@fluid_pride's banner p

fluid_pride


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:11:35 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 621

fluid_pride


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:11:35 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 621

Verified Email

If you look at what his supporters are saying, they trust him more than any other candidate to do the things they think they want him to do. That this requires a huge suspension of disbelief is just part of the process.
MBD of National Review told a story recently of asking his driver why he supports Trump. The driver said he thinks military experience is important and Trump went to a military style school for a while. MBD asked him if he knew that DeSantis actually served in the Navy for six years (as a lawyer) and the driver admitted that he knew this. He just counted Trump's boarding school experience as more relevant than active duty service.
He starts from the premise that Trump is his guy and any evidence is weighted to support that conclusion. Somehow, Trump has convinced a huge segment of the population that he's "their guy." It baffles me, too, but it seems that that's all there is to it.

I would love to read a "how not to get screwed at the dealership" post from someone who interned in finance at Ford. You're in a unique position of being both a noob and an insider and that perspective is pretty rare.

This is the new zoomer take on that old saw about sleeping under bridges. Male and female alike, nobody's allowed to show their tits for simps.

As for the sexism, I think it was a fig leaf from the start. Someone thought they could monetize the skanks. My guess is that the lawyers weren't consulted first and they had to be the guys to remind twitch that their average user is like 13. In any case, you can find better nudity on a bunch of better sites. And players worth watching don't have to get naked.

Kids today are just going to learn that race and gender and identity categories are super important and you need to treat people differently according to their category and stereotypes

I just read an article where the UC system dropped 75% of faculty applicants for insufficient DEI commitment. Apparently it was a huge demerit to agree with the idea, "I try to treat everyone the same." It's not just kids today, it's being burned into institutions intentionally.

originated in academia in people studying

At this point, that's a mark against whatever is under consideration. "originated in academia" might as well be a synonym for "pulled out of someone's butt with zero basis in reality" for anything except the hard sciences.

It seem weird to me to use "defected" after the fall of the Soviet Union. If I decide to move to Dubai (or Tokyo or Vancouver) and renounce my US citizenship is that "defecting"? It seems like the only time the word is used is in reference to moving to Russia. Do people defect to Iran?

I'm downvoting this solely because you made me think about the thing you contrasted with Ana de Armas. I resent having to think about that turd or Bruce Jenner's family, ever.

  • -16

Don't forget that "born this way" is self-justifying as well as unchanging. If you're "born this way" it's "natural" and good and any shaming or even different treatment is bigotry.

It is important to note that the honors classes did not have a "clear bias in terms of racial makeup relative to baseline." First, there was no suggestion of any "bias," there was only the observed result that the racial makeup of students in the honors classes did not match the racial makeup of the general student body. That "bias" was the first (and only) reason the school considered is a failure. Second, the disparity was laughably small. The school is 15% black and the honors class was 14% black. That's a rounding error.

There's a quote from one of the teachers saying that she looked at the class photograph and wondered where all the black kids were. That's the level of logic on which this school is operating.

I've seen a lot of takedowns of that obnoxious construction, but yours is the most clear and concise. Well done!

And don't forget that the Chinese (at the very least) are actively looking for ways to degrade Harvard's (and other Western universities) reputation. English, Japanese, Chinese, French, Swiss, South Korean, etc. universities aren't going to cry if Harvard gets knocked off its perch. There's a whole world out there waiting for a chance to step into the prestige circle.

I was just saying that presumably the intended outcome for the prosecution wouldn't be just to harass but to actually convict.

Right, but I think his point was that even if they'd prefer to convict (maximum punishment), they'll cheerfully settle for causing years of pain (guaranteed minimum punishment). Even if you (the defendant) win, you lose, and people will think twice about that kind of wrongthink in the future. The intended outcome is to suppress this kind of speech.

square-Trump-in-round-Hitlers

This was great writing.

This is also the attitude of the conservative Texans I personally know. Homosexuality is tolerated, faggotry is not.

The closest is probably the eastern euro countries where public homosexuality has legal restrictions

The closest in my opinion is Japan, in which public homosexuality is tolerated to the extent that it conforms to longstanding dramatic/performance norms (eg okage). Private homosexuality is permitted but not encouraged and generally considered shameful. The vibe as I understand it is "be gay if you have to, but keep it to yourself".

