naraburns
nihil supernum
No bio...
User ID: 100
naraburns
nihil supernum
9mo ago
When racists in the US government diverted vaccines away from white people to black people did that hurt black people? I think it helped them.
Sure. So we should complain about racism, not divert vaccines away from black people instead.
When Harvard gives black people an advantage in admissions does that hurt or help them?
To hear Clarence Thomas tell, it hurts them. But perhaps more importantly, trying to judge "hurt" and "help" in terms of who gets to be a Supreme Court justice or Yale law professor, and who is instead relegated to graduating from a top-10 law school and making millions of dollars as a partner at a top law firm (but who doesn't get to tell her friends she went to Harvard) seems like piss-poor reckoning. It's not as though the Asians "harmed" by Harvard's racism (whites actually appear to benefit very slightly, or at least not be harmed, by Harvard's preferences) are facing a choice between Harvard and never going to college. The real harm is so slight as to be essentially invisible, except for the part where we decide to reject racism on principle instead of on the basis of who gets to have the most desirable status signals. Rejecting racism on principle is good.
If I own a store and exclude people of race X because I think they shoplift a lot and are a net drain on the business then that is racist
It's not racist to see facts. If there is an ethnic propensity for antisocial behavior, there's nothing wrong with taking reasonable action as a result.
...and illegal
Right, you can't just say "because black people are more likely to shoplift, all black people are excluded." Instead you should say "we need to construct a law enforcement system which makes it easier to detain and punish shoplifters." There's nothing racist about that. Oh, sure, an identitarian will say there's something racist about that when it turns out that a bunch of mostly non-white kids are the ones who end up actually doing time, but I am not an identitarian, I'm the one arguing against identitarianism.
To use your example, if I own a business and I think women are worse workers and hire them with a lower starting salary then I'm being sexist.
No, that's wrong! This is exactly my point. To call that sexist is the problem with identitarianism! Pay people whatever you want! As a job creator you don't owe it to anyone to pay a penny more than they are worth! And if they are worth more than that, someone else will pay them more. But if you're sexist, you're at a disadvantage versus others who are gauging merit instead. There are of course inefficiencies in the market, this won't work perfectly, but your responses to me are completely mis-targeted because I'm the one arguing against identitarianism! You're criticizing certain bad social practices and telling me "to combat racism and sexism I have to be racist and sexist" but all you've done is accepted the wrong definitions of racism and sexism. Once you do that, it's just "ingroup versus outgroup" all the way down, you lose the ability to complain persuasively about racial and sexual preferences because you've shown that you want racial and sexual preferences for yourself. A black-hating racist and a white-hating racist are just engaged in a game of power, there's no principle to appeal to, just pure in-group preference. But very often it is cooperation, not competition, that we need to coordinate if we're going to get stag.
Or another example, if I know race X commits crime at a high rate and I find myself walking around an unfamiliar city at night in an area with a lot of X, what should I do? Leaving the area is racist
I cannot emphasize this enough: you are just buying the wrong definition of racist here. If you disagree with left-identitarians, why would you let them define your key terms? This is what makes me crazy about the alt-right: they allow their enemies to set the poles of the debate--and that means they are destined to lose. They have lost the game before they have even begun to fight.
Identitarianism is always going to win in a democracy because embracing identitarianism gives you a bloc of perfectly loyal voters.
I agree that democracy is mostly bad and even the small protections of minority rights built into the U.S. system (Supreme Court, Bill of Rights, the original selection method for senators, the Great Compromise, the electoral college) have been much eroded by identitarianism. Proposing to fight fire with fire, however, too often just ends up getting you burned.
...you can't have race blindness because sooner or later one political party is going to learn that they can win by abandoning it.
This is a different problem, though. You're no longer arguing for "the good kind of racism," now you're arguing against the practice of democracy. Because if political parties can't divide people along racial lines, they will just divide people along some other lines. The blues and the greens of the Roman chariot races are the canonical example, I think.
The United States began as an uneasy alliance between a bunch of "white" abolitionists and a bunch of "white" slavers. Later came Germans (now "white"), Irishmen (now "white"), Chinese immigrants (now "white adjacent" for purposes of college admissions), Hispanics (usually "white" within two or three generations)... Native Americans who don't maintain sufficient blood or cultural purity become "white," many blacks "pass" as "white," the way these lines get drawn is political.
And sure, you can say "I would like these lines to be drawn to my benefit," but then you're just doing the same stupid thing the people you're complaining about (indirectly, in your selection of examples) are doing, in reverse. And intelligence is not reversed stupidity.
naraburns
nihil supernum
9mo ago
And likewise, I agree to an extent. But I feel like the examples you give, and the more complicated ones you didn't give, fall into "just so" stories, narrow selections of what-might-have-been.
