionalist mentors, to the dismay of leftist media.
Also, again, it's just as likely that the "rough diamond" stays rough, and the women is stuck with an abuser.
First of all, a rough diamond is not at all the same as an abuser. A passive nerd who needs to learn to be more assertive, be more ambitious, dress better, etc, is a rough diamond as much as a tough guy who needs to reign that in a bit.
Also, women don't tend to like the most safe men at all, since they tend to put great value on the ability of their partner to protect, so it is certainly not the case that the current model where women have high standards, makes them choose only meek geeks with little strength, and thereby keeps them rather safe from partner abuse.
The issue is that people become less malleable when time goes on, so the longer men stay single, the harder it is to enculture them. And they also simply miss experience. As it is, we have women chasing a fairly small percentage of men, and this enables bad actors who can play the role of an attractive man, but who only want sex, or who are abusive.
Also, we have much more loneliness and such, because people spend so much of their lives single.
I agree that women often politicize their relationships, but they don't blame the "right" for their relationship issues.
Nonsense. If they don't believe that, then why do so many demand that a partner is left-wing? Demanding something from a potential partner automatically means that it is a relationship issue.
I read the media, the propaganda is constantly sending the message that women deserve feminist men who clean, work less, obey women as slaves, etc.
Aapje58
4mo ago
Maybe Destiny went temporarily nuts
Like that time he admitted to almost murdering someone (and his family): https://x.com/Anc_Aesthetics/status/1967993916478853354
And he's promoted and defended violence before. This guy is not temporarily nuts, but permanently so, just hiding it most of the time.
Aapje58
4mo ago
This is so much less true today than during peak woke (roughly 2017-2020).
The mainstream left is protecting leftists who are calling for the murder of right-wingers. Moderates still don't matter aside from being complicit by staying quiet.
Aapje58
4mo ago
It used to be that if you got pregnant or impregnated someone, you were expected to become a couple and stay a couple. This meant that the man was forced to have a big stake in being a parent, but also was very rarely deprived of the father role (as part of an actual family, not the modern 'weekend father'). Nowadays, a man who impregnates a woman can never get the chance to be a father, or can easily be deprived of the father role when the woman splits up. So there is less reason nowadays for men to want to have children or to build themselves up to be a good father. Instead, a lot of guys prefer infinite adolescence. In turn, this means that women see a lack of men who make good fathers, and even go looking for sperm donors and intentionally become single moms.
Women traditionally 'groomed' promising men into being good providers/fathers/etc. The taboo on splitting up meant that the risk of marrying a rough diamond was offset by the benefits of getting a better husband than the woman could get otherwise. But the ease by which relationships can be ended, resulted in women being increasingly picky and only wanting the finished product, since a perfectly groomed husband can just trade her in. However, the lack of grooming by women means that many men miss out on becoming this finished product, so everyone suffers.
All the lies about men and women being equal, logically results in the conclusion that when men have different preferences from women, this is all just bad culture that they need to change. So in a way feminism was right when they coined the term 'the personal is political,' in that women increasingly politicize their relationships, and demand leftism in their mates, with the assumption that those men then share their preferences. However, this just drives men further into right-wing politics, who do allow them to be themselves, while women get in this spiral of blaming the right wing for their relationship issues.
Aapje58
4mo ago
assaulting cops on video is a genuine crime deserving of long punishment.
It is a crime, but did the perpetrators actually serve less time than others who have beaten up someone? I don't really agree that abuse of cops should result in much longer sentences, since cops themselves are protected from prosecution to an absurd degree and cops often violate people's rights, so then also give extra high punishment for assault on cops, makes the injustices in the way the police interacts with the populace, even greater.
Besides, I think that equal crimes should result in equal punishments, not that perpetrators get off much easier if they abuse the 'right' people.
Unless there's proof that they went past legal guidelines in sentencing
The problem is that when there is a legal 'conspiracy*', the process we have to determine that what the actual proper sentence is, is broken, so it is not reasonable to expect justice on the individual level. There is no parallel justice system that is free from these immense biases and that can determine an actually fair sentence. And Trump does not have the ability to change sentences.
It is an established legal principle that legal injustices can result in sentences that are not actually fair in the individual case, like people going free over illegally gathered evidence that does actually prove the guilt of the person. In those cases, we value the long term view more, where we accept an injustice in an individual case to maintain global standards in the prosecution of people. We draw a line in the sand that we will not allow it.
