SSCReader
9mo ago
Just pointing out Rick Wilson is an anti-Trump Republican though, he is certainly not a Democrat, given his positions on anything except Trump. And the attempted shooter at the golf course had also voted for Trump before sharply turning away from him. How much of this is about dissident Republicans or supporters who feel very strongly about Trump?
This is not to minimise it, I really do not want Trump to be assassinated. But sometimes those who hate the most are those who feel betrayed by their own side/choice. Splits or schisms within religions or ideologies are often more vicious than between opposing ideologies. We expect the side we don't like to suck, but when its your own side it hits deeper. See Protestant vs Catholic, Night of Long Knives, Stalin vs Lenin/Trotsky etc. Both Wilson and Routh clearly hate Trump, but neither are examples of standard Democrats.
SSCReader
1yr ago
No, they interrupted a ceremony of the state religion.
Arguably that is the most important government function. The shared illusion we all (for a given value of all) pretend to believe. The ceremony is more important than the actual way the system works. Any threat to that isn't a physical or procedural threat, it is in fact an existential threat to the entire edifice. Almost any type of government from feudal to oligarchic to democratic to republican has legitimacy as long as people believe in the ceremonies, whether that is the crowning of the King enshrining their Divine Right to rule or the counting of electoral college votes enshrining the victor has been chosen by The People.
We can run out onto the air off a ledge as long as we all agree not to look down...
SSCReader
2yr ago
Thats the default though. 60 years ago kids were being indoctrinated into an ideological system with the backing of the state, whether their parents liked it or not. And 40 years ago, and 20 years ago.
Arguably the issue with America right now is not that kids are being indoctrinated but that they are not all being indoctrinated the same way. Thats how you get a cohesive polity. Too many states, too many systems. Call it a civic religion, a shared mythos or whatever. The point is what you are complaining about is not new, every kid is getting indoctrinated into something.
The fight is over what. But the sholip on not having kids indoctrinated at all sailed a long time ago. But
SSCReader
2yr ago
Having worked everywhere from blue chip tech companies to the civil service, I very much disagree. The high performing go getters are required but they don't care much about corporate culture, but the 90% of people in the organization who do the grunt work benefit from it highly.
Most work in most organizations does not involve solving difficult problems. Your high performing, high IQ, problem solvers will do great regardless of culture (though a great team with a great facilitator will do even better than one without). The work of billing and managing and the boring day to day work required for a company to survive benefits from cohesiveness and shared culture.
SSCReader
2yr ago
It does say "or explain why they do not" which can either be meaningless or the option 75% will take depending.
If I say because I put my family members on the board, or because I think diversity is stupid, what actually happens?
The quote "these rules will allow investors to get a better understanding" seems to suggest that either the numbers or your explanation will be visible to investors.
Checking the text it does say companies that choose not to comply will have to say why. There don't appear to be any official punishments for picking that option. "The Exchange would not evaluate the substance or merits of a companies explanation" seems to support that.
Which isn't to say this is not a big deal, its essentially a capitalized social shame model, using investors as the instrument. Assuming investors lean a particular way it might be more effective than a simple requirement in actuality.
But it is useful for context to know what the unspoken "or else" is.
SSCReader
2yr ago
Not being 100% in control does not mean they lack all agency. For example when carrying out an assessment on patients when I used to be involved in social care, we would minimize what choices they lost. A person who would spend all their money on QVC items would have their finances handled by a social worker but they could still make all other decisions. Mental competence is generally not all or nothing in that perspective.
SSCReader
2yr ago
Indeed. But can anyone? Let's say being suicidally depressed gives you 70% agency. You can make most choices but in a depressive episode, society may try and override your choice to kill yourself (if it can) by treating you whether you choose to or not. It will then discharge you, offer you therapy or drugs and so on.
If dysphoria does lead to increased levels of suicide then the same response would be to..forcibly transition people whether they want it or not? Remember when we believe people do not have agency due to mental illness, we generally act to treat their illness whether they want that treatment or not at that moment.
