Jiro
1yr ago
It goes against the general theory of Biden as controlled by woke interests.
Woke is not "anything leftist". Unions are left-wing to the extent that they are old style economic leftism aimed at benefiting the working class, which is very far from modern woke. Nobody got cancelled for being opposed to unions (short of the lizardman constant).
Jiro
1yr ago
What exactly do you think people are revealing about themselves?
I suggest you speak plainly.
Jiro
10mo ago
Is there an underlying principle at work here that explains both positions (opposition to AA plus opposition to debt relief) that doesn't just reduce to bare economic or racial interest?
"The law/the Constitution actually means what it says. Stop trying to twist it for policy reasons."
Jiro
1yr ago
I thought an interesting question was posed:
I've seldom seen "just asking questions" done more directly.
It was a manipulative question. It’s akin to, “does calling for the rape of women violate Harvard’s rules on domestic assault?” Of course it wouldn’t, because inappropriate statements against the values of Harvard are not in the category of domestic assault
To continue the analogy, this happened after Harvard claimed that calling for the rape of 10 other categories violates the rule. (It's a hypothetical, so pretend that those categories exist.) If the president of Harvard refused to answer when asked specifically about women after agreeing for everyone else, the question isn't manipulative, it's just exposing hypocrisy.
If you claim that calling for genocide is not harassment, that's fine by itself. But if you do it in the context of all the other things that Harvard does consider harassment, it isn't.
If Harvard said "calling for genocide of Jews isn't harassment or bullying because that's the wrong category," the next question would be "how about 'it's okay to be white', or anti-trans positions?"
Jiro
10mo ago
Does this actually match any experience you personally have with trans people?
It matches the experience with defenders of trans people in the media and legal system. If you're saying that trans people don't personally act much like this, and that the complaint should be about trans allies instead of trans people, I suppose that's a fair complaint. But that's different from saying that it just isn't significant at all.
Also, the backlash against FTM is lower than against MTF precisely because FTMs aren't claiming many things that cis men exclusively get, because there aren't many things that cis men exclusively get. What exactly can they shriek at cis people to do?
Jiro
10mo ago
I don't know if you're feigning ignorance, but you're saying the things that someone feigning ignorance would say. If pet dogs was an issue for a major political party , people had pet dog rallies that were specifically there to rub pet dogs in the face of people who didn't like them, if people routinely got fired from their jobs for their opinions on pet dogs, and if people's opinions on pet dogs--or even their refusal to speak about pet dogs--marked them as irredeemably evil and not fit for polite company then pet dogs would be political. Just "I have an opinion on whether it's okay" doesn't make it political.
I happen to have heard about how the eviction moratorium works. It defacto means that poor tenants don't have to pay their rent, but the landlords still have expenses. And most landlords are not giant corporations. It's like a law demanding that grocery stores give poor people free food. And it was ended because the Supreme Court said it was illegal. Congress "letting the support expire" is true from a certain point of view, but misleading; it was pushed through out of process and the Supreme Court said that Congress had to authorize it, which never happened.
This does not make me hopeful that the rest of this Gish gallop is accurate.
Jiro
1yr ago
IP itself is a government creation. So the question is not "does WOTC have a right", the question is "are we happy with the government giving them this right". I'm not happy with it.
Jiro
1yr ago
There's no law of the universe making it sexual. It being sexual is an observation about how and why it's done in modern American society. There's probably some extreme edge case that isn't sexual (maybe Norman Bates in Psycho), but when it comes up in politics, it's never about such cases, and there often seems to be an element of "Ha, ha, you can't prove it's sexual".
Jiro
3mo ago
I think there's a trans analogy here. People are superficially asking you to not say bad things about their situation, but they actually want you to think their own perception of that situation is correct, not just mouth the words. And every so often they make a demand that doesn't really fit the former and implies the latter.
Jiro
8mo ago
Conservatives often defend jury nullification, so can't be shocked when it's used against them.
"Jury decides based on what someone did, that they shouldn't be punished" is jury nullification. "Jury decides, based on the jury being threatened with physical harm, that someone shouldn't be punished" isn't.
There are also tens of thousands of pieces of Star Wars fanfiction on archiveofourown.org and I think probably 80% of it is written by women and girls.
