CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
No bio...
User ID: 333
On the back of prior discussions about forced 'voluntary' reporting of sleep apnea diagnoses in the State of Maryland in order to qualify for a drivers license, I'd like to draw attention to something similar happening with autism diagnoses in Queensland, Australia. Last year there was an update to the Assessing Fitness to Drive standards to list autism as a medical condition deemed to have an impact on driving.
“As a result, psychologists say people are now cancelling their autism assessment appointments because they fear the legal and financial consequences of not disclosing their condition — while others argue the new standards are "discriminatory" and unfairly target people with autism on the basis of their diagnosis, not their driving ability. “
...
“While the 2022 Assessing Fitness to Drive (AFTD) standards apply across the country, a Queensland law called Jet's law, introduced in 2008, requires drivers to disclose any medical condition that is likely to affect their ability to drive safely — and in some cases obtain a medical certificate to prove they are fit to drive.”
...
“According to the state's Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR), autism was added to the list of reportable health conditions in 2012. Drivers who fail to obtain the medical clearance face a maximum A$9,288 fine and possible loss of licence.”
There's a fair bit more in the article that goes on about a few individual cases, but the gist of it seems to be that in the state of Queensland you need to provide medical clearance to drive from your doctor to the TMR (DMV) if you wish to apply/maintain your license once you are dignosed with autism. Most other Australian states seem to have a more reasonable 'you are legally required to report any ongoing condition that effects your ability to drive' standard.
In Queensland it seems like the above stated “Jet's Law” came about when someone with epilepsy had a fit resulting in a car crash that killed a baby and left his brother in a wheelchair for life. So this law was created To Do Something that then through bureaucratic ignorance has expanded to include other conditions such as autism as the Assessing Fitness to Drive standards were used as a list to determine what these conditions were. And then people have possibly decided to stop being diagnosed rather than deal with the hassle/stigma of reporting.
This is just so banal and unjust that someone diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum would then have to report that straight to the government or risk being fined thousands of dollars and stripped of their ability to drive. Luckily there is some pushback with a guy in the above link apparently filing a case with Queensland's Human Rights Commission, but still, it shouldn't have gotten this far.
Edit: fixed formatting
Apologies if this has already been covered, but is everyone aware that Trump is recording an interview with Joe Rogan this Friday?
There's bound to be some zingers to fill the news cycle coming out during an interview this big. We have no idea if the questions are vetted, but Rogan is normally pretty adamant about having freeform interviews where he can ask anything.
Some other points:
- Rogan historically has been anti-Trump and Trump has been anti-Rogan. In July 2022, Rogan said "I've had the opportunity to have him on my show more than once—I've said no every time. I don't want to help him. I'm not interested in helping him,". Trump for his part has been taking swipes at Rogan as recently as August.
- Their views on each other have seemingly softened over the past 6 months, with many podcasters recently asking Trump if he'd go on Rogan and him being lukewarm in his response (as compared to negative). Rogan has been evasive about any Trump interview for years, but has been pretty vocal about the mainstream media being coordinated to criticise Trump in the wake of the first assassination attempt.
- Musk hinted the interview would happen a couple of weeks ago.
- There's rumours Harris will also have an interview with Rogan. I can't see her performing well with Rogan's target audience (around 80% male, around 56% under 35yo) as everything she has done is moderated and controlled. That wouldn't work with Rogan's format.
I really think that the deal for this interview was sealed anytime in the last couple of months and its timing was coordinated for maximum effect. You couldn't drop this interview at a better time to affect the election.
Update on the Paul Kessler death from last week (link to Gattsurus post from last week's thread):
Police have arrested the Palestinian supporting computer science professor that allegedly swung a megaphone at Kessler; a pro-Israel counter protestor, resulting in the latter falling down and hitting his head leading to death.
"Loay Alnaji, 50, was taken into custody Thursday morning and is charged with involuntary manslaughter and battery causing serious bodily injury, officials said."
...
"Alnaji, of Moorpark, was being held Thursday night on $1 million bail, according to online records."
...
"Both charges he faces are felonies, the Ventura County District Attorney's Office said. It said both counts have special allegations that Alnaji personally inflicted great bodily injury,which is a type of enhancement.
...
"California penal code defines involuntary manslaughter as when someone is killed by an unlawful act less severe than a felony or by a lawful act that might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution."
I know there was a fair bit of speculation around whether he would or would not be charged, but it seems like the cops think they might have enough evidence to make this stick (even though they are still asking people to come forward if they were a witness or have video). Either that or they've decided they'd better do everything they can to dodge the political consequences of not prosecuting with so much signal boosting from jewish advocacy groups.
