JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
4mo ago
Erm, I am missing something or the point here being "maybe it's true we're being robbed to the tune of trillions of dollars but I am not willing to discuss this until people that claim that present the evidence in a form that is most fitting to my biases"? If so, this sounds extremely childish and unserious approach.
There's also several issues here, which are related but not the same: 1. Is USAID a CIA-directed (or -influenced) front which is being misrepresented to the public as something it isn't? 2. Is USAID directing aid to causes that the American public would prefer not to finance if it knew? 3. Are those causes and recipients mostly leftist partisan organizations and benefit partisan leftist goals? 4. Are those organizations endorsing the ideology that sees US as evil and helps causes that hurt the US public? 5. Is the CIA selecting such organizations with explicit intent of hurting the US, or just tolerating them for other reasons or maybe thinking they gain "soft power" this way or some other reason?
JarJarJedi
4mo ago
You can not sell it permanently (at least not since slavery has been abolished), but you can rent it out. That's called having a job.
JarJarJedi
4mo ago
If there's "female penis" then there's also "female Adam's apple". If you rename the latter, you'd have to rename the former too.
JarJarJedi
4mo ago
"/r/anything" is Reddit, and the whole Reddit is woke. There are niche communities which are not actively woke - i.e. culture war topics wouldn't be featured there normally - but there are pretty much no communities where the "wrong" side of the culture war is tolerated. At least not any of the prominent ones. You'd need to go to a different site for that.
JarJarJedi
4mo ago
what could be done if things were done in a smarter way
The things will never be done in a smarter way though. That's not how bureaucracies work - they are reluctant to do things in a smarter way because smarter way often implies less arbitrary power to various petty middlemen and gatekeepers, and who needs that?
JarJarJedi
4mo ago
The vast majority of Biden supporters did not riot in 2020,
Enough of them did to cause billions of damage, and enough of them did for me to see Amazon delivery trucks looted on the streets of my city, within walking distance of my house, and downtown storefronts being all boarded up. For me, instantly ending up in a third-world country where there's no law, safety or security is a very significant and unique event. The vast majority of Biden supporters saw it as a positive development and encouraged and protected the rioters, including Biden's VP personally fundraising to help them avoid responsibility.
I don’t see this systematic pattern ‘for decades’ of the left doing things equivalent to J6
"Equivalent" in what way? They occupied government buildings many times. They fought with the police many times. They disrupted official proceedings many times. They perpetrated political violence many times. Did they do exactly the same, to the tiny detail, as happened in J6? No, some details were different. The general picture though is consistent - the left has been deploying political violence - including breaching into government buildings, disrupting official procedures, fighting the police, setting fire to government and commercial buildings, and more - many times, for a long time. You can pretend not to see it as much as you want, it's still exists.
I’m honestly curious what you think the correct course of action was there
From Byrd's side? Doing absolutely nothing. The protesters were removed from that area by the police in very short time after shooting. If some people in the building felt unsafe, he could escort them into a different place. But there was no threat justifying using lethal force there.
Let her climb through and start scuffling with her
There would be no scuffling - he is a large strong male and she is a 5 feet 115lbs woman, he could literally subdue her with one hand tied behind his back, while drinking a beer and tap-dancing at the same time. Not to mention she did not present any threat at all at the time of shooting.
making some comparison and saying “See? They’re the same”
No, I am saying they are way, way worse. But they are treated way, way better. The treatment of J6 protesters that did no worse than just walking through the Capitol or adjacent lawn, while often being directed there by the police, is nothing short of horrendous if you read the individual stories. People literally got their lives ruined for walking for a couple of minutes through a building. It is absolutely infuriating what the FBI did to them, and even more infuriating is that they did it for partisan political reasons only - most of those people weren't hardcore criminals (or any criminals at all), did not harbor and harmful intent and did not cause any damage. Objectively, their "crimes" deserved a ticket and a small fine, at best. Sure, there were some that fought the police and broke stuff - but the vast majority did not. And they were treated same or worse than Gitmo terrorists - they left actually cared about what was done to Gitmo terrorists and criticized the government for treating them too harshly, but J6 people were subjected to horrendous abuse which did not get any pushback to that at all. The only correct way to stop this abuse - even though nothing can undo the damage by now - is to pardon them all. Yes, that means also that a small group of people who did commit the violence would be pardoned too - it's a small price to pay for the cessation of this horrible ordeal.
