Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
No bio...
User ID: 551
Or, rather, the Democrats may not be “authoritarian” in the strictest sense of the dictionary definition, but that’s because the Democrats wrote the dictionary and defined the term to mean “bad in the exact way that bad conservatives are bad” (this is almost literally true; a lot of the current authoritarianism discussion comes from a construct invented by Theodor Adorno called “right-wing authoritarianism”).
I will grant that we're all going to prioritize different types of authority differently and process various exercises of power differently, but I am baffled that anyone would feel the need to hedge this way while attempting to steelman their opponent. No, my position is not that there's a dictionary problem, it's just that Democrats are flatly more authoritarian than Republicans. Not because of some idiosyncrasy in verbiage or because I think arms rights are more important than abortion rights, but as a generalized temperament with regard to almost all of the things that I care about.
The current Democrat preference is a whole lot of expert-trusting for a massive bureaucracy that meddles in everything. If you're a large business, get ready to record lots of racial and gender data so you don't run afoul of federal equal opportunity statutes. If you're a landlord, get ready to have people funded by the DoJ try to ascertain whether you're being racist. If you'd like to buy a showerhead, make sure you check whether it's one that you can adjust the flow regulator on or you're going to wind up with one that is saving the planet instead of giving you a nice shower. If you'd like to consume some raw milk, well, that's not safe enough for you and you may not engage in voluntary transactions with farmers, even if they label it clearly. For each of these and a million more, the Democrat position is just, "well, yes, that's a good thing". I will grant that it's a sort of benevolent authoritarianism, but with a hat tip to CS Lewis.
This isn't to say that Republicans don't use power, or don't use power in ways that I don't like, but it is to say that I will absolutely stand on the belief that Democrats want to exercise control over many, many more aspects of my life than Republicans. We haven't even talked about Covid, firearms, and taxation! Those are bigger issues, but I really am just referring to the general temperament and style of governance. Republican administrations simply do less than Democrat administrations, and they would do less still if they would get around to firing half the bureaucracy in the fashion that Vance and Vivek suggest.
Have we talked about the squirrel? Sigh. Let's talk about the squirrel:
Mark Longo, the owner of the Instagram-famous squirrel, Peanut, is mourning the loss of his beloved pet.
On Nov. 1, Longo took to Instagram to reveal Peanut had been euthanized, along with his pet raccoon named Fred, by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
...
Peanut the squirrel is an internet sensation. He's the beloved pet of digital creator Mark Longo, who would occasionally share Instagram videos of Peanut eating treats, jumping on his clothes and scurrying around his house as he does various tasks throughout the day.
...
In a joint statement, the DEC and the Chemung County Department of Health say they are "coordinating to ensure the protection of public health related to the illegal possession of wild animals that have the potential to carry the rabies virus."
The DEC also notes that it is illegal to keep young wildlife as pets since they are "not well suited for life in captivity. Plus, they may carry diseases that can be given to people."
...
"To test for rabies, both animals were euthanized," they said in a joint statement. "The animals are being tested for rabies and anyone who has been in contact with these animals is strongly encouraged to consult their physician."
This story has been making the rounds on my social media feeds, with commentary, countercommentary, memes, and political implications galore. A few people have wondered why the story resonates, given that it's just a squirrel. For me, it's because of how neatly it ties into other election conversations.
A couple days ago, we were talking about an article on SlateStarCodex and I disputed Scott's framing where he felt the need to say that Democrats can be authoritarian too, even if it's not the normal definition. No, I say, Democrats want arbitrary and petty control over the smallest aspects of your life, things you can't even imagine that someone would care about. In this case, a man had a squirrel living inside his house rather than outside his house. Squirrels, you may be aware, are common animals. Rodents, in general, frequently cohabitate with humans both as pets and pests. For some, it seems only natural that the government has a compelling interest in making sure you have a Squirrel License with proper proof of squirrel maintenance. Failing to license your squirrel is proof positive of outright irresponsibility - what kind of miscreant doesn't even file their squirrel paperwork? For others, this is a great example of how under no circumstances will the government ever leave you alone, even if it's on something as small and irrelevant as whether you're sheltering squirrels under your floorboards. These petty, useless authoritarians are willing to show up without warning, sit you outside your house, and kill your pets because you didn't file for a squirrel license.