SSCReader
2yr ago
Ok, and from my side: if something in what I wrote is unclear, can you just ask what I meant, so I can clarify it, instead of complaining about the original post 9 comment levels deep?
Yes and no. My issue is I see a lot of posts like this where rhetoric is pushed over clarity, and I think it is detrimental to the sub as a whole. Yours is one example. I am more interested in what's driving the (from my pov) meta changes to how people are writing after our switch over. No offense intended to you at all however. But for that to change, posts have to be engaged with at a meta level, if that makes sense.
SSCReader
2yr ago
I think your post would have been better if I was sure what your point was. What specifically was the conspiracy you are making fun of the deniers denying. Who denied it and when? What is the light that would come from the discussion?
SSCReader
7mo ago
They do not. They respond (sometimes!) to the carefully curated appearance of authenticity. Because they can't tell the difference. And that is much easier to fake than having actual authentic politicians. Your idea shows weakness and would not have galvanized her base it would have done the opposite. Why support a loser?
Believe me, we get the politicians and the political processes we do because they work (at getting people to vote for them, not necessarily at governing). People didn't vote for Trump because he was humble because he isn't and he doesn't even try to be! Trump understands that. Trump played the Harris is a lunatic communist card and he won. Not because of that, but it didn't make a negative difference and it made him look strong to his supporters.
Despite what feel good movies and shows might tell you, decades of working in politics have taught me that being a humble, truthful candidate is not a positive. It is a negative. And so that is why we get the politicians we do. Because there are very few people who vote for that. They vote for the people who attack their opponents and look strong doing it. And that should not be a surprise, we have to have a whole plethora of rules here to try and get a space where people will simply not attack their opponents, and there are not many like it, and quite often we fail at that even here. That is the norm.
For what it is worth, I wish you were right. I likely would not have burned out in the political arena to the extent I did.
SSCReader
7mo ago
but you need to realize that your fetish is your own fetish,
Well first you have to establish it is a fetish, which you haven't done here. Assume for a second it isn't a fetish. Assume that there are people who are born into the "wrong body" and this person is one of them. How would that change the framing of your argument? And your understanding of the argument, people who disagree with you are making?
Because the alternative could be "Your belief it is a fetish, is your own bias, and shouldn't be imposed on trans-women just trying to exist. Just let them have the bathroom FFS".
Your argument need some kind of underpinning otherwise, it can simply be turned back around on you. It hasn't any logical construction. Not saying you are wrong, but your argument is just not very good so far. You need to buttress it.
SSCReader
9mo ago
It doesn't happen in a vacuum. It comes on ten years of media calling Trump a threat to democracy, a traitor selling the country to Russia, a violent fascist thug who needs to be executed, take him out and beat him, put his severed bloody head on TV, talk about blowing up the White House -- what, I apologized, and Trump deserved it for all his violent rhetoric, I can't believe Republicans would try shooting him like this.
Sure, but none of this in anyway indicates he might not have been a Trump supporter at some point who became disillusioned. You are in fact describing how that could have happened. If we are believing all his stuff about Ukraine and disliking Trump now, the most likely explanation is that his previous statements are also true. He did think Trump was a good choice, and then whether by Trump's actions or by the media, or by a mixture of both, he came to despise him.
There is no reason for him to lie about Trump being his choice all the way back in 2020 publicly. It doesn't impact what he tried to do now, other than, if it is true that disaffected ex-Trump supporters or ex-Republicans are more likely to try to kill him, because converts and those who feel betrayed are more zealous in their new belief systems, it might slightly shift who needs to be watched more carefully.
If both Crooks and Routh were ex-Republicans or ex-Trump supporters who turned against him then that is important information when trying to keep Trump alive. It doesn't say anything about the morality of current Republicans or Trump supporters. I'm not trying to make a political point or to shift blame, rather than observing than if both attempted killers were currently Blue affiliated, but seemed to previously not be, then that is really important information if you are a Trump supporter or do not want him killed. 1) Because stopping that happening seems pretty important generally, and 2) Because it shifts the profile of likely further attackers.