JarJarJedi
4mo ago
I think we’re well past the ‘de-platforming’ era.
Based on what? I read about the instance of antifa mob shutting down a conservative speaker just last week.
“The left does xyz and nobody says anything about it!” Because they do!
Yes, the right speaks about it and to some measure pushes back now. The left however, predominantly and typically, does not. Thus, they do not have a standing to harangue the right about one single instance where the right did what the left has been doing for decades, and look all offended when Trump pardons protesters, when their DAs release violent protesters by thousands and their mayors instruct the police to "give space" to the rioters. When the left cleans their own room, they will gain such standing, but not before. Before, all their complaints can only be treated as partisan propaganda, aimed at gaining advantage over the opposition.
But that doesn’t mean that J6 is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, just not unique in a way the left presents it. It is unique in a way that in this one, single instance the right behaved like the left has been behaving for decades. And that shocked everybody. They're not supposed to be allowed to do that! That's our privilege, not yours!
Do you consider J6 to be ‘applying pressure to the political process’?
Yes, that literally was the point of it. Just as it is for the leftist protests, both peaceful and violent.
you would agree that it’s different than a crowd screaming
Here we go again. I think we were past the point where we agree it's way beyond "screaming" or "voicing" - and yet we're back there. How comes?
J6, as being a very significant and damaging moment
It is significant, but the "damage" is mostly the left hyperventilating over the rubes usurping the privilege that they weren't supposed to be having. The political mob violence was supposed to come only from the left to the right, never the other way - and the left was shocked when it turned not to be the case, despite the violence being very mild by the standard of leftist riots. The rest of the damage was inflicted by the left (including literally murdering at least one person and ruining the lives of many others) on the right to prevent it from ever happening again and to intimidate them into going back to the old ways. And that was massive damage that ruined the lives of thousands of people. The left suffered zero damage at all in this instance.
Trump’s pardoning of the people who perpetrated it in his name only adds to the distrust it sows
Distrust? We're way beyond distrust. Have been for many years. The left has fully weaponized the federal government to prosecute political enemies, we literally had show trials, we had lawyers being threatened (and sometimes not only threatened) with disbarment for taking a wrong client, we had the government instructing the press and the social media companies to censor political opponents, we had successful disinformation campaigns waged by the government-tech cartel, we had wholesale pardons and other obviously corrupt behavior... And when Trump pardons a grandma that walked into the Capitol - that's when you're worried about "distrust"? Don't worry, it won't cause any distrust - because any trust that could have existed is long, long gone. Maybe we can build another one, in a couple of decades, but it'll require work from both sides, and I don't see the left showing much interest. They consider the right literally hitlers - why would they need to build any trust with that garbage, those deplorables?
I’ll remind you that on J6 we had staffers piling up furniture to barricade senate doors
That was supposed to impress me? Why should I be impressed by theatrics of some interns doing something overblown? If you want to mention anything shocking - mention Michael Byrd murdering Ashley Babbitt. For which he had zero justification, she was unarmed and did not pose any serious threat. Just imagine the protests if a white cop shot an unarmed black woman, during a BLM protest... But with the races reversed, of course, the evaluation of the situation is reversed too.
But that doesn’t mean that J6 is just retribution and can be ignored.
It shouldn't be ignored, it should be treated in context, as an instance of the right doing once a mild version of what the left has been doing dozens of times for decades. Is it good? No, it is not, because all political violence is bad. But having said that, the full context of once, mildly against many times, harshly - is important too. And the left is doing all in its power to erase this context.
JarJarJedi
4mo ago
Please step out of the bad faith arguing loop where you assume I’m trying to lie to you.
How else should I interpret saying things which are not true? You say "My point isn’t that all other protests are peaceful and the leftist are angels" - and yet you describe them as "voicing their concerns", despite knowing there were violent riots. Why don't you say "violently rioting" but "voicing"? OK, you are not trying to lie - what are you trying to do when you do this?
They didn’t want to affect the democratic process, they wanted to control it.