-
This is distorted by the fact that most fanfiction period is written by women and girls, so it's not evidence of the gender ratio for the fandom itself.
-
I wouldn't count "Anakin thinks it's a great idea to spend the day at an amusement park, also having something else up his sleeve. Confessing his love to Obi-Wan!" as being genuinely a fan of the series.
-
The woke trend is clearly not what appeals to them about Star Wars. Look how few of them have Rey as a main character, for instance.
-
Since many of the writers are kids, "I watched it as a kid" isn't ruled out. Are they still going to be fans come next year?
Jiro
1yr ago
I suggest that someone who does such things to animals is probably deluded in such a manner which indicates a propensity to harm actual people in similar ways.
Even extreme animal rights activists rarely think it's wrong to harm insects, but someone who likes pulling wings off insects just to see them squirm is probably a bad person.
I think it would be possible to achieve the same goals in a way that would seem (to me at least) a bit more just - and that is to make sure that the universities and colleges which took in all of this money pay the price.
That's running off of mistake theory.
Think of it as ideology-based where the universities are on the left and forgving the loans is a way to insulate the universities from the real-world consequences of encouraging degrees that are bad in the job market but great for spreading their brand of politics. Under this theory, the government doesn't want to make the unversities pay the price.
or our friend is doing a bit of rhetorical exaggeration.
This is excessively charitable. Another poster pointed out the probable source of the comment. It was misrepresented.
This is another quokka thing. When someone says "you suck", they may not be acting in good faith. If you immediately respond to that saying "well, we do sort of suck and I can understand how you see why we suck", you're playing into his hands. But rationalists can't resist doing that.
This is also related to the adequacy.org style of troll--the post has impeccable grammar, and argues at length, qualities which we here tend to treat as an insightful post. But the content is terrible anyway.
Jiro
1yr ago
"Warlordism" is another term for "autocratic government that isn't internationally recognized". It's not as if warlords can't take your money and call it taxes.
Jiro
3mo ago
But other Christians are willing to say "the Westboro Baptist Church is crazy and we don't believe what they are saying is true". This doesn't happen for trans issues.
Jiro
4mo ago
Your confusion arises from semantic differences. When someone like Coates or Kendi talks about "white supremacy", they don't (just) mean mask-off segregationists or white nationalists.
This is the kind of thing the motte and bailey phrase was designed for.
Meanwhile nobody cares about this Cade Metz creature except that he wrote about Scott.
We're in a bubble. Scott seems important only because of that. And Metz is a Times writer. This inherently means that a lot of people care about what he says.
That will probably be his epitaph: "Wrote a hit piece on a beloved and respected public intellectual".
Plenty of people told similar lies about Gamergate. It's pretty obvious by now that none of them will be chiefly remembered for those lies. We don't control the discourse, and in most places where it's relevant you can't even suggest that anything said about Gamergate was a lie. And yes, it still gets brought up every so often.
Jiro
1yr ago
Something else to add: If by "piracy" you mean "things involving intellectual property that are against the law", remember that the list of things that are illegal is far beyond just "copying a video" and includes such things as derivative works (fanfiction is illegal), and breaking technological protection measures. Many intellectual property laws are hard to defend from any point of view other than just maximizing profits. We're at the point where "you should obey the law, so don't pirate" is a dead letter and at most you can try to figure out for yourself which laws you should violate and which ones you shouldn't.
Jiro
1yr ago
If you like lobster, you already eat "bugs".
Non-central fallacy. Eating lobster is not a central example of eating bugs (aside from the question of whether it counts at all, if you're not Taylor Hebert).
The WEF has posted some stories about the business opportunity in vegan meat substitutes, much as it posts articles about every other kind of possible business innovation.
How often does it post about a clearly inconsistent with the left business innovation?
Jiro
1yr ago
You are saying "this is clearly a woman" because you're redefining "woman", not because this person is actually passing. The clothes and hair just change the situation to "really weird person that doesn't speak and looks like a woman at first glance, but something feels wrong about them".
People have a way of sarcastically saying extreme versions of things they actually believe. It lets them probe how far they can go and gives them plausible deniability if they go a little too far since they can always claim to be sarcastic.
More options
Context Copy link