@The_Nybbler's banner p


Does not have a yacht

7 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC


User ID: 174


Does not have a yacht

7 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 174

I think this is what leftists fear about HBD going mainstream and being accepted as true by the average person. If its true that a group is many times more likely to commit violent crime, or some trait marker means someone is many times more likely to be a poor employee, is it reasonable or even possible to not act on that belief?

You don't need HBD for that. You just need to know the facts; HBD gives a reason for them, but even if HBD is false and there is some other reason for them, the same inferences may be drawn.

I'm not sure what that has to do with HBD, but you can in fact do that. Except the "making a killing" part. Any major salary difference between similar employees with different educations will only last a year or two. And balanced against that are the increase search costs -- it may be you can hire randomly from Cal Tech and have a 95% chance of getting a good employee, but from CSU-Monterrey it's more like 5%. So you need to filter more, which costs you money up front. It also increases the chance of getting a dud, since your filters aren't perfect, and duds are expensive.

There are no white cornerbacks in the NFL.

I take it this distraction means you don't have a cultural reason why, given that there are still a lot more white people than black people in the US, and white people don't all, by any means, have a culture which abhors gyms and proper eating, there are no white cornerbacks in the NFL.

(There are indeed middle class black Manhattanites)

will point out that all the genetics in the world won't teach kids to read, or turn a flabby sack of dough into NFL athlete if they don't eat well and go to the gym

So where are the white cornerbacks?

And all these pet theories you have are Bulverism, derived by working backwards from "The HBD believers are wrong, bad, and stupid, let's try to come up with a reason 'why' in a way that insults them". Which is fine if you're into insults but not a good way of determining anything about the world.

And every once in a while, someone does better customer service, word gets around, and people start actually going over to the better firm. Which then finds they can't scale the better customer service, returns to the crappy norm, and we're back where we started.

You understand the claim the speaker is making with that phrase. You have demonstrated that your mind conjures the scenario it's intended to suggest: he gave her alcohol in bad faith, intending to take advantage. You know what it means.

I know what it means, yes. It's the motte, though. The bailey is "Josie and Jake both made an adult decision while drunk, but Jake is the only one held responsible for it."

Assume for the sake of argument that he did. Assume that she was obviously impaired. Will you now allow us to apply the colloquialism, "He got her drunk," to his actions?

Yes, (Laconic) IF.

"He gave her an alcoholic beverage and she, knowing it was an alcoholic beverage, took it and drank it." Sure, yes. That's one way to tell the story.

That's about the only way to tell the story that doesn't lead to "Two similarly-situated peers had sex, and we can only tell which one raped the other by the sex of those involved".

Another way to tell it is: "At a party, a senior looking for a good time mixed something really strong with lots of sugar and fruit juice and gave it to a sheltered freshman, the daughter of strict immigrant parents. She, knowing it was an alcoholic beverage but too inexperienced to recognize its strength or predict its effects, took it and drank it. An hour later, her senses came into focus, and she realized she was on a bed with the senior on top of her and his hand in her underwear."

That framing leaves out a lot. Particularly, how was she behaving during that hour. Would she have appeared to all and sundry (including the senior) to have been a willing participant, or would she have clearly been a stumbling confused drunk? Because I'm only talking about the first scenario.

It also implies malign intent to the senior that I don't know was actually there. Did he mix a strong drink for this girl, knowing she couldn't tolerate it, intending to exploit that to get into her pants? Or did he just see an attractive girl and bring her a drink because, you know, that's a great way to introduce yourself.

When someone describes his actions as, "Dude got her drunk," you know what that means and you know it describes ungentlemanly, exploitative behavior that does in fact happen, out there in reality, under that sky there.

I do not "know what that means". I know what the person making that claim wants me to think, but I don't know if it's true.

There aren't that many NEETs, they're just horrendously overrepresented on places like Reddit. They used to just commit minor crimes and/or hang out somewhere and smoke weed.

and a single sip of 190-proof Everclear from a flask a friend handed me with no more explanation than "Try this." was more than enough to knock me out within ten minutes.

So you didn't notice the extreme dryness and burning as it touched your lips, nor the extremely uncomfortable warming/drying feeling on your tongue and mouth and throat, and you managed to swallow it not expecting these things, and somehow it was enough to knock you out when a "sip" is certainly less than an ounce and an ounce of Everclear is about 1.6 standard drinks (a standard drink being e.g. a 12oz can of 5% beer)?

"He gave her an alcoholic beverage and she, knowing it was an alcoholic beverage, took it and drank it" is not "he got her drunk. She's responsible for her own decisions.

which is the attention and devotion of a worthy man?

They can't get what they want by any means, because there aren't nearly enough "worthy" men by their own standards. Feminists will of course argue this is due to the degeneracy of men, but since this isn't the case, winning that argument doesn't gain them anything.

"The good news is you won the debate. The bad news is you will never gain entry to a selective college nor a prestiguous employer. I hope this was worth it to you, young Mr. Sailer".

My name is older than Futurama; it's a reference to Apple ][ nybble copy programs, and the tool used to cut a notch allowing you to use the back side of floppy disks (a 'nibbling tool').

Q: What's the difference between Brand's punishment and Hester Prynne's from The Scarlet Letter?

A: Even Prynne, who was nursing physical evidence of her offense, got a trial first.

Much of House's behavior was intended to be unacceptable when it was made; what's changed isn't so much that as the idea that you can portray a character with such unacceptable behavior, especially if he gets away with it (shades of the Hays Code).

The ADL and its allies can keep the big advertisers away indefinitely. It's not quite clear why this is so, but I have two theories, lighter and darker:

Lighter: The entire advertising industry is ideologically captured and puts the desires of leftist ideological leaders over the well-being of their clients. Barriers to entry (in particular reputation and connections) are too high for any defector to take advantage.

Darker: This sort of advertising is worthless anyway, and the industry (though probably not all its clients) knows it. The whole thing is a transfer of consumer-products-company dollars to serve leftist ideological goals. There's no defectors because there's nothing to be gained by defecting.

So people who weren't even there get felonies for sedition, people who were there get felonies for not just trespassing but interfering with an official proceeding, and this one guy gets a disorderly conduct plea? This is not going to make anyone who believes he was a Fed believe he was not a Fed.

in the end, they basically all end up in the same general vicinity, with just a few small differences on the margin

The point is that they end up in the same vicinity not for generally accepted things as CSAM or copyright violation, but because infrastructure providers, advertisers, and governments impose ideological conformity. Not, in the case of advertisers, because their ads will be less effective or harmful without it, but because employees at the advertising companies are in favor of the censorship.

I don't think that's true. They use shunning as punishment, but as far as I know the mob element is absent; the punishments are deliberated by the leaders of the communities, right?

In short, you just agreed with me. I didn't say they'd be convicted (though I have less confidence in the Australian justice system than you do, and inferring the mens rea from the actus rea is something courts do all the time), I said they'd face charges.

Bread, literally, has just as many calories per ounce if you add sugar or don't. The infamous Wonder Bread has 5g of sugar to 29g of total carbohydrate for a 57g serving.

Oh, certainly, if someone is later prosecuted for asking women on dates, Ashlael will be all over explaining how this isn't really being prosecuted for asking women on dates and besides he was warned. I'm less certain of you.

In Dr. No for the mission, he sleeps with Miss Taro (along with other women extracurricularly)

In From Russia With Love, Tatiana Romanov.

In Goldfinger, Jill Masterson and Pussy Galore.

In Thunderball, Fiona Volpe.

That's 4 for 4 with the first 4 Bond movies. In Casino Royale, it's Solange, not Vesper.