Just as many other violent rioters, "occupiers", etc. did. The left routinely blocks and disrupts events where the speakers they do not approve appear, they disrupted democratic processes numerous times, they performed "direct actions" as "retaliation" for political actions many times, etc.
none of those people stood to benefit directly from the rioting
Of course they did. They got the policies they prefer to be implemented or upheld - and they got their opponents disrupted, intimidated or inconvenienced. Of course they benefitted from it, that's why they are doing it!
Trump directly stood to gain from J6
So? The leftist politicians routinely gain from the policies that result from the pressure they apply on the political processes. Of course any political process is done for somebody to gain something - otherwise it would be pointless. Why perform a political action if nobody gains anything from it?
we’re talking about a mob breaking into the capitol building while Congress was in session. It’s never happened before!
https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/07/8-times-left-wing-protesters-broke-into-government-buildings-and-assaulted-democracy/ That's only a small sample. I don't think whoever informed you did a good job.
I just don’t see your view that ‘the left’ is regularly using political violence and getting no pushback on it.
"I don't see it because I don't want to see it" is not as strong an argument as you seem to think it is. Yes, I know you don't see it - that's exactly the problem, you see any disruption from the right with a microscope and the mass violence from the left leaves you legally blind.
but they did hurt public opinions of democrats and especially far left figures
I am not sure how it is an excuse of anything. "The institutional left ignored and enabled the riots" - "No, but they lost the election because of it!". Yeah, well? They deserved it. The fact that they got punished for it is not some argument to their benefit. They should have behaved differently, and they didn't. The fact that the voters punished them doesn't gain them any merit.
JarJarJedi
4mo ago
My point is that widespread generic protests cannot be equivocated to this specific event.
Of course not. "Widespread" means they were doing it many times, in many places - while the right did it just once. And was suppressed with furious force, way over what has been necessary to restore order, while much worse behavior from the left is routinely going unpunished - or frequently even rewarded - for decades.
J6 was clearly not peaceful
Would you buy "mostly peaceful"? Because that's what we've been sold about Floyd riots, which did billions of damage and actually caused deaths. By the standards of those - again, for which virtually nobody is punished, select one-off sweetheart plea deals aside - they were extremely peaceful. I mean, they didn't even set the building on fire, amateurs. And a number of people on record for inciting the violence turned out to be suspiciously close to governmental "assets".
to influence politics through voicing discontent
Oh, you know perfectly well the leftist protestors do way, way more than "voicing". I know it, you know it, you know that I know it - why do this? How much contempt must you have for your opponents to throw them a lie right in the face in full knowledge that both sides know it's a lie?
It was to upend an election, and for some, to kill specific members of Congress.
Nobody tried to kill specific members of Congress. Oh, my bad, somebody did try it - James Hodgkinson - only he was from the left. So, no national conversation on this one. No Congressional hearings orchestrated by Hollywood producers.
What I can’t stand is the complete denial of J6 as a significant and unique event.
Because it is not true, and it is the correct behavior to deny it. J6 was a significant event, true, but in no way unique (except in a trivial way that every event is literally unique, being the only instance of itself), and especially not unique in the way that the left is trying to present it, as an unprecedented instance of political violence or insurrection - which is total falsity, political violence has been common on the left for decades, and there was no insurrection (come on, the bunch of gun nuts from the most gun-owning nation on earth stage an insurrection to overthrow the government and don't bother to bring a single fucking gun?! you really think we are extremely dumb here, do you?). It has been turned into political theater aimed at suppressing the Right's participation in the public politics (to some measure of success - the Left has several movements capable of turning out thousands to the street and produce political violence - or "mostly peaceful" if they want so - on demand, the Right has none) but nobody on the Right - or in fact on any side - owes to participate in this theater.
Broke into the capitol building in order to overturn an election?
You mean "walked through the Capitol building after being ushered in by the police and while being followed by the police, while changing exactly nothing and having absolutely no effect on anything"?
I feel like people really undersell how crazy it is that we had an angry mob break into Congress.
Or people actually know that such things have happened before, multiple times (including multi-day "occupations" of state Congressional buildings, for example), and yes, done for explicit purposes of influencing the policies, only since it has been done by the left, people who get their news from CNN didn't even hear about it. In fact, angry mobs did much worse than walking through a building (like burning down the said buildings, yes) and nobody really noticed. It is a very common pattern in the US - the left is doing something for decades, then the right half-ass doing it once and everybody in the press screams "You see how crazy it is? How the right is breaking all the established norms?!". Unfortunately, they are doing it because it works - zero-information voters - like Chattooga here - eat it up wholesale and are convinced this is actually what is happening.