For example: by young and try buying a house. "Depending on where you live" is doing a lot of work in your example of price and other pressures. Houses today are bigger and in other ways far more luxurious than they were 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago. Anti-growth environmentalism and government overregulation (including various government subsidies for, especially, first-time home buyers) have far more to do with anyone's housing woes, than immigration. And even so, "Generation Z" is actually tracking as more likely to own a home than their parents were at their age.
Are the streets meaner, crime higher? Well, "depending on where you live," no, for example violent crime has gotten a little worse since the Great Awokening (thanks, Obama!) but is still way down from its peak some 30 years ago. Immigration has probably suppressed some wages, but in the United States the people who seem to be most economically harmed by Hispanic immigration are black Americans who are the next most likely demographic to pick up the manual labor. Oh, sure, maybe some white kid has a harder time getting a good wage at a coding job because the government is handing out H1B visas like Halloween candy, but people have been predicting the total implosion of computer science as a viable career choice for at least two decades that I know of; still doesn't appear to be happening and young white kids with CS degrees are still making a lot more money fresh out of school than, say, me as an educator. There are no solutions--only tradeoffs!
In other words, it's not about what you could have in multiracial America, it's about what you could have in monoracial America.
But what do you lose in a monoracial America? What do other people lose? The identitarian position for white nationalists and black separatists and those who make "stolen land acknowledgments" is always the same: "my people would be better off if everyone else would just submit to our demands!" Well, maybe that's true, but history tells a very different story: trade and liberty (in particular, of movement and commerce) leads to widespread increases in quality of life, in ways that nothing else ever has in all of history. If it is true that white people can be better off, overall, by denying some liberty to non-white people, and non-white people can be better off, overall, by denying some liberty to white people, and both groups set about denying liberty to the other--then the practical result is that neither group is going to be better off in the end, they're just going to constantly be fighting about which group gets to be on top. Better to find intelligent ways to cooperate, than to compete in a zero-sum game (that might not even pan out empirically in the end). Especially since white people are a small and shrinking global minority.
Of course, there is a global ethnic minority that did attempt to build itself an ethnonationalist homeland, and I don't know what history has in store for Israel but I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not "peace in our time." Likewise, casino operation has changed this in some places to some degree, but ethnically pure Indian Reservations are in general riddled with poverty and cultural malaise. Even Japan, arguably a shining beacon of ethnonationalism and certainly an economic powerhouse, is struggling with demographics and economics in ways that are changing their historically xenophobic culture rapidly. There just aren't any positive examples of "purge the undesirables" I can find anywhere in history; the most successful one that comes to mind is the ethnic divorce of Greece and Turkey in the 20th century, and neither of those countries are today places ripe with golden opportunity.
Because you can have good things in both Americas. But one of them has some very obvious downsides the other one does not have.
The other one has some very obvious downsides, too.
Those foreigners imagine a better life in the White Mans Backpack. I've never encountered any righteous indignation directed at them, telling them to stop being so envious. "I want more. I deserve more!" Why can't they just accept their lot? Why aspire for an environment where you are more likely to flourish?
Everyone below a certain reasonable threshold should aspire for an environment where they are more likely to flourish. They just shouldn't aspire to get there by hurting other people. And this is where the identitarians always end up, tweeting ("ironically! to start a dialogue!") about ethnic cleansing of one kind or another. It has been tried, it doesn't work.
naraburns
nihil supernum
10mo ago
We aren't here to be your therapist.
While @yofuckreddit would probably have been better off making their post a bit less rant-y, sneering at them does not help matters. Please avoid this level of antagonism in the future.
naraburns
nihil supernum
4mo ago
Right. By means of ostensibly saying that the group was bad, right? Jesus, what is the point of claiming you didn't say what you said?
You didn't--as you were for some reason anxious to point out--say that anyone was bad. Remember? This is you:
I didn’t say anyone is "bad."
That's true! And it is true in very much the same spirit in which I didn't say that you said it.
It doesn’t undermine your broader point, which is that you don’t want people opining about the motives of members.
No. What I don't want you doing is weakmanning any groups, but especially not this one.
naraburns
nihil supernum
4mo ago
What did you mean, if not that I was saying that the group is bad?
That you had violated the rule against weakmanning.
naraburns
nihil supernum
4mo ago
I didn't say that you said anyone is bad.
Yes, you did: "Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is."
Which word in that sentence you quoted is the word "say" or "said?" Can you bold it for me?
naraburns
nihil supernum
5mo ago
I do agree States get to run their elections but in this case the State Court is citing constitutional law to remove him.
