magicalkittycat
3mo ago
So you explicitly agree with the woke leftists that professors and researchers with "bad opinions" should be punished even if it's not irrelevant to their work?
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
So you explicitly agree with the woke leftists that professors and researchers with "bad opinions" should be punished even if it's not irrelevant to their work?
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
So you explicitly agree with the woke leftists that professors and researchers with "bad opinions" should be punished even if it's not irrelevant to their work?
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
So you explicitly agree with the woke leftists that professors and researchers with "bad opinions" should be punished even if it's not irrelevant to their work?
Will you be upset if the left comes back into power and explicitly targets all conservatives with funding cuts after you've said it's now ok to do?
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
So you agree with the woke leftists that professors and researchers with "bad opinions" should be punished even if it's not irrelevant to their work?
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
You agree with the woke leftists that professors and researchers with "bad opinions" should be punished even if it's not irrelevant to their work?
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Oh so what you're saying is that the Dems should go nuclear next election and cut funding for all conservatives unless they go woke and we should go into an arms war of being the Serious Threat each time one group is in power?
Or are only conservatives morally justified in destroying science for culture war issues?
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Are you saying the government should punish one of the greatest mathematicians alive because he expressed his political opinions on things and the current leader doesn't like it?
Man I thought woke cancel culture was insane in their assault on academic freedom and free speech on campuses but this seems to be going up a whole nother level.
Punishing legitimate and important academic work is the best way to go about deterrence, as it motivates normal academics to police their extremist colleagues, rather than acquiescing again.
Doesn't that just incentive all the smart intellectuals (including those who just want to grill research) to hate you for being the worse of two evils? If one is saying "just add this line of text to your grants" and the other is saying "we will destroy you and your ability to do science and math", I'm not sure why they'd start siding with the second.
“Conservatives will harm valuable research” is an argument that will persuade an elite and effete academic,
Yeah, seems like it will persuade them that conservatives are actively dangerous to scientific research.
The response to Tao's article pointing out times he's talked about politics before in the past is interesting to me, because nowhere at all (that I know of) has Trump or his administration stated that he is targeting funding over a professor's personal beliefs. And yet somehow it seems everyone just takes it for granted, of course it's targeted government punishment coming down over personal wrongthink they say, Tao's beliefs are definitely relevant to the cuts.
Very odd, I don't think I've seen this happen much before where even the main defenders are like "ok yeah we all think Trump is lying but the libs deserve it. It's obviously angry revenge first and foremost"
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
When reading a news article, let the word "could" serve as a little bell. In journo-speak, it means "isn't technically impossible". When someone knows they'll be sued and they'll lose if they say something "will" happen, they say it "could" instead. Any time you see the word "could", it negates everything that follows.
That heuristic goes way too far into the point of absurdity. Sometimes they say could just because they don't want to appear like psychics with 100% accuracy when they aren't that. Especially since policy can always change. You don't wanna say something will happen only for the underlying causes to disappear underneath your claim.
While they're not currently a net positive financially, there's a lot of invisible societal gains even for thin people.
-
Less fat people in general means a better looking world. You'll see less chubby kids with chubby parents while at the mall or the park or other public spaces and more attractive looking people. You'll have more hot women and men available for dating, no longer having to settle as much on looks for someone with a good personality match.
-
Less fat people gives gains elsewhere like not ending up sitting next to a fat guy on a plane or being able to do physical activities with your formally fat friend. All sorts of little small annoyances and issues that will be alleviated by a thinner world.
-
Resources can benefit even more from economy of scale when we can start assuming people are within a certain size range more often. For example clothing stores can offer larger selections in your size and not have to spend as much space on having XLs and XXLs and the like because the market demand for those will be much smaller.
-
Your family and friends who are fat will be healthier and prettier and that's just a good thing too if you care about your family and friends.
And that's just on top of not currently a net positive financially. We might be able to improve on it more and get to the point where we have a world of thin hot people for cheap.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
and nobody other than the local residents has given a shit.
That's not true at all, there's programs like the rural health fund and the the start of rural emergency hospitals program in 2023 and stuff like that being created to help keep them open and functioning.
Rural healthcare struggles to break even yet alone turn a profit, even more would be shutting down if it wasn't for Medicaid/Medicare and programs like that.
And there's extra benefits even within these programs like how sole community hospitals get higher rates
Sole community hospitals (SCHs) are hospitals that are the only source of short-term, acute inpatient care in a region. Medicare reimburses some SCHs at higher rates than they would have received under IPPS, including based on historical costs. Since 2006, CMS has also increased OPPS rates for rural SCHs. SCHs receive $0.8 billion in higher payments annually (including low-volume adjustments to SCHs) according to a 2022 MedPAC report.
