BinaryHobo
hauling up the data on the Xerox line
No bio...
User ID: 1535
laughs in Catholic Er, maybe you heard about a little thing called the Reformation?
Unless you're some weird flavor of Greek-Catholic I've never heard of... You know that there were various latin translations, and the current one (the vulgate) wasn't finalized until St Jerome, several hundred years into the A.D., right? That's an awful long time for errors to creep in before we get into the translation stuff.
Maybe that's why the Catholic church has the reputation for changing quicker than the Orthodox churches (probably the only groups for which that comparison is valid).
Cuban
Not White.
Ok, so I understand the rest of these. I disagree with some of them, but I understand.
But do you think people born in a place colonized by the Spanish won't have a bunch of European genes floating around in their system?
We have a list of declining book sales for Disney in a medium overwhelmingly known for movies.
Star Wars is the epitome of nerd franchise. Nerds buy books. Now, if the books had broken into the mainstream (say, like Harry Potter), it would have blown all of the previous entries away. But even if they didn't, nerds still buy books. If these books were appealing to the traditional Star Wars demographic, 6 figure sales wouldn't be a problem.
It's not necessarily irrational for Disney to blow some money on a gamble like that, but that they keep putting them out does imply something about Disney's internal politics.
What's notable is that there seem to have been no decision maker (with enough power, anyway) who was enough of a cynical profit maximizer to actually properly analyze the ideology's claims of profitability and to put a stop to this kind of ideology-prioritizing behavior.
Anyone that's much of a profit maximizer is maximizing their own profit. And it may very well be that defecting from the woke pattern would be detrimental to their own pay, rather than the corporation itself. It really depends on the internal politics of the organization, and if political rivals can use that defection against them.
Yeah, but they are invested enough to defend against an actual "nazi coup". Look at how upset people were about J6, which was more circus than coup?
Are they? Getting upset is very different than standing up and defending. What are you seeing that makes you think the average person would get involved if an actual nazi coup showed up on the horizon?
A warlord in an african country isn't a new idea.
Sure, but people in the west like to feel like they're fundamentally superior to africa, that's not... the same thing. At least emotionally.
you shouldn't be surprised when others seek to use force to challenge that hegemony
I'm not, it's exactly what I expect. Then again, I would expect it even if the US had an additional justification, such is the nature of power. Additionally I expect the rules based system to only last as long as US hegemony does.
But I also expect what comes next to be considered much worse, regardless of how much people talk now about America being evil. Despite getting to set the rules (and, admittedly, getting quite a few carve outs in its favor), Pax Americana has been good for basically everyone, save possibly the Russian elite.
So the 'rules based order' has nothing to do with coherent, consistent law, it's just an excuse to do whatever NATO wants.
I mean sorta? Might makes right never went away, but the most powerful country generally wants a rules based system most of the time, and so one exists. With just enough exceptions and post hoc rationalization to prevent two nuclear armed powers from coming to direct conflict.
This is just the populist / democratic "the real people are behind our niche ideas!" thing, which is dumb when a leftist does it, but especially dumb when someone who claims to be anti-democracy does it.
I read this as claiming that the people aren't invested enough in democracy to defend it, that is to say, concerned about the practicality of overthrowing a democratic government. Not about the people actually supporting the ideas, but anti-democratics not caring about the people supporting ideas seems reasonably consistent.
Military coups in less-developed countries are ... not unfamiliar for westerners, and are well considered as 'political forces'.
While political coups are quite understood, that a single private actor can become a sufficiently powerful political force is a bit jarring to some.
I think people are using support for the death penalty as a proxy for various "tough on crime" measures.
I read the comment as a statement that the Taliban would be forced into a political choice between taking more people and admitting that they're incompetent. I didn't really read it as a statement about the actual state of affairs of Afghanistan (except that it "recovering" seems to imply that it was worse before now).
I'd be an absolute idiot to prioritize the latter.
That certainly depends on if you need to punish heretics or defeat pagans more. If you need to prevent internal defections from the in-group, focusing on the latter makes perfect sense. If, on the other-hand, you need to circle the wagons to not be completely overwhelmed by the out-group, well, a lot can certainly be overlooked in an emergency.
I wonder what that says about the entire U.S. war in Afghanistan taken from the reverse point of view.
Same thing Vietnam said. The US military is pretty great at dismantling the machinery of a state, but there's not really much point to doing it if you aren't going to annex the territory (see basically every empire ever) or at least fully occupy the area and re-build it (see Japan/Germany post-WWII). There's just no end-game if you're doing that, you just have to keep mowing the grass.
There's a theoretical reason to do this to dismantle a state that's a significant threat to the US, but the states that are a significant thread all have nuclear weapons, so it doesn't really work in practice post 1948.