Would that the pro-gay-marriage camp shared your disdain for state sanction. As it stands, forcing everyone else, including the state, to recognize gay "marriage" was an explicit goal. Partly, this was because state sanction included some obvious benefits, such as end-of-life care decisions, intestate succession, tax status, etc.

And it really doesn't help when the client is notorious for both refusing to pay his lawyers and bad-mouthing them after they quit.

I agree and also think Russ gave a fantastic example of how to interview someone. He gave EY tons of opportunities to explain himself, with hints about how to sound less insane to the audience. Over the course of the interview, I think EY started doing a bit better, even though he kind of blew it at the end. I was rooting for EY and ended up profoundly disappointed in him as a communicator.

After thinking about it a bit, I think what was most off-putting is that EY seemed to have adopted a stance of "professor educating a student" with Russ, instead of a collaborator exploring an interesting topic, or even an interviewee with an amiable host. Russ is not the sports reporter for the Dubuque Tribune; he's clearly within inferential distance of EY's theories. It was frustrating watching Russ's heroic efforts to get EY to say something Russ could translate for the audience.

For anyone whose only experience with Econtalk is this interview, I beg you to listen to him talk with literally anyone else. He is a beacon of polite, sane discourse.

I'm not sure that it's the socialist worldview that is so appealing as much as the fact that the people looking at alternatives are demonized as evil Nazis. Go look at imgur nowadays and you'll see the hivemind in action. 100% of non-progressive ideas are presented as evil with "the cruelty is the point" NPC comments updooting each other. Lefty tweets are presented as indisputable facts. To people in that bubble, it must look like only the progressive left is even trying to be compassionate and solve the problem and that everyone who isn't on the progressive left just loves oppressing black and brown bodies for fun and profit. Because of that, I'm not even sure that the people you're describing would even call their own thinking a "socialist worldview." From their perspective in the bubble, it's just the reality of caring people trying their best to fight against the forces of evil. Consider the recent tweets trying to use the barter system to defend "socialism". To the extent they would label their worldview "socialism", it's not related to the political system debated for a century and is instead just a mishmash of the hivemind on the current thing. It's not easy to break out of that mindset when everyone you know agrees with it.

I was skeptical of this but it really was well worth the click.

"Structuring" (breaking up a deposit into smaller deposits to avoid reporting) being a crime infuriates me. This is another aspect of the war on drugs seeping into financial regulation and corrupting the rules. In another horrifying example, the IRS is trying to find someone $2.1 million for failing to file a disclosure form. https://reason.com/2023/01/23/supreme-court-declines-case-challenging-excessive-irs-penalties/ No crimes were alleged, it wasn't drug money, the IRS just wants to know if you have a foreign bank account with more than $10k in it and if you don't file the form, they can take half the money in it. It's terrible.

There are some people openly suggesting that they will never vote for Haley and would stay home instead of voting for Biden. It seems insane to me to screw the down-ballot candidates just because you can't stand the top of the ticket, but these are otherwise sensible-sounding voices, so who knows?

Israel is slaughtering thousands of Gazan civilians

This is bullshit. Sure, some civilians in Gaza are dying, but Israel is not intentionally killing them. They're dying because the Hamas faggots are standing next to women and children when they fire their rockets. They're dying because they support the terrorists stockpiling machine guns next to their kids' school supplies. Whatever the beef with Jews, it's Hamas and its supporters who are killing the people in Gaza.

Well, it was virtually nonexistent in the military. The DEI crowd are doing their level best to pump those numbers up as high and fast as possible. The recent controversy over the recommended reading list for officers is one example that made it out of the filter bubble.

Usually in a criminal investigation, the suspect acting as if he had not committed the crime he is being accused of would be interpreted as evidence against the allegation.

It's important to note that the behaviour of someone who had not committed the crime he is being accused of may not be the same as the behaviour of someone who does not know he's being investigated for a crime. Someone falling asleep in an airport lounge is totally normal. Someone falling asleep in an interrogation room is not, at least according to one of those criminal interview videos I can't seem to find now. Normal people being accused of a crime they didn't commit tend to freak out in ways that are apparently distinguishable from someone who knows they did the crime feigning outrage at being accused.

Overall, I think your point is sound. The "banality of evil" trope should really only be considered after the evil has been conclusively established. Soldiers acting like there isn't a genocide going on 50 feet away could be because there isn't a genocide going on 50 feet away. It may be evidence of banality, but not evil.