Given how large some of the gaps are or were, it's inconceivable that quotas are never going to be better than doing nothing.
Especially if the blank slate is true. Then one can argue for maybe a limited quota system (for a fixed time period) to remedy discrimination, under the assumption that whatever gains are made will continue when the original barrier is smashed and a self-sustaining population of female /minority X is formed and the stereotype threat/unfriendly environment is gone.
Tanista
11mo ago
The former. My assumption at the time was that Semenya was a female, not a male raised as a woman with a male specific DSD.
Same thing, though. His punishment was carried out. Presumably his country deemed that punishment sufficient for the nature of his crimes.
And that is their right. I tend to fall more on the American normie side of "maybe people who fuck 12 year-olds don't need to be around".
And no, I wouldn't apply it to marijuana. I'm not sure where the line is.
is a pretty simple rule and certainly isn't the worst way to govern these things, but preventing someone with actual skills from using those skills to their fullest extent also creates economic deadweight loss
We suffer this loss all the time. Plenty of people are talented. Kevin Spacey has literally been found innocent in multiple trials and will still likely not be allowed to climb back to anything like his peak status. Ryan Garcia is currently in the doghouse. Poor Kyrie Irving was suspended for moronic conspiracy theories of the sort you hear yelled in the subway, no threat to anyone. He wasn't even allowed to pay jizya at first because he was not sufficiently deferential in his apologies.
Most people don't really care about any of these things on a deep level (unless your team lost out), yet it's not in doubt that this is the status quo. We don't really need to craft some justification for it from first principles like it's novel.
None of these high status roles are pure meritocracies. There's always been a debate about just who deserves to get these benefits (enhanced by the stage and national quality of the Olympics). Perhaps the one bit of crystal clear consensus is that something like race shouldn't be a barrier. The rest is debated constantly.
Tanista
1yr ago
Or they're sticking their head out because they're failures (or on the verge).
In most of their their worldviews(there are several different factions with different answers) there is an intrinsic 'trans' quality that some people are born with.
Yes, and what is that quality?
The 'trans' quality frequently causes kids great distress around puberty
Frequently? So not always? So what else can we use to judge if a kid is "trans"? Dysphoria is hugely problematic (given kids desist) but at least concrete.
If we grant that there is an innate quality that we can easily distinguish, there is no problem. The point is that nailing this down in some definitive way seems to be difficult
Just as, if we accept that there is a trans-inclusive category called "women", there is no fundamental problem. Yet some random Daily Wire dad who dresses like an actuary has driven left-wingers into a frenzy trying to get an answer to this basic question.
This is a microcosm of this whole debate. All of this sounds good in the abstract. Once you start discussing it you not only get tough questions from traditionalists, but even feminists who ask how the markers of this innate quality are not regressive (it often boils down to stereotypes).
Tanista
1yr ago
Where it differs is Christianity made the slave equal to the emperor whereas woke seems to want to put George Floyd above the POTUS and the black transvestite above George Floyd. A reverse pyramid instead of equality.
The last will allegedly be first in Christianity too, this is just pushed till the eschaton. Wokeness obviously doesn't have this luxury and so tries to make a theological claim manifest in politics, with ludicrous consequences.
The other thing is that it seems Christianity has a more substantive concept of the Good, which acts as a guardrail. The "meek" may nominally be praised (or at least seen as opportunities to display Christian charity) are not allowed to demand a blank cheque because there are other priorities.
Wokeness is a revolutionary ideology that almost celebrates not just the violation of old norms but the upcoming obsolescence of even previously progressive versions. Which leads to weird, unconstrained ideologies and outcomes.
Trump punishing and gutting establishment GOP leadership would do wonders for the rightwing and the GOP. Trump won because he saw a winning hand on the ground on a bunch of issues which were wildly popular but which both political parties were doing nothing about, e.g., Trade, Immigration, Wars. He was able to win because the GOP had been talking about those things-ish, for years and have done nothing at all to make them more in line with their voterbase.
