fuckduck9000
1yr ago
But does anyone have the background in urban combat/organized crime to answer this question?
Oh no, zero , absolutely none. I do have extensive fictional viewing experience, though.
My theory is that there are two layers to being a gangster. The basic, underlying, one, the ultimate unit of crime (as well as politics, but let’s not get into that), is just one guy with a gun, who’s ready to kill, who doesn’t care about anything else. He has the power to inflict death on almost anyone, and so he’s extremely powerful. Even organized crime doesn’t have a good way of dealing with him, except numbers : there are always enough of them that they can guarantee retaliation if members are killed by the lone gunman. Small consolation for the dead mafiosi.
The other, superficial layer, is the perception of being ‘hard’, ie, close to this ideal killing machine, the basic unit of power. Gangsters who appear hardest can rip other gangsters off. As well as civilians. That’s their bread and butter, how they get, and get to keep, their money.
So, aside from stupidity, the reason they don’t snipe is because inflicting death is not their job, appearing ready to inflict death is.
I have a similar reaction to your husband to many gangster and noir films : why doesn’t the hero just murder the antagonist and bury him in the woods? It’s been established that he’s evil, your life and your family’s life is on the line, the police won’t help, so what’s the hang-up, hero ?
Civilians, because they are focused on the second layer/model, where they automatically back down against gangsters who appear hard, and because they have delegated violence to the police, have forgotten that they possess ultimate power too.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
The allies of convenience created by this controversy are farcical. DR guys defending the affirmative action hyper-woke presidents of Harvard and their commitment to free speech, now I’ve seen everything.
Calling for genocide is obviously “harassment”, in the same way that citing statistics is “harassment”. On a regular day, harvard students ‘feel unsafe’ when confronted with mild antagonism and unfamiliar ideas, and the administrators use this ‘harm’ to justify censoring offending speech. Now I’m not invested in this line of thought and I’m not that kind of guy, but it should be obvious to anyone that such a vulnerable person would feel even less safe by hearing calls for their genocide, than by hearing a random unorthodox talking point like abortion should be illegal. For harvard, it's a little late to try to catch the first amendment train.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Promises precede actions. The balfour declaration is a promise - supposedly, the jews would give their own promise (to get the US into the war) in exchange. What kind of moron acts first and is satisfied with a promise in exchange?
This is all conspiratorial nonsense anyway, the causes were well understood by the participants. Anything involving a jew is presented as causal on zero evidence. Actually, there were jews who were far more involved with the true causes, somewhere else in the story: in the german civilian government, who tried to avoid war with the US. They would later be blamed for stabbing germany in the back with this kind of 'traitorous' behaviour. They really are consistently perfidious, no matter what they do. For a people as all-powerful as them, the prime movers of history, the original cause of everything, they seem to be thwarted and condemned at every turn, forced to use subterfuge and misidirection in all of their wildly contradictory dealings.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Or 0, if you're Nietzschean or Gibbonian. After all, their statue avatars aren't from the renaissance. Some go as far back as pericles. A true rightist would tell you it was all over by middle kingdom egypt. A real masculinity appreciator knows that when man domesticated animals, he domesticated himself. Conservatives worthy of the name would consider the first instance of gardening as the seminal defeat. While serious traditionalists point to the start of gathering as the crowning triumph of Left, inc.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Ah whatever, we’re all dullards. It’s just that I felt you were trying to Euler me, and your errors are not encouraging me to change my priors in future discussions that involve equations I don’t quite grasp. However, you’ve been nothing but graceful and civil, so let me try one equation.
U = ln(wage * labor - poll_tax) - labor
Why is the poll tax wedged in that parenthesis? It has nothing to do with labor or wage, it should be outside.
I believe the following is a more traditional view of poll taxes in mathematical form:
Let U be the daily utility function of a worker
Let W be the hourly wage in utils for work performed.
Let L be the labour in hours
Let I be the utility gained from idleness, hourly
(16-L being the hours in the day where he’s not working, not sleeping.)
U = W * L + I * (16 – L)
dU/dL = W – I
So the higher his wage, and the less he enjoys idleness, the more he will work.