When I was young and naturally rebellious, I was a libertarian on strong pro-freedom grounds. As a young professional, I made my peace with the bureaucracy and thought this was an important part of being an adult. As I've aged, my libertarian streak has returned as I've realized just how much I despise our governments.
Tim is a guy everyone knows.
I agree that he's a guy everyone knows, but I don't agree even a little bit about him seeming like a sincere, earnest guy. He's the bullshitter, he's the guy that has to inflate every single thing he does. Even the things that are honest-to-god admirable, he still has to be an E9 instead of an E8, he doesn't just know a thing or two about rifles, he carried them in war, and so on. He's never invested a penny, never genuinely risked anything, and he resents the hell out of the guys that got more money and status than him in the private sector. He babbles about racial justice while a half billion dollars in damage is done to Minneapolis as his wife enjoys the vibes (and scent of burning debris). Someone else's business is a small price to pay for him to feel better about white supremacy.
Yeah, I know guys like Tim Walz.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
10mo ago
The biggest sign was how quickly the Trump assassination story died down. The second Biden stepped down, he overwhelmed the media cycle and wiped the slate clean on both sides.
There's a lot of passive voice here! Media outlets consist of actual people that make decisions about things. When we say that the Trump assassination died down, what we mean is that the media doesn't really have much curiosity about the shooter or why he putatively went unnoticed. Likewise, when we say that Biden stepped down and everyone rallied around Kamala, what we mean is that the media stopped being curious about what exactly Nancy Pelosi meant by doing things the "easy way or the hard way" and why it was that no one really mentioned that Biden was plainly senile.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
11mo ago
Over at Salon, Amanda Marcotte expresses enthusiasm for secret ballots because of concerns that husbands are forcing wives to vote for Trump:
It's a useful reminder that secret ballots remain secret, even from nosy spouses. But that doesn't explain why the original tweet from Howell went viral, racking up over 8.5 million views and 14,000 retweets. As the comments under the post suggest, most people were envisioning a specific scenario: Thousands, perhaps millions of women, saddled with Donald Trump-voting jerks for husbands, who yearn to give their vote to Vice President Kamala Harris this November. "I think 'secret voting' by MAGA partners is a more widespread issue than most people think," one woman replied. Another man wrote, "As a poll worker, I have had to deal with husbands and fathers who want to join their wives or daughters in the voting booth to 'make sure they vote the right way.'"
She also thinks it would be good if wives used emotional blackmail to control men's votes:
Lenz said she "ended my marriage after the 2016 election" because "I watched someone who said he loved me vote for someone who had been credibly accused of rape and who spoke about women like they were trash." She implored women who disagree with MAGA husbands to ask themselves, "Why am I married to someone who doesn't respect my choices?"
Oddly enough, there is no mention of the issue posed by absentee ballots. These are the tools by which abusive spouses can use anything from cajoling to emotional abuse to outright violence to dictate the votes of those that reside with them. The only way to make sure this isn't an option is returning to the canonical secret ballot, which is in a voting booth where this is no option to show others who you voted for. Notably, this is a protection against other forms of coercion, such as from employers or caregivers.
Marcotte comes as close as I've seen anyone on the progressive side of things has gotten to acknowledging this problem, but somehow elides the solution to this fundamentally solved problem. Kind of interesting dynamic.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1mo ago
During the same period, roughly 15 million Americans died in total. I just really doubt that the average person can notice an ~8% increase in death rate, particularly when most of the people dying aren't people that you're very surprised died. My position remains that basically nothing should have been done other than expediting the vaccination schedule even further for those that would plausibly benefit from it and I've never seen anything that makes me think that position is even slightly wrong.
Maybe the real lesson is that evenly distributed deaths just aren't very noticeable even if they're statistically relevant.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
5mo ago
St. John's Well Child and Family Center, a network of public health centers in South and Central Los Angeles, cannot access $746,000 remaining from a $1.6 million grant used to provide prevention, testing and treatment for about 500 transgender people at risk of HIV, sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis and hepatitis C.
