@Home's banner p

Home


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 04 21:46:46 UTC

				

User ID: 1483

Home


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 04 21:46:46 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1483

I think this is a very interesting point. I'm not too familiar with Dreher but I find his article quite interesting. Under his framework, does he expand any further into where he draws the line in terms of kinks? Nazi role play of course sounds gross, but even mainstream kinks (like BDSM) also sound pretty gross too. I just don't know where to draw the line at a point where it isn't completely arbitrary.

Not saying it hasn't happened, but that's also my point - We only care about Brinton because of their sexual identity and our current obsession with identity politics. Any other straight employee would never have faced this sort of spotlight.

You're arguing that talking openly about the outsized Jewish influence has led to historically poor outcomes for Jews?

Are those the only options, outsized influence or death?

My point is very simple: Talking about the outsized influence of Jews has led to very bad things in the past. No, talking about it again does not mean that the holocaust will happen again. I'm not sure where you got that. All I was saying is that we ought to be more careful when talking about this issue because of the issues it has caused in the past.

Are you suggesting ethnic or gender nepotism as the reason for the white male presidents?

My point here was to simply show you that outsized influence doesn't always have a nefarious, conspiratorial narrative. Sometimes there's a clear path that shows how groups came to be.

Reads to me as a "no fuck you Dad!". I'm presuming there was already some tension there beforehand and this was the latest in a long line of actions intended to upset the parents or push back on their values or otherwise frustrate the rules of their house. That's the situation I personally see most often. "I don't like my parents so I'm going to make myself hideous and demand they respect it to get back at them/show they don't own me/whatever". It's the (de-?)evolution of bringing a black guy home, or having a fling with a same-sex partner, I guess.

That's an interesting experience of which I'm not familiar with. I'm sure this does happen but this seems to be quite a one-sided reading of these situations. As I get older I regret giving the benefit of the doubt to adults as much as I have in the past - Parents whose kids "magically, out of nowhere" became rebellious and attention seeking always had a very different story once they were able to speak freely about their situation. We can go back and forth on this of course due to our varying personal experiences.

Because the only things that happen are a person makes themselves ugly (usually, some go low effort and don't bother), and then starts demanding special treatment from everyone around them. This leads me to believe that the special treatment is the primary goal. The cheap and petty power thrill of making people stumble over their language for you. The constant reassurance to an insecure soul that people will inconvenience themselves for you. It seems parasitic, almost.

This is quite the one-sided take again. The only things that happen are people making themselves uglier? Uglier to whom? A woman might be uglier to you while becoming more appearing to a lesbian (no offense intended). Regardless, you're acting as though special treatment is the primary motivating factor here. What is your reasoning for that other than a personal assumption? I have to assume that you don't have much personal contact with these groups of people because this sort of reasoning is only something I read about in hypothetical right-wing publications. It's certainly not the norm.

Why do people get piercings or tattoos knowing they could be discriminated against in future?

This is a laughable comparison. You're talking about a group of people who think that sexuality is an innate trait and comparing it to jewelry that can be removed in a few hours.

You continue to make the assumption that that sexuality is as much of a choice as choosing to get a tatoo. Where are you getting this idea? Surely not from members of the LGBT community. I'm really curious to hear.

I understand that. I didn't want to get down to the nitty gritty of accurately defining or sizing the reference class since it's a fairly inexact and tedious thing to do.

Let's take the example of men who commit sexual violence - obviously 'men' is a large group. But studies show that a certain population of men - ranging from 1% to 5% - have committed some sort of sexual crime (regardless of prosecution). So even at the best estimates 1/100 isn't exactly the smallest proportion. I don't know the specifics of how large Brinton's group is nor do I know the estimated number of sexual crimes they commit. But I think you're giving the OP quite a pass to use assumptions about a group that they probably couldn't name as justifications for discrimination.

Getting wrong info often has spillover effects. Once you allow for that and start saying “only government approved sources because it is too dangerous” you have no free speech.

Right, but Twitter does things based primarily on how it will effect their specific platform. Twitter had to decide fairly quickly which information it would allow and disallow while also giving their users the most accurate info. It's easy to look back and criticize them now but that's a much more difficult decision to make in crunch time when lives are on the line. I know they also were facing concerns about legal action in regards to 'fake' covid news.

I only say this to try to remove as much of the narrative as possible. Clearly Twitter has a history of supporting one side over the other. But looking at their decision to tag (not even necessarily remove) unverified data sources can be explained without anything nefarious: They did the best they could given the time crunch, potential deadly consequences, and potential legal liability.

If I'm reading correctly, it looks like this was published in 2019. The commenter I was replying to specifically said that they were talking about this while also talking about their appointment to the DoE (which happened in 2022).

Nope, they were the one who posted tweets about, and photos of themself with the pups online (though they seem to have scrubbed their Instagram now). It wasn't the media that went out and dug up private photos.

