@George_E_Hale's banner p

George_E_Hale

insufferable blowhard

2 followers   follows 13 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:24:43 UTC

The things you lean on / are things that don't last

Verified Email

				

User ID: 107

George_E_Hale

insufferable blowhard

2 followers   follows 13 users   joined 2022 September 04 19:24:43 UTC

					

The things you lean on / are things that don't last


					

User ID: 107

Verified Email

Based on the last paragraph of this post perhaps you might allow me to pose a question.

I am an American citizen (Caucasian, more or less, if it matters, with some Native American ancestry) living in Japan, my home now over two decades. I speak the language passably well though my kanji isn't what it should be (even recently on this forum I goofed a very basic term, and, as one might expect, was gently corrected). Though I am not in a service job, I am public-facing in that I stand in front of adult students every day. Would you argue that I shouldn't make efforts to learn Japanese, or that my learning of Japanese should be done only as a means of communication, and not as one of a larger set of strategies to integrate (to whatever degree) into Japanese culture?

You may suggest that I am "not Japanese and never will be" and that is of course not an unpopular perspective (particularly, even especially here). But surely the old saw about when in Rome carries some water in your mind? It's possible I'm misunderstanding you.

And yet the post practically invites debate while saying "I don't want to debate..."

That's a dark read. It literally threw me into a noticeable sadness, a kind of grim fog of pessimism, as I was reading it the first time. I also found the end frustratingly vague. That said, I did read it twice.

I could answer that question with an epithet but it would be bad form to do so. I assume he's a sock puppet of someone banned several times before.

Thank you for the response. Just to press the point, is the worst that would happen to a hypothetical child that he or she would end up like you? Is that so bad?

I won't say you're unoriginal.

Once I recognize that a set of people doesn't share my values, what is there to do?

Search for shared values and go from there.

That gets rid of quite a few teenagers right there.

On a less flippant note, it takes all kinds. While you may reasonably measure drains on what you're conceptualizing as 'society at large' in terms of money spent, I am not at all sure that families of the developmentally disabled make that kind of judgment. Some probably do, sure. There are people who really thrive when needed, even when needed constantly. Caretaking isn't roses and good times, certainly, and bad decisions get made (your example of disrupted classrooms is a good example). I think there's a line here between concern for society and simple assholery and hatred of the dumbs.

My wife used to enjoy watching Japanese dramas back in the day, then after having kids sort of didn't have time, but now watches Korean dramas. If she enjoys them I would feel pretty ungallant shitting on them for what well may be cultural biases. I have often heard Japanese people say they prefer Western media because Japanese media is so bad, but these have usually been bilinguals who like English so who knows what's going on there.

Have you watched it?

You seem to be aware of reasonable counterpoints to your objection. You can always simply opt out.

All just my opinion. In general the films are better than the television dramas. I don't find the US film industry so bad separate the pandering to progressive mores. But then I don't see that many new releases and very rarely any streaming originals

I don't know why but I laughed on the train as I read the last few sentences of your post. I heard it internally as that Public Service Message that used to begin "If you or someone you love has a problem..."

Sorry, carry on.

Why? Because presumably you're making statements that you wish others to take seriously. I don't have to point out to you (but will) that it is common on this site to post embedded links within posts to bolster the credibility of the points one is trying to make.

I suggested Dr. Love's arguments against RFK Jr.'s suitability as a presidential candidate seemed legitimate, as I had no reason to doubt her authority on the issues she discusses in the article I linked. You countered with accusations that she should be dismissed as unreliable, and when I asked why, you repeated yourself, only with a double dose of bile.

