naraburns
nihil supernum
No bio...
User ID: 100
naraburns
nihil supernum
7mo ago
I was thinking, gun to my head, I'd rather my daughter was molested by a catholic priest (unlikely as that is, being a girl and all) than fall in with your ilk.
Your first comment got a lot of reports, which opened a mod conversation about whether to ding you for it. One mod said "not bannable, but warnable," another said "not even warnable." I tended to agree that it was not a great comment, but that it ultimately fell on the permissible side. The meta-moderation system agreed with me on this. However the low-quality responses you've generated certainly lend credence to the inclination toward moderation there.
This comment, though, fails the test of "write like everyone is reading, and you want to include them in the conversation." In particular, "your ilk" is a quintessentially antagonistic framing; we're here to engage with ideas above people, and watch our tone in preservation of content.
It's preposterous and totally insane. But that's what you sound like.
And this, of course, is worth moderating all on its own.
You do your substantive position no favors by cranking the rhetoric to 11. Your occasional AAQCs only get you so much lenience. It has been a while since your last ban, after which you became a quality-content machine for a bit! But recently your warnings have been arriving with increasing frequency. Let's try another week-long ban.
naraburns
nihil supernum
7mo ago
How exactly do men wanting to breastfeed cause a problem here?
The League was founded in part on specific concern for infant and maternal health and development. Men don't lactate without hormonal intervention (or, in some cases, cancer) and studies on the health impact of such choices are... not nonexistent, I suspect, but almost certainly some combination of weak, bad, or politically motivated. The difficulties a new mother might have with breastfeeding may have some overlap with the difficulties a lactating man might have, but there are no clear health or infant development reasons to help men who lactate, the way there definitely are with new mothers.
The article just assumes this is Clearly A Bad Thing because Men, but it never actually articulates any specific objections.
When you create an organization specifically to address women's issues with a natural feminine process, then "Men" clearly articulates a pretty damn specific objection. I assume there would also be frustration with women who present as masculine, if they keep trying to police the language of breastfeeding with absurd neologisms like "chestfeeding." If you make an organization dedicated to breastfeeding and a bunch of entryists show up to tell you to use a different word, failure to address that swiftly and unapologetically will probably result in, well, pretty much what the article describes.
naraburns
nihil supernum
7mo ago
Breastfeeding has not received quite as much cultural attention as childbirth, for reasons I can only guess at.
Yes, yes it has. Screaming about breastfeeding has been A Thing for a while now.
I'm well aware, which is why I said "not . . . quite as much . . . as" rather than "none at all."
I was saddened this morning to read of the resignation of one of the founders of La Leche League from that organization.
La Leche League was founded in 1956 to improve breastfeeding rates in the United States. Many people are unaware, or do not fully grasp the implications of, the fact that the mid-20th century was an era of hyper-medicalization and scientific interventionism. Probably most college students today know how to make the proper noises concerning the historic exclusion of women (or racial minorities) from medical studies, but few could tell you why in 1965 Robert Bradley made waves by arguing that childbirth shouldn't be such a medicalized process. It would be a good half century before skyrocketing c-section rates persuaded the AMA (etc.) to take seriously the idea that medicalization was harming mothers at least as frequently as it was helping them.
Breastfeeding has not received quite as much cultural attention as childbirth, for reasons I can only guess at. One is probably just that breastfeeding does not typically present quite the same "life-or-death" questions that childbirth sometimes can. Another is that, historically, not all mothers have been successful breast-feeders, whether by chance or by choice; relying on other mothers to feed one's own infant, at least for a time, is attested cross-culturally. Breastfeeding has well-established health benefits for babies and mothers both (in particular, nothing else is more decidedly protective against breast cancer), but between the availability of adequate (if not really optimal) substitutes, psychological difficulty some have treating breasts in non-sexualized ways, and a sometimes steep learning curve, many mothers find the whole proposition... unpalatable.
La Leche League's most visible influence (at least in my experience) has been their gratis lactation consultants. Some mothers, and some babies, take to breastfeeding like the proverbial ducks to water, but many, maybe most women have at least a little difficulty. Will the baby latch, will the latch hold, how to avoid painful latching, how to deal with chafing, what if I don't produce enough milk, are there foods I need to avoid, etc. are things women once shared with their daughters, or learned from their midwife, and aren't necessarily things your average OB/GYN has any grasp on. (It's not unusual for full-fledged OB/GYNs to spend 6-8 weeks (or less!) in their entire training learning about normal pregnancy and childbirth; their job, after all, is to fix such problems as may arise.) For women who are willing to accept input (and, I suppose, for women who capitulate to the sometimes, er, zealous lactation consultants), La Leche League has filled the gap left by the steamrolling of familial bonds by cultural "progress."