This is exactly what I mean by private life being made public by the media. This is usually how this sort of stuff happens - the media obtains photos (publicly available photos as well as nonpublic photos), write articles based on what they found, and then publish those photos to millions of people. The media blew this story up. Brinton merely posted about these on their personal social media channels as anyone else would do. Yes, the photos were still 'public' beforehand. But they are now hugely popular talking points because of media involvement, not due to Brinton. Now of course both sides of the media are making this a huge story for obvious reasons.

Of course, anything you put online has a chance to get out into public despite your personal intention. But that's not what I'm talking about here - you and other commentators are baselessly assuming that Brinton intentionally and willingly is using these sorts of photos to create a public persona for their brand. I'm just pointing out that the media are the ones doing this, not Brinton. The media wants us to think certain things about Brinton to drive clicks on both sides.

Agreed. Going by your assessment, Harvard passes that test with flying colors.

I mean definitely, but OP is specifically looking for people who don't talk politics at all. Again, in my experience, these people still make comments here and there about liberals who don't eat meat or some government regulation that shut down a stream. Maybe being on the other side makes these types of comments more noticeable but YMMV.

So maybe the best way to resist is with a bit of dishonesty. Take down the n-word under the untenable pretense that it's a direct incitement to violence, and then just don't make that same mischaracterization with respect to misgendering or deadnaming or whatever.

I'm referencing this - endorsing intentional dishonesty to allow 'harmful' speech for some groups but disallow it for others.

I don't want Twitter to ban even swastikas or n-words . . . but - It dies without advertising dollars, simple and lamentable as that."

So advertising dollars would be your way to determine what forms of 'harmful' speech you'd allow? If old Twitter told you that they banned deadnaming due to advertiser concerns, would you support that move?

In this instance, removing one person's ability preserves the platform's availability for many others.

This is interesting to me - I'm a leftist who is generally in favor of more content moderation than less. What's interesting is that my thought process is literally exactly the same as yours - I value the platform's experience as a whole much more than I value individual accounts. Although far from perfect, most of the platforms have very clear rules about how to avoid suspension and sometimes even offer a warning. Since these platforms are so valuable too so many people, I don't really have a problem with a stricter content moderation policy. Like you, I also value freedom of speech, expression, & ideas. I just think that content moderation is useful as well.

In my leftist circles, we'd all pretty much agree with your statement. What are the differences between mainstream ideas on content moderation and free speech maximalism?

I can agree with your overall thought process but I think this would be a huge step to start with. I think you can get the best of both worlds by slightly changing up your plan. Instead of a blind 15% trust, what if the CBAs included mandatory finance classes or even mandatory financial advisor for each franchise to offer their players? I don't think these athletes are stupid or incapable of being better with their money - I think they're uninformed & rich surrounded by a bunch of other uninformed rich people. Providing mandatory classes or free financial services could be a great way for players to keep possession of their money but learn lifelong lessons about how they should take care of it.

I agree that every one of these administrators aren't vital to the school's success. However, I think Twitter is the exception rather than the rule. You also have to consider that Twitter's changes are very recent and also came with a change in direction. Among other things, old Twitter valued content moderation while new Twitter does not. This wouldn't have any effect of Twitter being operational since that division didn't affect the online availability of Twitter.

Since we don't know the full story, that could be a possibility too. However, given what we know, it doesn't seem likely that this crime was committed for the adrenaline rush for the reasons mentioned earlier.

You're right in that using this word usually applies to adult authority figures and sexual situations. The issue isn't the definition, it's how loosely the word is thrown around.

Even in this thread, any adult that engages in any conversation about sexuality or gender identity = groomer. That's the issue. We need to have a higher standard of proof when throwing that word around in situations where it is incredibly unlikely to happen.

Athletes are more than just sports players though. Like you, I'm assuming you're not in charge of creating federal policy, so should I just tell you to shut up and do your job? This ideology is wildly antidemocratic and definitionally authoritarian.

You're assuming that family is typically a loving, healthy experience. You're also assuming that a healthy family is more important than a healthy individual. I also kind of feel like you're making kids responsible for how their families treat them rather than a split responsibility.

Let's flip the script here. It's 2200 and pink haired feminists have completed their takeover. While some groups tolerate straightness, the majority of people think that being straight is wrong and possible even harmful to society as a whole.

Would you tell a straight kid to stop meeting with the straights rights group at school to avoid conflict with their family? Would you tell the kid that even though they might actually be straight, living that lifestyle might result in their family rejecting them and to just put up with it? Would you tell their school to stop teaching less-popular sexual identities?

Of course not! You'd call their family and tell them to stop letting their child's sexuality determine how well they treat their kid. You'd tell them to stop acting as though their kid is gay when they're clearly not. Put some responsibility on them - they're the adults, they need to figure out how to love the child they created and are responsible for regardless of their sexuality.

I disagree with your framing completely. What if the black actress was the best actress for the job? What if she's the one who worked the hardest? Who says that an Ariel movie with a black actress will be lower quality than one with a white actress? These are all huge assumptions that you're making. The movie won't be released for months anyway, it's far too soon to make any quality judgements. This is only a conversation because Ariel is black. No one is wondering if choosing a white actor for Willy Wonka is the right decision, or if there were any 'racial issues' surrounding casting his role. No one is asking if a black actor would have led to a higher quality movie. It really just seems like people have a problem with the black actress and that's racial prejudice.

