@MadMonzer's banner p

MadMonzer

Temporarily embarassed liberal elite

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 23:45:01 UTC

				

User ID: 896

MadMonzer

Temporarily embarassed liberal elite

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 23:45:01 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 896

If we're edgelording, I prefer "Mong". It's the term that was used in British school playgrounds when I was in school, though as with all such terms more for people who acted like they had Downs than for people who actually did.

Downs is a trisomy, not a mutation, so there are no healthy carriers in the sense that there are for e.g. haemophilia or cystic fibrosis.

(There are genes which somewhat increase the odds of a Downs baby, but the effect is small compared to maternal age).

The first historical pagan reference to Christianity is from ~112 CE by Pliny the Younger, governor of northern Turkey, asking the Emperor his advice on dealing with recalcitrant Christians.

Technically true because Josephus doesn't call it Christianity, but Josephus writes about Jesus in around 93AD, saying that he was hailed as the Messiah and that he was executed by Pilate. This implies the existence of a group of people doing the hailing - i.e. Christians.

common understanding of Jesus's message

It's not just a common understanding if Jesus' message, it's an obviously correct one.

The historical Jesus was, whether he was God the Son or not, an apocalyptic preacher who at the least didn't correct his followers' belief that the Second Coming and Last Judgement would happen during their lifetimes. Jesus' teaching on politically-sensitive topics is a combination of heroic personal virtue on one hand and political quietism/obedience to secular authority on the other - he is teaching in a context where the Roman Empire is what it is and rebelling against it is obviously stupid (which did not prevent the Jews rebelling, or suffering the consequences). And with that background, "regardless of what ICE is or is not doing, you, personally, should show love for the illegal immigrants as a display of self-sacrificing personal piety" makes perfect sense.

The Gospel simply isn't trying to be a source of secular wisdom for princes (or democratic citizens) - hence the consistent attempts by Christian political theorists to find Christian political wisdom in the Old Testament and needing a way round the fact that Solomon definitely was not Christian and was subject to ritual laws that we are not because they have been fulfilled in Christ. But most Christian political movements get their secular politics from secular sources.

Eugenics is broadly popular unless:

  • You call it eugenics or
  • It involves State coercion to remove people from the gene pool

Think about attitudes to choice of donor gametes in the IVF industry.

Agreed - it would be less scandalising for a middle-class woman in most places to have an illegal abortion than to use a Baby Moses law.

I think it's been a soap opera staple all the way back to Roe in the US and the 1967 Abortion Act in the UK. But the first time the abortion actually happened in a British soap was surprisingly late - before Emmerdale in 2020 all abortion plotlines ended with the mother keeping the baby, or the issue being defused by a miscarriage.

But medical abortions, including if the child has Down's Syndrome, are always allowed. If your child has Down's Syndrome, that's a valid reason for abortion, and pretty much nobody would say otherwise, including conservatives.

Abortion of sufficiently disabled fetuses (up to and including completely nonviable ones such as anencephaly) are where the views of pro-life Christian conservatives diverge from normie social conservatism in a way which has driven some of the nastiest post-Dobbs rows. Christian conservatives support a reasonably broad physical health of the mother exception and want it to work for the small number of women who need it - the reason why it doesn't in some red states is incompetence rather than malice. But Christian conservatives, for reasons which are good and sufficient if you accept their view of Christian morality, want no exceptions whatsoever for fetal illness, and the post-Dobbs abortion bans don't include them.

I gotta say, this Platner guy is proving his enlisted status more every day.

Gentlemen-rankers out on the spree,
Damned from here to Eternity,
God ha' mercy on such as we,
Baa! Yah! Bah!

[Kipling, 1892]

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "grift." To me, if a group of allied people work in informal concert to grab resources, it's still potentially what I would call a "grift."

I would say an activist movement is a grift if the primary goal is to transfer other people's money to the activists and their immediate social network, but not a grift if the goal is to transfer money to the group the activists claim to be speaking for. The organised BLM movement, for example, turns out to be a grift on this definition - they raised a lot of donations and mostly kept the money. The traditional Black urban political machines are not pure grifts on this model - although they take a lot off the top, they spend more taxpayer money on their constituents than they do on themselves.

Political lore is that this was SOP in statewide elections in Illinois, with the Daley machine in greater Chicago and the Republican machine in the rural south trying to delay releasing results until they knew how many votes they needed to steal. But that doesn't describe how the most famous rigged election in Illinois history (the 1960 Presidential election) went down - Kennedy was ahead of Nixon throughout the "count", and Cook County on average reported faster than the rest of the state.

I'm saying that competence and riggedness are orthogonal. You can rig elections competently or incompetently, you can count honest elections competently or incompetently. An incompetently run election is more vulnerable to external fraud, but the claim OP is making about California is about insider fraud.

And this isn't one of them. The terms of the market were:

This market will resolve to "Yes" if MicroStrategy sells any of its Bitcoin by 11:59 PM ET on the date specified in the title. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No". The primary resolution source for this market will be information from MSTR and on-chain data, however a consensus of credible reporting will also be used.

This is unambiguously a statement that the sale will occur before 1159, not that the publicly available information confirming it will appear before 1159. MicroStrategy sold Bitcoin before the deadline, and this was confirmed by "information from MSTR" in the ordinary course of business, on the timetable you would expect for a sale shortly before the deadline.

This makes the LIBOR bros look honest.

Yes - gayness is a modern western construct. The old school way has manly men who did the dicking and a mix of women, transwomen, effeminate men who like it up the butt, teenage boys, and weak men who can't say no who took it.