When I was younger, I had developed pretty libertine attitudes about human sexuality and I still mostly have the same gut feelings, but every now and then, I bump into things that make me think the conservatives have a point. This is roughly $3K per person for STI testing and treatment. Why? Why do these people insist on doing such consistently risky behavior that they need constant STI surveillance? Even being somewhat promiscuous doesn't result in constant infections, the behavior here really just has to be completely outside the range of anything that most people would consider normal. As you note, the other Life Center apparently spends about five times that much per capita, clocking in over $15K per person.
Making everyone else pay for egregiously bad behavior is just galling.
Matt makes the argument that Walz got the crowded theater analogy backwards, but even more than that what rings alarm bells in my head is the phrase "Or hate speech."
The whole thing should ring in your head as an incredible example of what a blubbering idiot Walz is. He confidently, bloviatingly says, "You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test!" and this is just completely wrong in every single way. It's not the controlling precedent. It's considered an example of terrible law. Even at the time that Holmes penned the line, this was a paraphrased dictum from his opinion, not a test. He didn't just misunderstand the context or modern meaning, he got literally everything around it wrong in order to line it up with his desire to control speech. We have a man running for Vice President that doesn't understand the basics of the First Amendment and confidently cites a Supreme Court opinion that isn't a controlling precedent and that he doesn't understand. The whole thing is a damning indictment of Walz and the party that nominated him.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
5mo ago
The problem, for me, is that my options are not between an orderly phase-out and a stop-work order, but between a stop-work order and the status quo. I firmly believe that doing this in a slow, orderly fashion would just result in caterwauling about how we're killing the children in the future and that this caterwauling would continue apace through the next administration, which would restore funding in full plus a little extra bump for their trouble. If, like me, you want many of these activities curtailed, you just have to bite the bullet and accept that it's going to be an ugly process where every single person denied a previously received bit of American largesse informs you that you're literally killing children.
So, the solution, for me, is to say that the mistake is not in stopping now, but that we ever began the process of giving away so much American money that can never be redacted in the slightest and that is never enough to even begin to slake the demand.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
2mo ago
DEI discriminates against white people: 33% - 41%
It remains interesting that people are simply misinformed about the facts. DEI policies, factually, are discrimination against white people (and Asian people). They literally cannot accomplish their stated goals without doing so, they are definitionally policies that implement discrimination. That's not an ironclad argument for or against them from where I sit, it's just the starting point that we all need to be aware of in order to have these conversations.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
11mo ago
It's also just absolutely pathetic to go through life with such smug pride in talent level that hasn't actually been expressed with any particular accomplishments to be proud of. Gloating about having a higher IQ or more academic credentials than Musk is the equivalent of someone saying they have a higher VO2max than the Tour de France champion. OK, good for you when you look at the number on your phone, but Tadej Pogacar is a multimillionaire cycling champion with a beautiful girlfriend and you're proud that you can consume a lot of oxygen. I don't even like Musk, but he's obviously just done more than almost every single human being alive.
From that link:
“It’s a gross misuse of the pardon power, and says that Trump is willing to meddle in a process that helped strengthen the rule of law,” said Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney in Alabama during the Obama administration.
These people should really, really, really consider strategically quieting down for a bit. Not to overstate things, but for clarity, when I read this, my thought is "FUCK YOU, YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT MISUSE OF PARDON POWER". Biden capped off his Presidency with an absolutely deranged sets of pardons and commutations for everyone from his family to random "non-violent" criminals to political cronies to the literal worst murderers on federal death row. My impression is that most people on my side of the aisle feel basically the same way, so the histrionics about undermining juries and judges is going to do worse than fall on deaf ears, it's going to highlight just how impossible it is for me to view these people as anything other than enemies. Yeah, I am well aware that it's a tit-for-tat situation, I don't think it's very good, but the caterwauling deepens my resolve in wanting every last one of them released in order to rub the faces of people like Joyce in it.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
10mo ago
I watched the Harris speech this morning and wrote down some scattered thoughts. My apologies if any of them don't make sense without having watched, I was just typing a few things up as I watched.
