@Supah_Schmendrick's banner p

Supah_Schmendrick


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:08:09 UTC

				

User ID: 618

Supah_Schmendrick


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:08:09 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 618

You are taking insufficient account of interpersonal variance. I am unconvinced that the differences between the life-experiences of American-Men-As-A-Class ("AMAAC") and American-Women-As-A-Class ("AWAAC") are significant compared to the differences between the rich and poor, beautiful and ugly, normal and disabled/crippled, smart and dumb, low-time-preference and high-time-preference, etc.

Well, what now? Apparently the left has pushed too hard and too fast and it’s turning the GOP away. Being LGBT isn’t seen as some harmless thing anymore, especially when it seems being “tolerant” means accepting gay drag nuns on crucifixes. The parodies are no longer a parody, and grooming children to accept gender ideology seems rife in schools even in deep red states.

As another American politician said during another of the country's great culture wars: "We are now far into the [eighth] year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to [queer] agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed - 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half-[queer] and half [traditional/heteronormative]. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."

No polity can long retain serious moral divisions within itself for long.

If people actually looked at this incident, there wouldn't be a need for too many changes. The shooter accessed the school through an unlocked exterior door. That's the first problem. [Edit: this was inaccurate, per KMC below.] The second problem was that there wasn't security - the shooter allegedly rejected another potential target he was scoping out because there was security present. That's it.

If "in line" means "don't claim that people whose kids just got murdered are crisis actors and dox them" then staying "in line" shouldn't be very restrictive at all.

I guess it is good to know that journalists in the UK are as stupid as journalists in the USA.

Or as motivated/biased.

Historically, no. America is the country of tar and feathers, riding muck-raking newspapermen out of town on a rail, and mobs smashing up printing offices.

The problem with drunks is that they commit violent crimes (particularly domestic ones) in a way which potheads don't

At least, not until the potheads turn psychotic. At that point they're perfectly capable of violence.

Will you also argue that culture can make a chihuahua into a hunting dog?

It takes culture to even determine that there should be "hunting dogs" at all, and to start the project of breeding them. We are the product of the cultures of yesterday - who they decided to reward, what traits they regarded as high-status, etc.

unless there are editorial reasons not to do so.

...like being a school shooter?

He's talking about general murder rates.

I'd say that there was a few decades there where people were 'made' to conform with the 'living constitution' ideal.

No, people were made to conform with the views of people who used the 'living constitution' interpretational theory to justify their desired policy results. Seriously, go back and read a lot of the progressive decisions from the Warren court era - it's pure power in there. Why did Roe find a right to abortion? Because Harry Blackmun wanted to find one, process and interpretation be damned. Even retrospectively-sainted cases like Brown v. Board of Education don't hold up well if you look at them just as examples of judicial reasoning. Brown's whole rationale was based on social-scientific and psychological findings that segregation created "[a] sense of inferiority" which "affects the motivation of a child to learn," and therefore "[s]egregation with the sanction of law . . . has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." That's not a legal reason; that's a policy choice.

You can't rely on turning policy and power questions in to legal and interpretational ones. You clearly have a view on how the country should be organized and run. Fine! But argue for the view on its own terms, on the objective level. Don't divert the argument into legalistic questions of interpretation - that's not going to get you the results you want, and will distract everyone from the actual debate and disagreement at issue.

I don't think there's anyone who thinks that the Constitution is unable to be changed or updated, but many object to this being done by judicial fiat without giving citizens the chance to have a voice in the process.

Oh but citizens have had chances to have their voice heard! The fights between gilded age lassiez-faire capitalism and progressive-era "scientific management" were cultural and political fights that reshaped government without constitutional amendment. The New Deal was mostly a legislative and administrative plan, not a judicial one. Even the Great Society and the rise of the modern concept of anti-discrimination law was at least as much legislative as it was judicial in origin! The people keep electing legislatures who pass giant enabling acts, and Presidents who vow to make use of those powers through imperial bureaucracies!

Moreover, there's nothing that requires the courts to have the authority they currently wield; the Constitution is actually extremely vague about courts; and Congress has extreme power over what courts exist, what their competencies are (and, just as importantly, what they aren't), what causes of action exist, what remedies are available, etc. Even SCOTUS isn't immune from this; it took an act of Congress in the 1920s to give SCOTUS the ability to pick and choose what cases it takes. Similarly, the ability of the Court to pick particular policy questions out of the morass of any given lawsuit and only decide on them - the basis for the institution's current role - depends on legislative authorization.

Either the Constitution is the solid foundation upon which the Union of states is supposed to operate, and should be treated with sufficient reverence by the institutions involved, or it is not, and we are not held together by anything but historical momentum and a bare sheen of national brotherhood arising from shared history.

Por que no los dos? The Constitution is a set of rules and a political compromise. It is also, along with the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address, the holy text of the American civic religion. However, rules don't exist without people, who insist on being imperfect and quarrelsome things, to whom virtue comes uneasily if at all. Why should you, I, or anyone expect any set of rules, no matter how well designed, to hold a single shape against the efforts of centuries to game and twist them? What faith, civic or otherwise, can survive as long as the U.S.'s has without doctrinal drift and corruption amongst the hierarchy and/or laity? What political compromise has endured, unchanging, from the 1700's 'til today? It's not for nothing that there are all those quotes from the Founding Fathers sounding ominous warnings that the whole thing could fall apart:

"[O]ur Constitution is neither a self-actuating nor a self-correcting document. It requires the constant attention and devotion of all citizens. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: 'A republic, if you can keep it.' The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health."