SSCReader
9mo ago
His self-published book also said he voted for Trump, and there isn't a lot of reason to disbelieve that. He clearly turned sharply away from Trump and did indeed donate to ActBlue etc. So i am not saying he is a Trump supporter now, but it appears he once was.
A person who feels betrayed by their own candidate or side can often become more vicious than a standard believer. Converts and dissidents are famously more zealous. See also Rick Wilson who also clearly hates Trump.
SSCReader
10mo ago
Because they also want and vote for economic growth. And both parties internal projections show limiting immigration prevents economic growth and also that the economy is most people's driving issue.
It's a simple straight forward calculus. When we did (when I worked for the Tories) internal polls and asked people would they accept an overall lower standard of living in exchange for reduced immigration they said no. Overwhelmingly. Over and over and over again. Everywhere.
So the recourse is to start actually valuing lowering immigration over other factors. Just like the Tories flipped on lockdowns in record time they will do the same on immigration. They aren't attached to it for principled reasons. Simply practical.
SSCReader
1yr ago
But if you can't have your rifle pointed down, because that threatens a person seated below you, then that means the general freedom to open carry a rifle is severely circumscribed. In a city there will always be cars around.
In fact in the hours that Rittenhouse was walking around we have images him of gun angled down walking past an occupied car. If that is enough to trigger threat then the occupant could have shot him!
My point is that on its own should be ok. If it is ok to open carry a rifle then we must accept some people will have it angled towards them. Rittenhouse in the image has his gun pointed at the legs of the man next to him. Unless you are always pointing your gun directly vertically down, its just a statisical certainty. So if open carrying rifles is legal, then that cannot be the standard.
You can legally in Texas walk up to a car with a rifle open carried. The question is does that mean when doing the safe thing, and pointing it down, you are automatically threatening the occupant because you could shoot them in seconds? I say the answer logically has to be no, in order for the legal carry right to make any sense.
Now to be clear that does not mean Foster wasn't actually threatening Perry! He may well of been and certainly previous testimony might make that more likely. But it can't come solely from walking towards an occupied vehicle with your gun angled down. Because that is I am given to understand (and as Rittenhouse did!) the safer way to point it. Is he supposed to raise it? Because that seems more likely to trigger a response. If open carrying is legal you can walk towards people legally, you can walk past them, you can ealk up to their car window and knock on it. You can ask them for the time or pet their dog.
My point is not that Foster was not threatening Perry, but that the description of WHY it was a threat seems biased. If Perry was threatened it was not because the gun was simply angled down and he is lower, it has to be because it was actively pointed at him. That was the determination in the Rittenhouse trial, that merely turning with your gun angled down such that it is passing a trajectory where you could shoot someone can't count as being actively threatened so Rosenbaum could not have been defending himself. Whether the gun is pointing at your leg or your body because you are sitting down doesn't matter.
If we want to claim that Perry was legally threatened then it has to be because Foster was aiming at him. Not just holding the gun in his general direction. And the problem is, from the images we have we can't see that, which is why Nybbler has to fall back to the gun being angled down being a threat because that is all we can make out. He is inflating the level of evidence we have. Again to be clear it is entirely possible Foster was pointing his gun right at Perry. And if so Perry would be justified in seeing that as a threat. Likewise in a state where open carry of rifles is not permitted maybe the walking towards you carrying a rifle pointed close to you might be a threat. But if you are going to legalize open carry of long arms, they WILL be angled towards people at some point (seriously go watch the pre-shooting footage of Kenosha, particularly when some of the "militia" are standing and walking together, their barrels are angled down but pass trajectories of peoples legs all the time) and if that legally counts as a threat, there is a serious mismatch, that risks inciting incidents. (Assuming we are allowing open carry, I don't think it should count for the record.) That is true even if Foster was about to shoot Perry in cold blood (and he might have been!).
I'm not complaining that people are defending Perry. More that they are pitching certainties or potentially reasonable things as absolute proof. Such that there is no chance the jury was actually correct.