It's arguably not enough, but it's definitely helping rural healthcare stay afloat when they're literally just given more money.
Could you explain how this is different and why I should be more concerned?
It's not different, we are doing stuff to try to help our rural hospitals already and we should keep doing that stuff and help more.
Or, for that matter, why people who aren't from here and didn't care then should care now?
Rural communities and urban communities depend on each other. Urban zones might be the main money areas but they need things from the rural areas still like food or that high quality quartz.
Also ya know, empathy, religious duty, etc other general reasons to help out others in need.
Also keep in mind these cuts aren't impacting just the rural areas anyway. Less funds for mental institutions and the like will have an impact on the urban areas.
The latter class votes Republican because they hate the former class and want them thrown off Medicaid. This isn't poor people voting to throw themselves off Medicaid, it's contractors voting to throw addicts off of welfare.
This is also Republicans possibly losing their rural hospital
From the article again
During a June 19 special meeting of the Mitchell County Board of Commissioners, Jeff Harding, chair of the all-Republican board, said the hospital’s closure “could be devastating to our small community” and urged residents to contact their elected officials.
This is an all-republican board concerned about the impact.
Unless the good hard working rural Republicans are superhumans who don't need a hospital and anyone who is concerned is just a RINO, it's going to hurt them too because the economics of rural healthcare is already tight.
Despite having a Democrat governor, the Republican (almost) supermajority in state congress and the past decade of slowly removing powers from the governorship combined with NC already having a low power governorship means a lot of things that would normally be in the governor's hands are instead in the state Congress. North Carolina might even be the weakest governor in the nation
As governor, Stein holds essentially no power over the state budget other than the obligation to share his vision with Republican lawmakers who are free to promptly discard it in favor of their own.
His veto power is one of the weakest in the country, with no ability to object to specific items in budget bills, redistricting legislation, constitutional amendments or bills that apply to fewer than 15 counties.
He doesn’t even get to appoint his executive team. The attorney general, secretary of state, superintendent of public instruction and six other primary executive offices are elected by the people.
Federal Medicaid cuts in the OBBA are hitting NC in two months and they're pretty severe. The effects of this funding cut will slash a lot of things that I think most people right or left wing would agree are useful to have.
First every provider gets at least a 3% rate cut. Then due to the share of spending, a much larger rate reduction of 10% is on inpatient and residential medical institutions. This includes acute care hospitals, nursing homes, PTRFs (basically the mental hospitals/modern asylums), and intermediate care facilities (these are for intellectual/developmentally disabled people who need intermittent nursing).
The rate reductions will see an already stretched mental health system in the state need to cut back on access more. For an admin that claims to want more institutional treatment of the mentally ill, addicts, etc, this will ironically be one of the biggest deinstitutionalization effects in the state.
Another effect is the removal of GLP-1 drug coverage for obesity. I don't think I need to prove that they're very effective at weight loss, and obesity is a major health issue so a lot of people finally finding themselves losing weight are going to be hurting in the next few months as their prescriptions get cut. While GLP-1 medications isn't yet a net positive financially, the impact it has on people's health can not be ignored.
This also will likely hurt their ability to ensure proper compliance with the program.
Sangvai also indicated administrative cuts ahead, including ending or reducing contracts, letting temporary employees go, and ending some quality control and compliance functions. “These cuts will significantly impair NC Medicaid’s ability to be responsive to emerging needs and inquiries, monitor services for quality and compliance, and continue making timely operational improvements,” he wrote.
And as they point out
“Despite careful efforts to minimize harm, the reductions now required carry serious and far-reaching consequences. Most immediately, reduced rates and the elimination of services could drive providers out of the Medicaid program, threatening access to care for those who need it most,” Sangvai wrote. “NCDHHS remains hopeful that additional appropriations can be made to prevent these reductions.”
Medicaid reimbursement rates are already lower than commercial insurances tend to be and plenty of providers won't take it for that reason already.. This will likely get even worse, as poor and disabled people struggle to find providers.
This is especially going to hurt the poor rural areas (ones that voted Trump in) that are already struggling financially and don't benefit as much from economy of scale like the local areas.
About a week ago The Asheville Citizen Times did a report on the nearby rural Mitchell county and their upcoming fears over the cuts.
For example, they're worried that the already tight financials of the Blue Ridge Regional might be forced to close
During a June 19 special meeting of the Mitchell County Board of Commissioners, Jeff Harding, chair of the all-Republican board, said the hospital’s closure “could be devastating to our small community” and urged residents to contact their elected officials.
At the meeting, commissioners passed a resolution in support of the hospital, calling it a “vital resource,” one that saved lives during Helene, which devastated Mitchell and the surrounding counties the hospital serves.