The problem with woke movies these days isn't necessarily the wokeness, it's that the writers seem to think the wokeness was enough and they forget to make the movie good.
Hasn't that been discussed as intentional? That is to say, if the movie is good, you might catch a bunch of people who just like good movies with your signaling. If the movie is bad, the only reason to signal that you like it is to endorse the message.
The hot dog question is obviously frivolous.
Except it isn't, and even the silly hot dog question can't escape human society. New York, for example, has a sandwich tax. In such a jurisdiction, the question isn't bickering about category membership, but answering it tells you if you're going to get a tax-evasion charge.
For the record, NY considers hot dogs to be sandwiches (also burritos).
I'm not really the person to talk about it, since Rome is more my jam than Africa, but there's a couple of decent comparison points. Assuming we're talking about Sub-Saharan Africa, as Northern-Africa is being conquered by the Muslims at this point.
The Great Zimbabwe is being settled around the 9th century. It ends up being a full stone-walled medieval-style city. This seems to be more technologically advanced that Europe was at it's lowest trough, but significantly less advanced than Rome at its height (it's not really comparable to the Theodosian Walls).
The Sao city-states are also humming along at this point. These are more impressive to me, but that might just be because it pattern matches to the Greek city-states.
I heartily disagree that the latter is true, with my argument being simply, just look at that cursed continent.
I don't think this necessarily follows, unless you want to look at Europe after Rome left, and declare the Europeans must have naturally crazy low intelligence as well (or, I suppose you could argue that the difference can be made up in 1000 years).
Based on the my observation of the middle-ages, it seems pretty reasonable that the former territories to struggle amongst themselves in a series of constantly escalating conflicts until a distaste for war is (quite literally) beat into the local culture enough to outweigh the natural human drive to see your out-group killed (at least enough to stop fighting with people within a few hundred km). This seems to take several hundred years (it could possibly be faster with increased communication speed, but the power vacuum in Africa is only 60-80 years old, so I'm not willing to write off the theory yet).
It's only at that point that you can build infrastructure and complicated supply lines that complex societies are built on. Before that, I would only expect high-intelligence to result in more efficient killing.
Alternatively a single victor/foreign power can come in and dominate (your classic pax X-ana period). The point is more that stability seems to come from either subjugation or deep cultural changes that seem to be orthogonal to intelligence.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that you're entirely wrong, but I think looking at the state of an area for a single 50-100 year period is a horrible argument about the IQ of the humans that live there.
That's kind of orthogonal to the argument, no? Your point is about the objective conditions of the system, whereas the argument was about the subjective ease the people in the systems have dealing with the systems.
I’ve known lots of former special forces guys and they all believe in some kind of exotic conspiracy theory, aliens is a common one.
Wonder if that's because they deal with compartmentalized information for so long, and their brain starts painting in the parts they don't have.
I took "unique atomic arrangements" to mean a novel molecular structure (y'know, because the atoms are in a different arrangement). Possibly some sort of polymer or alloy we're not aware of (or don't know how to mass produce).
Which is exactly what I'd expect on an extra-terrestrial space probe. Mostly because our space probes are kinda shitty and I expect them to get quite a bit better before someone else finds one of them.
Don't get me wrong, I still don't buy it, but this wasn't the weird part for me.
A pilot feels, perhaps not unreasonably, disadvantaged by this one policy, so that's grounds on which to throw your toys out of the pram and work for a state which, for most RAF pilots one imagines, behaves in a manner completely antithetical to your values?
I'm less familiar with the UK than the US, but my understanding of the comment was that after 50-60 years of destruction of national cohesion/sentiment/what have you turning what would have been a calling that a citizen takes up to preform their duty into a mere job that an atomized individual takes, this could be the trigger for said atomized individual to lose the last of their belief in the system and finally try to maximize market value.
Being at the liquor store isn't being alone.
If you're in a small town, you may very well know the person who works the cash register.
Certainly, a liberal might counter with FDR, JFK, or MLK
That would be a terrible counter. The youngest of those (MLK) was 12 when WWII started, and had shown significant oratory prowess before the end of WWII (winning an oratory contest in 1944). It would be hard for the intentional de-prioritization of oratory in the aftermath of WWII to impact any of them.
I remember talk about just using the excess power to pump water up hill during the day and running it through turbines coming down at night.
Did anything ever come of that?
Can a pardon be issued before the trial is actually complete?
I guess Texas could have some real weird rule, but generally yes. You're usually pardoned for crimes committed, not to overturn the conviction.
I mean... no? The first computer was the ENIAC, and it didn't even have programmable memory, it has to be hard-wired and manually changed every time you want it to do something different. You didn't interact via keyboard, you interacted via pulling wires.
And the mouse isn't until ~20 years later in the mid 60s. So far as I'm aware, it's first demo'd publicly during the mother of all demos
More options
Context Copy link