He barely won. And, as others have said in this thread, it was arguably the case that any Republican candidate had an advantage on the ballot at the time.
Trump absolutely blazed a new trail.
But, truth is, we don't know how a neolib, "we love migrants now" (this was the suggested shift in the GOP's 2012 post-mortem iirc) would have done.
People can hold their nose and vote party line. Look at the Democrats; a lot of people prefer someone like Bernie but I think Trump putting three judges on the Court has broken a lot of sore loser/third party-adventurism.
Why? What's so worrying about it?
Because I don't want to be in an echo chamber - which splinter-sites of witches like this can be. It felt like the original motte was skeptical of a lot of woke points (since naturally wokes had a billion subreddits to hang around out) but you still got a pushback and back and forth. It is concerning if we've lost a lot of those people in the move.
Here we have a question of "why was Trump - the most polarizing figure in recent memory - hated?" and most of the answers seem to flow in one direction, as if it's obvious.
It's quite possible I'm just wrong and it is obvious. But it's concerning that something so divisive seems to swing in one direction.
EDIT: And yes, the fact that it's cutting against me may play a role. It's natural to not want to be outnumbered.
Also, how do you maintain your faith in democracy in the light of all the madness we could observe over the last 10 years?
Easy: I don't.
Tanista
2yr ago
but it could well have been the accidental prototype that people picked up and ran with
I've seen others making similar claims in this thread and I think it reverses cause and effect. That brand of atheism was pushed by mainly urban, educated, cosmopolitan, secular humanist types, i.e. already progressive. If it represents anything it's just that they were more likely to be subject to those ideas earlier than the rest of us, they didn't spawn it.
"If you ask her out, what's the worst that can happen? She says no?".
I think there is a clear difference here: Watson didn't publicly humiliate the man or claim she was abused and she had allegedly made it clear beforehand that she didn't like being approached that way. Basically, she did say no.
Russia has no reasonable fear that NATO would launch some sort of land invasion of their internationally recognized territory because they have nuclear deterrent.
During and after the Cold War both powers had credible deterrent. Yet they maintained large conventional forces. Why, if war was so unthinkable? My take: so they didn't get pushed on the conventional front until they were trapped in a nasty nuclear dilemma.
As I said: nations don't like to take chances or give inches.
Proximity of missiles mattered way more in 1962 when nuclear armed submarines and ICBMs we're just getting started.
The US was ahead in missiles. There was no way the Soviets would "win". The Soviets weren't trying to "win" a nuclear exchange, they were trying to balance against Jupiter missiles in Turkey.
Kennedy knew this: IIRC there's record of him using that exact example to highlight how escalatory Russian behavior was and he was told "um...yeah, we did that". He had to have known why Russia wanted balance (not annihilation)
He...didn't change his mind. No inches.
Russia has a totally reasonable fear that NATO is in the process of turning them from a global super power into an impotent commodities provider
They're not a global superpower, though it flatters them to think they are. But yes, they are afraid of being knocked out of the ranks of the Great Powers.
That is a serious strategic fear. Wars have been fought for less and the US would raise holy hell it got knocked down to a Great Power, let alone out of those ranks altogether. Look at the absolute paranoid and forceful behavior it engaged in when it had marginal losses in the Cold War when some random Third World country flirted with communism (Which often harmed their own people more than anyone else)
Again: states don't like to give inches.
If the US can knock Russia down that far, they can try to knock them even farther down. While I'm sure there's a normative argument to the effect of "you deserve it" or "it wouldn't be necessary if Russia wasn't imperialist", states don't want to be at the mercy of other states if they can help it. Regardless of whether that state thinks it's more benevolent and knowing.
But I also think it's totally unreasonable for Russia to expect to remain a regional hegemon in light of it's economic weakness.
Maybe. As I said: I disagree less with the normative argument. But I don't think it says much about how Russians see this (the denial in the OP was about Russian perceptions of the threat - which is a very common thing, especially now )
Tanista
2yr ago
What percentage of their earnings do you think average mega successful athlete/musician is keeping vs their agent and manager?