To be clear, just as I think it was dumb of Rittenhouse to be wandering around a protest with a rifle regardless of whether he did anything legally wrong, then Foster was just as stupid, possibly more so. I don't think its a huge loss he got shot. Though I am sure as it always is it is a loss to his family. Attending protests has risk, attending openly armed inflates the risk that someone will take exception. Possibly Rittenhouse is only alive because Rosenbaum was not armed. And in the US, that is not a good gamble, as Foster perhaps learned...well briefly.
Also I keep typing Genosha instead of Kenosha, so if any made it through, I apologise.
SSCReader
1yr ago
of which nearly none of the blame can be reasonably laid at the feet of Donald Trump or the republican party.
Well Trump was the President who signed off on the first 2.2 trillion dollar CARES act in 2020, so if you believe the arguments that this contributed to inflation, then Trump at least is somewhat responsible. Biden then also signed a 1.9 trillion dollar rescue plan as well of course.
SSCReader
1yr ago
By that logic marriage being between a man and a woman is a step on the slippery slope. I remain skeptical about "Legalising marriage will not lead to gay marriage" Why wouldn't it? Now we've decided that marriage is between a man and a woman, whats is so sacred and immutable about it at allm? Your logic implies we shouldn't even have taken the first step!
But I think the fact many places had polygmous marriages before gay marriage means this isn't a slippery slope. One does not lead to the other.
This is a case where there are multiple overlapping groups who have different ideas of marriage and just because one is convincing does not mean the others will be in any given culture.
Clearly in Islam the polygamists generally won in a way which didn't lead to gay marriage. There is no reason why it can't be the opposite way round somewhere else.
SSCReader
1yr ago
You'll note that even this article quotes this:
"Both political parties had surpassed the law-mandated maximum of 134 challengers with more than 200 each, and when election workers told GOP challengers the party had hit its limit, some began shouting about the unfair process and lack of transparency. An unidentified election worker shouted back the group was at its maximum size."
Poll watchers were kicked out (or not allowed to enter) because there were already in EXCESS of the legally mandated 134 challengers inside the room.
How is it impossible to trust when there were more than 200 Republican poll watchers INSIDE. How many before you would trust it? 300? 500? 1,000? There has to be some maximum that is enforced.
The elephant is that this was not enough! You can let more people in to challenge than the legal maximum and still people are not happy. Votes were not counted in secret. There were 200 Republican poll watchers inside the room. Even that article does not claim there were none. The biggest claim there is:
"“There were some pretty tense moments inside of this room. Basically some poll workers or some of challengers told us that there was not an equal number of Democrats and Republicans in this room throughout the entire process,”"
That's it. Not that there were no watchers, not that they were kicked out and the ballots were counted secretly. Just that the numbers were not equal.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Would it be ok to ban say Christians from offices of state power? It's an easy claim that their loyalty is to God before country. And if they complain, well why do they want power so badly?
SSCReader
2yr ago
Trans people go to hell unless they repent. It’s not something in gods image but a perversion
I was a Christian however, so I have had the lessons, the Sunday School, etc., Religious education classes. And I promise you, I am engaging in good faith, I am just pointing out the even from the point of view of a Christian your argument has issues.
But again, I agree from the point of view of Christianity it makes sense to say that someone transitioning is committing a sin. Agreed. But that wasn't your claim.
But that isn't the same thing as making a mockery of God. Consider that one of the responses when a loved one is murdered or dies of cancer is that God moves in mysterious ways. Indicating that even this is part of His plan. That doesn't mean the murderer wasn't sinning within the Christian context, he certainly was. It is simply the acknowledgment that all things are part of God's plan and that our role is to surrender our faith to that plan. Even things we mortals do not comprehend like untimely deaths or your son coming out as gay or your daughter as trans are part of His plan.
That doesn't mean that your son or daughter are not sinful, but it does mean that God planned that. We don't know why, the reasons are literally ineffable, despite how many words have been written trying to understand it.
Calvin:
"Calvin did not believe God to be guilty of sin, but rather he considered God inflicting sin upon his creations to be an unfathomable mystery.[54] Though he maintained God's predestination applies to damnation as well as salvation, he taught that the damnation of the damned is caused by their sin, but that the salvation of the saved is solely caused by God"
Eastern Orthodox:
"(God's) foreknowledge is unfathomable. It is enough for us with our whole heart to believe that it never opposes God's grace and truth, and that it does not infringe man's freedom. Usually this resolves as follows: God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly."