Now, in what I have to assume is a way that is pissing you off, I'm saying I'll go look up these claims you're making about Dr. Love, who is in your words "some random lady I found on the internet." Really earlier what I was asking for was for you to point me toward a source that you trust (or links to her comments) that are evidence of the claims you're making. But you're not just saying she made bad calls--now you're saying she was also opportunistic and trying to launch her career on the backs of people who lost their careers and jobs, etc. You're upping the ante. Which, okay, I disagree. Even if she did make mistakes. Even if she did espouse masking up. I think your view is cynically uncharitable here. I think you've lost yourself in blind rage. Maybe you think RFK Jr. is a great idea. That his track record is way better than Love's, because he carries whatever banner it is you want to march under. See, I can make assumptions, too. It's easy.

So let's de-escalate here. Maybe Love is the charlatan and opportunist you think she is. I don't see it. Maybe she did make some mistakes around COVID--many, many people did, and not all of them were manipulative puppetmasters. In the last year she has distanced herself from the "Unbiased Science" Jess Steir podcast because she thinks Steir is promoting pseudoscience. She didn't have to do that. They had a great thing going. Lots of listeners. A brand. But Loved called it and went her own way. Maybe I'm being manipulated but that seems evidence of integrity to me. And certainly her blog seems rooted in reason and empiricism. Does she annoy me sometimes? Yes. She made some claims about not trusting unqualified white men. That irked me and I commented to her as much. She lets her emotions interfere sometimes, at least as far as I can see. Plus she has a tattoo, which is always a dubious sign. But hey can't have everything.

I am not sure which errors you're referring to and it would be helpful if you would point me in the right direction.

She's an immunologist. You're going to have to go a bit further to convince me that she shouldn't be taken seriously than to say that you remember she was laughable. I realize there is a pretty strong anti-COVID-vaccination crowd here.

Whether that was a truth bomb or just her cynical opinion is probably something to consider. Cynicism (in the couples you mention, in the viewpoint stated about the group) is never, in my experience, attractive long-term. People who complain--about whatever is around them--generally become intolerable, but it's a slow poison.

Apart from that, it's possible to overthink this stuff. I'm a small-picture guy. I never really think about the scheme of things, the larger frame, etc.

Have you met any southern girls? Sorry, women.

This "talking to the poor bastard" seems to me the point of the profession, or at least, to my mind, should be the pointy edge. The first step. The main thing.

I have precious little faith in psychologists, having known several in my life, but more in psychologists than therapists. Psychiatrists I would hold in highest regard; if there's a hierarchy in my mind they'd be up there at the top of the pyramid.

I suppose your speaking of cure here is relevant. There is this sense that we need cures and of course for many things cures are exactly what we need. I'm just as interested in causes and possible reversibility. Like when your liver is going, taking drugs to help the liver is less of a helpful strategy than quitting alcohol or whatever else you're doing to destroy your liver. That one is doing. Not you in particular.

I don't mean to come at you like this in any sort of aggressive way, I am just a skeptic of drugs in general, as I've said/written to you before.

I will do, thank you!

What does "stock" of the people mean here?

edit: I don't mean to sound baiting, I am genuinely curious. Like, breeding? Genetic superiority? Socioeconomic status? More genteel class manners?

This is poor health (obesity in this case) you're confounding with whatever other set of metrics you're using to define "unattractive" (shortness of stature also appears to be loading strongly on your own scale of undesirable traits, at least for men.)

I enjoyed it.

More to the point, he is a Jew, so you can't expect much here.

Wait, is this a joke? And with 10 upvotes? Sometimes I wonder WTF forum I am in.

While I can go to Wikipedia (a dubious source, unless it supports one's views I guess) and search for the FBI stats (a dubious organization, until its statistics support one's views) that you mention, this is still equating human beings with dogs. That's an presupposition that in my view is unfounded. A human's behavior, or many humans' behaviors, may be attributable to various factors other than simply their breed, and I'd suggest this is true more so than in the case of dogs. This may be an unpopular view on the Motte, I'm not sure, but it's mine.

a cum infested e celeb.

I suppose if this revolting term applies to anyone it applies to the girl in question. I'd like to think, however, that we'd avoid such wording (I originally thought this was a quote but I see it's your term.) Why? Because it's pointless and smacks of a chodey kind of schadenfreude.