VelveteenAmbush
Prime Intellect did nothing wrong
No bio...
User ID: 411
I'm not exactly sure what we're disagreeing about at this point. Is it that you think committed "out and proud" gays and committed "out and proud" kleptos are morally similar? Or that you think committed "out and proud" kleptos are in the same moral boat of basically good people who are nonetheless tempted to sin per the universal human condition? Both propositions seem pretty hard to defend, but perhaps I'm biased due to being gay.
Comparisons of crime rates between US and other Western countries need to control for racial demographics to be worth the keystrokes it takes to make them. Compare Canadians with Canadian Americans, or white Canadians with white Americans. ADOS people in America are an unusual demographic, not even obviously comparable to merit-selected African immigrants to Canada.
Sure, and... that was my point at the root of this whole comment tree, going back to my comment five levels up.
If my son is a truck driver and wants to call out to play Call of Duty and I say, if you don't deliver that shipment of widgets, the widget factory will shut down and people will lose their jobs, some might starve and some might even commit suicide.
This is stupid. It's telling that this sort of achingly awkward construction is the best you're able to come up with after many attempts. It's fine to tell him that he's going to cause privation and misery by shirking, I suppose. Invoking suicide is a rhetorical record-scratch moment where you immediately sound like you've gone off the deep end. It adds nothing, you'd never include it, and it makes your statement less compelling rather than more if you do, because it sounds so transparently manipulative and irrelevant to the point.
Indeed, perhaps the best explanation is they WANT his disruptive force in play, specifically because it will be most disruptive for the GOP primaries.
Agreed. The left and right have each (finally) come to the conclusion that DeSantis is more powerful, and playing spoiler in GOP primaries is now a well entrenched strategy for the Democratic party for several cycles running.
what really deters crime
Incapacitation shouldn't be overlooked. A small percentage of people is undeterrable and will commit a hugely disproportionate share of total crime if they are able to do so. They need to be identified and locked up as long as they remain undeterrable. Roughly, this cohort is largely male, aged 16-35, and disproportionately black. The main benefit of 3 strikes laws is that it is a mechanical fallback that achieves this objective in a way that is immune to special pleading and undue sympathy from judges. It's a hard thing to give a 19-year-old a 20+ year sentence when you're faced with the tear-stained face of the kid and his sobbing family all dressed in their Sunday best and clutching the kid's old teddy bear, surrounded by earnest ACLU types unloading the best emotional weapons that the entire field of social justice has developed, but there are many cases where it is absolutely vital to do so.
I mean, yeah, in that case the kleptomaniac 100% has to give up his identity to become right with society/god/etc., as he should.
I think that's really the point, though. LDS Church sees gays as morally on par with kleptomaniacs. And this whole thread is a complaint that some particularly strident trans SF/F author sees Mormons as morally on par with kleptomaniacs.
Ugh. This is getting combative. I truly hold no grudge against the LDS Church. They (now) walk the walk on pluralism. I am fine with them believing and even professing that gayness is sinful and bars one from Mormon Heaven. I don't think Mormons should suffer any retribution for their affiliation with the Church. This trans "filthcore" author is behaving badly.
All I want to insist upon, here, is that the LDS Church really does hold gays in lower esteem than the average person. That's their right and I'm totally fine with them doing so. But it just really isn't accurate to claim that they see gays as morally on par with the rest of humanity in the sense that we're all sinners.
SOPA/PIPA changed the entire power dynamic. Big Content doesn't have the sway in Washington that it used to.
Don't pretend to throw your brother off the roof, you'll give me a heart attack perhaps?
No sale. This only works because "you'll give me a heart attack" is a figure of speech. "Don't pretend to throw your brother off the roof or I'll kill myself" speaks for itself.
I dunno, how does a gay person seek confession, forgiveness and repentance without giving up his identity as a gay person?
Isn't there a bit of a parallel here to offering Sanderson forgiveness if he gives up his identity as a Mormon?
I'm on Sanderson's side on this, to be clear. I really don't have a problem with the LDS church as a basic tenet of pluralism. They reciprocate, too: they supported the federal same-sex marriage law that was recently signed into law.
But I do think it's a bit obscurantist to claim that gay people are positioned similarly in the eyes of the LDS church to the rest of the faithful on the basis that sin is a feature of the human condition.
Treatment for what, though? Doesn't this logically require agreeing that transgender people are mentally ill?
Does it change the argument if I ( a non depressed person) say that I think depressed people are more likely to kill themselves if denied treatment?
Again... this is okay if and only if we agree that depressed people are mentally ill.
There definitely is some kind of line where threats of suicide can be used abusively I agree, but I think in most examples like this it is being used as a guilt trip which can be (but is not necessarily) abusive. I guilt my kids into doing stuff all the time
If you tell your kids that you'll kill yourself if they don't eat their vegetables or whatever, you'd be way over the line into abuse. If you observe to them dispassionately that you are statistically more likely to kill yourself if they don't eat their vegetables, you haven't salvaged the situation. It isn't the guilt trip that (necessarily) puts you over the line, it's threatening suicide.
If a depressed person said if you deny us medication or therapy then more depressed people will kill themselves, is this making a veiled threat or recognizing (what they see to be) factual truth?
Unironically, I think it's valid as their interpretation of factual truth if and only if they acknowledge that they're mentally ill. Because without that acknowledgment, then they maintain agency for their actions, and their decision to commit suicide is entirely on their own moral ledger. People who aren't mentally ill can get mad that other people are making them unhappy, but crossing the rhetorical line from unhappiness to suicide is just an abusive tactic in that context.