Add in a poll tax to his utility function , and you get:
U = W * L + I * (16 – L) – poll_tax
the poll tax disappears in the derivative, and dU/dL = W – I again. Poll tax irrelevant.
Now for the income tax:
U = W * L * (1- income_tax) + I * (16 – L)
dU/dL = W - W * income_tax – I .
The income tax is still there. Increase in income tax results in less labour. Therefore distortionary.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
At the same time in France, you’ve got the aptly named Politiques, elite supporters of the french monarchy who didn’t care that much about religion. It appears they were in the minority though, because King Henry III was involved in the ‘War of the three henrys’ with Henry, Duke of guise, chief of the catholic party, and Henry, King of navarre, chief of the protestant party(future french King Henry IV). It did not go well for Henry III, even though he had the easy central position. He lost control of most regions and paris, while the other two would just go at it, while ignoring him.
Fun fact : all of the henrys were assassinated, the second by order of the first, and the two kings by catholic zealots.
Fun connection: Henry III was actually King of Poland-lithuania for 2 years, 13 years before your guy Sigismund III Vasa. When he inherited the french throne he just up and left.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
This makes zero sense. By the time of the balfour declaration, the US had already declared war.
But no one on planet earth could have guessed that America would get involved with the war.
Everyone, first of all the germans, predicted it.
The nature of submarine warfare meant that attacks often came without warning, giving the crews of the merchant ships little hope of survival.[100][101] The United States launched a protest, and Germany changed its rules of engagement. After the sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania in 1915, Germany promised not to target passenger liners, while Britain armed its merchant ships, placing them beyond the protection of the "cruiser rules", which demanded warning and movement of crews to "a place of safety" (a standard that lifeboats did not meet).
By January 1917, however, Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and General Erich Ludendorff decided that an unrestricted submarine blockade was the only way to achieve a decisive victory. They demanded that Kaiser Wilhelm order unrestricted submarine warfare be resumed. Germany knew this decision meant war with the United States, but they gambled that they could win before America's potential strength could be mobilized.[13] However, they overestimated how many ships they could sink and thus the extent Britain would be weakened. Finally, they did not foresee that convoys could and would be used to defeat their efforts. They believed that the United States was so weak militarily that it could not be a factor on the Western Front for more than a year. The civilian government in Berlin objected, but the Kaiser sided with his military.[14]
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
otherwise you're remaining in ambiguity and might suffer some consequences if anti-Che sentiment becomes so powerful that they start demanding people be socially ostracized for any perceived defense of Che.
Answering legitimizes the witch-hunt. Their goal is not to discuss, but to silence. Their language is that of power. That behaviour is incompatible with a free and open society.
Can you indicate to me a prior instance in which a Harvard student was punished for stating "death to all (insert progressive-favored group here}" to no one in particular?
What? Professors have to write DEI statements (also known as “I love pocs” statements) as part of the application process. Mere indifference towards protected classes, not murderous intent, is disqualifying, insufficiently inclusive.
This fire article has a few examples of the free speech atmosphere at harvard, notably a student whose acceptance was revoked over comments he made on social media as a 16-year-old, which contained racial slurs.
Or for Penn:
In January 2022, Penn Law Professor Amy Wax came under public criticism for an interview in which she said the United States would be “better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.” Penn Law Dean Theodore Ruger issued a report asking Penn’s faculty senate to impose a “major sanction” against Wax — up to and including termination — for her extramural speech.
I can't find calls for genocide because conservatives already get banned for expressing any antagonism at all. But if you have examples of calls for the genocide of protected classes that went unpunished, I'm all ears.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
1616, William Shakespeare, Last will and testament:
...and the use and proffitt therof cominge shalbe payed to my saied Sister Jone...
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
In 1833, Princess Marianne of Prussia asked Prussian women to give their gold in order to fund the war against Napoleon Bonaparte.
Obvious scam. The man had been buried for over ten years at this point.
But yeah, it seemed to work, and so could this.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
It's not difficult to find companies with a P/E of 10.
My wealth tax was 1%/y yours is 10%/y. A 10% wealth tax is obviously confiscatory and destroys the economy.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
You think they'd shell out just for courtesy titles? Although for that much dough we the people can throw in an exclusive weekend once a year, where the aristocracy gets to hunt in the sacred groves of west virginia.