@gattsuru linked an earlier post by @FCfromSSC that opines that Blue Tribers are less likely to face consequences of these sorts of scuffles. If that theory is correct than perhaps Jewish Zionists still rate higher than Palestinians on the progressive stack and in situations like this the lower ranking Blue Triber will face punishment more like the Red Tribe.
Also, if you're going to go to a protest and be a maskless speaker it seems like you should do whatever you can to avoid scuffling. Without a mask Alnaji didn't have the option of leaving the scene with his anonymity intact.
A well regarded amateur analyst of the war in Ukraine (Perun) posted a video talking about the Russian concept of 'Vranyo' (враньё). This is a pattern of lying where various parties are aware that the lying is taking place and for what purpose. He basically cites it as a major reason for the lack of effectiveness of the special operation. The video is worth a watch if you have time (1 hour).
I've finally had some success with my latest attempt at a keto diet (I've been on it maybe 4 times over my lifetime), largely due to properly using high quality electrolytes to overcome fatigue, extending the intermittent fasting period (thanks to Dr Boz), and maxxing leafy green vegetables within the carb limit. I've dropped 6kg in 3 weeks, but I expect that rate to slow down.
Does anyone have keto tips or tweaks that managed to break periods of stagnation or otherwise make good progress? I'm staying away from alcohol this time.
Can someone steelman US tariffs for me? Is there a way that tariffs (or more likely, the threat of tariffs) is a plausible economic policy?
Would you need a large market to be accessible for sales so that overall profit would outway the labor and regulatory costs in establishing production back in the US?
I just spent my Saturday doing a winery tour out in the countryside with close friends.
I'm an introvert, but sometimes I really appreciate extroverts dragging me out into the right environment. We actually managed to fit 5 adults into a sedan to get out there (to avoid drink driving). There was just the right amount of degenerate day drinking, which was kind of ok because two among us had Summer dresses.
I think there might be something to 'touching grass'.
It's just standard internal vs external Locus of Control.
It doesn't matter what your politics or background is. An external locus of control is poisonous and will result in worse outcomes over your lifetime.
This concept gets obfuscated with people trolling 'just pull yourself up by your bootstraps' when there are clearly external factors preventing success. Even in those cases when the deck is stacked against you, you are better off doing what you can with what you have rather than just giving up and succumbing to Learned Helplessness.
Anything I'd see from the media I would completely disregard.
Hegseth (while young) is a warfighter's warfighter. I think a large part of the military will be very very happy to have his priorities entrenched in the SecDef.
I would suspect a large part of the military signed up because of particular personality traits and some of those are reflected in Hegseth.
That said, he has his flaws and he might flame out. We'll see.
'The reason you're failing with women is because of your negative attitude' is a pretty common trope response to any discussion men have around about structural problems with dating in modern society. As is women taking critiques about female behaviour in the dating world as a personal affront.
Men having mask off discussions like in this thread do not (for the most part) bring negative attitudes to their interactions with women. Quite the opposite, their acceptance of the modern dating environment acts as a pressure release for any resentment they feel towards women.
5 and 7 are about building accessibility. If they conflate 'wanting your building to have wheelchair access' with 'I support DEI', they are being willfully dishonest.
Which candidate would the Republicans have pushed if Trump was killed?
The whole thing is really bizarre. Like the outsider added to the chat just so happens to be a journalist? What are the odds of that?
I don't believe the theories about it being deliberate and some manipulative exercise against friendly and hostile foreign governments. Hegseth purportedly posted operational details which isn't 'no classified information was discussed'. It was specific details about a military operation before it occurred. And then in the Senate Intelligence hearing they glossed over things with the CIA Director saying Signal is an approved app for comms like this.
If the whole thing was some sort of PsyOp, why did Hegseth post those details? Did it never happen and the journalist is complicit? Isn't there an easier way to PsyOp without making the administration look incompetent?
I think its just what it looks like. A big stuff up.
if Canada really wants to pick a fight with an otherwise neutral/positively inclined major nation.
The framing of this that Canada is the one starting things is poor form. I'm surprised considering your desire to emigrate to greener pastures to not consider the consequences of events like this.
In Australia, we occasionally have these sorts of flare ups of major nations with a large emigre population violating our sovereignty because, basically fuck you that's why. The calculus of the meddler is ostensibly 'well they aren't a major security or economic partner so who cares. What are they going to do?'
Nothing gets people from multicultural countries who are neutral on large immigration to turn anti-immigrant faster than immigrants' mother countries exerting their will in our home. Recent local examples of this involve China sending police officers to police chinese immigrants in Australia, framing it as a benign outreach service used for issuing drivers licenses and the like. Except without having a fixed address. Or notifying the Australian Government..