Interesting that I said record exec and you said manager.
One outcome of this is that you seem to be debunking my point by saying that agents and managers were likely acting in good faith but the rapper was negligent. But you really aren't because a manager and record executive are different. A record executive is, imo, widely accepted to have his own set of interests which intersect with making an artist successful but can diverge in other, crucial ways, while a manager is supposed to work for the interests of their lord.
Beyond that, another outcome is that you completely pass by my point that complaints about record executives are universal in the music business to tell a different story about ungrateful financial naifs blaming their managers.
Those people obviously exist, but the point is that everyone shares the same disdain here - even successful artists. Blacks just seem to get away more with making it racial. Though they seem to be running out their string now.
Nobody puts that into practice, not even MLK.
It was a mere rhetorical tool to guilt white people who might otherwise dismiss the issue as not their concern.
Tanista
2yr ago
He's saying the same thing black conservatives have been saying for decades, that blame whitey, blame slavery, blame whatever you like, the real thing holding down black people today is a culture of apathy which tells them living on the edge of poverty is as good as they can get.
And I don't have any problem with that? The point is that what he actually, explicitly said is banal at best or stupid.
Kaepernick was also trying to make a similar sort of point. What a shame that he felt the need to use slavery eh?
You run into this with Kaepernick too where people defend him because he's attacking a group they like or they like what they believe is under his figurative speech I feel that the people defending both Kaepernick and Kanye are defending what they see as a nugget of a point in their ramblings and absurd comparisons.
I don't even disagree with many of those potential nuggets (empires do have systems to assimilate people and make them accept it, apathy is a thing, we today have been sapped of a certain amount of...I dunno, feeling of control over the destiny of our civilizations?). But that's not what Kanye said.
Black people on some plantations outnumbered whites.
At the time of Spartacus there was a huge glut of slaves. They rebelled. How did that go? Nat Turner rebelled. How did that go? Plenty of peasants around, yet often peasant revolts ended horribly.
The fact that any order comes up with social systems to take up some of the work of force doesn't mean that force isn't lurking, isn't a dominant consideration in people's minds or that force isn't actually effective.
This is giving me "why didn't they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps?"
I'm imagining us entering into a weird low-level equilibrium trap where the psychological differences remain but a combination of tech and laws (which already exist) make it so that we can't distinguish.
It's...going to be bad for everyone, like a form of societal face-blindness. We'd know people are doing things but we have no way to drill down on the group responsible.
Well..maybe not everyone. It really simplifies the DEI drive to find "women" for any job predominantly favored by men.
That whole worldview (America as moral crusader) is dying anyway.
You'd think so. But, on the one hand, Trump criticizes regime change and social engineering and moralism in foreign policy and then litigates DR fascinations like South Africa and white genocide.
Perhaps we're just in the age where Americans don't even pretend that moral crusades are anything but domestic culture wars by proxy.
Canadians can’t agree with each other now, you think they’ll like their politicians better when they’re in Washington?
The Quebecois are one thing but I honestly think the rest of Canada will get over losing things like interprovincial barriers and bitchfights over pipelines quite fast.
Hell, some of them might appreciate no longer having to deal with all of the distinct society stuff.
Tanista
7mo ago
Silly poster, he should have known that the only acceptable way to speak of shadowy cabals is to give them a name like "the patriarchy" or "systemic racism"
Leftists will immediately say that they don't think of those as cabals.
They claim a set of structures and incentives that cause people to act in certain ways. Which structures? Which incentives? Well, varies depending on the phenomenon. Or maybe all of them
They're closer to constructs like aether trying to fill in a hole in a mechanical understanding of the world than claims about Jews or elites in a smoky room.
Well, assuming a Euro win, I'm sure there'll be votes. And, if people vote to become just one part of a Euro federation, who's to say it's a bad choice? They chose it, better than being Belarus.