So why, as a 94-year-old woman, would Marian Tompson denounce decades of work brought about, in large measure, by her own efforts? Here is what she wrote:
From an organisation with the specific mission of supporting biological women who want to give their babies the best start in life by breastfeeding them, LLL’s focus has subtly shifted to include men who, for whatever reason, want to have the experience of breastfeeding, despite no careful long-term research on male lactation and how that may affect the baby.
This shift from following the norms of nature, which is the core of mothering through breastfeeding, to indulging the fantasies of adults, is destroying our organisation.
Helen Joyce of British women’s rights charity Sex Matters commented:
By including men who want to breastfeed in its services, LLL is destroying its founding mission to support breastfeeding mothers.
It also goes against the wishes of many mothers, group leaders and trustees around the world, who have been fighting to convince LLL International to hold fast to its woman-focused mission...
Conquest's Laws win again. La Leche League has been profoundly nonpartisan, but it was not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing, and so "another previously innocent activity" heads toward "World War I style trench warfare."
Wasn't this strenuously denied for years and claims of it were met with accusations of being paranoid conspiracy theorists?
My inclination is to say "no" but on reflection I have vague memories of this being something the mod team was maybe disunified about for a while (maybe still is). It's also possible I'm giving the wrong impression with the phrase "affirmative action." It's possible different moderators have had, and expressed, different ideas of what amounts to "affirmative action" in various cases. Zorba has always made it our top priority to make this a
place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases
which necessarily involves having people who don't all share the same biases. So we've always tried to moderate in ways that would encourage the development of such a community.
On the other hand, the mod team is accused somewhat regularly of going too easy/too hard on red tribe/blue tribe posts, and we have often cited this fact as evidence that moderation is not actually especially biased in one direction or the other; everyone always feels like their ox is the one being gored. Thumbing the scales a bit in favor of including heterodox views does not rise to the level of nuking the rules, any more than QCs do. And I don't think we've ever thumbed the scales for tribal reasons (either pro or con)--just for specific users in specific cases, where it was, say, understandable that someone might get a little hot under the collar.
So I would suggest that the way to parse all of this is that moderation is a qualitative and adaptive process in a reputation economy. We do go easier on new users, generally. We go easier on people who make QCs or otherwise contribute to the health of the community (e.g. by expressing heterodox views), for the most part. We go harder on people who habitually make bad posts, or express unwillingness to abide by the rules. We moderate tone rather than content. What that amounts to, in the end, is... what we have here. If you're getting moderated occasionally, it's probably nothing to worry much about. If you're getting moderated a lot, it's definitely because you're breaking the rules and showing no inclination to even try doing better.
In the process, do we have our biases or pet issues or whatever? Sure, we're just people. Do I think we do a pretty good job at impartiality and fairness anyway? Yeah, I do. Are we perfect? No, I can't imagine. Are we better than basically every other message board moderation team on the Internet? Yeah, I think we actually are. Are we going to change? Sure, over time that's bound to happen.
Has anything in this thread come anywhere near identifying a real identifiable problem with moderation in our community, and suggesting novel but plausible ways to address said problem? Well... not yet! Which makes the amount of effort I've put into it so far pretty wasted, and probably reduces the likelihood of my bothering to respond effortfully to similar complaints in the future. The people most inclined to complain about the rules are basically never the ones who are consciously and positively contributing to the effectuation of the foundation.
naraburns
nihil supernum
7mo ago
The change I would prefer would be to make shutting down consensus a goal that is at least equal in weight to enforcing post quality.
Well, as I noted somewhere upthread, we already do engage in a fair bit of "affirmative action" moderating. Which is maybe not quite what you're asking for but sounds pretty close to me. We tend to go easier on people who are bringing underrepresented or heterodox viewpoints into play.
(In this particular case, uh... I have to say that coffee_enjoyer's position on Israel is not one that strikes me as underrepresented or heterodox, here. I understand that probably everyone feels dogpiled at some point or other, but no, I'm much more likely to cut slack to a rule-breaking Wokist than I am to cut slack to a rule-breaking Israel critic, simply because we could probably use more of the former, but I can't imagine us ever running short of the latter.)
I might find it hard to dispel the accusation that this amounts to "moderate my enemies more", since I am on the balance unhappy with the Overton window here and therefore naturally am an "enemy" of the majority of highly-upvoted positions; but this does not mean that I am "friends" with most of the downvoted ones, unhappy families all being different and what-not.