Immediately after the storm hit, the hospital became a hub for relief efforts. It wasn’t just where people could go if they were severely injured and needed care, it was the one place where nonprofits, the federal government and others could show up and help, Kimmel said.
Blue Ridge Regional is the hospital of Spruce Pine, a town you might recognize from coverage of last year's storm as being one of the only places in the world with high quality quartz. It's still important to have some people in the surrounding region for this work (and other work providing for the quartz industry and workers) but their small size as mentioned before doesn't benefit from economy of scale and impact of automation has had a toll on their wealth too. Still they're very important to have around, making up anywhere from 80-90% of the high quality quartz used in the world. And sometime soon, they may be without a hospital, a hospital that was pretty useful during Helene.
So that's the issues my state is going to be facing soon. How is it going to impact your state Motte users?
Closeted men is perfectly valid, but bisexuals? That's not risk management, that's bigotry (pun intended?).
I think that can be the case if they're applying to everyone, but a lot of people who call themselves bi are like barely bi. Heck, a lot of people who call themselves bi are basically not bisexual at all outside of "shrugs, I'd do a guy/girl if I found them attractive I guess" types who also can't name a single same sex person they've ever found attractive. I imagine a lot of them are way less comfortable with sexuality and a lot more "boring" to sleep with.
But definitely going after a straight guy to see if he's down for a lay as well comes off as an odd contradiction here.
Popper-inhaling, incontinent, promiscuous people who go to bath houses and have sex in the corner of a bar where anybody can come in and have a drink, well, I have little defense of that beyond my general liberal principles.
Eh, I think a lot of that is just because it's two men involved and they tend to be a lot more openly sexual in general. Women complain all the time in a similar manner about straight guys, so it tracks that two guys together are gonna be pretty nuts.
It could be explained idealogically, but there's a simpler answer that also explains "why did Mississippi fail so hard for so long then?" and "why is Mississippi the standout and not all the red states?"
That explanation is human nature. It's the idea trap
People don't like change so they're opposed to mixing things up even if it's better. People don't like to admit they made a mistake, so they keep treading down the same path out of denial. These changes were largely pushed by Carey Wright, an educator and superintendent with little connection to the terrible education decisions made by her state level predecessors. Mississippi has been bad for so long that many of the original people who made it bad don't have much influence anymore and this allows more political pressure to try something else without tons of people in power having to swallow their pride. The main meat of Mississippi's reputation comes from the late 20th century, some of the issues as far back as the 70s!
Some of the states like California are now stuck here. Superintendents, principals and education heads who simply can not admit they made a major mistake. They all huddle together unable to swallow their pride, convinced that it must not have been a mistake at all then and something else must be going on.
It's why you see things like, antivax parents whose kids die of preventable diseases doubling down in the community. One way says "oh god I killed my kid" placing a lot of moral shame and guilt on them, the other way says "I did nothing wrong", and people pick the latter. An abuse victim often goes further into the relationship. Many of the UFO believers double down when the prophecy doesn't happen. It's a hit to our ego to admit fault, especially mistakes that can't be rectified.
Many of those with the highest levels of belief, commitment and social support became more committed to their beliefs, began to court publicity in a way they had not before, and developed various rationalizations for the absence of the flood.
I'm frankly disappointed in Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Going back on their initial mockery of climate change; keeping their mouths shut on the frankly ridiculous clown world tier state of dems/ zombie Bidden. Where were they for the four years of nonstop gaslighting and censorship we endured?
Facing Covid disruptions and then streaming deal agreement issues. They were still able to make some but it was limited and messy.
"This merger is a shitshow and it's fucking up South Park. We are at the studio working on new episodes and we hope the fans get to see them somehow."
"We’ve tried to do South Park through four or five presidential elections, and it is such a hard thing to—it’s such a mind scramble, and it seems like it takes outsized importance,” Stone told Vanity Fair.
Stone said that the election is "obviously...f---ing important, but it kind of takes over everything and we just have less fun."
Plus, as Parker pointed out, the pair "don’t know what more we could possibly say about Trump.”
Even the first episode this season was delayed due to all the streaming rights fuckery.
I think this is part of why the new season's first episode was "incoherent" as the OP put it, a lot of people didn't follow along with the show so the meta commentary on the process and their anger at Paramount being expressed through targeting the Trump deal didn't make sense to them. Part of the bait isn't just to get the Trump admin mad, it's to get them more mad at Paramount.