Tiktok is one of the top five social media platforms in the US, not the only one. China isn't, even if tiktok was used for such, in a position to control the media an entire generation sees.
Those top five platforms break unevenly across generations. Kids by and large aren't using Facebook proper. And of the remainder, several (WhatsApp, facebook messenger, imessage) mainly offer communication rather than content. I think Gen Z spends more time on Tiktok than any other single media source.
And - is there any evidence China is doing anything, at all, with tiktok to influence the US population, politically or otherwise?
No. The questions are, one, would you even know if they were, and two, should you really wait for them to start before you make a move?
Suppose the USSR in the 1980s offered a broadcast TV network whose content seemed superficially indistinguishable from the other major networks -- no obvious evidence (as far as we know! yet!) that they were using their lever for propaganda. Do you think it would have been a good idea to let them expand their stake until they could control the media that an entire generation sees?
You said "do you not see the strategic threat?" That can mean many things. I cannot read your mind. working on that.
I ask only that you read my comments. Specifically here's what I included in my first comment (emphasis added): "Do you think it would have been a good idea to let the USSR own enough major US broadcasting networks in the 1980s that they could control the media that an entire generation sees?" I don't know how you go from "control the media that an entire generation sees" to "they're trying to steal our personal data." The connection just doesn't make sense to me.
again, there is no evidence that TikTok as a vector is worse than competing sites.
So is your answer yes, it would be fine for the US to have allowed the USSR to own enough major US broadcasting networks in the 1980s that they could control the media that an entire generation sees, as long as their content so far seemed superficially similar to American-owned broadcasting networks? You allow the geopolitical adversary to insinuate themselves into your nation's information infrastructure until and unless you actually catch them using it to run an info op?
I didn't say anything about harvesting intelligence info. The threat is in controlling the programming of the media that an entire generation sees. It's a vector through which they can influence America.
So you'd be okay with the USSR owning major US broadcasting networks in the 1980s that they could control the media that an entire generation sees, as long as their content so far seemed superficially similar to American-owned broadcasting networks?
I mean... do you not see the strategic threat? Or do you just trust that China won't make use of it?
Do you think it would have been a good idea to let the USSR own enough major US broadcasting networks in the 1980s that they could control the media that an entire generation sees? Because that seems to be more or less the position that China is in right now with Tiktok, whether or not we can prove that they are abusing their control.
Researchers have to go into and out of labs, and they have to eat and buy clothing and their children have to go to school and so on, and whatever system you set up to try to isolate these activities will be more prone to leakage than the actual BSL prophylactics since they'll take place in a less controlled environment.
I'll play on hard mode. I think NYT readership hates SCOTUS but is ambivalent about affirmative action or even openly supportive of dismantling it. Racial preferences are extremely unpopular.
I could be wrong. Racial preferences are unpopular, but NYT readers are exactly the demographic that would support them, and I could imagine NYT's "recommended comments" methodology being crafted to enable the most Sulzberger-adjacent element of the readership. But my prediction stands. I'll go read the comments and then include any edits below the line.
Edit: I think I was right, assuming "recommended comments" are the "Reader picks" tab.
I'm no expert either, but isn't Crimea pretty easily embargoed? IIRC, Ukraine recaptured Kharkiv by threatening Russia's supply lines, and I don't know why they couldn't do the same to Crimea.
plus a notable uptick in violent crime nationwide in the following two years, but we didn’t know that in May 2020
It was extremely predictable. We had been educated with the Ferguson Effect just five years earlier.
bones heal stronger than they were to start
I don't mean to defend the zanier ideas of the rump right. Q-anon, 2020 election truthers, anti-vaxxers who ascribe every death of a previously vaccinated person to the vaccine, people who jump at globalist pedophiles under every rock and behind every tree -- it's nuts. There's a great deal of ruin in a party. So it goes.
THAT SAID, normies are quite right to worry about the loyalties of their local elite. Culturally, an American titan of industry likely has more in common with a French titan of industry than with his fellow Americans. Is it so hard to imagine the industrial, governmental and cultural elites of the world collectively furthering their interests as a class to the exclusion of their individual countries' interests?
In a season of Survivor, members of an alliance start to worry when a few of their members go off into the woods to meet with a few members of the opposing alliance. Maybe they're reconsidering their allegiance. Often they're right to worry.
Viewed through that lens, the WEF is a venue for defection against one's own country. They acknowledge it! They're globalists. The first letter of their acronym stands for it. Klaus Schwab seems to be the guy in charge. He may not have much power in his own right, by elite standards he's doubtless a midwit mediocrity as you describe, but however it came to be, he is the facilitator and proximate cause of an event that probably should be looked at askance by those concerned about whose side their own country's companies and government is really on. Obsessing over the social media ephemera of the conference is barking up the wrong tree, and ascribing personal agency to Klaus as though he can direct the tides of the illuminati via his keynote address is going too far, but it's forgivable, because the whole enterprise is a venue for collusion by the world's elite against everyone and everything else -- not in explicit drawing up of plans and executing plans of oppression, but in formation of shared norms and culture to the exclusion of those not there.

I mean, when 13% of the population commits >50% of the murders, focusing on that demographic seems more to me like rational triage than a cop-out.
More options
Context Copy link