I despise Trudeau, but he's speaking to the local population and absolutely if push comes to shove he will tell India to fuck off in diplomatic speak, because to do otherwise would be political suicide. Middle powers cannot sanction effectively as independents, but there are often diplomatic blocs to exert influence precisely to stop this sort of casual disregard for civil unrest in targeted nations.
Edit: A couple of words for clarity.
Mainland Chinese students (and some ethnic Chinese 2nd+ generation residents/citizens) have been doing Industrial Espionage for the CCP for ages. This could be justified on that alone if they don't have the state capacity to vet them for access to certain research projects.
I can't see how Chinese students in particular are involved in the latest Israel/Gaza 'terrorist support' fiasco. They usually keep a low profile regarding politics. Ethnic chinese students are often monitored by the CCP in foreign countries for support of Chinese related stuff (Taiwan, Falun Gong, Tibet, Uyghurs, Hong Kong etc). Haven't seen any of that flare up recently.
Liberals on suicide watch. The opposition leader lost his seat which shows what a bloodbath this is. (Ironically it looks like the Greens party might lose their leader too).
Massive swing to the Left, partially due to a failing of the conservative party to resonate with voters and also the Trump tariff effect.
Many right wingers on my twitter feed taking it badly.
I often come across events in a shallow way (like Musk's Grok AI) that I don't have the time/knowledge to write up, but I'm kind of hoping someone else will comment on.
What do people think about a 'Culture War Request Thread' where people without the time (or wordsmithing skills) can suggest current hot topics that others may be interested in investigating/developing?
Has this been considered or tried before? Would it drain energy from the main thread? Is the main thread fine in the sense of 'if no one has made a top level post, its probably not that interesting' sense?
I was on the internet this week
That was your first mistake.
It is clear that what educational and social institutions want are meek, inoffensive and productive men who do not question the rules of society. This is in direct contrast to what young men want, which is to be outspoken, to be popular with women, to be socially and economically successful. No role model ever produced or selected by the state could manage this, particularly not when operating under the notion that it must maintain women's liberation, which itself requires the stifling of men. I question for how much longer this approach will be kept in place.
Market forces will kill any initiative like this. There is no demand for role models that don't teach young men what they want to learn (at least from the young men themselves).
The same thing happened with injecting progressive politics hamfistedly into tv, movies and video games. The market will just flow around and find what it demands elsewhere.
Yes, the failure of many men was in not screening the mothers of their children for acceptable behaviour before knocking them up.
After doing a bit of reading it seems that Jonah Hill actually just dated the surfer girl for a year, stated his boundaries after observing unwanted behaviour, and they broke up for that reason (good for him). He then moved onto his current partner with whom he now has a child.
I don't blame Jonah for saying what he said in the way he said it. He said 'if you need to do these things, happy to support you, but I'm not the partner for you'. He was probably mildly insecure, but if stating those insecurities as boundaries is classified as abuse in a relationship then I would say 80%+ of women are guilty too (and a large percentage of men). I doubt he was talking about staying away from 'any friend he hadn't pre-approved of' (additional link with more texts giving context). From the additional texts it seems likely he was talking about guys hitting on her while she was surfing and her not extricating herself from the situation. She was 25 when they were dating, so pretty fair if she didn't know how to handle overly flirtatious men yet.
In contrast Keke's partner kind of brought it on himself by criticising her behaviour on Twitter. I don't know what he was thinking I think posting private relationship discussions publicly pretty much destroys your own reputation as someone safe to date by a large percentage of the population.
You shouldn't need to tell your partner what is acceptable behaviour regarding other men. Trying to change people is a recipe for disaster. Even if wild players/playettes change their behaviour in the early phase of a relationship (perhaps due to limerance or pair bonding), they're likely to eventually revert back to their old ways. As the old PUA saw goes 'you can't turn a ho into a housewife'.
I think the incel movement is just a 'canary down the coal mine' for society in general with regards to how modern culture and technology is hampering people from getting their basic needs met.
While there is an argument that there were always socially inept young men who were unable to find romantic partners, I think that the modern western world has created unique challenges that didn't exist in prior generations (such as social media and downstream expectations on what a male partner should be).
It's pretty straightforward to me that the mainstream progressive view is that less empathy should be accorded to the outgroup (western incels) than fargroups (ethnic immigrants) with the same issue (finding female partners in the West).
I don't have any real solutions to this issue, but I hope society affords more empathy to incels moving forward and has the foresight to address the root societal, cultural and technological causes preventing those men (and women) from finding happiness. Touch, empathy, acceptance and love are basic human needs. Society would be much better off if incels had those needs met in terms of productivity via enfranchisement, less culture warring and societal friction and that's before you get to basic human kindness and decency in helping and accepting the unloved.