It's actually really funny if you understand the metaphor. Cartman and Butters in the car represents the "suicide" of Matt and Trey going down this path, trying to upset the executives. They don't know what if anything will come from it, but fuck it they're bringing the fight. The anger and freakouts at them from the right are not just icing on the cake, they're part of the formula
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
It's not really possible to know too well, Trump just shits out words and claims at random. But decent chance it's real and he just said it was because he was briefed quite recently. Would also explain the pivot on Russia if he thought they were losers for such a drastic ratio.
But even if he was making it up and it was lower, even half with 7:1 ratio would still be fantastic.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Is this actually true?
Well
-
From a common sense view, straw purchasing and theft of legal guns can't really happen if purchasing and legal guns don't exist.
-
No way to prevent this says only nation where this regularly happens is a joke for a reason. Most other first world nations don't seem to have nearly as much gun violence, and they also have more restrictive laws.
Maybe it's worth the freedom (I think it is for most responsible gun owners) but it certainly seems true that less guns in general helps lead to less guns for criminals. Although as 3D printed firearms and the like become easier to do, we might see this equalizing as criminals might not have to steal to begin with.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Yeah I would not be surprised if laws against concealed carrying helped contribute to this issue! That being said, a cursory look in cars shows a surprising amount of firearms just sitting in plain view, not even under a seat or in the glovebox so I think a fair bit of that is irresponsible owners.
magicalkittycat
3mo ago
Many people did not think this argument was fine in 1776. The patriot militias were very much understood to be out-gunned and under-equipped. Pragmatic loyalists argued in the continental congress that the colonists lacked artillery, a navy, a cavalry, etc. To say nothing of the divergent quality of firearms: many observers noted that the rusty muskets pulled down from over minutemen's fireplaces were no match for the cleaned and oiled Land Pattern Muskets of the redcoats. This argument has been made against every guerilla army, and while guerilla warfare isn't a win-now button, it has been proven effective.
The advantage in weaponry back in 1776 is like two different sized water bottles, the advantage in weaponry now is a water bottle vs a giant lake. Guerilla armies thrive nowadays for a number of reasons, but a lot of it is that the big armies don't go all out.
The stark difference between say, the US during WW2 vs the US during the Iraq War suggests we have a lot of extra capacity we could throw at any issue if we wanted to. We just don't really want to, Americans don't want to feel actual meaningful sacrifices from the nonsense going on in the Middle East, so we throw a fraction of overall power at it. Israel doesn't want to (or at least are held back from) just rounding up all the Palestinians and shooting/bombing/etc. Hamas only operates by hiding in civilian cover and even then they still don't inflict much meaningful damage back. Their fight for survival is us scratching an itch on our backs.
Even when wars are more equal, it's often because they have the support of other great powers. Look at Russia vs Ukraine rn, they're both getting equipment (and sometimes even troops) from various different sources, and according to Trump Russia still seems to be facing a 14:1 ratio against Ukraine. and this is Russia
Ukraine is getting a pittance of western firepower compared to what we could do (we're not even at Iraq levels of sacrifice) if we really wanted to go all out and they're holding on strong against the Russians.
I'm sure a bunch of rogue American militias could go around shooting up theaters or something and terrorizing government siding citizens, but as long as the military stays loyal they don't got a chance if we actually wanna go all out.
The better hope here is that the military is made up of normal Americans, many who will side with the citizens if it ever got to the point where most Americans wanted an uprising to begin with.
There are three categories of people that nearly everyone agrees should not be allowed to own a firearm:
I think the biggest issue with guns isn't about trusting most other legal members of society but keeping them out of the dangerous hands to begin with. Shady dealers, private market sales, straw purchasing, theft, etc. These are all much easier to prevent in a society with few guns and strict controls then a society with guns everywhere.
And there's no simple easy way to tell the difference between a fine person and a dangerous person. A guy walking around in a balaclava holding a rifle near a politically charged demonstration might be perfectly safe and only intending on self-defense, or he could be planning a mass shooting. And sure that guy with severe road rage who screams and yells at other drivers on his daily commute might have some severe anger issues, but does that mean when he gets into a fight at the bar he'll start shooting? And maybe Joe Random is perfectly fine normally but when he gets drunk he turns irresponsible and shoots at his neighbor. And Johnny Schizo in his early stages just got brainfucked by chatgpt pretending to be a god and told to kill his family.
Determining who is responsible with them can be a difficult task, and restricting the pipelines is tough. One of the biggest sources of illegal guns is parked cars. I might trust you with a gun, but I don't trust the guy who just broke your car window in the middle of the night and stole your gun.
And that's much harder to solve, because even if you require people to store guns securely at all times are we gonna start arresting people because they forgot it in their car coming home from the range?
There's no point in explaining why it's another level of wrong for government to target scientists and researchers funding over wrongthink if they're perfectly fine with that level of government suppression over academic freedom to begin with.
More options
Context Copy link