Yeah, in morning's light I'm thinking about the difference between the law of disqualification versus the factual question of insurrection. SCOTUS isn't going to rule that insurrection isn't disqualifying, but if they do rule that (e.g.) insurrection requires some kind of criminal conviction then on remand Colorado will need to find a different excuse. But in a way that turns into a gift for Trump, who would then get to walk around saying "the media lies, SCOTUS itself cleared me of insurrection," which... well, I don't know. It would be nice if the Republican Party would just toss him out in the primaries, then this would all be moot, but that seems less and less likely to happen.
naraburns
nihil supernum
5mo ago
Sorry, it would have been more precise to say "if Colorado's legislature says Trump can't be on the ballot, provided they haven't done anything unconstitutional in the process (e.g. racial discrimination or whatever)..."
In morning's light I am less satisfied with the rest of my analysis, though. The legal question of insurrection (and whether and how it may be disqualifying) is at least plausibly separable from the factual question of insurrection, though. So it will be interesting to see what happens.
naraburns
nihil supernum
5mo ago
Please write as though everyone is reading and you would like them to be involved in the conversation. "Who cares what $GROUP thinks" is not permissible rhetoric here.
naraburns
nihil supernum
6mo ago
you are being a little shit
You are banned. Based on past warnings and bannings, let's go with 14 days this time.
naraburns
nihil supernum
7mo ago
This is unnecessarily antagonistic, don't do this please.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
Sorry but only a woman could have written this.
This kind of ad hominem does not bring light to the conversation. Don't do this.
Surely you know this sort of post isn't allowed. I'm removing it, and banning you for a week.
This is particularly frustrating, since you have another post downthread that has already garnered a couple of AAQC nominations, and you have a past AAQC--which is what stopped me from permanently banning you. @Skulldrinker's comment is a bit low effort, but that's what the report button is for. Please, in the future, use that instead of responding with low-effort antagonism.
naraburns
nihil supernum
9mo ago
Not enough effort--for which you have been warned and banned before. Seven days off this time.
naraburns
nihil supernum
10mo ago
This is all heat and no light. Your AAQCs and history obviously get you a lot of leeway, but come on. You just came off a five day ban, so I feel like I can't possibly give you any less than that here.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
How does this match up with decreasing fertility even in countries where women are generally not part of the workforce, as brought up by other commenters?
I'm not sure, but now that I've found the article I was thinking of, Nowrasteh definitely has a lot more to say about the aforementioned "carrots." Economic opportunities are a part of that picture, but so are things like Netflix and video games and international travel. His argument, ultimately, was that deregulation is the answer, which seems a bit optimistic to me. But also moot, because there's basically no political will for deregulation at this point, at least not in America. Which is in turn partly because it's easier to fight a culture war if you're authoritarian about it, so American politics has become increasingly authoritarian as it has become increasingly factional.
This is probably related to what you're talking about here.
Given
only pairing specific toppings with specific ice cream flavors
And this
We try to avoid making two-flavor combos where the dessert could be done as a single flavor in one of the two flavors.
It looks like you're trying to say that if Flavor1 goes with Topping1, a two-flavor combo should not include a Flavor2 that also goes with Topping1, and also Flavor2 should not have Topping2 that could be paired with Flavor1. You have presented the following combinations as permissible:
- Vanilla: ChocChip & WhipCream*
- Mint: ChocChip
- Caramel: ChocChip**
- Strawberry: ChocChip**
- Coffee: WhipCream
It's not clear whether "ChocChip & WhipCream" is considered a single topping, or two separate toppings, or a distinct topping from ChocChip or WhipCream alone. The precise details of Caramel and Strawberry are also vague: is it only Strawberry that only gets ChocChip topping in "more specific combinations," or also Caramel? The "only in some more specific combinations" also seems to strengthen the idea that one legitimate topping is "ChocChip & WhipCream" as distinct from either ChocChip or WhipCream alone, such that there does not appear to be any way to know for certain what constitutes a permissible topping combination for Strawberry (and, maybe Caramel).
My inclination is to agree with @PutAHelmetOn that Vanilla can be eliminated, since the two toppings you've mentioned both go on Vanilla, so adding a different flavor to vanilla doesn't add any topping possibilities--assuming the only two toppings are whipped cream and chocolate chips, which seems unlikely (and is never stated by you) but there's no further information given on the matter. This appears to hold true even if "ChocChip & WhipCream" is a distinct topping from either ChocChip or WhipCream alone, since presumably adding ChocChip to "ChochChip & WhipCream" won't count as adding a topping by adding a flavor.
Since Mint, Caramel, and Strawberry are all identified as ChocChip (with some asterisks), the obvious thing to do is combine one of them with Coffee, identified as WhipCream. Mint-Coffee would most easily and obviously fit the bill, but it's not on the list. Of the two non-vanilla options, Mint-Caramel and Caramel-Coffee, Caramel-Coffee seems to be the easiest fit, assuming Caramel is not part of the "latter" flavors intended to include ChocChip "only in some more specific combinations." If so, Mint-Caramel has the same presumptive problem as Vanilla: both flavors take ChocChip topping, even if some further combination requires it.
