Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
No bio...
User ID: 265
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1mo ago
Because there won't be anyone trying to "wokify" your little hobby once the Woke have been crushed utterly.
Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Let's gameplan it. If you could wave your magic wand and get masses of people to follow your guidelines. What kind of scchedule / timeline / milestones are we looking at?
Is there killing? Brainwashing? New laws? Revoking of old laws? What institutions are torn down and which remain?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3mo ago
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivation behind the paintballs. The local citizens are not trying to solve the problem of homelessness, locally or globally. They are acting in their self interest, attempting to preserve the good aspects of their city and prevent them from sliding down into vagrancy, filth, violence, and drugs. This is a broad, human, historical civilizational norm.
Austin, SF, and Seattle violate this norm. They attract vagrancy rather than repel it.
If you want to solve homelessness, start with one. Pick a project person, take them into your home, let their problems become your problems, and I believe you will understand the nature of the solution and be able to advocate for it more effectively.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1mo ago
If I said that affirmative action isn't supposed to be opposed to any of that, it's supposed to counteract known disequities of opportunity in order to end at true meritocracy.
Sounds like blather so far.
like adjusting to the left because you know the sites on your gun are off a bit to the right, would you believe me?
No. Because I am advocating to zero the sights. Level the playing field. Stop trying to pick winners. Are some people dealt different hands? Yes, Jay-Z and Beyonce's kids will grow up uber privileged. What do you propose to do about it?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3mo ago
Would somebody shooting paintballs at you actually motivate you to get a job?
The paintballs are motivation to be homeless somewhere else. A local solution that is not masquerading as a global solution.
Eli Lake at Bari Weiss' The Free Press
He lays out in simple, clear language how the FBI has held double and triple standards when it comes to investigating or protecting powerful political figures. I believe this piece is downstream of more original reporting from the likes of Taibbi, Shellenberger, etc, ultimately stemming from Elon Musk's release of The Twitter Files.
You’ll recall that those scoops weren’t as big a news story as was the fact that Facebook and Twitter banned users from sharing the story on the theory that it was the fruit of Kremlin fakery intended to sway the presidential election. It turns out that the FBI officials who warned social media companies that the laptop story might be part of a Russian scheme to mislead voters themselves knew that the laptop was real. And they knew so as early as December of 2019.
But instead of clarifying that the FBI had verified its contents, the bureau instead allowed a falsehood about its provenance to linger. Savor the irony. In an effort to counter Russian disinformation, the FBI actively allowed American disinformation to spread.
It’s also Russiagate—Trump’s alleged (and never proven) collusion with Russia—which was fueled by a Democrat-funded opposition research sheet known as the Steele Dossier. The FBI knew by early 2017 (at the latest) that the whole thing was junk. But like the Russian disinformation lie about the laptop, the bureau let the dossier falsehood linger while the Steele Dossier was hyped like Watergate by the legacy press and Democratic Party in 2017 and 2018.
Then there is the double standard the bureau applied to pursuing foreign influence investigations into Trump’s campaign and the campaign of Hillary Clinton. That was one of the primary conclusions of a report released in May from U.S. Special Counsel John Durham. For Trump, the FBI opened a full investigation on the thinnest of pretexts. For Clinton, the bureau delayed investigations into potential foreign influence and offered defensive briefings to her lawyers.
Here it is useful to examine the other major event of last week: the serious allegations raised by two career IRS investigators who led the team probing Hunter’s tax violations. On Wednesday the two agents, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, testified in open session before the House Oversight Committee.
Ziegler and Shapley painted a picture of a long-standing probe that began in 2018 into Hunter Biden’s income that was stymied and delayed at nearly every turn. The delays were significant—so significant that eventually the statute of limitations ran out. Ziegler said that the probe did not follow normal procedures. Prosecutors, he said, “slow-walked the investigation, and put in place unnecessary approvals and road blocks from effectively and efficiently addressing the case. A lot of times, we were not able to follow the facts.” Ziegler and Shapley also said there were times when prosecutors informed Hunter’s lawyers about investigative steps, such as a search warrant.
All of that would be bad enough. But the event that led Ziegler and Shapley to eventually blow the whistle was when, in October of last year, the U.S. attorney in charge of the case, David Weiss, privately told them that it was not his decision to charge Hunter in districts outside of Delaware. That directly contradicted the pledge that Attorney General Merrick Garland made to Congress that there would be no restrictions placed on Weiss in his investigation of Hunter.