Well, "friends" in the loose sense that you have identified a common "enemy" (me!). My impression of your follow-up is that, yes: you want more moderation for your enemies, and less for your friends. But now you've made two suggestions that, actually, the mod team already follows, more or less--if not, perhaps, to the degree you would prefer. So you're not wrong, exactly, you just seem to think that your prescriptions will yield results that, actually, we can say from experience they do not especially yield. None of this is terribly surprising, the mod team really does think about and discuss this stuff amongst ourselves a fair bit, so it would be pretty surprising if you were to say something original about the project we've got going here. But you're always welcome to try, provided you do so within the bounds of the rules we've established over the life of the community.
naraburns
nihil supernum
7mo ago
I can't discern him breaking any rules, or you explicitly accusing of breaking him of any rules, apart from the subjective "wildcard rule" about obnoxiousness.
Are you not reading carefully, or are you just reading selectively? Look at my mod comment again. I first said
grumping about someone else's award because their comment doesn't reinforce your preferred narrative is obnoxious at best
That's the wildcard rule, applied not for what he said, but for grumping about what someone else said--so you mischaracterized my criticism in exactly the same way that coffee_enjoyer mischaracterized it, by suggesting it is about my "taste" rather than about coffee_enjoyer's insistence on his own taste being the proper determinant of quality. So right from the starting gate, you have demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about.
Then you said
someone who only ran afoul of that rule
but this is clearly an unforced error. In my very first mod comment I also wrote:
your emphasis on "pre-teen" and the way you referenced "the past decade" while quoting Dean referencing "the last few decades" suggest very strongly to my mind that you are not engaging charitably, or even just honestly
"Be charitable" is a very clear rule. Coffee-enjoyer broke it, as I demonstrated by mentioning how he broke it, and I said all of that quite clearly. So the rest of your comment fails to land entirely; I'm sure you can think of some other reason to criticize my moderation, and yet at this point it seems that your real goal is just that--to criticize my moderation, regardless of anything I have actually said or done. By your own logic, at this point it seems like you should probably just recuse yourself from criticizing my moderation approach.
I will address your parting question anyway:
Do you imagine there is any argument or evidence at all that could persuade you to change your current approach to moderation, or is it a matter of either having to take your ride to wherever it leads or getting off?
I imagine there are many such arguments and evidence; I hardly imagine myself to be a paragon of human judgment. But as you have not presented any such arguments or evidence--as you indeed failed to even notice the rather explicit rule breaking I spelled out in my initial post--what is it you expect me to change?
That is, is there some specific change you have in mind? You mention recusal but actually the whole mod team does recusals pretty often, calling for others to come in and handle stuff they don't think they can be impartial about. However it's basically never about topics, because the whole mod team has opinions on just about everything. If we recused ourselves from topics we happen to know and care about, none of us could moderate anything! Rather, usually mods will recuse themselves from dealing users who get under our skin (or are just particularly under our skin on a given day). You mentioned darwin; back in the day, I recused myself from moderating him a lot.
So beyond that, what "argument or evidence" do you think you have in mind, that you think should change moderation policies here? Sometimes you write as if you think people should be moderated more ("Plenty of completely normal posts these days would have been moderated 5 years ago...") but your argument in this case is that coffee_enjoyer, at least, should be moderated less. As far as I can tell, you are engaged in the same special pleading that nearly all rules-lawyers and mod-critics bring to us, as if we'd never seen it before: "why don't you moderate my enemies more, and my friends less?"
And once it is recognized that that is the substance of the question being asked, well, it kind of answers itself, doesn't it?
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
If you're not aware, there are a ton of "pred-catcher" YouTube and Rumble channels.
I was not aware, but your explanation seems quite plausible to me, and all the more so if such content is presently en vogue.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
What am I missing here?
Honestly, just looks like bad drafting. It's clearly intended to parallel the language of 11-208(a) and would, I expect, be enforced in that way. But on this topic perhaps more than any other, people will avoid pointing out even obvious drafting issues for fear of being accused of being opposed to such laws.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
Does your Trump theory have any predictive power?
Sort of? I'm trying to anticipate their strategy for undermining Trump, on the assumption that they will indeed have (at least!) one.
Specifically, I'm wondering about a possible echo of something like this. Only instead of (or perhaps in addition to) race, a relentless stream of dubious abortion tragedies and sex and sexuality discussions. Many commentators here and elsewhere have observed a recent "cooling" of Wokeness in public discourse; was that just a rush to centrism in an effort to get Kamala elected? Does Trump's victory raise the culture war temperature?