-
Nice outfit - fairly warm while still professional.
-
When she mentioned going to Illinois, there was a small cheer, when she mentioned Wisconsin there was a much larger cheer. No one likes Illinois, not even the people that live there.
-
Talking about the experience of “injustice” is in such bad taste for the child of professors. These are privileged people that found immense opportunity in the United States. I realize that the whole Democrat schtick is playing up how oppressed people of color are, but it’s ridiculous for Harris.
-
The phrase, “I’ve only had one client - the people” is a fantastic way to spin never having held a private sector job. Good speechwriting!
-
The line referring to Trump as an “unserious man” is a good line. Trump’s lack of seriousness is obvious to all but his most ardent supporters. This criticism rings as much more on point than all of the Russia conspiracy and “coup” nonsense ever could.
-
The claim that Trump has an “explicit intent to jail journalists” is just an outright lie.
-
The callback to her earlier line with “the only client he has ever had - himself” is great speechwriting. Banger of a setup and punchline. Much like the lack of seriousness jab, this rings much more true than all of the dark conspiracy stuff.
-
The line that the Department of Education “funds our public schools” is pretty weird. It’s not quite literally false, the DoE does spend ~$20 billion on public school funding, but total American school spending is nearly $1 trillion and the vast majority of it is state and local money. Are people under the impression that school funding is a big thing that DoE does or is it just a bit of rhetoric?
-
Referring to abortion as “decisions of heart and home” is an interesting tactic. Abortion is a huge winning issue for Democrats, but it’s so frequently referred to with euphemisms rather than in the most literal terminology. I’m basically entirely on the same side as Democrats on the issue, which makes it more interesting to me that it tends to come with alternative phrasing rather than just saying what they mean.
-
Shoehorning every issue into “freedom” requires some downright Orwellian twists. Abrogating the constitutional freedom of the right to bear arms is inverted to “freedom to live without gun violence”. A massive regulatory state creating arcane rules for everything from flow of showerheads to the powertrains of vehicles becomes “the freedom to live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis”. I think the framing probably works for people on that side of those issues though.
-
Claiming that the recent Senate border bill was the “strongest in decades” is a lie. HR 2 from 2023 passed the House and was much stronger but was unacceptable to Democrats. I do understand that this one has become an accepted truth among Democrats though, so it probably plays pretty well. Continuing to push this one requires a fully complicit media, but she can safely rely on that.
-
The Israel line is politically palatable, but also pretty hollow. Israel has a right to defend itself, but the Palestinian people will get freedom and self-determination - OK, what’s that look like? As near as I can tell, Palestinian self-determination selects Islamist leaders. Islamist leaders want dead Israelis and the land returned to Palestinians from the river to the sea. You can’t solve this problem if you’re not addressing reality. Someone has to actually lose.
Overall, it was a well-delivered speech that tacks towards the middle on most issues. While I am personally not impressed by teleprompter speeches, her tone and clarity were both quite good. Simply being energetic and eloquent is a good look. If I were a Democrat strategist, I would feel good about the speech and consider it a positive step towards victory.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
6mo ago
I have previously discussed why I think the anti-death penalty stance is not just incorrect, but evil. This morning, I have received news that what I consider the most pro-crime administration of my lifetime has done something that I thought was unthinkable, and has commuted the death penalty sentences of 37 of the 40 federal death row inmates:
The move reduces the sentence for all but three of the 40 inmates on federal death row. Biden said that the commutations are "consistent with the moratorium my Administration has imposed on federal executions," with the exception of terrorism and hate-motivated mass killings.
The three people on the federal execution list who were not on Biden's commutation list are Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing; Robert Bowers, who was convicted of the mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue antisemitic attack; and Dylann Roof, who killed nine Black churchgoers in a racially motivated shooting in South Carolina.
I am, as they say, triggered. For an administration filled with pro-crime sentiments and excuse-making for evil people, this probably tops the charts. I am disgusted by Biden's handlers. Here's the list of federal death row inmates. Absolutely none of the usual reasons for opposing the death penalty even begin to make sense for these guys. People worry about sentencing someone that's wrong accused to death - did they get it wrong in these examples?