Catholicism:
"God] promised not from the power of our will but from His own predestination. For He promised what He Himself would do, not what men would do. Because, although men do those good things which pertain to God’s worship, He Himself makes them to do what He has commanded; it is not they that cause Him to do what He has promised. Otherwise the fulfilment of God’s promises would not be in the power of God, but in that of men"[61]"
Arminianism:
"This means that God does not predetermine, but instead infallibly knows who will believe and perseveringly be saved. Although God knows from the beginning of the world who will go where, the choice is still with the individual."
Middle Knowledge might be the most highbrow - a kind of multiverse:
"God knew what every existing creature capable of libertarian freedom (e.g. every individual human) would freely choose to do in all possible circumstances. It then holds that based on this information, God elected from a number of these possible worlds, the world most consistent with his ultimate will, which is the actual world that we live in."
The idea that being trans (or a murderer) is both sinful AND in line with God's plan and therefore not a mockery is entirely supported by large swathes of writings about resolving the paradox of free will and God's omniscience and (therefore pre-destination of outcome). It's the only real way to tie together the opposing issues. That God both planned for Bob to be the kind of person who would want to become Anne AND that Bob commits a sin by doing so. If you aren't a Christian that is an incoherent mess, what's the difference between perfectly foreseeing the outcome of your and other peoples actions given omnipotence and setting the "rules" and planning the same? If you are a Christian, it makes sense (or at least can make sense, I know a lot of Christians who do struggle with it, which is why there have been a lot of writings about it).
But almost all extant versions of Christianity as far as I can tell (Mormons excepted if you count them as Christian) have the same basic outcome. God did plan/foresee/deliberately put/know/ you will be in this situation with these urges AND set the rules AND if you act upon them you are committing a sin. He planned it AND it is your sin to make or not. You might have failed God when you chose to sin, but saying you are making a mockery of Him, doesn't make sense. Unless every time every Christian slips into sin, they are all making a mockery of God, which therefore makes the criticism far too broad to be useful here.
SSCReader
2yr ago
And the reason for that for those on the ground is clear as day. Women's standards have just become ridiculous. I catch a lot of flak for saying this from older/married users here but the modern Instagram/Snapchat/Tinder-injected dating scene is really something they are NOT used to.
I am both older and was dating on Tinder until 2 years ago (until I met my current girlfriend there). My experience of being a mid-fifties, pudgey, 5,11 (not even over the magical 6 foot barrier!) partially retired academic is that I was able to attract much younger, more attractive women than I would expect. Sure my British accent helps with dating in the US but I will give you an anecdote that was repeated across a large spectrum of the women I dated in that time.
Most were between 25 and 40, professional, smart and often making more money than I do. I'll call one Sandra. She was 30, a computer programmer earning 6 figures, graduated college at 18 and smart, beautiful and accomplished. On our third date I made her breakfast in the morning, and she burst into tears. It emerged that no man had EVER cooked for her. She had even lived with a serious boyfriend between 24 and 29 and he never once cooked, cleaned or did laundry. The fact I had a decorated place with a bed frame and not just a mattress on the floor was a marvel to her. The fact I could cook a few dishes (and I am far from the worlds greatest cook) was astonishing. That I could actually run my own life. I broke up with her because there were some compatibility issues, but she would be a terrific catch.
The 27 yo journalist from New York I dated had similar stories to tell. As did the 33 yo doctor and the 31 yo nurse. Their experience is that what they call high-value men are very rare. But to me what they were even looking for in high-value men is the bare minimum. So the proposition that emerges is that while women's standards may have increased, it seems equally possible that the standard of men has in fact decreased. They were clearly willing to date men who made less than they did, because I made less than virtually all of them. They were also willing to date less accomplished men from a life skills point of view because that is what they had been doing!