The local site with the similar spin is not surprising; the spin is largely self-executing in this case. The decision to elevate any particular assault to national news, however, requires some conscious decision-making.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
The race of the parties is also conspicuously absent from the article. Statistically, Google tells me that they should be mostly white, as Salisbury's student body is approximately 70% white (much whiter than the surrounding community). If the victim was non-white, I assume that would also have been mentioned.
Wake up, babe, new toxoplasma just dropped.
I will never understand the propensity of young people--young men, in particular--for wanton violence. This is some "bum fights" level depravity. The "hate crime" bit I'm not a fan of--whether they did this to target a particular group is not, to my mind, relevant. Which group, you ask? Well, that's an interesting question.
Police say a man was invited “under false pretenses” to an apartment in Salisbury, where a group of men immediately surrounded him upon entry, forced him into a chair in the living room and then proceeded to kick, punch and spit on him while calling him derogatory names, police said.
One of the men met the victim on the LGBTQ dating app Grindr...
So, this is classic "gay bashing," yes?"
...pretended to be 16 years old and set a date to meet up "for the purposes of having sexual intercourse..."
Oh. Well, that's an... interesting... detail. Were they fishing for homosexuals, or fishing for hebophiles? CNN is quick to aver:
The legal age of consent in Maryland is 16 years old.
The statute link provided by CNN in that sentence is broken, at this writing. (EDIT: it appears that Maryland's age of consent is indeed 16, with no limitations, including pornographic material). The article does not mention the victim's age.
I condemn the assault, and the vigilantism/entrapment more generally. But the CNN article is clearly slanted toward turning this into a high-profile "gay bash via Grindr" story while working to elide the "young adults sloppily and mis-informedly imitating Chris Hansen" angle. Is this CNN's opening move in a "relentlessly show how Trump's America is a cesspit of bigotry and violence" campaign? Looking for the next George Floyd seems like the sort of thing that would be near the top of the Cathedral's playbook as it seeks ways to blunt the impact of Trump's apparent mandate.
Didn't quite a few people here lament that the libs had won the US culture war a couple years ago?
And now they've lost it? What happened?
I mean, short version, Trump's a lib--at least by the standards of the US culture war circa 1990. He's "meh" on abortion, broadly pro-marijuana, unfaithful to his wives, venal, vain, irreligious, vulgar... the Republican coalition circa William F. Buckley, Jr. was capitalists, anti-communists, and the religious right. Today it's more like "lib-right" capitalists, anti-Wokists, and the working class. Religious conservatives are a bit like black democrats, now: faithful to the party, but insufficient to deliver victories and so never given more than lip service. (Of course, this has resulted in some "blaxit" political defections, just as religious organizations are importing Wokism.)
Buckley's expressed view was that the role of the conservative was to stand athwart history yelling "stop!" But new people are born. Old ones die. Each new generation must decide for itself what received wisdom it will preserve, and what it will discard. But "decide" may be putting it too strongly; each new generation will preserve some wisdom, and discard other, and often very little effort will be put into consciously deciding which will be which. Memes, like genes, get passed along in a variety of ways, and may persist for a variety of reasons.
The cultural revolution of the 1960s-1970s, itself an outgrowth of the liberal progressivism of the early 20th century, made substantial memetic inroads by casting tradition to the wayside. This has historically been a ruinous approach, but thanks to the march of science and technological advancement, "old lore" is not the asset it has been. George W. Bush was probably Buckley's Last Stand. Obama's defeat of Romney (not incidentally, a religious capitalist whose prophecies Obama mocked in his infamous "the 1980s are now calling" comment) was the end of Buckley Republicanism as a going concern. (The rest of that obviously scripted line accuses Romney of trying to bring back the global policies of the 1980s, the social policies of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s. And Obama manages to make it sound like a bad idea!)
But memes, like genes, don't simply give up. They respond to selection pressure. Much of Buckley Republicanism was salvageable, particularly those bits well-suited to anti-Wokism (through Wokism's own Communist heritage). But the vulnerabilities--like religious devotion--had to be discarded, or at least relegated to vestigial status. Identity politics dominated the 1990s and 2000s, culminating in Obama's primary defeat of the perpetual political bridesmaid, Hillary Clinton. So Republicans adopted identity politics. The white working class had joined Reagan's Republicans in response to increased competition from racial minorities; Trump turned this into a race-blind "big tent" populism. Straight-laced, uptight, moralizing religious busybodies couldn't really survive the onslaught of Internet irreverence, so they were replaced with earthy, vulgar, but masculine men. And so on and so forth.
