DenpaEnthusiast
No bio...
User ID: 131
So argue your point. Why should the rules be different for different politicians?
Why is living in the woods a valid way to opt out, but killing yourself isn't?
if positions grew 168% but then fell 33%
This isn't what happened. If you read carefully, you'll notice that the 168% increase is for "chief diversity officers", whereas the one third decrease is for "DEI professionals". Furthermore, the increase is from 2019 to the end of 2022, whereas the decrease is during the year of 2022, so they happen in parallel, not in sequence. If you look at the chief diversity officer change for just 2022, it only went down 4.5%. So what actually happened is chief diversity officer positions almost tripled from 2019 to 2021, and then went down very slightly in 2022.
No, you couldn't pay Counter Strike without someone baselessly speculating about your private life. There were no consequences for what they said, because none of it was real, they were just fishing around for insults. There is so much difference between "anonymous person makes something up to annoy you" and "being known as gay would get you barred from the military or most any normal person's job" that it's a difference in kind, not degree.
I did my own, less nuanced but better-sourced analysis:
-
The FBI says that in 2019, 51.3% of people arrested for "Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" were black (archive). If we assume that this was the same in 2021 and that the people being arrested are the same race as the people who actually committed the murder, this means that 13354 homicides were committed by blacks.
-
The US Census says that 13.6% of Americans in 2021 were black (archive). There were 332 million total Americans, so that's 45 million total black Americans. About half of them will be male, so that's 22.5 million black male Americans in 2021.
-
If we assume that every murder is committed by a different person and that black women don't commit murder, this means that there is a 13354/22.5 million=0.059% chance that any specific black male has committed a murder in 2021.
-
The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that the life expectancy of a black male born in 2021 is 66.7 years (archive). If the murder rate stays constant and there are no repeat offenders, that means there is a 0.059%*66.7=3.9% chance that a black male will, in his entire life, murder someone.
3.9% is not that different from 4.5%. But the assumption that each murderer commits exactly one murder is suspect. The substack article says "the actual ratio of Victims:Murderers is near 1:1", but doesn't give any justification for this assumption, nor does it cite any evidence. I would intuitively expect this to not be true, but I also have no data on this, and it's harder to measure than any of the statistics I actually cite. Additionally, my assumption that arrest rates reflect reality may not be true. If whites are better at covering up their murders than blacks, we would be disproportionately arresting blacks for murder, which would skew my estimation. Plus, I just assumed away the possibility that women commit any murder. Overall, my number is probably an overestimate.
Finally, if you run the numbers for whites you get about 1%. If this also seems unusually high to you, consider that your priors are likely formed from the people you meet in real life. Murderers are disproportionately likely to be in prison, where you won't interact with them.
the straight male desire for sex is mostly about status
This is a ridiculous assertion. If sexual desire were mostly about status then substitutes for sex would also be about that. But the obvious substitutes (masturbation and pornography) do not confer status. Instead, they mimic the physical qualities of sex. I won't argue that status plays no role at all, but it plays much less of a role than the actual sensations do.
Fox news was sued and lost almost $800 million.
Determining whether a couple is infertile in general is much harder than determining whether a couple is gay. It is entirely reasonable for the state to not want any marriages which do not produce children, but to allow the ones that it can't trivially detect.
That's not the same thing. In Star Trek, they were simulating battles without actually destroying their opponent's means of fighting. If you have two drone armies fight each other, the loser still gets destroyed. In Star Trek, if one side defected, the other side would have to send their ships in, and possibly sustain the losses they avoided by only stimulating the flight. In drone warfare, you've already sent your drones in and fought their drone army, so if they defect you can slaughter them. If drones are that much better than humans at fighting, they won't be able to defend themselves, because you didn't just simulate it, you actually destroyed their drones.
This but unironically. If the people in a region have a grand shared purpose now, then they are a nation now. A rich and storied history is a good way to achieve that, but on its own is neither necessary nor sufficient.
That's not what the lawsuit alleged. It said that hosts were allowed to make claims that executives believed were false, and that guests were brought on and made claims that the hosts believed were false. I don't think there were any claims that were (provably) disbelieved by the person who made them. The argument was that executives/hosts had enough control over the claims of hosts/guests that allowing those claims to be made was tantamount to making them directly.
