justmotteingaround
No bio...
User ID: 2002
Adding to your comment from a linked article:
-
NYC has 3.8M city income tax payers
-
Average burden to each of the 41k top 1%: $18,000
-
Average burden to each of the 410k 10-1%: $1,141
-
Average burden to each of the 3.3M 0-90%: $180
Those 3 points lay on a graduated curve, but still. Oooof.
The NYC budget for FY 2023 is 37B, so the settlement (probably paid out over time) represents 5% of this years budget.
Also notable: NYC/NYS spent over decade fighting the case. The state was detached at some point. The case originated in the 1996's, and became a class-action. The implied argument was that the test was not designed to be g-loaded, nor was it confirmed to be a predictor of classroom success, which lead to unfair disparate impact. In one item, applicants were asked to explain the meaning of an Andy Warhol painting. 90% of white test takers passed the 80 question test, while 53% of Blacks and 50% of Latinos passed.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
I've actually wondered how public schools dodged the bullet of horrific pedo scandal that rightfully hit the Catholic church and the Boy Scouts.
It's probably way less common on a per-capita basis. For whatever reason, males commit ~90% of child sexual abuse. The younger the students, the more overwhelmingly female the teachers. And unlike schools, The Catholic Church and Boy Scouts have structures where the highest ranking authority figure can create significant alone time with children. The Sandusky scandal was similar.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
It was amazing how much that question pissed off my acquaintances.
Seems more highly predictable than amazing. I'd save such questions for a more appropriate social context (ie here, among a different group), even if they're interesting. To borrow an imperfect analogy from the imperfect gender debate: momness is a spectrum. If the kids, father, and law all view the stepmom as a mom, then yeah, stepmom is pretty much a mom. Self ID doesn't work here because so much of momness is contained in others. Steven Dubner of Freakonomics fame has talked about adopting a kid (after having many kids the usual way). The kid was adopted near birth, and he says it was just as special.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
I'm sorry you're feeling troubled, spiritually adrift, morally uncertain, etc. I think these experiences the core issue. There may be a variety of solutions (religion, philosophy, exercise, meditation, a deep and abiding acceptance of these experiences as okay, diligent safe use of psychedelics, finding a group with common
interests).
Secular Buddhism and meditation suit me just fine, but I'm not sure if these would work for you. I have been heavily influenced by the works of David Loy (in particular Lack and Transcendence), as well as various meditation retreats. This epistemic universe attracts a disproportionate amount of wokies, lefties, and nonsense woo-woo. However, these things are not inherent to the philosophy or practice, and can be ignored/accepted with some effort. Buddhism and meditation are about not losing the balance of the mind in any situation. They seek to solve/dissolve existential angst and/or moral uncertainty by accepting them without becoming mentally or emotionally perturbed. For moral philosophy I've been influenced by Sam Harris (in particular The Moral Landscape, as well as Waking Up: A guide to spirituality without religion). As I said, these may not be a good fit for you, but I think they're neat. Importantly, they focus on reducing the experience of suffering, including feeling troubled by moral uncertainty. It's the journey to realizing you never needed an ark, or answers; of accepting being lost at sea, of being at peace with the fact that we all eventually deteriorate into worm food. The Waking Up meditation app is free if you ask. I've never used it, but I hear good things.
There are some contradictions or paradoxes in your post. I'm not criticising you personally. On the one hand you feel morally uncertain. However, you appear to be asking for moral reassurance to questions for which you already have rigid answers. You feel strongly about things, but are not sure if you believe them. You want something deep and rich, but you want it quickly. Ultimately, this is all fine. So long as it gets you looking for a solution to how troubled you feel. You may want to talk to various mainstream spiritual teachers. I think priests, pastors, and the like are open to talking with members outside their flock. Also, there are Unitarian churches which takes all manner of spiritual seekers, from atheists to Mormons. At a minimum, you could talk to a half dozen or so such people. I think you'll reap and immediate benefit of getting some stuff off your chest, and you may find the next step.
As as I said at the beginning, I think worrying about all this stuff to the point where it's eating you up is the core issue. I don't want you to feel this way for any longer than is necessary. Talk to some people. Try some new things. Best wishes on finding what's best for you.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
When left-wingers make grandiose claims of moral and cultural authority
This isn't unique to left wingers. In a previous CW thread, OP posted an "excellent" essay by Jared Taylor in which the author ironically goes full smug
Our most powerful weapon is that we are right. The way we see the world is... morally unimpeachable. Ours is as noble a cause as history has ever seen. One for which a man would thankfully lay down his life. We must not destroy [our opposition] but enlighten and lead to the truth... This is the greatest challenge our people have ever faced. Together, we will fight in the greatest cause for which anyone has ever fought, and we will certainly win.