I'm sure some Irish revolutionary who died wanting wanted a socialist state or some other vision of the country is dissatisfied in his grave. The people seem to be managing fine.
As lines go, not that bad.
Of course, that's assuming a Euro win.
If you tell me you believe in fluxberries and can define it and therefore I should do what you want but:
- You cannot provide a coherent definition of fluxberries when pressed even a little. In fact, the definition changes before our eyes when it suits you
- You actively try to bully, discredit or destroy people who demand a coherent definition or raise questions about why this a slightly different colored berry is not, in fact, a "fluxberry"
- You explicitly admit that you cannot define a previously concrete and less controversial term like "berries"
I have to wonder to what degree you believe you think you can justify belief in fluxberries - certainly you seem to believe in a distinct way to how you believe in say...policemen, or fish.
I don't see how OP's original point about the reluctance to square this doesn't apply:
My impression is that for quite a few of these people, they would be unwilling to clearly answer the question, "what are trans kids?" without getting evasive and yet protecting that category is a moral imperative.
Like, we know for a fact that some already do this with "woman", that one is not even debatable because Kentaji Brown did it in front of Congress - and all the same problems apply there. I'm supposed to grant extra charity on "trans child"?
Tanista
1yr ago
Yes, in comparison to established democracies they seem less stable and unlikely to survive as long.
They do. But I'm not inclined to blame that on immigration policy first. Resource-driven monarchies are probably less stable than an old democracy like the UK. But that doesn't mean their level of ethnic tension for their population is well below "simmering on its way to insurrection"
Like most authoritarian governments, they pay the cost to the functioning of the country I mentioned, because they are less responsive to feedback and have to keep things under control in other ways
By "feedback" I assume you mean they're ignoring some economic benefit here, because I doubt the public is calling for more foreign citizenship?
But he was talking about a country that both let in anyone and then disregarded their opinions in favor of democratic rule by the minority of natives.
Yeah, I suppose it would get tense across generations if people are allowed to stay (though in some edge cases I think migrants would be happy to avoid things like conscription). But, if they aren't citizens, the welcoming nation has options if it wants them. Which is why OP is right that it'd probably be vastly more popular. That is the first demographic you have to please after all.
Anyone watched the Fury-Ngannou fight? Spoilers below.
As an MMA fan: what the fuck? We're kinda used to the unreasonable effectiveness of Francis Ngannou (Rozenstruik is a tenured kickboxer, for context. So was Overeem) and he has a general reputation as a very fast learner but this is kind of ridiculous.
Before the fight, even fans of his were mainly glad he was going to get a boxing style payday, despite the likely KO.
I almost suspect Saudi shenanigans but they're having Fury-Usyk so it wouldn't be in their interests. I guess Fury's used to tiring people in the clinch and Francis' famous strength + greater experience clinching turned the tables. It was absurd how he threw him around at some points. But Francis looked good even outside that.
Ngannou went into MMA because the skill level was seen as much more favorable for a late starter. But, as a latecomer, he beat multiple strikers, submitted wrestlers, adapted so much to his one serious loss that Stipe Miocic looked like he had nothing for him, wrestlefucked Gane...him going straight into boxing or being discovered as a teen is the biggest what-if in combat sports.
Tanista
1yr ago
Someone who fails at being a salesman, or a business owner, or even at playing basketball worth a damn...doesn't get that.
Meh, that's mere technical knowledge. People expect them to require specialization or for some people to be more talented.
Meanwhile, social skills are seen to go together. If you seem utterly incompetent at an important life project like that people will wonder where else in the social world that also applies.
They seem to be avoiding directly attacking Trump, presumably to avoid alienating MAGA folk
Why not? Worked in 2016!
At this point, I just think they're cowards who don't want to risk becoming Liz Cheney and no longer being welcome in the party if & when they lose.
Some version of "America First" has been predicted since the end of the Cold War.
One wonders how much more serious it would be under a different President.
Ah well, we'll never know.
More options
Context Copy link