These feel like bombshell revelations to me, but there is also a sickening feeling of two movies on one screen. This stuff is worthy of coverage in global mainstream media, right? Not just "bloggers on substack"?
I don't have a NYT or WaPo subscription. In the last five years, I have completely lost faith in mainstream media. Is this FBI stuff getting the coverage it deserves? Shouldn't something like this make a career for a scrappy Berenson type at the NYT? Are they salivating or putting their (and our) heads in the sand?
Also, a more neutral take: https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/about-that-twitter-shitstorm-affirmationnot
Brief recap:
-
NYT shifts its coverage of medical concerns for trans issues from 100% supporting transition in all cases to a more questioning stance, particularly with minors
-
An open letter is sent to NYT laying out "serious concerns with editorial bias" in response to this shift
-
Jonathan Chait posts a critical response to the open letter at New York Magazine (no relation to NYT)
-
Chait gets dragged on twitter for being anti-trans, with a highlighted passage
-
Jesse Singal posts in support of Chait, showing the highlighted passage is directly in accordance with WPATH guidelines and explains what it means
-
E. Kale Edmiston, a trans man, posts in response that he, Edmiston, wrote the WPATH guidelines posted by Singal, and that Singal is misinterpreting them
-
Liberal media pundits and reporters pile on, when Singal defends the straightforward interpretation, demanding that Signal accept Edmiston's (frankly bizarre) interpretation of the quoted passage
-
Singal has done his homework and contacts several other WPATH authors, who all confirm Singal's interpretation of the passage and reject Edmiston's
-
Eventually this reaches Scott Leibowitz, overall head of the WPATH guidelines document, who says that Edmiston definitely did not write the highlighted passage, and later severely admonishes this lying and false attribution from within academia
-
Singal performs several victory laps on Twitter, demanding from the media pundits and reporters the apologies and corrections they had demanded from him
Good guys: Jesse Singal, Jonathan Chait, Scott Leibowitz
Bad guys: E. Kale Edmiston, Madeline Leung Coleman (NYMag editor), Michael Hobbes, Jeet Heer, Marisa Kasabas (MSNBC Columnist), David Perry, Eric Vilas-Boas (Vulture staffer), Miles Klee, Siva Vaidhyanathan
The most interesting, dire, and relevant info is from Eliza Mondegreen, linked near the top. Apparently there is a wink/nod system with the WPATH Standards of Care document, where the words are written a certain way because they must be, but they are interpreted much differently.
She concludes:
Theory and practice—the Standards of Care and what actually happens in the exam room—have nothing to do with one another. Everything in the Standards of Care that sounds cautious and responsible comes with an understanding that’s supposed to go unspoken: We don’t really mean it. We just need to say this. If a patient shows up with serious comorbidities, of course we have to say that they must undergo a “comprehensive” “assessment” and that the clinician must remain open to the possibility that the patient might not really have gender dysphoria and maybe shouldn’t really transition. But you know how important the work we all do is.
In other words, the Standards of Care are a lie that everyone involved in gender medicine pretends to believe. When reporters like Singal and Chait try to hold gender clinicians to WPATH standards (something I think is worth doing, by the way!), savvy clinicians will respond: Yes, of course we “assess” patients very carefully, what do you think this is, the Wild West?
Among other, more obvious mistakes, Edmiston’s most grievous error was not pretending to believe the lie.
EDITS: Signal, Single, Liebowitz. added Cast of Characters, Eliza Mondegreen quote
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1mo ago
The "God created men ..." quote is attributed to Samuel Colt (or John Moses Browning?)
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3mo ago
Eh, what about carbon monoxide poisoning, or nitrogen narcosis, or enough morphine to kill a large horse? Or heck, how about general anesthesia followed by a severing of the carotid?
Have we really not figured out how to reliably get a human to go to sleep and never wake up?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
6mo ago
I've seen many claims of Hamas militants being drug- or meth-fueled, along with some healthy skepticism of such. Based on what, exactly?
Hamas terrorists who carried out a surprise attack on October 7 were found to be under the influence of Captagon, a synthetic amphetamine-type stimulant that has been clandestinely produced in southern Europe and trafficked through Turkey to the consumer markets on the Arabian Peninsula, as reported by Nir Dvori of Channel 12.
The pills were recovered from the pockets of many terrorists who lost their lives on Israeli soil.
