@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.

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

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

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.

What is the point of these huge verdicts if there is no hope of it being paid.

To punish him for being Alex Jones, dissident, to put him out of business forever, and as a warning to others who might follow his path.

The extent of most researchers in the hard sciences' capitulation to progressive ideology is that they filled out the mandatory "broader impacts" portion of a grant application and made up some shit they didn't believe about how whatever they're doing will incidentally improve the lives of women or minorities.

Why should I believe they didn't believe it? The gatekeepers of the hard sciences were all too ready to expel Tim Hunt (and of course James Watson) from their ranks for violation of that "shit". They were happy to put Alessandro Strumia on the shit-list for opposing it. (and not hard science, but they censured Peter Boghossian for "unauthorized human experimentation" for submitting bogus articles to a woke journal). All public polls say they're strongly aligned with the left on this.

Denouncing every recipient of such a grant for doing what was required of them to obtain one is akin to punishing everyone in the Soviet Union ex post facto who praised the communist party to keep their job, needlessly making enemies of people who would otherwise be on your side.

All this is, is taking away the grants which include the praise of Stalin. No one is even being blacklisted.

Should they have had the courage to stand up for their convictions despite the threat of censure or worse? Perhaps, but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. How many of us here fought the advance of wokeness tooth and nail in every aspect of our professional and public lives, and took all the hits that that entailed?

Perhaps not "tooth and nail", but I fought my battles and took my hits. I certainly never endorsed woke views.

I think it gives far too much credit to DEI and "political correctness" as examples of an "open society" and "individual liberation". They may well be outgrowths of such a movement for that, but they are cancerous outgrowths. Their tools and methods -- cancellation, punishment of speech, discrimination against individuals for being members of the oppressor classes -- are diametrically opposed to those goals. It may indeed be true, as many on the right say, that classical liberalism inevitably leads to that, but even if so, that means classical liberalism contains the seeds of its own destruction, not that those things are fulfillment of its goals.

This comment is an example of the same thing I mentioned earlier - a narrative which blurs much detail in order to claim two things are much more similar than they are, in this case in order to promote gun control.

No, there is not just a "thin knife" of difference between a man with a rifle at the ready approaching a car and demanding the driver lower the window, and the driver being in the car with a handgun. Perry was allowed to drive on the street. The group Foster was part of was not allowed to detain Perry in his car, nor to beat on said car.

There's no dilemma here which requires Americans lose access to firearms.

It is possible, even probable, for both BAP and those leftists to be insane.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

You're getting lost in the details (which are mostly lies from both sides), when this is a case of simple conflict theory. Amazon thinks, correctly, that if they label the products with the tariff this will make people angry at Trump. Trump realizes this and opposes it.

This would be a lot more credible if it weren't for feminist vulcanology.

That is to say, there is very good evidence that quite a few fields are in fact entirely fraudulent. Nothing about right-wing anti-intellectualism created or could create or sustain these fields. This makes it far more likely that the right wing is merely correct about the total ideological capture of the academy, than for the capture to have been caused by the withdrawal of the right wing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We've talked a few times about New York's congestion pricing program. On February 19, Secretary of Transportation Duffy revoked authorization for this program based on two defects. One, that cordon pricing where a toll-free route exists is allowed for Interstates, but no other roads -- and in any case no toll-free route exists under New York's program. Second, that the program in fact exists to fund the MTA (state run public transportation, including the subway), not to reduce congestion. By statute any congestion pricing program requires authorization from the Department of Transportation, so this is the end of the program, right?

Wrong. Governor Hochul refused to shut it down by a March 21 deadline, calling instead for "orderly resistance". The US DOT extended the deadline until tomorrow. Hochul still refuses to shut down the program.

Unsurprisingly, there has been nothing said about the flagrant disregard for rule of law by the executive of New York.

How can people trust with this level of malfeasance? How do we get the trust back?

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, a powerful immortal trickster being ("Q") who has tangled with the Enterprise many times appears on the bridge of the Enterprise. He tells a story of having his powers stripped for his sins and begs the crew's help. The crew are, understandably, skeptical. He plaintively claims to be mortal and asks what he can do to convince the crew that he is indeed mortal. The Enterprise's Klingon security officer has the answer:

Die.

Illinois gonna Illinois. I'm pretty sure that normally, jeopardy does not attach in a plea bargain until the plea is accepted; the prosecution cutting a (corrupt) deal to drop the charges without the court's involvement doesn't cut it. And won't cut it in future cases when the political element isn't included.

Scott being against Trump is one thing. Scott willing to support Harris is another. Scott was canceled by the establishment she is the titular head of. He is a traitor to himself, in the sense of adhering to his own enemies and giving them aid and comfort. That's a horrible thing, and the next time he gets canceled, I will not be in the least bit upset.

In case there's any question left about the press's lack of objectivity, the CNN article you cited -- article, not editorial, not column -- contains this bit:

The move by Cannon is a significant win for the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee. The proceeding will give Trump and his attorneys a platform to air unfounded theories about the prosecution, including the accusation that it is politically motivated.

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.