Convicted and sentenced to death for the fatal shooting of a security guard during a bank robbery. (Co-defendant of Billie Allen.)
Convicted and sentenced to death for the killing of a federal grand jury witness in a Medicare fraud investigation.+
Convicted and sentenced to death for the killing of a prison guard.
They just somehow accidentally tabbed the wrong guy for murdering a prison guard? Really could have been anyone? Or perhaps you're concerned that it should only be reserved for the worst people, which is why Roof has to go. OK:
Convicted and sentenced to death for the kidnapping resulting in death of a 12-year old girl.
Pled guilty to and sentenced to death for the fatal shootings of two campers on federal land.
Convicted and sentenced to death for involvement in the drug-related killings of a family, including two children. (Co-defendant of Ricardo Sanchez, Jr.)
I'd love to hear the explanation for the parents of that preteen girl why their child's life wasn't every bit as sacred as the victims of Bowers and Roof. Why does he deserve a commutation? Perhaps it's because she was just an individual, so her life doesn't really deserve to be repaid with retributive justice, in contrast to Roof's victims. On an intuitive level, almost everyone knows that Dylann Roof deserves to die and that the only miscarriage of justice will be that it takes decades of fighting with demonic attorneys to get it done. Somehow, a bunch of otherwise decent people have convinced themselves that while Roof is sufficiently evil that he just deserves to die, there are probably a bunch of other death row inmates that don't. I believe this is because they're just not aware of the facts of those cases. Let's look at one of the commuted sentences:
Jurijus Kadamovas (born October 22, 1966) and Iouri Gherman Mikhel (born April 9, 1965) are Soviet-born American serial killers who immigrated to the United States from Lithuania and Russia, respectively. They are currently on federal death row for five kidnappings and murders. The kidnappings occurred over a four-month period beginning in late 2001, in which the kidnappers demanded ransom.[1]
Documents related to the case allege the crew demanded a total of more than $5.5 million from relatives and associates, and received more than $1 million from victim's relatives.[2] Prosecutors said the victims were killed regardless of whether the ransoms were paid. The bodies were tied with weights, and dumped in the New Melones Lake near Yosemite National Park. Federal prosecutors sought the death penalty under murder during a hostage-taking, (18 U.S.C. 1203), a federal crime.[3]
How many people, knowing that information, would say that it's important for the President to spare these guys from execution?
There is no coalition that I have more sincere contempt for than people that spend their lives trying to avoid the execution of men like Kadamovas. There are so many issues where I grant a difference in preferences, values, evaluations of policies, or genuine mistakes. On this one, I am just sincerely angry at everyone that disagrees with me. The Biden administration has done so many things that I disagree with, but most of them still fall into that category of normal political disagreements. Denying the victims of these crimes the only justice that could have been done is evil.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
2mo ago
For people upset about ICE and due process, this coverage is also not your friend. The framings- and the not-very-deep undercurrents that go against the framing- will give a basis to dismiss concern as motivated. The children-in-cage's and child-separation critiques are not going to be forgotten. The fact that not separating children from their deported parents is now a basis of criticism is going to undercut criticims of both. The media's rush to present a concerned father is going to run into discrediting disappointing revelations.
I agree, but what am I to do with that? Based on the "child separation", the "Dreamers", this case's publicity, and the general zeitgeist, it really does seem that the only policy that will actually be accepted by opponents on this is that if you have a child in the United States, you cannot be removed. There is no actual set of proceedings that could satisfy the demand that parents not be separated from their children but also that children cannot be deported with their parents. Any attempt to come up with some narrowly satisfactory resolution that would meet the due process standard that someone came up with approximately 15 minutes ago will slam into some new bad-faith litigation about why of course some deportations are fine, but not this one.
