Malls are run by private individuals; separation of church and state doesn't apply.
Jiro
1yr ago
Jiro
1yr ago
To rephrase: Thousands of schools manage to do it because the teachers in them are acting in good faith and aren't trying to push the limits. That doesn't prevent problems in other schools where the teachers are trying to push the limits.
Jiro
1yr ago
Presumably those schools have fewer people trying to push the limits of the policy.
You can't assume that teachers are going to follow these policies in good faith, which is why we can't have nice things.
What's the theory, anyway? He's BLM shadow liaison to the australian government, moonlighting as autist whisperer?
The reason why we have the concept of "conflict of interest" is to prevent that general sort of thing even when it would sound silly and be impossible to prove.
Remember the adage "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Do you think we could convince him that Trump is a good guy, or any other non-left idea, when his lobbying position depends on not believing that? (And yes, I think that applies even though Trump is not running for any office in Australia.)
The analogy was comparing supporting rape of women to opposing rape of hypothetical groups, and the real world counterpart would be comparing support of anti-semitic comments to opposing anti-X comments. The rape is part of the analogy (and it was an analogy that you started), not a claim that they actually support rape.
Jiro
1yr ago
How about "Calling for the genocide of Jews is disgusting and distasteful in the extreme, but it is absolutely protected speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio and does not in itself constitute prohibited bullying or harassment."
Harvard can't say that because all the other things that they do claim are bullying or harassment keep them from being able to say it honestly.
If they say that, the next question would be about whether Trump support, Islamophobia, etc. are prohibited bullying or harassment.
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
1yr ago
I think you're just empirically wrong about this.
There are some obvious holes with that. For instance, it ignores the practice of making the villains white men while diversifying the good guys.
Jiro
1yr ago
If left-wing opinions are the only opinions that get accepted, that's going to greatly inform public policy. More so if conservatives can't even get elected in significant positions. There's no way that's just people showing up to argue; who becomes president and what policies get made have real world consequences.
Jiro
1yr ago
You can't read minds, so you don't know what the being thinks. You might know what he claims to think, but you don't know if he's telling you the truth.
Jiro
1yr ago
f the deep state can have its way even when /ourguy/ wins, then why does it also need to rig elections?
That's like asking "if you have a password, why do you also need any other security measures?".
Security is multilayered, because each level is not perfect on its own. So is corruption.
Jiro
1yr ago
If the past twenty times Joe Biden was a serial killer the Times never mentioned it, yes, I should ignore it, because in the hypothetical world where the Times did this, serial killing just wouldn't be such a serious thing. Of course, this won't happen in the real world precisely because serial killing isn't that way.
Jiro
1yr ago
Are the presidents of MIT, Harvard, and Penn calling for genocide, or are they instead refusing to act against the people who are?
I'm pretty sure that in the context of Palestinians killing Israelis, they haven't said "damn this sucks, I don't even know what a good solution looks like but murdering innocent civilians in their homes for offenses committed by their countrymen doesn't seem like a good solution". Which is what you just referred to.
Jiro
1yr ago
People just see the number and go "wow that's a lot of zeroes so it must be good".
In theory you can fix this by counting QALYs instead of lives saved.
Of course, counting QALYs meaningfully isn't easy, but it is easy to come up with bad ways to count them and hard to prove them bad.
Jiro
1yr ago
The people saying "damn this sucks, I don't even know what a good solution looks like but murdering innocent civilians in their homes for offenses committed by their countrymen doesn't seem like a good solution" are not having their opinions amplified to the whole world.
They're not running Penn, MIT, or Harvard either.
Jiro
1yr ago
People think that tank man was trying to stop the tanks from running over protestors. He wasn't; the tanks were going home at that point.
Jiro
1yr ago
Hispanics who have assimilated still vote Democrat at rates far beyond those of average Americans.
Jiro
1yr ago
Too bad they couldn't influence the election in 2016, for all their power.
That was their screwup. They brought up Trump as a bogeyman and ended up giving him publicity. Just because they screwed up doesn't mean they don't have power. (And of course the Supreme Court and abortion are downstream of that mistake.)
Jiro
1yr ago
It is my impression that taking employees to a strip club was, if not common, not unknown either, before the women's movement complained.
Jiro
1yr ago
A nuanced position where sex-work is work, but is not the same as other types of work would probably be my position.
That's the motte. The bailey is "sex work is work in the sense that it is like other types of work".
Nobody would even bother saying that sex work is work if all they meant is your motte.
Jiro
1yr ago
Nobody wants to literally maximize everyone's suffering, but plenty of people want to drastically increase the suffering of specific groups.
Jiro
1yr ago
We start to see some cracks in the full-on sex-is-tennis position already when it comes to consent to sexual relations. Imagine your boss really loves tennis and decides that he wants to have some team-building out on the court.
Painting someone's house is unmistakably a normal job, but if your boss demanded that you paint his house, that would be inappropriate.
The actual criterion is how much the boss personally benefits. It's true that the boss probably enjoys playing golf, so his benefit isn't precisely zero, but it's probably not that hard to find a golf partner and the main benefit is the socialization, not the fact that the boss really, really values golf.
People who disagree with someone on the Internet have a hefty incentive for motivated reasoning in thinking the person to be disturbed.
Also, you're probably not particularly concerned over his well-being in general. If he posted that he had a physical illness you probably wouldn't even send him a get well card.
More options
Context Copy link