Captagon belongs to the amphetamine family and was initially developed to address attention disorders, narcolepsy, and depression. Despite its highly addictive nature and potential for inducing psychotic reactions, it continues to enjoy popularity in the Middle East due to its affordability and ease of manufacturing. In poorer countries, the drug can be purchased for a dollar or two, while in wealthier nations, it may cost up to 20 dollars per pill.
Its primary effects include arousing feelings of euphoria, reducing the need for sleep, suppressing appetite, and providing sustained energy.
According to medical professionals in Lebanon and Syria, Captagon is not only prevalent among fighters but is also frequently used by desperate civilians residing in conflict zones.
Once a source of revenue for ISIS members through drug smuggling, Captagon has now become a major source of income for Syria and is actively supported by Hezbollah.
Around two years ago, an investigation conducted by The New York Times revealed that individuals associated with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, including family members, had established a thriving industry for the production of Captagon.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3mo ago
I have a prior against the accuracy of the surveys, as there is definitely a "narrative" to uphold, and I have to imagine the survey takers are themselves homeless advocates and activists, more interested accumulating and distributing resources than hardheaded analysis. Still, taking these numbers at face value:
Of 100 homeless people:
- 30 were homeless elsewhere and moved to SF
- 4 became homeless within a year of moving to SF
- 28 were living housed in SF for between 1 and 10 years
- 38 were living housed in SF for more than 10 years
How does one randomly sample homeless people? Is this a representative sample? I would survey most egregious cases first -- the zombies milling about the UN plaza in the open air drug market. The shitters, shooters, hitters, harassers, yellers. Maybe the ones with the most encounters with police. I can imagine the sampling in this survey was done via more "official" means, like those contacting advocacy orgs, shelters, case workers, etc. There are very real methodological difficulties here. I haven't yet dug into the details of the survey, but maybe you are familiar with it?
The Comanche and Apache, at the very least, felt the same way about the Americans, and other tribes, and behaved accordingly.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
2mo ago
Wow, I had no idea you were French. This is coming straight out of left bank, so to speak. Do you live now in UK or US?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3mo ago
Hell, the biggest predictor of homelessness rates in an area is housing prices.
Is this correlation or causation? What do you think it's like being homeless in small town Indiana? Way shittier than San Francisco or Seattle, I guarantee, both in terms of support for subsistence as well as entertainment and amusement.
The chronic, problematic homeless have very little incentive to stick around where they grew up, their families, local support networks, because they have already lost or devalued them. The people shitting or shooting on sidewalks in SF have already exhausted the patience of those who once cared about them.
People want to deny this for some reason, and say that the vast majority of SF homeless are former SF residents, implying that maybe they've never left.
The question I would ask any homeless in SF:
Did you once rent or own here? Have you ever lived anywhere else?
As for why they might choose SF over Indiana, I hope it's obvious.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
9mo ago
Surprising, no. Scandalous, yes. The foundation of justice in this country is based on rule of law, as opposed to rule of man. Obviously, that's an ideal that we do not always meet. But the cavalier attitude towards abandoning this principle is very, very concerning.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
6mo ago
While I can imagine how Hamas was able to get multiple vehicles across the border to Israel, it baffles me that they could take hostages and somehow just drive back. When a sensitive border like that is penetrated, shouldn't there be a 3 alarm fire type of response?
Like, if I was a Hamas gunman, I wouldn't expect to be returning home. Perhaps there is a special strategy for the hostage takers? How are we characterizing the border breach, and for how long did it remain unsecured?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
Wesley Yang (coined "Successor Ideology") interviews Corinna Cohn, former trans activist, now regretting his (born male, now prefers male pronouns) transition as a teenager in the early 1990s.
I seem to recall the name from maybe 5-10 years ago, with some annoyance, like maybe pushing ultrawoke Code of Conduct mandates on open source projects. Might be wrong, haven't yet checked.
Now Cohn acknowledges being male and rejects his transition, but for health reasons remains on estrogen treatment. I suppose there is some question of what it means to be a detransitioner. Wesley Yang is well equipped to tear into this lamb, and does so, as far as I can tell. This is gonna hurt.
I have only read the posted transcripts, a tiny sliver. An excerpt:
On Affirming Parents
Corinna:
“For every parent who is transitioning their child, here's the future: your kid is going to get into their 20s and 30s. somewhere in this range. Even the ones who are failing to launch are going to figure out how to actually get their shit together at some point. Every one of these kids is going to start to ruminate. “How did this happen to me?” None of them are going to say, “Why did I do this to myself?” Because they didn't have agency. They didn't know. It doesn't matter if they said, “Oh, I really, really, really want to be a girl, mommy.” They don't know. They've got no idea. They're not even going to remember that. Right? They're not going to know that.”