And all this depending somewhat on what the "more specific combinations" actually are, of course, but that information isn't provided, but... the way you've written the problem, Caramel-Coffee appears to be the only plausible answer. It's just that the whole rest of the problem seems to hint at the existence of further helpful information which you have for some reason neglected to provide, which anyone actually applying for an apprenticeship would certainly make it a point to know. For example, if Strawberry only gets ChocChip in combination with Banana topping, then Vanilla-Strawberry would work despite the ChocChip overlap--but this is also moot given the possible answers, since none of items A-E include Strawberry at all. But this reasoning also works for item B, Vanilla-Caramel, if Caramel is indeed among the "latter" flavors in that sentence and the combination in question includes some third unmentioned topping.
naraburns
nihil supernum
2mo ago
The HBD movement uses that as a motte to silence critics, but it's not their actual project or purpose - their project and purpose is about policy geared towards acknowledging racial inferiority and creating explicit hierarchies thereby.
This reads to me like deliberate weak manning. At minimum you should probably reference a more specific example than "the HBD movement." For example Charles Murray is probably credibly part of any putative "HBD movement" but if you described him as "acknowledging racial inferiority and creating explicit hierarchies" then I would say you either didn't read him, didn't understand him, or are willfully misunderstanding him. I assume there are some people out there using the (as you suggest) "trivial fact" of HBD for purely racist goals, but I have never personally encountered such a person.
I'm here to tell you that you are being used as a useful idiot by a project you don't agree with.
I wasn't going to actually moderate you for the earlier quote but when I got to this one, it pushed you over the edge. I suspect we all get to be someone's useful idiot, sometimes, but "the only reasons you could possibly disagree with me here is that you are evil, or stupid" is not really a permissible discussion posture under our ruleset.
I think maybe the advice I want to give you here is to try to keep your arguments addressed to other arguments, rather than making them about (general or specific) people.
naraburns
nihil supernum
4mo ago
This post and this one are a bit too far into "rant" territory. While each has its merits, it's presented in such a blistering way as to drown the light in heat. Snappy rhetorical questions, pithy comparisons, passionate appeals, none of these things are forbidden, exactly, it's just that you've turned the rhetoric dial too high. Please dial it back.
naraburns
nihil supernum
4mo ago
It pains me to read these tired talking points on the Motte of all places. This reads like the equivalent a woke college student listing off their usual combination of strings handed down to them from the hivemind.
This adds heat to your post, but no light. It's totally unnecessary. Please don't.
naraburns
nihil supernum
5mo ago
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) ruled that states can't add additional qualifications for Senators and Representatives. The same rules should apply to Presidential elections.
I doubt this simply because Article I gives Congress a say in the election of Senators and Representatives. Article II doesn't. But you may be right.
And Colorado is pretending that Trump is disqualified by the 14th Amendment, not exercising its discretion to exclude whoever they want.
They're definitely saying this now, but they're saying that Trump's Fourteenth Amendment disqualification can be litigated (very broadly, see this comment) under the state's election laws. This creates a fact/law question (leading to the Fourteenth Amendment problems I tagged but should have pondered at greater length) that SCOTUS seems likely to want to avoid, but... hard to say. It would be interesting to know how far the Colorado court is willing to go to keep Trump off the ballot, but depending on how quickly SCOTUS remands (assuming they do), we may get to find out.
naraburns
nihil supernum
5mo ago
When people say there were no WMDs, this is what they're saying. That it was bullshit and misleading what they did, that it was a lie. They're not really making a formal statement about whether the chemical weapons that were found are or aren't "of mass destruction".
Well, yes, but the fact that "people" do the motte-and-bailey thing constantly isn't really an excuse, to my mind. Saying things that are literally false but directionally true is something that bothers me a lot. Maybe that makes me an autist or whatever, but I am entirely comfortable that my way is better.
naraburns
nihil supernum
5mo ago
if you are gonna side with savages to litigate trivial matters like the fact that people won't vote for self-described atheists, you deserve to be wiped out and remembered only as an enemy of humanity, or of the only part of it worth anything anyway
This is far too antagonistic, even framed as a hypothetical. The bar for arguing that any person or group literally deserves death and/or damnatio memoriae is high, though perhaps permissible when accompanied by sufficient effort; arguing that someone you are talking to here personally deserves such things for things they've said here is a hard no. You appear to be new here so I won't hit you with a ban straightaway, but please understand that this is a banworthy offense.
You are free to explore value disagreement, but dropping to accusations of derangement is too much heat. I might let it slide if it were some passionate rhetoric in the midst of an effort post, but this comment seems to just be pure heat. Three day ban.
More options
Context Copy link