So I see nothing wrong with Trump drawing a line in the sand against political persecutions.
* Really just collective bias.
Even Vance agreed it's obvious that violent criminals should not be sent into the general public. Yet what happened?
Vance is not the president. Get back to me when Vance is president and something similar happens.
It sends a message that if you do violent crime in the name of the president, he'll be soft on it.
No, it sends the message that if the legal system commits political persecutions, politicians are going to intervene (of course).
Also, the claim that these people committed violence 'in the name of the president' is not a framing that I accept as fact. Trump did not call for violence.
Aapje58
4mo ago
Take, for example, conservative fascination with firearms as a political tool.
What I notice is that when conservatives talk about using firearms to defend from an oppressive government, they don't actually tend to call for people to actually go do that. In general, I would classify almost all of them as LARPers, who fancy themselves heroes in a fantasy. That doesn't make them violent revolutionaries.
The acceptance of violence, or the tendency to see the use physical force as a acceptable or effective solution to problems, seems to be so pervasive among the right that it has become "baked in" to the point where it doesn't even register, like a fish in water.
I see acceptance of violence against individuals in self defense, or as legal retribution, but again, neither of these make one a violent revolutionary.
Or greater support for state sanctioned killing to achieve policy goals, like the death penalty.
Killing political opponents as a way to get your policies enacted is very different from violence being part of the policy itself.
Aapje58
4mo ago
But not every single one. Why pardon rapist cop beaters? That's the exact opposite of condemnation.
My understanding is that the Trump pardons for Jan 6th are based on the (IMO correct) belief that this was a political persecution, where people were persecuted for non-crimes, and those that actually committed crimes were usually given excessive sentences. Many people who were pardoned did serve time, so it's not like they weren't punished.
I feel that it is a mistake to interpret a blanket clemency as individual pardons, where only the specifics of the case matter, rather than the desire to rebuke the establishment in general.
Aapje58
4mo ago
But with the Holocaust we are told the order to kill all the Jews was communicated through Mind Reading, and no that is not a straw-man those are direct words.
Where do you get that claim from, that the narrative says that they communicated through mind reading?
It's pretty obvious that orders can be given in person, with no records being kept.
Yes, and part of the process of ending conflicts is to change the perception of the remaining violence from 'our peoples are attacking each other' to something like 'criminals do bad things and they get punished.'
There is never an objective need. I have no objective need to eat. Only in the context of wishing to stay alive, does this need exist. However, if I desired death, then VSED would be an option, and then I would need to not eat. So any description of a need without a goal that supposedly has only one solution to achieve the goal, is deceptive. And if there are other options, or it is not obvious that the behavior will achieve the goal, then it is a choice, not a need. Even with the goal, there is still not automatically a need, since the goal is itself often a choice. Or would you accept a bank robber's reasoning that he had no other choice to achieve his goal of getting rich fast, so it was not a choice, but a need?
You are trapping yourself in your choice of words, to create a false narrative where Israel has no choices and Hamas/the Palestinians have the only real choices. This is just a way to rationalize your biases.
Actual reality is that Israel was happy with Hamas in control of Gaza. One month before the attack, Israel asked Qatar to increase the funding for Hamas. Israel believed that their oppression and security measures would ensure only limited resistance that they could manage by 'cutting the grass.' It is clear that this was a big mistake. However, the massive destruction and murders that followed the Oct 7 attack clearly do not solve anything.
Of course, you can argue that Israel could not react any differently due to Israeli culture, their politics, or whatever, but at that point there is no reason why Hamas or the Palestinians would not be subject to similar forces that would constrain their choices. So that makes 'just stop being violent against Israel(is), bro,' just a biased statement no different than 'just stop oppressing the Palestinians, bro.' These are statements for a war of rhetoric, to win for your side. They are not a path to peace.
Page 6
This just runs into the standard problem of one side demanding this 'long-lasting' period to be infinite, while not wanting to make any sacrifices on their own. Again, if you are not just biased but take the outside view, it is obvious that this just results in a stalemate where both sides demand that the other side make a sacrifice first.
I'm talking about institutional bias on the part of Israeli institutions like the IDF, which is caused both by intentional and unintentional causes. Refusing to actually investigate things honestly is an example of intentional bias.
More options
Context Copy link