It is increasingly clear to me that getting any resembling what I would consider an appropriate level of deportations will actually just require deciding to be mean in a way that will alienate a significant number of people. My options are not between making a strong legal argument for position or just letting everyone stay, they're between deciding to look mean or just letting everyone stay. If meanness is going to be the actual deciding factor, that's what the decision-making from my side is going to have to be centered on, and I'm perfectly fine with just being mean at this point.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
9mo ago
The biggest thing that's bugging me about it is the continued use of "no evidence" when people mean "weak evidence" and are using "no evidence" as an attack on the credibility of their opponents in a way that makes me think of Russell Conjugation. Consider, for a moment, how the accusations Christine Blasey Ford were treated - the key word that stands out in my mind was the phrasing that she made "credible allegations". The actual evidence for her claims is reasonably on par with the Springfield allegations, which is to say that it's physically possible, not proven false by established facts, and not so improbable in a Bayesian sense to discard altogether. When someone wants to believe something, a piece of evidence like that police report makes it a "credible allegation"; when they don't want to believe something, eyewitness or firsthand testimony shifts from being weak evidence to being "no evidence".
I make credible allegations, you offer unproven claims, he asserts without evidence.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
10mo ago
Alexandre de Moraes
This guy's Wiki is just too perfect:
De Moraes's presidency of Brazil's Superior Electoral Court and certain actions he took during the 2022 Brazilian general election has made him the target of several false conspiracy theories by former President Jair Bolsonaro and his supporters.[4] After the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack, de Moraes ordered several judicial actions to maintain Brazil's democratic rule.[5]
He's doing it for democracy.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
2mo ago
I flatly don't believe in polyamory being real as I have typically heard it articulated. I don't believe that people who share the sort of bond that happily married people share can ever exist among people that aren't monogamous. They're not monogamous couples with extras bolted on, they're people that are failing to form successful pair-bonds concocting unstable edifices based on their desire for promiscuity and unwillingness to engage in genuine commitment to another person. I really hope there won't ever actually be a push to normalize this behavior with some social obligation to pretend that I believe polygamists have relationships that are as respectable as actual marriages.
Just another chapter in, "OK, if what you're telling me is that giving these guys a dollar today means I owe them a dollar every day for the rest of my life, then I am against all new expenditures".
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
11mo ago
Contra @Amadan and @100ProofTollBooth, I'll say that I pretty much agree with the core of this post and I don't think it's content-free. The invective is obviously way too far over the top for this forum, but yeah, there really is a serious problem with the HRization of everything under the sun from people that have absolutely no experience with ever building anything, leading anything, or even producing anything that people would purchase of their own free will. We can see this everywhere from politics to corporations, where people earnestly believe that the relevant criteria for rising ranks is checking a bunch of boxes for titles held, HR style, rather than having actually accomplished anything of note. Having people that have never risked a penny of their own money rise to the top of the power structure isn't just accepted, it's outright lauded by people that see their own personal failures as indications of good moral character.
Sohrab Ahmari, a guy that a lot of people on the right respect as an intellectual, believes things like this:
Thinking of Galbraith’s line about how painful it is that men who made a few good financial bets are assumed to know what they’re talking about on everything else.
And how their wealth means the rest of us can’t avoid their inane views.
The absolute conceit that people who have accomplished so much less than a guy like Musk to just blithely refer to building empires of productivity and innovation as "a few good financial bets" demonstrates to me that these guys have absolutely no concept of what it takes to build a company. They're pampered, spoiled brats that truly believe that their academic credentials and journalistic output aren't just as good as actually creating value, they're better. They have fastidiously avoided taking any meaningful personal risks and have managed to imbue that cowardice with an air of smug superiority because they didn't make their money doing something as vulgar as making "a few good financial bets".
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
6mo ago
Their article on Man the Hunter being inaccurate makes great points about how women can be excellent endurance runners, outpacing men over long distances.
This is not a great point! The claim is based on extremely thin evidence from a few races that don't include genuinely top-tier athletes. At all distances that have been optimized by deep fields of professionals, men run ~10-12% faster than women with no dramatic diminishment at long distances. There are bioplausible reasons for women to get more competitive at extreme distances (or at least requiring less aggressive fueling), but the evidence for it is scanty at best.
