@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

Pressuring women for contact or sex when she has said no should not be normal. Unsolicited pictures of gentitalia should not be normal. Continuing to contact a woman after she's said no should not be normal. Lying should not be normal.

Then women must stop rewarding these behaviors. If you want to actually impose change from on high, your authority has to somehow punish Stacey when she accepts a date with Chad after she turned him down the first time. Just telling men that 'no means never' isn't going to work if they see that guys who get laid are being persistent and guys who aren't persistent don't get laid.

the decision leaves open the ability for universities to consider how an applicant's race affected their life "concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university".

Which is a loophole you can drive the whole edifice through. Thanks for nothing, Roberts.

Our system -- or at least the NYC system -- is worse than that. It not only allows physically strong violent criminals to dominate weak people. It requires that physically strong decent people allow physically strong violent criminals to dominate weak people. And to a large extent it requires that physically strong decent people allow even weaker violent criminals to dominate them. Because if you fight and lose you go to the hospital; if you fight and win you go to jail. Any indignity or harm visited upon you that is less bad than spending time at Central Booking, it is a no-brainer to just accept. If it's worse than time at Central Booking but less bad than time at Riker's Island, you're very probably better off just accepting it.

The theory, of course, is that this is a civilized society and the police will handle it. But if nobody's hurt badly, the police and the system will do nothing. If someone is hurt, the response won't be enough to deter the behavior; this guy had over 40 arrests. So this is government as dog-in-the-manger; they're sitting on the option of violence, but they won't do anything with it.

The stuff about the sanctity of life, "let the police handle it", "it's not worth killing someone over" sounds great in the ivory tower, somewhat less great underground.

Nutrition isn’t a serious barrier, so what’s your excuse?

You don't get to set the default; I don't need an excuse.

Well, there's the law and there's the law. One is what's written on paper and sometimes even upheld by the US Supreme Court. The other is the one actually followed by companies and practiced and enforced by the lower courts and administrative bodies. That's the one that allows for various internship programs where white and Asian straight men need not apply. Or similar quotas in hiring.

That's the part that caught my interest: how did the rationalist community, with its obsession with establishing better epistemics than those around it, wind up writing, embracing, and spreading a callout article with shoddy fact-checking?

Very simple. The "rationalist community" is embedded in the SF zeitgeist and questioning callouts from women is anathema. This has happened before (e.g. Kathy F) and will happen again.

The line from Trump's speech to the riot is that Trump's speech is a but-for cause of the riot. If Trump doesn't assemble the mob and tell them to go to the Capitol, they don't go to the Capitol. No mob, no riot.

Even if (arguendo) I accept that as true, it does not matter. It is not sufficient for President's Trump's speech to have caused a lawful action that was a necessary precursor to the riot. His speech must have been directed towards causing the riot.

And that's true in the sense of ordinary meaning as well as the law.

Growing up in the UK, our pro-free speech tradition has tended to rely on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty for the moral (not legal) limits of free speech in contexts that look like incitement.

In the UK, your pro-free speech tradition ranges from absent to extinct, and that is itself a cause of the United States's pro-free speech tradition.

Much of this article is just mainstream pap, whipsawing from gleeful enjoyment about how women are better than men nowadays to lamenting how much men suck. But there is one part I want to highlight:

Perhaps most alarmingly, many of the visions of masculinity these figures are pushing are wildly antisocial, untethered to any idea of good.

Yes. If society has become anti-male or anti-masculine (and I would argue in large part it has), and "good" has come to refer to feminine virtues only, then worthwhile visions of masculinity will be anti-social. You cannot have an anti-masculine society without anti-social masculinity, unless you have no masculinity at all.

Obviously a girl should be Titania Invicta, and the offending parents should be sentenced to a term of 9 months of Latin grammar.

The Theil backed dating platform launched and apparently it’s foundering because virtually no women signed up. Now partly this is because as a self-proclaimed witch haven it attracted witches, but why are all the witches male?

I'm tempted to wonder what you would expect from a dating app backed by a gay dude, but I suspect more likely it's just that the female witches mostly married their high school sweethearts and the rest had no trouble finding anyone either. Same problem as with any heterosexual dating app only more so.

Yes, it's corruption. The Hassidic communities (or at least their relation to welfare and government) are basically the answer to the question "What happens if you take a welfare system designed for the utterly dysfunctional, helped along with slightly-above-average social workers, and set upon it a highly intelligent and organized group whose claim to fame is rules-lawyering God?"

No, if there's a new punk (and there isn't), it's "straight white male". Punk was counterculture. Trans/queer is culture. As you said, "Having a fluorescent blue footlong mohawk, tattoos, piercings and a leather jacket made you eminently unemployable outside of menial service jobs". Declare yourself trans/queer and you'll have affinity groups supporting you at high-status jobs. Trans/queer isn't rebellion; it's following fashion.

It's a public university. The government is literally one of the parties. This is as incoherent as "Keep the Government out of my Medicare!"

If you've ever stood on a beach as the tide is coming in, you may notice the water level doesn't continuously get higher. A wave comes in, then it goes back out. Over time the waves come in higher and higher, but each wave goes out. Every time someone has predicted peak woke, it's turned out to just be a wave going out for a very short period.

This is just you arguing in bad faith, and it only makes them "look disingenuous" in the eyes of your fellow lefties.

More commonly called anarcho-tyranny. I also sometimes call it the government as dog-in-the-manger with respect to such problems; they won't solve the problems but they won't let anyone else do it either.

I don't see why defending bland, generic car based urban sprawl at all makes sense for conservatives.