“They're going to start thinking — “How did this happen to me?” And they're going to get to know kids. They're going to get to know children. Newborn babies. They're going to be involved with the lives of these children. They're going to watch them grow up and become thinking human beings. They're going to even watch them become adults. And they're going to know what innocence looks like. And they're going to start to remember that their innocence was absolutely destroyed.
And they're going to want to know why. And they will know at the time — I'm telling, I'm telling you now that the reason that this happens is largely because of the sexual interests of men like Rachel Levine, Admiral Levine, and other men who have continual fantasies that they wanted to be little girls”
So you have you have sent these children to satisfy the fantasies of these men. These children when they become adults are going to realize that this is why their innocence was destroyed: to make these fantasies come true. And the first people who will get the blame for this will be their parents. That is the future. That is the future.
Wesley: So I don't remember his name, bu he's like, “I'm 28 Look at me. I'm puberty blocked…”
Corinna. That was Seth.
Wesley: That was so powerful. And you're saying like, that's gonna happen to all these fucking parents?"
Corinna: Yes. It will not matter to these adult children…
Wesley: …that they begged and demanded and connived in order to get this is…
Corinna: I’m not even talking about that part. It won’t matter to these kids that their parents’ calculus was they want zero of one child to commit suicide. They don't care about one in 20,000. They want zero of one to commit suicide.
They won't care about their parents’ concerns. A lot of them aren't going to be able to have their own kids and so they're never going to even learn how to think like a parent. They're always going to think like a child. They're not going to appreciate what their parents were up against — being lied to by the government. Being lied to by their president being lied to by their doctors.
They're going to think “my parents ruined me.” For what? Why did my parents did my parents do this to me
So parents: that's what you have to look forward to.”
Corinna is no lamb at all. This is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation system by David Rozado
I have recently tested the ability of OpenAI content moderation system to detect hateful comments about a variety of demographic groups. The findings of the experiments suggest that OpenAI automated content moderation system treats several demographic groups markedly unequally. That is, the system classifies a variety of negative comments about some demographic groups as not hateful while flagging the exact same comments about other demographic groups as being indeed hateful.
-
The OpenAI content moderation system works by assigning to a text instance scores for each problematic category (hate, threatening, self-harm, etc). If a category score exceeds a certain threshold, the piece of text that elicited that classification is flagged as containing the problematic category. The sensitivity and specificity of the system (the trade-off between false positives and false negatives) can be adjusted by moving that threshold.
On gender:
The differential treatment of demographic groups based on gender by OpenAI Content Moderation system was one of the starkest results of the experiments. Negative comments about women are much more likely to be labeled as hateful than the same comments being made about men.
On politics:
Another of the strongest effects in the experiments had to do with ideological orientation and political affiliation. OpenAI content moderation system is more permissive of hateful comments being made about conservatives than the same comments being made about liberals.
-
Finally, I plot all the demographic groups I tested into a single horizontal bar plot for ease of visualization. The groups about which OpenAI content moderation system is more likely to flag negative comments as hateful are: people with disability, same-sex sexual orientation, ethnic minorities, non-Christian religious orientation and women. The same comments are more likely to be allowed by OpenAI content moderation system when they refer to high, middle and low socio-economic status individuals, men, Christian religious orientation (including minority ones), Western nationals, people with low and high educational attainment as well as politically left and right leaning individuals (but particularly right-leaning).
The statistics appear to be rigorous. The author has a very long Conclusion section that is nuanced and worth reading in its entirety.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
4mo ago
Related h/t @ymeskhout
This guy is talking about "leftism" as a shibboleth for what I would call radical progressive. People who call themselves "leftists" and hate "libs". Literally abolish the police, end capitalism, Portland / Seattle Black Bloc.
In the above essay, the author is a former leftist examining the pathology that leads to minimizing Hamas atrocities. The latent desire in American leftism to Fuck Shit Up needs a dastardly target to excuse its behavior.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3mo ago
If a Muslim girl is approached by a sex worker, what should the chaperone do?
