@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

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

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

That is because the Amish are in Lancaster County (and a lot of other places, mostly rural), not New York City. The haredi in Lakewood, NJ and Kiryas Joel, NY do annoy the other locals (as do the Amish where they live, for that matter, though it's usually about buggy accidents rather than schooling). But while those may get (and have gotten) a mention in the New York Times, being in New York City helps with the in-depth hit pieces.

Philly is a large city; much of that looked nastier than most of the places I've been. But not all. Some of it might have been the same part I once drove through because the Schuylkill Expressway was closed and had to go around not one but two streets blocked by people stripping cars. In broad daylight, on a Sunday morning. That would have been North Philadelphia well west of Broad. On the other hand, no one threw anything at the car, which is definitely something I've had happen in Philadelphia.

My understanding is the good areas had expanded somewhat since I left the area, but maybe 2020 reversed that.

Yes, I mentioned back on the previous place that the Ukraine invasion seemed to be benefiting the US most of all -- China is still chasing its tail over its own virus (and honestly calling China an ally of Russia is vastly overstating the case), European industry is crippled by loss of natural gas, and the US proper is relatively unaffected. The US would likely be absolutely better off if the invasion (and certainly COVID) had not happened, but relatively, the US is ahead.

I don't believe the shadowy rulers of the American hegemony planned this; they just ain't that bright. But it sure is curious it worked out that way.

If DeSantis wins, the federal government might interpret existing civil rights laws as mostly outlawing woke because it discriminates against white people and creates a hostile work environment for them.

How would that happen? The President can't just fire and replace the entire EEOC.

Understanding that criminalizing ownership of "assault weapons" would create tens of millions of felons-in-the-making for such devious actions as having 17 round magazine pistols should be part of the conversation.

New Jersey already did that. Nobody cared, least of all the courts.. The whole "conversation" is "If you don't want to be a felon, destroy the contraband in the time period permitted, or else".

So, the idea that in any realistic scenario the West will be unable to buy oil doesn't make much sense.

At least, if you have not read about or lived through the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, or the 1979 oil crisis. Things can in fact get worse in a way that is bad for the people making them worse too.

And the EEOC just ignores them and continues to punish based on the widest interpretation of laws when women and minorities are the putative victims, and the narrowest interpretation when it's white men. And anyone the DOJ goes after directly will just delay and endure, knowing the next DOJ will just reverse everything.

No, it's not unreasonable to ask people to use content warnings.

Since "ask" here is a euphemism for "demand", it certainly is. It allows the most "sensitive" person to control the content of the conversation.

Ousting people for having sensitivities is what purity spiralers do.

Ousting people for being insensitive is what purity spiralers do. There's no need to oust anyone for having sensitivities; if you merely refuse to accommodate them, they'll remove themselves.

Okay, but what if you don’t want them to leave?

Choose. You can either accommodate them to the detriment of everyone else, or fail to accommodate them and they leave. There is often an implicit and sometimes explicit assumption that such accommodation is a moral requirement; I say it is not.

I would rather talk to a person with “common decency” rather than talk around a flood of slurs.

I would rather talk to someone with a potty mouth than someone who is going to "correct" my speech every three words, or demand some authority do the same. Yes, there is some theoretical medium, but in practice attempting to accommodate the "sensitive" ends up in a spiral... which is why we're no longer on Reddit.

As for the former, it was short-lived, and that is the point: It is unsustainable for those states to employ an embargo for very long.

It is unsustainable as those states are currently constructed. Which is kind of the point.

But the latter was the result of a drop in production as a result of conflict; it was not an embargo.

And a united socialist Arab nation could certainly result in a drop in production. It might not be true that socialism can cause sand shortages in the Sahara, but it can certainly cause oil shortages in countries with plentiful oil.

The choice is a shithole with offensive speech or a shithole run for the benefit of the sensitive. The center is unstable. Which may be why this group keeps having to move.

It also makes it a real pain in the ass to write about certain subjects, because you need the warning. "Beware trivial inconveniences" and all that. And it makes anything near that subject a land mine because you can be dinged for not warning.

Except the cost of a twitter hate campaign, possibly losing your account, hosting, network connectivity, payment processing, or whatever else it is you need to communicate.

Why do you assume that the left's attempts at censorship will be any more effective than the right's?

Because they have been. It is now illegal, punishable by dismissal from employment, to assert that transwomen are men. The theory goes that doing so is harassment of any transwomen at your workplace.

At the height of their instutional power they put stickers on rap albums to warn of "explicit lyrics."

That was the bipartisan PMRC, co-founded by the notoriously conservative Tipper Gore, wife of Al Gore.

There are differences between boys and girls relevant to schools. But the article glosses over a few things.

But this fact is entirely ignored in broader education policy, even as boys fall further behind girls in the classroom.

Further behind? It seems unlikely the differences between boys and girls are actually getting more extreme. So if the differences in achievement are getting larger, this points to an extrinsic cause.

On almost every measure of educational success from pre-K to postgrad, boys and young men now lag well behind their female classmates.

Almost. But then there's those pesky standardized tests. It seems the more objective the measure, the better boys do. Perhaps these various other measures of education success are measuring something else, like how close their behavior hews to the good-girl standard.

regular masturbation to porn will erode one's willingness to even go out and pursue women.

I think you've got the cart before the horse. The willingness to go out and pursue women is eroded (due to consistent failure) before the regular masturbation to porn.

Gun control policies have been suffering multiple defeats over the years.

Sure. For instance, there was recently a decision striking down discretionary-issue carry permits in New York. So now you can theoretically get a carry permit on objective criteria (except there's still a loosey-goosey acceptable morals standard), but the carry permit now doesn't allow you to carry a gun in such a wide variety of areas that it's nigh-useless. Some "defeat".

All this reads as "Anti-self-defense people have managed to rig the system so completely against self-defense that even someone who shoots someone dead for good reasons will be made to seriously regret it". Except, of course, there's that other counterfactual. The one where nobody has a gun and the "pastor" kills one or more people with that hatchet. That one still seems worse than months of hell and thousands in attorney's fees.

Brad Pitt wasn't the incel; Edward Norton was. Which is still pretty unlikely, though that kind of thing is par for the course for Hollywood.

It is, but that decision is crazy sauce and apparently wasn't pursued after the preliminary injunction.

During that whole period I could walk into a bookstore and see all the D&D books lined up, ready to be bought. Show me the bookstore selling "And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street"

I suspect the reasoning is something like: "The US government isn't known to pull your arms out of your sockets when you suggest they did something disastrously bad. Totalitarian Communist governments have been known to do that. Let the CCP win"

Specifically, previous efforts to stir shit by bussing immigrants to major cities on the eastern seaboard failed to draw attention

Not true. The mayor of Washington D.C and the Governor of Illinois both called for the National Guard to deal with it. (D.C. was denied)

So we have indications that it can be turned around. How do we encourage smart women to have the larger families they want?

This chart recently showed up on DSL. From 1965 to 2016, women added 4 hours per week of childcare; men added 6.5. Number of children in families with children has gone down by a lot since then. If you want to encourage couples (encouraging women is necessary but not sufficient unless you want a lot of single motherhood) to have children, the cost -- not financial, but the undelegable time cost -- needs to go down. By a lot.