Shower thought: the state should manufacture luxury items, or alternatively subcontract the work to a few officially approved brands, which would pay enormous taxes for the privilege. If you buy from them, you know you’ve overpayed through the nose, so you must be rich. Basically the state sells you a licence to signal your wealth. Why should the perfectly good money of morons go into Bernard Arnault’s slimy pockets?
I always thought the state should find ways to get donations from citizens, normalize it, reward it somehow. It is technically a big charity with an army. I want to see politicians and business leaders prance around with their million dollar StatelyTM cufflinks.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
There’s team america world police and the interview, featuring stalin’s premier fan family.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
What kind of statement would you like "I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the nazi party"? I'm not defending the plagiarism, but this is ideological witch-hunting. Does every reference to che guevara have to result in a groveling apology for the crimes of communism?
I don’t know why he bothered with the edgy jokes and dogswhistles. He should have simply called for the genocide of jews, then the presidents of harvard and co would find his behaviour compatible with a strongly inclusive code of conduct.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Well I don't see any upside to a wealth tax.
As an investor who deals in highly productive capital (as opposed to less productive cash, houses or bonds), your father would be among the people who benefit the most from a wealth tax. It would be a laughable sum compared to the capital gains tax and corporate tax he pays. So imprecision barely matters. And that kind of business is the worst example possible when it comes to calculation problems. Besides, increased liquidity and transparency about how much those mom-and-pop businesses are actually worth would be economically very beneficial, though that is admittedly my personal instinct.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
That’s to the common christian’s credit. He recognizes the superiority of secular morality instead of buying into the shamelessly self-serving doctrine of the clerics: “Forget about doing good, just recognize our authority and we will grant you wine and honey. “
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
That’s… good, actually. No matter how wrong he is, he can’t possibly be as wrong as the anti-HBD science popularizers. Perhaps we should all go on the twitter, and tweet. Then again I’ve always considered our incestuous squabbling more hobby than calling.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Hilarious that thenether, aka jewdefender, aka foreverlurker, aka motteposter, is denouncing his brother in alts, futuristright, aka lepidus, (aka JB, darkrationalist?). Those two should get a room. Not here. Hash out all of that JQ and make up new slogans like “we are plural, our solution is final, our blood is ancestral, we need to corral…” , then edit the shit out of their manifestos, and come back as one, still using the royal we.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
I've been arguing this whole time that
- A wealth tax doesn't affect risk tolerance
- A capital gains tax reduces risk tolerance
Have you??? Then why does your model predict that a 99% cap gains tax cause people to put everything in stocks instead of bonds? You literally said 'capital gains taxes cause increased risk tolerance.'
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
No. You have more links.
Also, I can tell the difference because I don’t auto-skip the rest of your paragraphs. I did get through the title though, and “OUR ENEMY IS BIOLOGICAL” sounds like another departed manifestoposter whose greatest hit went: ‘OUR STRUGGLE WITH CHINA IS RACIAL”. Is this an alt right verbal tic?
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
If you love being proven wrong, you must love the doomer life.
Too snarky, I take that back.
What exactly do you think "alarmingly consistent with the most recently collected empirical data" actually means?
It means they cling to their falsified beliefs, unswayed by decades of evidence.
Which predictions have they made, that have come true? I have cited several, that were refuted.
I forgot, you have Hubbert's peak. Except, in 2017 the US blasted through the previous production record, when hubbert's peak was supposed to signal the perpetually diminishing trickle of our last oil. Honestly, do you think Hubbert predicted that?
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Pro-israel: moderate liberals and conservatives, evangelicals, jews
Anti-israel: hard left, woke, hard right, muslims
If you're looking for people endorsing 'kill the boer’, just go to one of your side's rallies, and turn your head slightly to the left.
This culture war skirmish is my favourite: finally, all the people I can’t stand are on the opposite side.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
That's not what risk is. If the company he invests in goes bankrupt, that's not helped by the 99% capital gains tax. That is the risk he cares about, not the variance on his profits. But let's not get into that.
Why are you talking about published work, or speech that is not in earshot of anyone? The context is speakers at protests.
More options
Context Copy link