AFAIK Leviticus is the first time an authority unequivocally condemns dicking another guy. But the Biblical framework condemns the top and the bottom separately, it doesn't lump them together as "gay".

(1) more goodies (money, power, status, etc.) for women;

Stop saying "women" when you mean "feminists". (Incidentally, advice which most people should think about most of the time.) Feminism isn't a pure grift - individual feminists genuinely want other feminists to get more gibmedats and not just themselves - but the point isn't to uplift women as a whole, it's to subsidise a particular female life script (see Obama's notorious Life of Julia ad, but the critical point is that women who seek to have children in actually-committed relationships with men are SOL) with the goal of changing female behaviour such that a large enough pool of able women pursue meritocratic competition that they can achieve a 50-50 power elite by affirmative action without promoting obvious numpties.

According to research, globally, sex workers have a 45% to 75% chance of experiencing sexual violence on the job

Even if we take this figure seriously, what fraction of retail workers experience economic violence on the job at some point? "Sexual violence" is defined broadly - if we defined "economic violence" equally broadly then it wouldn't need to be a robbery - a shoplifter pushing past a security guard would qualify.

Is there any reason why people think slow first counts are Bayesian evidence of fraud rather than incompetence? Countries with actually-rigged elections like PRI Mexico or Chavez' Venezuela count their elections overnight just as fast as countries with free and fair elections.

The timeline of Mirpuris in the UK is roughly:

1947-1961 - After Pakistani independence, the UK still allows free immigration of Commonwealth citizens. For reasons that are not obvious, working-class Pakistanis moving to the UK are mostly Mirpuri. Some low-wage industries like textiles are actively seeking to hire Pakistani immigrants because they are cheaper than white Britons.
1961-68 - the Mangla Dam is built, displacing about 110k Mirpuris. About 5k moved to the UK and joined the existing Mirpuri community in the UK before the doors closed.
1962 - The Commonwealth Immigrants Act ends free immigration for Commonwealth citizens. At this point there are about 25k ethnic Pakistanis in the UK, mostly Mirpuri.
1962-1983 - The Mirpuri population in the UK doubles more than once a decade due to chain migration and natural increase.
1983 - The Thatcher government introduces the "Primary Purpose Rule", saying that marriage to a British citizen doesn't get you a visa unless you can demonstrate that the primary purpose of the marriage was not immigration-related. In effect, this means that you can no longer use obviously-arranged marriages for immigration purposes. The doubling time of the British Mirpuri population increases to about 15 years.
1997 - One of the first things the incoming Blair government does is to abolish the Primary Purpose Rule, which they consider racist. Chain migration increases, with arranged marriages to cousins becoming a problem.

WorldVision is an explicitly Christian aid organisation with a generally good reputation and which I haven't seen accused of being skinsuited by leftists. (Christian Aid and CAFOD in the UK have, I think, been thoroughly skinsuited)

Numerous religious denominations, some of them conservative-aligned, run overseas missions which combine proselytisation with aid work, although I am not familiar with specific examples.

Although the weapons are normally improvised, this general type of violent crime is endemic in the rougher parts of the UK and has been for decades, and predates mass immigration. (My wife had a student summer job typing up the indictments in an ethnically homogenous town in northern England).

"If you get lairy with random strangers in the streets around pub closing time, you will probably get beaten up, and might get stabbed" is something streetwise Brits are aware of. "If you get lairy with random armed strangers in the streets around pub closing time, you are a lot more likely to get stabbed" is a logical corollary. The sword is something of a furphy here - the incident looks like a conventional dumbass-on-dumbass post-pub fight until the police spectacularly screw up the response.

The video shows a violent confrontation initiated by the McMichaels. Their legal argument was that they were making a legal citizen's arrest, not that they were acting in self defence. Based on the video alone, the McMichaels were obviously guilty notwithstanding Arbery throwing the first punch - indeed if the case had somehow ended with the McMichaels dead, Arbery would have had a decent self-defence claim. The reason why they were not charged until the the case attracted media attention was that the local police in a Georgia small town thought that it was normal pro-social behaviour for a retired cop to round up a posse in hot pursuit of a jogger who trespassed on a construction site.

Violent crime by Indians is also rare in the UK.

This hit me so hard a few years ago when I met up with a few friends while I was in another country and they insisted that everywhere we eat was statusmaxxing or whatever, the type of place you could brag about going, even to the extent that they wanted to walk out of a place run by a sweet old man when they deemed the food subpar.

I think that comes from the quantification and gamification of a particular kind of status (having the time and money to afford Instagrammable experiences) on social media and the resulting intensification of competition.

North of the Mason-Dixon line, see for example this Tanner Greer post about the culture of the Gilded Age WASP elite, or John Brooks' 1970 tour de force Once in Golconda about the culture of 1920's Wall Street and how it changed as a result of the Great Depression.

I always thought that the planter class in the South saw themselves as untitled nobility - they spent a lot of time banging on about how they preserved the traditional martial and chivalric virtues that the North had lost due to excessive commercialism. Although in another thread someone told me that elite draft dodging was widespread in the Confederacy, which would imply that the planter elite never actually felt the sense of noblesse oblige they claimed to.

Someone still thinks it is worth publishing the Social Register, which is what a nobiliary directory looks like in a country with no titled nobility.

I don't think so. If I had to pick a point in time at which the American elite had ceased to have a culture of noblesse oblige, I would go for the Vietnam War and the vast majority of GI and Silent generation elites helping their Boomer sons dodge the draft.