The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
There isn’t really comparable real estate.
I mentioned several areas with comparable real estate (parts of Jersey City, Hoboken, Weehawken) -- these are not small towns where you need a car, they are dense cities. As for the outer suburbs, they're not $2M you can get that for $1M easy; my own house in an Essex County suburb is probably $750K.
Suburban Westchester is another story, not only is it more expensive but it has the whole of Upper Manhattan, the Bronx, and Yonkers (technically in Westchester) between it and the commercial centers of Manhattan.
The left holds both power and legitimacy. Its dictates will be obeyed voluntarily by all but parts of the executive branch of the Federal Government, while that branch is treated as if it were an outlaw. The people do not back up the Feds under Trump, nor do the courts, nor do the states. They do not have legitimacy; their opponents do. Only the left can govern in America because the right will (mostly) accept the left's legitimacy when they win (yes, even after 2020) while the left simply will not accept the right's in any case.
No, he's just, like 80% of men, ugly in the eyes of women.
I expect the wells were placed where there was the most methane.
Goldman Sachs in fact did relocate a lot of its less-prestigious jobs to Jersey City.
By contrast the residential real estate dynamics are different because of zoning. A lot of housing around cheap suburban office parks on Long Island is super expensive because it’s single family zoned for wealthy PMC in the burbs of one of the richest cities in the world.
There's plenty of dense-zoned land on the New Jersey side. Even the more desirable stuff (Hoboken, Paulus Hook, Grove Street, Weehawken) is far less desirable than Manhattan or close-in parts of Brooklyn and Queens, possibly because young single women simply won't cross the Hudson for any reason. The less desirable stuff is less desirable for the usual reasons.
You get something greater than the effect of "miniquakes" (magnitude 1 or less) when a large truck drives by. And the stories about methane in water supply were fraudulent; the methane was there before the fracking.
Take a look at what is happening in Newark. The left is physically attacking DHS agents, and DHS can do nothing about it because neither the state nor the Federal District of New Jersey will back them up. They're reduced to dumb ideas like ending all sanctuary city international flights (which would be enjoined by said judges anyway). Even when the right holds the formal titles, the left continues to hold power and legitimacy. The left is a juggernaut.
You can, temporarily, in a few places, do a thing. But the backlash for you winning any political power (whether you do anything with it or not) will allow them to take over, permanently, and erase your gains.
The argument that both you and @ThisIsSin are making would appear to endorse "the heckler's veto" and by extension the idea that "might makes right".
Whether might makes right or not, it is still might. I am not discussing what "we" should do; I am discussing what "we" can do.
I reject this argument on the basis that each and everyone of us is (presumably at least) a human being with free will, and as such may choose to refuse their demands at any time.
Whatever the demand, you can refuse, and they can punish you until you are compliant, dead, or irrelevant.
Most of the points are reasonable
Yes, the unreasonableness was advanced one seemingly reasonable point at a time.
They have sufficient power to demand the privilege.
You can sanewash it all you want, though the fact that you were able to come up with an 11-point list without much trouble kinda works against you.
And are you seriously saying that a group of 10 year-olds cannot play alone outside without it being called child abuse?
It's quite possible this will get the police and/or CPS called. Even if it doesn't, if something happens with one of these 10 year olds -- e.g. one or more gets a minor injury, or they trespass on the wrong neighbor's lawn -- the parents will be questioned about why they weren't supervising the child. And with that sort of question, there's no acceptable answer; the question is simply making the point that there was a transgression.
The problem is that the required actions are not seen as politically acceptable because there are a lot of bigots and grifters who's egos and livelihoods depend on problems not getting solved.
The actions are not politically acceptable, and that is why we cannot implement them. It does not matter if there are ways of stopping black criminals if we cannot implement them. We've seen what happens if we try -- the pushback gets stronger until we stop doing it, people who notice the issue are ostracized, it becomes illegal to use data to demonstrate things, and if the data stubbornly keep showing the wrong things, they just stop publishing or collecting it.
We can stop the trolly at any time but doing so would require the liberal striver class to admit that they fucked up.
Then we can't stop it.
Endemic black gun violence wasn’t much of a social issue in the US until 1970 or 1980, was it?
A little earlier; the uptick in homicide starting after 1963. The limited data I can find suggests the homicides were of similar racial mix as today (and got more white as you get into the 1980s). It is tempting for the wrongthinker to draw a straight line between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and this fact, but I don't know of any direct evidence for that.
Old people seemingly keep getting older with only limit what fraction of the GDP we dare not to sacrifice to their care.
As a person of a certain age, I assure you death is still around. Quite a few of the parents of those in my social circles are facing it (or have already died)
Presumably, "in America" or "in the Western world". As soon as you have a child, you are a slave to it by proxy. You have to raise it as the powerful members of your community wish it to be raised, or face social and governmental wrath. This has always been true, though state capacity increasing has made it worse -- getting disapproving sniffs from those who don't like the way you raise your child is not as bad as disapproving sniffs plus stern letters from "educators" and visits from CPS or the local police. And, the way they want children to be raised has gotten more and more intensive. Full time personal supervision of them. Not just school but all sorts of "enriching" activities. Every sort of safety measure. Supporting them until they finish undergraduate. Etc.
All three are true. Everything we've tried has failed, and while we have ideas that may work, they are blocked for reasons.
Right now, the intelligentsia of both sides have decided the answer is gun control, but that is unlikely to work either for many reasons.
It is not that there is no sociocultural intervention that would reduce the gap. It is that there is no politically acceptable intervention, because all of them will look like they are disproportionately punitive to black people.
You don't need to show that most black people are committing crimes. You can alternately show that you can't stop the black people who are committing crimes from doing so, which seems to be empirically correct.
Used to. Between state capacity increases, parental helicoptering, and the gentling of youth through chemical means, a lot fewer high school students drink than used to.
Yep, I think there are two points at which the brain could be said to no longer be developing -- one is when it begins to decline as you suggest. And the other is death, as indicated by the aphorism "Biologists have a special word for 'stable': dead".
I don't think it's actually true that "the mainstream right wing opinion is the anti vaxx naturalism bullshit". Poster who posted that likes to slip in false things, possibly in an attempt to manufacture common knowledge.
But sure, the problem with gun violence in the US is that Billy Bob put a giggle trigger on his PSA.
And regardless of how often stories like you describe keep happening, the majority of people in the United States will continue to believe this unironically. You can't fight the propaganda machine.
This feels like hyperbole. Communist China assigns everyone a role, not the right in the US of A. But if it's just a premise, ok.
The right lacks in the USA lacks the power to do so. But they'd like to. Heck, even the European 2rafa seems to want that; her variant has roles assigned according to heredity, which is certainly traditional.
- Prev
- Next

They only do that if you attempt to interact with them in any way.
More options
Context Copy link