Simply responding to OP, Taylor, etc with: "Chekist/Nazi's/outgroup deserve only contempt" is antithetical the the goals of themotte.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
Great idea. My guess is general lament of the SC, accusations of racism and/or white supremacy, calls for solidarity. Certainty: medium. Time spent: 3 minutes.
Results: totally wrong. The top 10 reader picks seemed to endorse reform, make AA a class issue, and talked about the unfairness to Asians.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
I had my assumptions challenged. I thought the vaccines would be fine (ie a net benefit across all age cohorts), but when they were being recommended to children and young men I found myself to opinions other than the vaccines are the best/worst thing ever.
if there was even a small uptick in deaths and other complications, it would be a huge deal and unavoidable.
In a bunch of countries there is newish data indicating increased excess deaths not attributable to Covid. The confounders are myriad, but there is allegedly an unattributed signal to analyse.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
Then we disagree about what is true. AFAIK ex-presidents cannot keep classified information. Perhaps this wasn't the case 53 years ago.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
I enthusiastically support movements away from doomerism and towards a "can-do" sense of empowerment. I'm on the sidelines of the race consciousness game, and Taylors essay and especially OP provided useful inside baseball commentary. I felt Taylor kind of embarrassed himself in the closing. In an essay deriding the smug and self-righteous left, he ends by declaring
Our most powerful weapon is that we are right. The way we see the world is... morally unimpeachable. Ours is as noble a cause as history has ever seen. One for which a man would thankfully lay down his life. We must not destroy [our opposition] but enlighten and lead to the truth... This is the greatest challenge our people have ever faced. Together, we will fight in the greatest cause for which anyone has ever fought, and we will certainly win.
To be blunt, I view most identity politics as an intellectually confused mind virus. However, I don't care who engages in it to the extent it doesn't produce unreasonable negative externalities (ie baseless riots, race war, or, perhaps worst of all, a mandatory Robin DeAngelo seminar). But as Taylor and OP note, you get more bees with honey.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
While I can empathize with discontent caused by anti-Anglo identity politics, the claim that they have been pushed out every powerful position is so factually incorrect it borders on fantasy. Wealth, political power, judicial power, institutional power, and business power is overwhelmingly and disproportionately in the hands of Anglos. This is neither inherently good nor bad, but it can take thick skin to understand. I fail to see anything wrong with aspiring to achieve the highest ideals of the declaration of independence and US constitution.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
People can stop out of self interest. The strength and nature of identities can have varying utility. For example, it isn't optimal to violently persecute the Quakers because they're a different tribe, or hold back the Irish because they're more recent immigrants than, say, the English. Being a Yankee vs Red Socks fan isn't likely to produce huge negative externalities for the individual or society, whereas being a Hindu or white nationalist would. If the irrationality of identity politics can't be eliminated because it is innate to some extent, we can chose more optimal levels of identification and tribal delineation.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
how do you convince other people to stop
That's the million dollar question. It don't think it will be easy, fast, and I don't claim that it's necessarily possible. Tribalism is almost certainly a useful evolved trait. Nevertheless, the long view of history makes me optimistic that slow incrementalism can get us to form tribes/tribal identities which lower net human suffering compared to the status quo. Within the US, The Know Nothing party would seem absurd today. So would a war of Quakers vs Catholics, or whatever. Skin color, ethnicity, and religious affiliation are the lowest hanging fruit. The fact that Thomas Sowell and Glenn Lowry are black is the least interesting thing about them, and reveals almost no useful information about their essence.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
but claim to have purchased yourself
This breaks the analogy because there is no legal theory where Trump can claim he owned the property, especially after he was no longer president. He didn't create the documents. His office may have, but it was probably created by the IC. Regardless, it's spelled out that he can't keep any of it after he leaves office. Sure, it might be mingled with personal effects which need to be separated, but he is legally required to give back State property. Of course he is allowed to dispute that he is allowed to keep it, but he can't refuse to show why.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
Imagine describing to an alien that the official policy of the US is to abolish the police, decrimnalize hard drugs, endorse looting, arson, rioting, the release of violent criminals, and the violent take over of streets. Do you think they would have a accurate picture of policy in the USA?
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
Jews and non-Jews will always naturally develop into hostility.
Only if we keep playing the identity politics game. Erroneously ascribing group traits to individuals, or conflating group criticism with bigotry, is the poison pill which melts brains. For example, its possible to criticize aspects of 'black culture' (population level) without impugning individuals. I'm not claiming people will interpret such criticism charitably, but that's because they swallowed the poison pill. It's possible to notice that the Jews are successful without spite for members of that group. It might be expedient to simply join a different tribe (American, the middle class, Democrats, Republicans, Unitarians, (who, coincidentally, may have the highest IQ's)). But this is only because people keep playing identity politics.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
The goalposts were
police reform is now inextricably linked in the minds of at least half the populace total police abolition, lighter sentences, less bail, decriminalising hard drugs, violent criminals out on the streets by lunchtime, rioting, arson, looting, violent takeover of city streets and public areas and anti-white ideology
The data indicate that, for most of these things, public support falls a far south 50%. ~85% of Americans want police funding to remain the same or increase. More people want it to increase substantially than to decrease substantially.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
thus they were far less secure
This doesn't follow from the given. Allegedly they were lost in some locked closed that nobody went in and out of for years. Something like that. The FBI had security footage from Mar al Lago of people going in and out of where the documents were stored.