But in this case that means the podcast itself would be analogous to Fox executives/hosts, and the motte members would be the hosts/guests, so it's not a direct example.
This complaint only makes sense if you think of words as having intrinsic or "correct" meanings. If you instead treat words as just vehicles for conveying ideas, then you could just answer "who in the world could we call a racist, then?" with "nobody, using it to describe people is pointless because it doesn't mean anything". And I think that's a reasonable answer if you're not going around calling people racist. If the word "racist" doesn't have to mean anything, then you can just not use it if you think it wouldn't help people understand the idea you're trying to convey.
It’s fundamentally my job to understand what they mean
No it isn't. It's the speaker's job to convey their idea in an easy-to-understand fashion. If there was an argument on this site where people were conflating the philosophical concept of free speech with the first amendment, then when I make a post in next week's thread about the philosophical concept it's my responsibility to clearly indicate that I'm not talking about the first amendment. If there were posts saying that the concept of "free speech" is incoherent and meaningless, then it's contingent on me to specify what exactly I mean by free speech. If enough people are confused, then it's probably better for me to not use the phrase "free speech" at all, and replace it with something like "the right to not be punished for conveying my opinion about the election".
So to answer your object-level question, you could (and should) directly say that you think "BAP has an unconscious bias against black people, regardless of their individual intelligence or behavior". If you want to know how a poster compares with the average 1995 American, you could ask "Do you think the average American in 1995 would agree with that statement? Do you agree with that statement?". You don't have to specifically use the word "racist", especially when you know it won't help people understand your point.
If you ask two people to change their behavior but you know in advance that one of them won't, that is equivalent to asking only one of them to change. If you think Clinton getting away with it was a one-off fluke, say that. If you think that it wasn't but now we're going to start getting prosecutions of prominent members in the current administration, say that. If you think the investigation into the server should be re-opened after 7 years have passed, say that. Otherwise, you're asking for rules which are going to be applied only to some politicians, which is equivalent to rules which are different for different politicians.
Being in the back with her head down and her face obscured makes her look like the "before" part of an SSRI commercial. She's supposed to be looking at the baby, but it doesn't work because the baby isn't the focus of the picture. Either the baby should be the focus and all three of them should be looking at it, or the couple should stay as the focus but she should be looking at them and smiling. As it is, she looks unhappy and disconnected.
My family tried to convince me she could still hear and understand
My family did this too. On the one hand, I want to argue back; a month ago she could barely hear us when she was directly looking at us and had a hearing aid, do you really think it's better now that her eyes don't open and there's an oxygen machine running constantly? On the other hand, that will just make my mother sadder and not actually help anything.
Either way, you have my condolences.
Good universities teach you to program?!
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. For all their faults, universities do still offer Computer Science courses to their students, and most of them are useful. Even if those courses are optional, the fact that they are explicitly offered instead of something you have to seek out on your own means that graduates are more likely to have that knowledge than people who went to a quick bootcamp or were self-taught.
China doesn't allow dual citizenship, so this isn't a practical concern for children of Chinese immigrants. I suppose it's still cucked if you think they wanted to ban people who were ethnically Chinese but had to settle for less, but it seems more likely to me that Florida merely wants to ban people who are connected with the current Chinese government and don't want to require a full investigation every time someone buys land.
Maybe he was confused about what the "scales of justice" were.
linux has EBPF
The last time I tried this Google locked me out of my account, saying I had to sign in with the same browser I created my account with. I couldn't do this, because I had created the account using a temporary browser profile. It's there a better free provider that doesn't do this? I used to use sharklasers.com, but a lot of sites now block that domain.
Stardew Valley did not invent a genre. Most of its mechanics are from the Harvest Moon/Story of Seasons series, which started in 1996.
The obvious course of action there is to find a second child with the same wish and let them duel each other.
- Prev
- Next
Because the stated goal is not to "improve outcomes", it's to "increase equity", and pulling down high performers is just as equitable and easier than boosting up low performers.
More options
Context Copy link