For national respect and social cohesion that’s so much worse than burning down a police station.
Please don't pretend you worry about "social cohesion" while simultaneously preaching "it's ok for my side to do everything but not ok for your side to do anything". It's not called "cohesion", it's called "submission" but fortunately it's not what American people are into. If the only way to reach "cohesion" is for everybody to submit to the ultra-left, this "cohesion" has zero value so stop promoting it as something that is universally valuable. We will know the left wants actual "cohesion" and "respect" when they start condemning their own ultras with at least half the energy they spend on condemning ones on the right. Not holding my breath waiting for that to happen though.
P.S. Here's one example out of many, just saw it today: In 2017, son of Senator Tom Kaine rioted (with others, using smoke bombs, incendiaries, etc.) at MN Capitol, fought the police, was arrested, got zero jail time: https://freebeacon.com/politics/tim-kaines-youngest-son-arrested-in-minnesota/ Kaine never even half-assedly condemned the violent riots but of course he's whining about J6 pardons now, because it's not supposed to work both ways.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
a) it's really him, and b) he's really dead.
A body can be easily identified using DNA test. And the death can be established by any half-competent medic. If the victims are suspicious, they can get their own medic to check the body. Neither requires contemporaneous observation by any third party.
No conspiracy theories about how he paid the executioner to fake his death when you hold the head up afterwards.
Sure, it was tougher when you couldn't establish the identity easily. Any random asshole could declare himself miraculously rescued king X, and create a lot of mess. But now we can identify people. It's a solved problem.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
I think you've answered that by suggesting the right to be granted "closure,"
It's not a "right". At least not in any of the existing legal frameworks on the West. There are other frameworks where the kin of the victim had various rights as to prosecuting the murderer - from wergeld to vendetta, but in our Western tradition there's no "rights" with regard to that. It may be a custom, but customs can be changed. If the criminal is sentenced to prison, the victims do not get 24/7 video feed to his prison cell to enjoy his suffering, and do not get to control any details of his imprisonment except possibly in the parole hearing, so there's nothing that demands that this specific custom should be followed forever. I think for the proponents of the capital punishment it is an own goal to insist on keeping this custom.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
but the existence of one isn't necessarily an indication that this is a widespread phenomenon
But it is. I mean, I don't know specifically about Galveston, but I am aware about dozens of cases without even trying to look for any, just because of how saturated the scene is with this phenomenon. Maybe out of all classrooms the ones with Pride flags are still a minority, but I remember a time where it wasn't a thing at all. Now it's not only a thing, it's a common thing that is not surprising anymore. Some like it, some hate it, but nobody is surprised "how could it happen?!" - everybody knows how it happens.
that Vanderbilt has a trans surgery center that may have, at one time, performed an operation on a minor
You know perfectly well that minor transition surgery is not "one time" thing, there are people that specialize in it, publicize in it and it happened thousands of times. This is not adequately described as "may have, at one time", and I think you know it as well as I do, so what exactly are you doing here trying to present something that is true not only as fiction, but as "obvious" fiction as if everybody should have subscribed on the notion of pretending it does not exist? I mean I can get a person that thinks it's a good thing, it helps children, it cures them from terrible mental illness - I think they are horribly mistaken, but at least they have a consistent position to stand on. But saying something that is known to be true to be obviously false? What's that?
just because one particular person was admitted to the University of Florida doesn't mean that they've gone full DEI.
Again, we know that DEI is well beyond one particular person, with whole departments being allocated to this and rules explicitly known to be modified to satisfy it, and people are being forced to submit their positions in support of DEI as a condition of employment and promotion. Again, these are widely known facts, how it is "obvious" that it doesn't happen?
If they're really stumbling over themselves to keep out highly-qualified white dudes then it doesn't explain how they continue to make up a large percentage of the student body.