"While our Country remains untainted with the Principles and manners, which are now producing desolation in so many Parts of the World: while she continues Sincere and incapable of insidious and impious Policy: We shall have the Strongest Reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned Us by Providence. But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour, frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition and Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams, To the Officers of the first Brigade of the third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798

". . .[T]here is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." - George Washington, First Inaugural Address

No, we treat these things with reverance in no small part because of the historical momentum behind them. And we use them to forge national brotherhood from disparate peoples despite the lack of shared history. Whether the project is working or not is something for interested observers to judge for themselves. But we Americans have always been a fractious lot, so a modicum of historical perspective is suggested before drawing any conclusions that are too alarmist.

Thank you for this information. The neighbor's testimony makes me update slightly in favor of purposeful targeting of LGBT individuals, though the history of violence against his own family still leads me to believe that this was a generally violent individual whose choice of target was a secondary consideration, rather than being an ordinarily-peaceful individual moved particularly to violence by the strength of rhetoric or belief about a single issue.

If he's not getting Russian oil because the Russians are just knocking out vital infrastructure left right and center, he's got a powerful reason not to be very pro-Russian; rhetoric isn't going to keep Budapest warm.

Dachshunds are also tiny, and yet the name means "badger hound" and they were explicitly bred that way in order to get down in badger warrens and drag those ferocious pests out by the entrails.

It should, because if you don't respect someone you're likely to underestimate them, or otherwise misunderstand them, and so be more likely to fail when combatting them (or when trying to reach a peaceful modus vivendi).

Maybe. Are you American?

Guilty as charged. I've always been jealous that in my dad's day High Schools offered greek and latin, but now...well....gestures helplessly at the universe.

I don't think the Ukranians should surrender. If someone was invading California, I like to think that I would be brave enough to volunteer to fight. I do think that the U.S. needs to take escalation concerns seriously when analyzing the risk-reward of providing various weapons systems, information, training, or support to the Ukrainian war effort. It's not as simple as "oh, someone waggled a nuclear dick around, they automatically win" - its a question of determining whether what we expect to reasonably be able to achieve by the desired policy is proportional to the risk being run of nuclear or other serious retaliation. And that determination requires (1) a clear statement of what the U.S. expects to achieve from its policies, (2) an evaluation of how important those goals are worth, and (3) an analysis of whether those goals are worth the potential costs imposed by Russian countermoves, up to and including nukes or other action targeting civilian infrastructure in the U.S. or in vital partner-countries/treaty partners.

The archetypal male dream is to conquer the pristine: to get a chaste/shy/coy/innocent girl to become a naughty freak in the sheets just for him. The female dream is to tame the beast: to change the wild ballsy bad boy to become tender, prosocial, supportive, vulnerable creature but only for her.

I think I'm broken somehow - I've literally never found this a sexy or attractive idea at all, and I cannot grok people who say they do. Not in the slightest. I'm plenty attracted to women, just not the idea of changing their external presentation, or unlocking something "hidden" in them, or "mastering" them. shrug Just completely soycucked I guess.

The difference between the Amish and the Jews is that the Amish don't control banking and media corporations, don't control people's livelihood, what they buy, are allowed to buy or what they are allowed to think, who they are allowed to vote for.

"The Jews" don't control banking and media corporations - specific Jews do - and they're not uniformly Jewish. As I keep banging on about, Jews come in all sorts of different groups, and increasingly they're not even all that Jewish at all.

If the legal and enforcement apparati are all filled with the swaggilicious and biased against the objective hard workers, the crushing goes the other way.

Evidence? As a Californian (albeit not a particularly vigilant one) I have seen zero incidents of the GOP being dinged for ballot harvesting.

I guess I'm a tad bit old fashioned in that I think what "America" the nation-state is and should be is defined in large part by the Constitution which created said nation-state.

This doesn't actually work; it just displaces the substantive questions to various interpretational meta-questions like: "what does 'Necessary and Proper' mean?" and "Is the 'militia clause' prefatory or limiting?" and "what does 'Due Process of Law' mean?"

Whites in the US (and in the West more generally) have been the most ardent defenders and practitioners of individualism

Really, they're more remarkable not for individualism (which would presumably manifest as no significant difference in attitude towards different racial groups), but instead for flipping the old tribal paradigm on its head and concluding that their racial ingroup is uniquely wicked.

A non-trivial number are from Ireland. Slightly different linguistically and culturally.

Be careful with historical documents - those were political documents written for public consumption. You're not entirely wrong - the seceding states clearly thought slavery was a central pillar of their unique civilization (though they were not unconflicted about it). However, they also had every incentive to try and bring the northern abolitionists, who were a small minority widely-viewed as radical, humorless, and radical (not in the good sense), front and center. When you're reading those, take the same attitude you'd take towards Lindsey Graham talking about the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or AOC talking about the Floyd riots - it's basically the same thing.