@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

Everyone knows communism is retarded

No, they don't. Lots of people think communism is great. Poor people, in general, think Communism is great. Intellectuals think Communism is great (though many are smart enough nowadays to not call it that). Venezuelans think Communism is great. The big exceptions among the poor are Cubans and many Eastern Europeans, and some right-wing Americans.

Capgains taxes are fine, and even desirable if you want to lower or stabilize the gini coefficient.

And why would you want to cut the top off your economy?

Robinson should just be overturned in its entirety, sidestepping all this. The Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause is about the penalties which can be imposed for lawbreaking, not about the actions which can be forbidden. There's nothing about status or conduct in there. But the court is too conservative to overturn bad non-conservative precedent (except on abortion)

You can't really talk about protests like they're a unified group with a specific plan.

Of course they are. This is all planned.

You still seem willing to prefer as allies the left-wing orthodoxy over the right-wing ("See, this is why center-left people don't feel like allying with the right, despite our [...]", emphasis mine) so I think you are indeed the right person.

Do you know what women don't like? Losers.

I present you the Parable of Henry.

What I think we don't have yet, and buried under the genuine problems from racism and poverty and culture, is a fair assessment of the IQ of the general African-American population, and where their strengths lie.

We have standardized tests and we've had them for almost a century. We can sift by poverty, even. At this point "racism and poverty" are pure cope and "culture" is a very thin reed. The mean is lower, it's not just lesser variability (which is somewhat controversial for sex; the PISA tests don't show it, for instance)

Before that, programming used to be seen a lowly, dull desk job, basically not different from being a secretary, and a significant chunk of programmers were single women as a result.

This period is largely a feminist myth. If it existed, it was prior to 1960, when there were vanishingly few programmers at all.

(and before you mention ENIAC, programming that was definitely not a desk job)

California has outlawed home generators, which means New York will be next, and then the country. So it's darkness for everyone.

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. From those who have much, much is expected (and the corollary, from those who have nothing, nothing is expected, explains Grant's Pass). Blessed are the poor. Etc. It's a slave morality.

Operators became majority female in 1975, then almost 70% by 1986, though some of that may have been by separation of job titles rather than an actual change. I'm pretty sure the myth goes back to attempts by feminists to promote the idea, often relying on an article in Cosmopolitan by Grace Hopper which suggested programming was especially suited to women. Hopper, however, was recruiting, not describing an existing situation.

That is exactly what municipalities wish they could do. "Just tell us what laws we are allowed to write that allow us to clean up our streets?!"

In this case, the intended rule is "You can't clean up your streets AT ALL until you solve the homeless problem in a particular way -- that is, provide shelter to all of them at public expense".

By whom?

I don't know, I'm not on their mailing lists (or Discords as the case may be)

The problem is the safetyists have no brakes. Nothing's ever "safe enough".

If they charge her and fail to convict her, or do convict her and have a bunch of HP-loving constituents toss them out of office, their project suffers a major setback. So they won't charge her. They'll charge a bunch of loud people who engender no public sympathy, and some little people unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They'll use them to build precedent, and of course "But you didn't charge Rowling" isn't a defence in court. After a while of this, they'll have the weight of precedent behind them and be able go after the next big fish if not Rowling herself.

I am totally sure that knocking down the Chesterton's Fence of no-fault divorce will totally not have any negative side effects.

No-fault divorce isn't a Chesterton's fence, it's what we got by knocking down the Chesterton's fence of requiring grounds.

In theory, they criminalize the conduct of going somewhere while (potentially) having such a disease, which is distinct from criminalizing the disease itself.

Ah, so criminalizing sleeping while homeless should be fine. Or walking through town while a drug addict, to go to the Robinson case.

No, this is all sophistry; the 8th Amendment, having been stretched this much, can be said to cover or not cover any given case -- and it will be, based on other criteria. In this case, likely mostly misplaced sympathy for the homeless on the part of Kavanaugh and Barrett, and a corresponding lack of concern for anyone else on their part and that of the leftist justices.

You don't see the monkey's paw in your proposal? You now have divided the country, 1984 style, into the criminals, the proles -- the people living on these reservations -- the Outer Party (the people living in the regular part of the country), and the Inner Party (the people who decide who goes where). Life in the regular part of country becomes extremely regimented, with everyone constantly in fear of being sent to the reservation for the most minor (or imagined) of offenses if they happen to get on the wrong side of the Inner Party.

I see what appears to be co-ordinated protests, I know protests have been co-ordinated in the past, I infer the existence of a co-ordinator. It's not rocket science.

Some were like that, some were more like typists. According to the 1974-1975 Occupational Outlook Handbook, there were keypunch operators and data typists, both of whom basically did data entry (but not directly to the computer -- to cards or to tape). There were also "console operators", who would switch the tapes and cards in and out. The handbook includes a picture of a console operator -- a woman -- loading a reel-to-reel tape.

The 1974-75 handbook breaks down the gender in a more detailed way than the summary statistics do -- 3/5 "console and auxiliary equipment operators" were men, 9/10 "keypunch operators" were women.

I acknowledge that the phenomenon you're describing is real, but I wish we had separate terms for "men who resent women because they can't get laid" and "men who can get laid, but resent women because of lingering grievances brought about from earlier rejections".

Accepting these as the choices is still accepting the incel-yellers frame. There is a possibility that the complaints the men have do in fact have validity and are not merely some sort of injured pride.

Fails to counter; that claims women care mostly about physical appearance, not that they don't like losers.

You only need to summary execute couple of Ayatollah and decimate the revolutionary guard - the people of Iran will do the rest.

Where "the rest" is anoint a few more Ayatollahs and reconstitute the guard, and hate America even more with even better reason?

The desirability of selective immigration follows from HBD, but the desirability of race-based selective immigration does not. It does mean it's a shortcut that can be beneficial, but that's all; skimming the cream of populations has generally worked for the US.

Why do you think it’s misplaced sympathy and not, I dunno, doing their jobs?

From ScotusBlog:

But Justice Brett Kavanaugh was at least initially dubious that reversing the 9th Circuit’s decision and allowing the city to enforce its ordinances would make a difference in addressing the homelessness problem. How would your rule help, he asked Evangelis, if there are not enough beds for people experiencing homelessness? Kavanaugh returned to this point a few minutes later, asking Evangelis how sending people to jail for violating the city’s ordinances would help to address the homelessness problem if there are still no beds available when they get out. Such individuals, he observed, are “not going to be any better off than you were before.”

This is not the issue at all! The questions contain within them the implication that the laws have to make the homeless people better off. And thus the implication that somehow the Constitution protects the interests of the homeless over and above the other people who want to use the parks and public spaces that the law actually is in the interests of. This is just sympathy for the wretched, not "doing their jobs".