Very simple - there are a lot of highly-qualified white dudes (especially when you count Asian dudes as white, which colleges already do) and not a lot of even barely qualified idpol approved candidates. If the group supplies to many qualified candidates (like Asians) they get automatically demoted from the preferred list. So if they want those sweet parent money and student loans to roll in, they need to accept some white dudes. That said, Harvard has been fighting for over a hundred years to get the Jewish student percentage under 12% or so, and I've read recently that they emerged victorious. So if there's a will, there's a way. What again remains unexplained is how these well known facts are "obvious" exaggeration?
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Capital punishment is not a medical procedure and you shouldn't make it look like one.
Why not? When guillotine was invented, execution of the enemies of the state was a public spectacle that was explicitly designed to terrify and intimidate the population (and, to some measure, entertain it, with the idea that however bad you've got it, at least it's better than that guy). I think the government has since improved to a point where it has much more widespread and efficient methods to terrify and intimidate the population, and does not limit itself to the worst of the worst of the criminals anymore. So there's no point in spectacle, why not get rid of it and get to the end point of it with minimal amount of hassle?
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
That happens anyway - prison medics confirm the death, prison guards ensure it goes as planned, etc. I am talking about involvement of people who aren't prison personnel that deals with the technology of it.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Which part of it is obvious hyperbole? I see maybe some exaggeration in details (like, maybe child trans surgery dept does not take entire wing but shares it with other surgical needs) but which part is supposed to be obvious here?
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
I personally am opposed to death penalty, except maybe in very exceptional circumstances like Nazi war criminals (where the process is kinda outside regular judicial system anyway) - but the situation right now is indeed ridiculous. That said, if I weren't - I would wonder why anybody needs to be able to observe the execution at all. I mean, I realize for example the victims may derive some feeling of closure from it, but I think if they want the guy (it'll be a guy, only one woman had been executed since 1953 in the US) dead, then they'd prefer that done unseen rather than not done at all. And, for better or worse, something that is not on TV (or now youtube) is something pretty much nobody cares about. I mean, horrible things may happen in prisons, but they are mostly undocumented, so people ignore it or make jokes about it (prison rape is one of the favorite targets). Not that I am endorsing any of it or am happy about it, but looking objectively it'd probably make it easier for people to accept.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Ticketmaster is way harder of course due to heterogeneity of the underlying data.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Making a UI clone for Twitter should be not hard. Same for reddit, though moderation and customization functions may require some more work. Making full clone - with whatever ads, analytics, system functions, metrics, etc. exist and not visible to the public may be more complicated. Making it work reliably at scale Twitter works at may be a serious project for a serious qualified team, though it's definitely nothing impossible, just needs investment. Reddit I'd say the same with more investment since there are more options, but bare bones clones of both, especially if they don't need ads/analytics and billion scale, would probably not be too hard.
Facebook is a bit tougher due to a myriad of privacy settings and modes which may require some non-trivial approaches to data retrieval, and then there's whatever filthy black magic that underlies their feed algorithm... Plus it has streaming video, which is its own big can of worms, with which I personally never worked but heard it has a lot of dark magic into it too. Instagram/Youtube are also based on that, so the same applies there.
is their hold on the market mostly a result of network effects and their established large user bases?
On the market - definitely. Even if they had some super awesome technologies, it would likely be possible to reproduce the same results maybe with slightly higher costs and slightly less awesome performance, and for social media network effects beat technology any time of the day. Don't get me wrong - you need a lot of technology to run code at the scale of Facebook, and a lot of it goes not only to the site itself but to support the organization that supports it and makes money from it, but code superiority has nothing to do with their success. In fact, I have seen very successful projects (not ones you named, but also famous names) where the code and the technology behind it are very subpar, but as long as it works and brings in the sweet dollars...
Given the apparent simplicity and minimal improvement in the basic functions (from a user perspective) of many of these sites,
You can make a toy twitter in a weekend. Taking it from a toy to billion-users business with billions of revenue is the hard part.
Aside from server reliability, what other things do they need all these bigbrains for?
