@Jiro's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 04:48:55 UTC
Verified Email


User ID: 444



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 04:48:55 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 444

Verified Email

I think that argument has been quietly dropped since Oct 7.

I've still seen it in the wild.

(tldr for kids who decide to be trans they see <.1% of the trans content they see at school, they get it from the internet, the school plays almost zero causal role in them deciding to transition).

I think the worry is not necessarily that the school starts it, it's that the school enables it by their policies. Schools allowing children to socially transition, keeping information from the parents, etc. could be a lot more influential than just seeing content.

Imagine that Caleb is not one person but the "Caleb Union" which contains ten people but otherwise has exactly the same skills, together, as Caleb does in the original scenario. The union is so strong so you can't break them up or hire them partially.

Given what you think a fair distribution of profits between Arthur and Caleb is, how should profits be distributed between Arthur and the Caleb Union?

the current trans rights movement is much smaller than the gay rights movement was in its heyday

"Smaller" means different things in an era of social media, combined with universal media approval. Fewer people, maybe. Less influence, no.

So do it again. Say fine, trans women are women, and they should be modest and wear makeup and stay at home to raise the adopted kids.

That doesn't work, because "trans women are women" means treating them as women for the purpose of sports, prisons, bathrooms, etc. Treating gay people as married doesn't mean letting them do any controversial things. And having your child decide one day that they're trans is a lot bigger problem than having your child decide one day that they're gay.

Say sure, diversity is a strength, so lets hire some black CEOs who align with our mission to crush unions, roll back regulations, and lobby for tax cuts for the rich.

If you loosen the requirement to "CEOs are social justice allies but can be any skin color", we're already getting that. We just end up with CEOs who crush unions, roll back regulations, lobby for tax cuts for the rich, and still promote their ideology in everything they can get their hands on that doesn't personally disadvantage themselves. The guy in charge of Google Gemini may not literally be a CEO, but he's a person in charge of a project at a big corporation, and I'm sure he's not going to start a campaign in support of unions at Google, but the project itself was DEI enough that even regular media can notice.

He used a similar tactic at Reddit

Not according to that link. That link is a user speculation (labelled with a sarcastic JUST KIDDING, which doesn't mean that he's kidding, but does mean that it's something he thinks happened, not something he has evidence for.)

Whether a set of complaints is a social problem, and in general whether a set of complaints is something to take note of, is a fact-specific thing.

The wrong way to look at this is to say "it's a complaint, and every complaint is just as good or bad as every other complaint that sounds grammatically similar", which is what you've been doing.

you're the only one whose actions you can change by putting blame there.

That's absurd. You are able to do things that affect, or at least incentivize, other people's actions. You can also change inanimate things which cause problems that are not nontrivially any person's fault.

The specifics absolutely do matter. It's easy to find and notice examples of women blaming problems on feminist reasons. When they do, society approves of it and doesn't question it. These two factors make it matter to point it out.

You can't find more than one Donald Trump doing it, and when you do, the media won't defend him.

You say "even Trump" as though that makes the idea stronger when it actually makes it weaker. Women blaming problems on feminism is something of note because more than one woman does it and more than one member of society supports them doing it. The fact that Trump specifically does something means little in this context; Trump is one person.

I couldn't watch Gunslinger Girl. The whole setup with older men mentoring young girls to do weird things, even if in this context it was assassination, seemed too close to grooming for me.

In practice, "preselected with being unsatisfied" isn't going to mean "every single one is unsatisfied", it just means "being unsatisfied is disproportionately likely". You may be personally satisfied despite this being true.

Dragonball's still gender egalitarian with respect to the occasional female who does appear. Videl loses because she's a human and all the humans are weak, not because girls are weaker than boys in this world.

Questions like "why don't they ship the permafrost off to some place where it's safer to melt" and "why can't they buy the stuff they need instead of getting it from pollution" are more "they have no common sense" than "they know nothing about science".

Define "descendents of". If it includes people with X% Muslim ancestry, we should only expect X% of that subgroup to identify as Muslims. If greater than X% do, then Islam is actually growing among that subgroup even though X is less than 100.

If you honestly didn't know the quote was cut off, of course you didn't mislead anyone. But the quote itself is still misleading, even if the blame is on the person who provided it to you, and for the same reason: even if he thinks the omission "doesn't change the meaning", he needs to leave the words in and argue that they don't matter, not silently remove them.

(perhaps he knew I was Jewish?).

I think the author missed or was glossing over that Haredim are skewing his numbers. Many Jews under 30 are religious because Haredim have a high birth rate, and many Jews earn under $30000 because that figure includes Haredim.

American gun violence is unequally distributed by race, which makes comparisons to other areas hard.

The rejoinder to that,

The rejoinder to that is religious people putting words in the mouths of nonreligious people and imagining that they would say something convenient for the religious people.

If you showed me a demon, it wouldn't prove the existence of the supernatural, but it would be evidence, and the weight of evidence could convince me like it would for anything else. If you showed me one demon for a minute and took it away before I could take a photo, ask someone else to look at it, or otherwise rule out mundane explanations, I wouldn't believe, but that's because your evidence is pretty bad, not because nonbelievers always ignore the evidence.

Also, not all supernatural things are equal. If you showed me a demon, I'd believe in powerful beings that can do weird things. I might still wonder if they're demons or aliens, and I wouldn't believe in transsubstantiation.

What about Jews? Jews started as poor immigrants with a history of centuries of persecution. And it didn't take 300 years for them to catch up.

On the contrary, what is the HBDer’s answer?

The same as the answer of Jews or Asians when whites complain about them doing too well.

America does for instance have too much gun violence.

The optimal amount of any crime is non-zero, short of lizardman constant situations. This is true for gun violence as much as anything else.

Besides, since some gun violence is self-defense, the optimal amount of it isn't zero anyway.

Someone who read your post would have no idea that you removed the end of the quote, let alone that you thought you had good reason for removing it. That's deceiving them as to what the quote actually said. Your readers wouldn't even have known that you cut it off at all if someone else hadn't noticed it and called you on it.

The obvious reply to that is "why do Asians do well?" Shouldn't it take hundreds of years for them to catch up too? (Of course, Asians weren't quite as disadvantaged, but I wouldn't say they had a hundred year head start either.)

Nobody here is going to be impressed if @ymeskhout tries to win on a technicality instead of the substance of the issue. Moreover, if he did act in some kind of unreasonable procedural way

Debate skills let you win in a good-sounding way, not in a procedural way. You say something and your opponent can't respond, or you demolish something your opponent says. You may really have said something with a subtle flaw that your opponent didn't pick up on, and you "demolished" your opponent through bad reasoning, but your debate skills will make it look good for the audience.