People in cities become collectivists, because people are piled so close together that just about anything you do becomes the business of your neighbors. If you want to go anywhere you're stuck with your 3mph feet on crowded sidewalks or getting piled together on crowded, dirty, and slow government-run (not just government-built) transportation.

The traditional city is walkable, has a strong sense of community, is unique and has a sense of belonging.

The city of reality is not as walkable as advertised (you can walk in your neighborhood but the city is likely too big to walk to downtown or any other neighborhood), and has little sense of community (partially because people move around all the time, partially because it's so big and crowded -- the paradox of being alone in a crowd is a common one) or sense of belonging. Conservatives pine for those things but the places they existed mostly don't exist any more because they require a small number of people in one place for a long time who mostly interact with each other, and that's just not the modern world. Ironically one of the few places you actually can find this is in neighborhoods full of generational welfare recipients; they may be dysfunctional communities but they are communities.

A lot of it appears to be featherbedding. But it's also re-donation. Wikimedia is part of a vast group of linked leftish non-profits which pass money around between them, and their main purpose is likely to serve as a source of money (since they look like a clearly worthy cause).

Men, here, are being asked to not fuck crazy, drunk, sluts.

Well, that's the motte. And from the male side, "don't stick it in the crazy" is oft-given (though less-oft-followed) advice. But the bailey is that it's on the guy to figure out beforehand that said "slut" is in fact crazy, is in fact "too drunk" (as opposed to pleasantly buzzed), and that if he fails in this he deserves everything he gets including the false rape accusation, which should be believed.

My question now is will this extend to DEI hiring/promoting practices in corporate America.

These are already black-letter illegal. Racial discrimination in employment practices was never considered acceptable, even for the "diversity" fig leaf; note employment and education are covered under different parts of the Civil Rights Act(s). But those implementing the practices and those overseeing them (e.g. at the EEOC, and in the lower courts) don't care.

All these universal values that we're supposed to stoicly bear when they're against our interests seem to turn to sand the moment a situations comes up when they might defend out interests and we're starting to see that the game appears to be rigged.

Correct; the meta-rule is just "you lose". It's not so strange that leftists endorse this situation. It is strange that conservatives do also.

The "vision" makes no allowances for reality.

How about radical environmentalism? Here, I think Thiel is envisioning some sort of mashup of degrowth ideology and over-regulated Eurosclerosis. But when it comes to the major environmental threat we face — climate change — the solution will be the opposite of degrowth. The price of renewable technologies (solar, wind, batteries, and electrolyzers) has come down so far, so fast, that decarbonizing our economy will actually lead to increased profits, increased growth, and abundant energy.

Meanwhile, in Europe and California, they're actually doing the degrowth thing. Shut down the power plants, ban fossil fuel use. Increased profits, increased growth, and abundant energy? No, recession and shortages

Today, however, this attempt at broadening the core American polity has been hotly contested — Hamilton is hated by conservatives, Lizzo’s flute-playing has ignited a culture-war debate, and the 1619 Project is of course wildly controversial. And these divisions have been exploited adroitly by our illiberal enemies, as when Vladimir Putin cynically accuses America of racist colonialism while simultaneously railing against trans people and atheists.

You see? When conservatives oppose the 1619 Project, they're helping Putin.

These urbanists don’t want to turn the whole world into Manhattan, or even Amsterdam. Instead, their visions are of somewhat-built-up suburbs that offer more transit options (trains, buses, e-bikes), are more environmentally friendly, and combine multi-family housing with single-family housing. The person I know who has done the best job of drawing pictures of what this might look like is the architect and artist Alfred Twu:

Ah, yes, their neighborhoods are wonderful visions which offer all thing to all people (except nasty car drivers). But that's all they are, visions. And the nasty car drivers stubbornly refuse to go away.

But now we’re adding a third type, which may be the best of all: densified green suburbs.

And the only qualities they lack is that of existence and possibility. Yes, you can find architects and artists to draw a Utopian vision. But just because you can draw it doesn't mean you can build it.

I believe the answer to all of these can be, and should be, “yes”. But so far the Abundance Agenda is still just a talking point and a collection of op-eds, while no one is really presenting a coherent future vision of either good jobs or entrepreneurship.

To its credit, the "Abundance Agenda" link in the original mentions the National Environmental Policy Act and other regulations. Noah does not; he is too busy blaming conservatives for not getting with the program. He's willing to say empty words in favor of free enterprise, but not to acknowledge that his "liberal democratic future" is in conflict with itself. And it won't be the "Abundance Agenda" that wins.

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.

The claim basically is the FAA went out looking for proxies for African-American race, included those in the biographical questionnaire, and then purged candidates based on not meeting those proxies. Both disparate treatment and disparate effect. I'm sure the way the courts twist themselves and the law into pretzels to argue that no, it's really OK to discriminate against white people or how this isn't really discrimination against white people will be interesting, but I would not expect any relief. (This particular practice was later ended by an act of Congress)

The state district court is plainly full of shit, and is itself going up against all that First Amendment jurisprudence I have mentioned. She either has serious Trump Derangement Syndrome, or is deliberately making a wrong decision to harm her political opponents. It is erroneous to consider "the history of Trump's relationship with political violence and the noted escalation in Trump's rhetoric", even if it would actually be damning to do so (it is not); to see that, we only need look at Brandenburg, which concerned a literal Ku Klux Klan leader (Evers). The Court's use of the dicta regarding Evers is in fact backwards; IF there had been evidence of Evers' wrongful conduct, his use of the word "discipline" could corrobate it. Here the Court attempts to make the "context" of Trump's language not corroboration, but the key piece of evidence. That is not supported even by that dicta.

Also, of course, that's Trump's case itself. If you want to assert that what is being done to Trump is fair, it is not convincing to cite decisions made in this case; you need to cite precedent.