Instead we get people treating them like atomised terrorists and a threat that needs to be crushed. My time observing the culture war makes me think that their treatment will get worse before it gets better.
At the very least, I don't bat an eye when the West enjoys a little 'ol extraterritorial killing, say Suleimani in Iran, or when Mossad gets up to their usual shenanigans. So I'm not sure why I'm supposed to decry this too much when a third world country returns the favor.
If you maintain this attitude when foreign governments kill Indian citizens on Indian soil because 'they were political agitators and had it coming', then I will accept your point. For what its worth I'm not for extrajudicial killing, even though I understand that through democracy Western citizens have some level of responsibility for past killings done in their supposed national interest.
I'd certainly be surprised if this had any effect on attitudes towards emigration, for the obvious reason that the "victim" is an immigrant himself. You'd expect that to make bleeding hearts clamor to bring more people to the relative safety of their shores.
I'm sure the political and media class will stress to separate Indian immigrants from the Indian government (in fact from the articles I've read I think this process has already started). However many locals will not buy that argument and will see it as foreign political agitation being imported in line with the increase in profile of Indian political activists operating in Canada.
In Australia, past examples of this occured with Anti-CCP activists protesting in Australian major cities. As a consequence China sends foreign agents to exert their influence such as organising pro-CCP students in Australian universities to counter protest. Australians end up watching foreign political battles over something that doesn't concern them playing out in our public sphere..
Of course the Cathedral will play up this kind of thing as the right to free protest, but much of the public here would just prefer that they shut their mouths and get on with life. Pro-Indian government activists can say 'well they started it', but regular citizens here can find that an incredibly weak argument. People don't care who started it, they just want it to stop. It has nothing to do with us and the easiest way to make sure this doesn't happen is to not allow people to immigrate from countries with significant political instability. With more acts like this there will be more pressure to limit immigration. Normally I would laud this and from my point of view many political dissidents (including the deceased) who refuse to live quietly should fail the citizenship character test, but the brazenness of this sort of foreign interference sticks in my craw.
It's being used as a rhetorical attack to discredit Jefferson and Poison the Well. "Jefferson was racist, ergo a bad person and all of his works are now discredited." It's not a truth finding expedition being made in good faith, but rhetorical culture war.
"Why won't my opponent concede when he knows I'm using rhetoric?" isn't really a fair question.
Snopes tried their best to prove this true and still failed.
Aside from the above-mentioned news reports, there was no tangible evidence of Harris working at McDonald's as a college student. We reached out to Harris' campaign, as well as McDonald's headquarters, seeking tax records or other proof — which could include photos or videos of her working at the restaurant, employment records or physical items such as a uniform or name tag. We also reached out to Harris' sister, Maya, as well as a close friend from Howard University seeking comment, and looked for public interviews by friends or family members of Harris' to confirm the story, with no luck.
I don't think it happened.
Wouldn't the Harris campaign (who were contacted by Snopes) be highly motivated to provide some evidence for this if it were true? They couldn't find one childhood friend who said 'yeah we worked at Mickey D's together'? This has (at least for the next couple of days until the next cycle) blown up to be front and center in the presidential race.
- Prev
- Next
Continuing on with The Motte's theme of the week, the Australian Federal Government has given the online dating industry a year to implement a 'voluntary' code of conduct in the face of 'online sexual violence' or presumably face regulation.
This ultimatum seems to be motivated by “An investigation by the Australian Institute of Criminology last year found three-quarters of online daters had been subject to some kind of online sexual violence in the past five years.”
Finding the referenced report 'Dating App Facilitated Sexual Violence' (their term, not mine) seems to include amongst other acts:
- Pressured the respondent to give them information about their location or their schedule
- Continued to contact the respondent even after they told them they were not interested in having a relationship with them
- Pressured the respondent verbally to perform unwanted sexual acts (eg making promises, lying, repeatedly asking or insisting etc)
- Sent the respondent an unwanted sexually explicit message
- Sent the respondent an unwanted sexually explicit photo or video of themselves
- Pressured the respondent to meet them in person when they did not want to
This would include dick pics or non-consensual sexually explicit language sent through a dating app, along with other mundane dating activity. The march to broaden the definition of sexual violence to include 'making women uncomfortable' continues.Australia, is usually a follower of countries like Canada and the UK when it comes to these sorts of policies, but it does occasionally become the first mover when there is the chance of getting a cheap political win (and to seem like it is doing something in the face of more serious issues such as the housing crisis).
The linked news article is kind of buried down the state news media's front page and references the federal government's
karensocial services minister who has previously worked on 'cyber safety' committees. There is a fair chance this is a complete nothing burger that will blow over and is just the govt making noises rather than actually intending to follow through, but time will tell.More options
Context Copy link