Perhaps more to the point, considered in the context of hunting, it really doesn't make much sense to be talking about 200 mile races. Men are faster at every distance that a human would plausibly have covered during a normal day and this difference widens if they're forced to carry any sort of kit with them.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
6mo ago
I agree with that in principle, but there's a risk of missing the big picture when crafting too technical of a response.
I think it's even worse than this. Setting aside violence and just focusing on anger, it is absolutely amazing to me that people think a technical response is actually a strong rebuttal. People are mad precisely because the whole thing is utterly byzantine, impossible for someone with a double-digit IQ to understand, and they're aware that the guys at the top of making tens of millions of dollars on products that confuse and frustrate their customers.
I'm sure many people would still be frustrated if they couldn't afford medical care, but I think they'd be less frustrated if there was just a big fat sticker on the medical care, an accurate price that the patient just couldn't afford. Instead, you have patients that were under the impression that they'd done the right thing, gotten insured, and would be taken care of when they needed care. When they are surprised by a denial, they are understandable frustrated. No one told them this would happen! Yeah, sure someone has to determine what qualifies and what doesn't, it's all very complicated, there are tons of experts and if you don't like the experts, you can get a lawyer to talk to their lawyers, and maybe you'll even still be alive when it's eventually resolved.
That's what people are reacting against - that some rich fuck gets to make tens of millions of dollars on a product that they feel deceived by and he feels completely invulnerable because he's got an army of experts and lawyers, and you don't have shit. Then, when someone expresses this, some blogboi shows up to explain that actually you're too stupid to understand why the experts and lawyers are correct and the rich fuck should be completely invulnerable.
No, I don't think that's likely to assuage people's anger. I'll note that I'm only partially sympathetic to the anger - I actually have just about as much ire for the patients in a lot of examples as the system. Nonetheless, I can barely imagine an approach less productive than lecturing people about how it's all actually very complicated and they don't really understand.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
11mo ago
I have a deep loathing for the Indian ethos of bending the truth or just straight out lying about things.
The power of just nodding in agreement, affirming that you understand, and then refusing to actually do it wins again and again.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
11mo ago
Nate Silver continues to be a consistently good actor in the public sphere and deserves a ton of credit for being willing to buck audience capture in favor of saying what he truly thinks. When he's gotten things wrong (underestimating Trump in his original primary due to priors, for example), he's owned that and spoken publicly about why he thinks he made that mistake. When something is probabilistic and doesn't fall on the favored side, he continues to argue in favor of probabilistic thinking and tries to get people to understand calibration. He's smart, honest, and works hard to try to make sense of available data. I don't really have much else to add to it, just want once again tip the chapeau to Silver for fighting the good fight.
NPR brutally fact-checked Trump, finding "162 lies and distortions". I am not here to inform you that Trump is a particularly honest man, but this bizarre tic that news outlets have developed of referring to statements of opinion that they disagree with as "lies and distortions" is wildly unhelpful. Let's look at a couple:
What the fuck? OK, you think she's not fair and brilliant, fine, I probably even agree with that, but it's just obviously a statement of opinion rather than an appropriate target for some nerd to "fact check".
Wow, thank god for that fact check. Very serious journalism.
I don't even know what NPR is trying to argue here. Again, perhaps Trump is incorrect in his assessment of the electoral success of promising tax increases, but there isn't some "lie or distortion" there.
And on and on and on. These are disagreements, not "lies and distortions". Maybe you think Kamala's great! That she's actually the perfect balance of tough on crime with smart on crime progressivism, that Trump is just too goddamned stupid to understand that, and so on. That's fine! But there isn't a "lie and distortion", there's an actual disagreement.
I'm amazed at just how banal "factchecking" has become. I wouldn't object to this particular piece framed as an argument that Trump is VeryBadActually, but this smug tone intended to reward their readers with the sense that they're hearing serious truths, and that they have precisely calculated 162 lies is incredibly annoying. That figure then gets repeated by figures like Pete Buttigieg as though it's actually a serious empirical measure of dishonesty, furthering the sense that they're the party of facts. Perhaps things have always been this way and I'm just sick of it, but it sure feels like it's getting worse as party apparatchiks try to create an impression of the official truth.
More options
Context Copy link