Further, why is it suddenly news that Disney is greedy? They've been this way since the 50s and they're not stopping now. Plus, Disney as a company is driven by money - pandering to audiences has been a valid sales tactic since the beginning of time. Why is that suddenly not ok? And why does choosing a black actress spur this discussion so intensely?

If men are naturally stronger than women, why is female-on-male rape a problem at all?

The answers to that question should give you the answers to your question as well. Further, given that the article is talking about a competitive context and not in averages, I think it's easy to see why your question misses the point a bit.

Yes, Sowell used to be my guy haha. If you want to talk more about Sowell or why I longer find him persuasive I'd be down.

I'm not an HBD enthusiast on the grounds that I don't find its support convincing nor its utility to be of much benefit.

I'm not familiar with the two types of meritocracy that you provided. Meritocracy might be too strong a word in this sense too. Here's what I mean in simple terms: I believed that (in general) people could achieve positive outcomes if they worked hard enough. On the flip side, people who weren't achieving positive outcomes (or people who were experiencing negative outcomes) were primarily at fault for their own situation. The solution to most problems was individual in nature: If you wanted to improve your life, work harder and be better. And especially don't rely on government handouts or assistance in the meantime. We can take my previous beliefs on homelessness for example: In 99% of cases, being homeless was the fault of the individual (drugs, behavior, work ethic, etc). Therefore, the solution to homelessness was focused on the individual as well: Pick yourself up, get clean, apply for jobs, and get back on your feet (and don't mooch off other people while doing so). You can copy/paste that reasoning to just about every political issue (racism, sexism, immigration, income inequality, welfare, etc).

So what changed? The primary factor was one of my economics classes called "the economics of race, class, & gender" (trust me, my past self was NOT happy to see this liberal bullshit on the schedule lol). Growing up well-off (and in a well-off area), I was hilariously naive when it came to the economics of class in particular. Life's trajectory was simple: do well in school, do well in college, do well in your career, and you'll never have to worry about being poor. This class quickly showed me why my simple plan was highly dependent on where you grew up. I'd heard a similar story before but this was the first time that I saw real statistics & research to back it up. I saw similar evidence for things like racism & sexism.

I finally came to the conclusion that some people were much worse off than others due to no fault of their own.

I know, not exactly a mind-blowing conclusion (and really speaks to my ignorance and naivety more than anything). But this had a domino effect on almost all of my other beliefs. For example, welfare. Since some people are 'poor' through no fault of their own, I could no longer justify my disdain for government handouts. Morally, I don't want people to suffer due to something that is likely out of their control. Even if becoming poor was a personal choice, escaping poverty is a vicious cycle. Economically, I found strong arguments for buffing up welfare systems in order to turn poor people into economically productive, tax-positive citizens. Homelessness is another example: Moral reasons were the same as before. Economically, in addition to making homeless productive citizens, I saw decent evidence that aggressive left-wing solutions were more cost-effective in the long and short term. I came to similar conclusions on other issues regarding race & gender. Morally, I find it wrong for someone to suffer because of something they were born with. Economically, I concluded that protecting these groups leads to positive economic outcomes for everyone involved.

I want to stress that I still value hard work and individual responsibility highly. I do believe that hard work can and will solve certain individual problems and that bad decisions/lack of effort can cause certain individual problems as well. But overall, I think that external, uncontrollable factors are the root causes of many of the issues we see today. Since being on the left I've also become more sympathetic to the idea that we should assist others even if they are entirely to blame for their situation (given that said assistance is effective, addresses root causes, and comes at a reasonable economic cost).

I agree. This also seemed to successfully take some steam out of this story. He stopped the momentum and I'm sure that a large portion of people have forgotten about this. If it does pop up again, it'll be even easier to convince his audience that this is fake news Russiagate stuff again.

I never said that? I did say that the media blew up this story and investigated his private life far more than any government employee due to their sexual identity. That isn't a false statement and I'm not claiming anything other than that.

Why are those dudes who go naked under their trenchcoats and then flash children on the subway bad? Do you agree that they're bad? What specific harm are they causing?

I can't believe this comment has 8 upvotes - you're telling me that you can't see what's wrong with directly exposing underage, nonconsenting children to sexual body parts? Or exposing themselves to any nonconsenting adult? Reading an article online about a kink is in no way comparable.

It undermines the norms of monogamy and private sexuality. Why isn't it bad? If you're the one proposing a radical change in public norms, shouldn't you bear the burden?

Why is undermining a norm a bad thing? Isn't that what humans have done for thousands of years to get us to this point? Sure, it's different, but that doesn't immediately make it 'bad'.

In this case, Brinton was suicidal in these camps and was so disgusted by them that they went on a nationwide campaign to ban them. You can read more about their personal experience as well. It's pretty tough stuff and certainly something that you'd think a teenage would push through for attention. I do understand where you're coming from though.