If a situation arises where a Muslim girl is approached by a sex worker, the chaperone should handle the situation with sensitivity, respect for cultural differences, and a focus on ensuring the safety and well-being of the individuals involved. Here are some general guidelines:
Assess the Situation: The chaperone should observe the interaction and assess whether the approach is causing discomfort or if there are any signs of distress on the part of the Muslim girl.
Intervene Appropriately: If the interaction appears inappropriate or if the Muslim girl seems uncomfortable, the chaperone should intervene in a polite and discreet manner.
Provide Support: If the Muslim girl expresses discomfort or distress, the chaperone should offer support and ensure that she feels safe. This may involve escorting her to a different area or involving additional support staff if necessary.
Respect Cultural Sensitivities: Recognize and respect cultural sensitivities. If there are specific cultural or religious considerations, the chaperone should be mindful of these and address the situation in a way that is culturally sensitive.
Report to Event Organizers: Any concerns or incidents should be reported to event organizers or relevant authorities. They can take appropriate steps to address the situation and provide further assistance if needed.
What if the sex worker is trans?
If a situation arises where a trans sex worker approaches an individual at an event, including a sock hop, the response of the chaperone should be guided by principles of inclusivity, respect, and ensuring the safety and well-being of all individuals involved. Here are some general guidelines:
Observation: The chaperone should observe the interaction carefully, paying attention to the comfort level of the individuals involved.
Intervention if Necessary: If the interaction appears inappropriate or if any party involved seems uncomfortable, the chaperone should intervene discreetly and respectfully.
Respect Gender Identity: Recognize and respect the gender identity of the trans sex worker. Use appropriate pronouns and avoid making assumptions or judgments based on gender identity.
Provide Support: If any individual expresses discomfort or needs assistance, the chaperone should offer support. This may involve escorting the person to a different area or involving additional support staff if needed.
Enforce Event Guidelines: Ensure that any actions taken align with the event's guidelines and rules. This includes creating an environment that is inclusive and free from discrimination.
Report to Event Organizers: Report any concerns or incidents to event organizers or relevant authorities. They can address the situation appropriately and take any necessary follow-up actions.
It's crucial to handle such situations with sensitivity, respecting the dignity and rights of all individuals involved, regardless of their gender identity or profession. Inclusivity and safety should be the top priorities.
This was me using chat.openai.com today. Handled pretty well. Avoids most traps and responds mostly inoffensively. You'll note some prior context with "sock hop".
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1mo ago
What are the numerator and denominator in the overdose rate?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
5mo ago
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 5 days. Number one, Israel expects Hamas to violate the the ceasefire, per usual. Of course this suggests a false flag attack as well, where Israel stages a pretext for a retaliatory response. I expect that Hamas accepts the cease-fire posture at the top, but there may be provocations and skirmishes at low levels originating on both sides. I doubt we will get to the first 5 days without a major violation or conflict.
Prediction: 5 day ceasefire is honored by both sides, as judged by lack of hostilities or contention by the end of the period: 50%
This includes a successful hostage exchange. I expect there to be minor quibbles and contention. But we should know, broadly and deeply, whether each side is reasonably satisfied.
If the first 5 days go acceptably for both sides, the next 5 are likely to as well.
Prediction: 10 days of ceasefire and hostage exchanges are "successful" (not without hurdles and reversals): 10%
Again, are both sides reasonably satisfied?
Is the BBC state sponsored media? N. S. Lyons says yes
And while the BBC claims it can operate with nearly three-quarters of its funding coming from the government (whoops, I mean "the public”) and still remain independent in its coverage, this is clearly nonsense. Any organization that relies overwhelming on a patron for its continued financial existence will do what that patron wants. Obviously. And thanks to leaked emails and WhatsApp messages we can peruse a real time record of how the government leveraged this deference during the pandemic, with, for example, an “IMPORTANT ADVISORY” email sent from senior BBC editors to reporters informing them that Downing Street was “asking” if they could please avoid using the word “lockdown” to describe shutting people in up in their homes – and thus only “curbs” and “restrictions” appeared in BBC headlines the next day. This has hardly been limited to pandemic exceptions. As one BBC inside source told The Guardian: “Particularly on the website, our headlines have been determined by calls from Downing Street on a very regular basis.”
Edit: Paging @SSCReader per this earlier discussion
There is an undying faction of TMA (traditional martial arts) which refers to BJJ as blowjob jujitsu or similar, as though some rhetorical win can possibly reverse the steamroller that modern MMA represents. Reassuringly, this faction gets smaller every year as the evidence rolls in.
More options
Context Copy link