- Maintenance - finding and fixing bugs (there are always bugs)
- Performance improvements - in every big and old software, there's probably something old and slow and tons of money can be saved by making it faster
- New features - you may not see them, but somebody else does
- Revenue - for all those sites that means mostly serving ads, counting ads, selling ads, analyzing data from ads and so on
- Business analytics - not the same as the above, the ad buyers get the above, this one is for the business itself
- Internal tools - any large project has build systems, docs systems, test systems, etc. and somebody has to work on those
- Moderation tools - for pretty much every site that allows user comments, if you don't want for the FBI to visit you, you need moderation tools
- Catching up with new technologies - there's always new browser, new network protocol, new API, new login method, new security feature, new OS, new mo bile platform, etc. that needs to be supported
Probably a couple of dozens of other things I forgot to mention.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
He didn't "ruin" anything. Neither he is intending to. What he is intending to is to inject this possibility as something to be discussed and by this highlight the (unfavorable) comparison between Canada and the US that you have described very well, and by this hopefully push Canada more to the right and being more open to whatever he needs the next Canadian government to do. Actually adding Canada as a state (or a number of states) would be, even if realistic (which it is not), very problematic for Republicans at the first place, and I don't even believe a serious trade war is possible since it would hurt so many people with serious money, and they speak the same language that Trump speaks and will not let that happen. However, by dangling this possibility and initiating discussion about the US-Canada relationship, Trump can advance his agenda much more than if he just said "you know, maybe sometime in the next 4 years we might initiate some discussions about US-Canada relationships".
That's classic anchoring. If you come to the jewelry store and see a ring sold for $100K, they aren't actually trying to sell you this ring. I mean, they would surely be happy to, but that's not their main point. The point is to make the ring that costs $2K to seem like a bargain - you get almost the same thing and it's 50 times cheaper!
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
As such, the inconceivable has now become conceivable in that, if we were to continue down this path for another five or so years, I can see a future world where the majority of Canadians would rather become American than suffer their continued decline of quality-of-life.
And this is what Trump is actually doing.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
The Expanse series is great (even though I didn't like the ending too much, but getiing the good ending is the hardest part, the series itself is great). The movies are not bad either IMHO but the books are so much richer.
I'm just saying the comparisons of the Soviet Union (or even the Czech puppet government) to the Nazis is not a fair comparison
Why not? Both murdered millions of people in service of their ideology which was supposed to make the world better but actually led to absolutely unprecedented horrible suffering and mass deaths. Both dehumanized large groups of people and invented mechanistic means of mass murder. Both started aggressive wars and conquered and subjugated neighboring countries. Both adopted totalitarian ideology that had no place for freedom of thought or discussion. I think there's a lot of fair comparison there. And yes, both had joyous parades on special occasion (try not to go there or not be joyous, and you'll find out what happens to you). Strangely, most people do not appreciate that joy too much.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
This seems to be something pretty common among Czech authors in particular
Weird given how Soviet Communists raped their country in 1968...
but there was little acknowledgement about the kinds of things communism did right
Ah, the good old "Hitler got trains running on time" thing (which he didn't btw)
Kundera couldn't even recognize the happiness and beauty of the socialist May Day celebrations,
Ah yes, and we do not appreciate the brilliant whiteness of KKK hoods and the beauty of Nazi torch marches. Maybe I should rewatch The Birth of a Nation and Triumph of Will to get inspired.
The whole thing just reeks of sore loserdom: like we have here in the Old Confederacy
Like that, except when the Confederacy won and he's the slave. Sore loser indeed.
I'm not denying that the Czech communist state (and the Soviets) did horrible things,
It kinda looks like you do. Or at least you are denying Kundera the right to be horrified and disgusted by those horrible things.
I'm not sure what would be the difference? Some people are, for some reason unique to them, bad at X. Is it a "real medical condition"? It certainly seems to be real, it certainly seems to be a "condition" - as in, describable and identifiable phenomenon, as for whether it's "medical" I'm not sure that's a robust term. Can you take a pill to cure it? Currently probably not, but there are hundreds of problems that have no pill to cure it. Do we know a sufficiently reduced biological or chemical level cause? Probably not again, but again hundreds of problems without known causes reduced to chemistry or cell biology. The distinction sounds like a political question - e.g. "should people with condition X be covered by ADA and subject to reasonable accommodation provisions, or you just can fire them at will if they're bad at X and you need somebody who's good at X" - but those are impossible to answer objectively. So I think "simply a term that we came up with" describes a lot of things that also absolutely real conditions.
Say you have a condition that makes your leg muscles be 20% slower than average, and that makes you suck at running. If we call that "disrunnia", is it a real medical condition or just a cope parents use to make kid not feel bad for coming last in every race?
More options
Context Copy link