If you can cook at least a few basic dishes, make your home look like something livable, dress and groom yourself to a decent standard (including picking out a cologne/scent to smell good, which is in my experience really important) then you are ahead of a lot of men 25-35 in North East of the United States at least as far as I can tell. I'm a chubby, hairy man in my 50's who works part time and otherwise lives off my pension. I should not be able to compete with well put together 25-35yo men in the prime of their life for women who are significantly more attractive than I am. But there appear to be very few of those to compete with.
I courted my first wife when I was 19, 35 or so years ago, and her standards were high. Here and now, if anything women's standards on average appear to be lower as far as I can tell. Now it is quite possibly also true that there are fewer high value women as well, but it's fairly easy to filter for those you want. And at least if you work or live in a city, there are literally thousands to pick from.
SSCReader
2yr ago
I still think it is true pretty much. British politicians jumped really high when they got a lot of heat on not locking down like other countries. Politicians are really really dependent on voters. Biden only just won in 2020 and the next election can very easily go the other way.
The bigger issue is this, assuming you think Scott's Red Tribe/Blue Tribe carves reality at the joint (or even close to the joint) then Red Tribe is going to struggle to dominate those areas. Because the kind of people who want to do that are not Red Tribe and Red Tribers who do want it, may well cease to be Red Tribe - See politicians who go to DC and become "swampy".
Most Blue Tribers are never going to be farmers or truck drivers because they don't want to be, they don't value it. And likewise there is a reason that most recent conservative victories have come from dissident Blue Tribers. McConnell arguably is responsible for Republicans getting a big SCOTUS majority more than Trump given how he took the risk with Garland. Kavanaugh - Catholic - father was a lawyer from DC, went to Yale - Blue Tribe through and through. Coney Barrett - Catholic, father was an attorney, went to Rhodes and Notre Dame - Blue Tribe through and through. Gorsuch - raised Catholic - both parents were lawyers, went to Georgetown Prep, and Harvard, Blue Tribe once more. Even Tucker Carlson went to boarding school in Switzerland and Trinity College in Connecticut and was described as "an important voice of the intelligentsia" in the early 2000's. And as our esteemed ex mod might say, while they are conservative, they are conservative through a Blue lens.
The core issue then is that there aren't enough Blue Tribe conservatives or Red Tribe people who want to do it to allow the right to have domination in those spheres. Just as there aren't enough Red Tribe progressive or Blue Tribe people who want to be farmers to ever flip those percentages.
SSCReader
2yr ago
Note they aren't saying they will kill themselves but that other non-medicated depressives will due to still being depressed.
SSCReader
2yr ago
If someone is terrified about something with no evidence, and they act based on their fear, they don't get to blame random people that they've projected their fears onto.
Is there no evidence? I would suggest that the OP and Dennis are correct. There is an implication, always. And if you are weaker than the other person then it likely behooves you to consider that at all times. They cannot know if the person will act on said implication or not, but it should be factored in to the assessment. Social behaviors are not decided on an individual basis but a group one. No point in pretending that isn't true I feel.
Well the whole point was they weren't highly motivated for quite some time right? There were cover ups and priests were allowed just to be moved around rather than arrested etc. I heard jokes about "pedo" priests in the 70's after all, and it didn't start coming to a head until the 2000's. And indeed the reports go back through the 50's and before. With: .."government, police, and church had colluded in an attempt to cover up the allegations"
So back in the 80's to 90's the media and law enforcement weren't really highly motivated to scrutinize the Catholic Church either. Despite some stories throughout the 80's, Sinead O'Connor raising it on SNL in 92, it wasn't really until a decade later anything much came of it, with the Boston Globe story in 2002.
The grooming gang story broke in a big way just 9 years later in 2011. The very earliest the media at least could have been on the grooming gang story was maybe 2001, more likely ,through 2006 with Heal's study. Before that the main issue preventing discovery of the activity was the cops treating the victims as drug addicted, lying prostitutes rather than victims (as very evident in some of the note's taken at the time, even when they had no idea who the pimps and so on were).
If anything the consensus broke much faster with the Pakistani gangs than it did with the Church.
More options
Context Copy link