The fact that team Trump was adversarial to the classification people doesn't make his conduct bad.
It course it makes his conduct worse. I mean, whats worse: unknowingly keeping a work laptop, then giving immediately when found; or, unknowingly keeping a work laptop, and refusing to give it back, and forcing the police to come get it?
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
No, I mean that these positions are as likely to ascent to power as the Mises wing Libertarian party. Sure, some people probably want their neighborhoods looted and burned to the ground. I'm not especially worried about them gaining a consensus.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
hell, all of education
Yeah. Something like 90+% are liberals, which is super unhealthy. I imagine its not that different in Hollywood.
Also what do you mean by this?
I think echo chambers like themotte have a skewed perception of reality ie lots of doomerism over the intellectually bankrupt ideology that can broadly be described as "wokeism". It's a problem, but polling suggests its near the fringes.
The nation is approximately 50% Democrat; 50% Republican. The commenter I was responding to was hesitant to endorse legislation he agrees with because it is too ideologically aligned with people who want to see more arson, looting, and violent crime. This strikes me as insane, and, at the very least, is contradicted by whatever data we have. Unsurprisingly, only a small minority of people want their neighborhoods burned to the ground while they are hunted by violent criminals.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
Which is most still do and
At the height of the violence, support for "reasonable" violence peaked at 22%. Without looking I'd be willing to bet fewer than 10% of congressmen endorsed violence at that time. Would also bet that the majority decried it when asked.
Claims that majorities genuinely want, will want, or recently wanted riots, violence, arson, looting, and violent criminals released by lunchtime does not comport with the data. Its an irrational belief in total contradiction to the lives claim they want.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
This conflates national and federal polities. And at the Federal level, you have the Koch and Federalist cartels to undermine the public for conservatives, balancing things out. The US is a divided nation, but its between 60/40 and 50/50. Nevertheless, what flies in California won't pass muster in Alabama.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
I'm sure exceptions to the rule exist, but we should deal in probabilities and stive for accurate piors. The president ran on being against the death penalty, and was elected. In my examples, I'm talking about sub 20% popular support. I don't know what it was in France.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
with total police abolition, lighter sentences, less bail, decriminalising hard drugs, violent criminals out on the streets by lunchtime, rioting, arson, looting, violent takeover of city streets and public areas and anti-white ideology
Good news: Most of these positions have effectively zero public support, with the possible exception of bail reform.
This poll was done at the height of the Floyd riots.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/reuters-ipsos-civil-unrest-george-floyd-2020-06-02
Four in five Americans (82%) report that peaceful protests are an appropriate response to the killing of an unarmed man by police, while 22% say that violence and unrest is an appropriate response.
A similar number of Americans (79%) say that the property damage caused by some demonstrators undermines the original intent of the protest’s call for justice in George Floyd’s death.
Republicans (83%) and Democrats (77%) agree that property damage ultimately undermines the cause of the demonstrators.
justmotteingaround
3yr ago
While I don't expect the public to follow the plot, both incidents do have quantitative and qualitative differences, though I suspect this will become less true as time goes on. As far as I know, Team Biden found about 12 documents and handed them over within 24 hours, whereas Team Trump had around 300 and dragged his feet for months.
Anyone crying "where is the raid" is either trying to score political points in bad faith (which is fine if that's the game), or is not thinking too hard.
the President is deflecting and denying rather than crying “witch hunt”
He appears to be front-running it, if anything. Now that the story is (finally) out, he said
[The people who found the documents] did what they should have done. They immediately called the [National Archives] … turned them over to the Archives, and I was briefed about this discovery and surprised to learn that there were any government records that were taken there to that office," the president added. "But I don't know what's in the documents. My lawyers have not suggested I ask what documents they were
I couldn't find the link for this claim:
It seems outrageous. 1:15 teachers sexually abuse kids? And only 20% are males? The a-priori likelihood is low because of the offender rate and composition of the institutions. Unless schools hire females with a 10x offending rate, AND churches (broadly) hire males with 10-100x lower offending rate (based on this averaged with this, accounting for this. Its a-priori statistically very unlikely for male dominated or 50/50 places, to have higher offending rates than 60/40+ males spaces. But its possible.
All that said, the offender rate comports well with a good article from a solid source. But definitions make everything wonky, conflating language with acts sometimes. So I don't really know with any confidence. Bayes makes me think sex abuse is always much lower the more female dominated a place is.
More options
Context Copy link