Like bacteria swapping DNA, the major American political movements clashed, and each was changed by the other. Much of the "lib" agenda circa 1990 is now just... American culture. But much of the "conservative" agenda circa 1990 is, too! So now there are different humans with different tastes and different political priorities, and the pendulum continues its incessant swing. By the time you get the new coalitions really, truly figured out... it'll be time for you to retire and let someone else try the next one.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
It seems more likely that he's lying about his Latino friends--whether regarding their status, or perhaps their very existence. My best steelman is that his Latino friends are actually legal and naturalized immigrants, who used to be green card holders. In my own experience, legal immigrants are often quite disdainful of illegals "jumping the line," so that would fit. And it's not an implausible misunderstanding. Alternatively, it's not unheard of for green card holders to accidentally get registered to vote, e.g. automatically as part of being issued a driver's license. Many of them don't even realize the problem; after all, if the lady at the MVD says you can vote, presumably she knows what she's talking about! (Spoiler: the lady at the MVD did not, in fact, know what she was talking about.)
But realistically? He's just lying and isn't smart enough to understand why that's transparent.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
So Trump has beaten three women so far - Hilary, Kamala, and Ivana.
That's two more women than Kamala Harris' husband Douglas Emhoff has beaten!
(Well, that we know of.)
My bubble is eerily quiet.
I think my favorite zinger so far is, "Florida just counted all of their votes again for fun."
(Relatedly, but with less zing: "Florida counted all its votes in about an hour. Fraud is a choice.")
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
Is Polymarket open to Americans?
No, though if you use a VPN and crypto they can't exactly stop you. This would be a violation of their terms of service and also the law, though the extent to which that violation would be on you versus them is not clear to me.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
I Am Not Immune to Propaganda
I'm bad with numbers, but it feels pretty likely to me. Is that 70%-80%? I don't think I'd say 90%, the electoral college situation does give me some hesitation. By "inevitable" I mean "I don't see anything short of a black swan event shifting the outcome from where it's currently headed," not "I'm 100% sure of this specific outcome."
I furthermore said:
Insofar as Harris has not (yet?) done anything blatantly unconstitutional, I also think it is a little more likely than not (55%? 60%?) that a true electoral win from Trump could still see his inauguration prevented by his opponents, hook or crook. This could potentially be done by preventing an apparent electoral victory simply by thumbing the scales in a few key states.
I rarely "put a number on it." If I had a head for numbers, I would probably have gone into tech instead of becoming a professional wordcel. I don't know what "80%" feels like, the way so many people seem to. But lately I have been trying to, if not quantify my predictions, at least hold myself more accountable for them. I would like to be better at predicting things, partly because I want to become a bit less risk-averse. That means hedging less, and stating more, and looking back at why I was right or wrong.
There is of course still time for Trump's opponents to prevent his inauguration, or try. The fact that the major news networks refused to certify his clear and overwhelming victory for many hours after it was obvious even to them, definitely made me worry that we were in for a repeat of 2020. Instead, we got a repeat of 2016. We do still have to make it two months without lawfare or rioting hindering the process, but the way things are looking this morning, I'm much less confident about this. (Probably my next substantive question is, "what will Jack Smith try next?")
So, what led me to these errors? I don't know! But I have some working theories.
Pessimism: I did not want Kamala Harris to become the President. Politically, my adult life has been a string of disappointments. So my priors on "the candidate I like least will win the election" are high, even though I know rationally that whether or not I like a candidate has very little to do with their electability. I also know many people who are in the habit of predicting that things will happen and, when pressed, will explain that they want those things to happen.
Insufficient Skepticism: Probably anyone who has spent more than five minutes on the Motte knows that I mistrust corporate news media a lot. I am even aware that polls are politically slanted. And yet, somehow, every time I went looking into the polls behind the media's unapologetic shilling for Harris, I came away thinking, "even if that result is wrong, surely it's not so wrong that Trump could actually pull this off." And maybe this just goes back to my difficulty with numbers. But I am such a skeptical person by nature that it feels too convenient to conclude that, no, I need to be even more skeptical.
Superstition: Early yesterday evening, when it became apparent that the "blue wall" was nowhere to be seen, a family member said to me, "he might actually do this!" And I found myself reluctant to agree because I didn't want to jinx it. This is stupid, and I have a hard time seeing how it could have fed into my actual predictions, but combined with the pessimism (above) I apparently have a reflexive resistance to agreeing that something could actually come out the way I want it to.
But maybe you have some different theories? I'm open to suggestions!
Now--all of that said, I do have to congratulate myself on one (possibly ego-protective) thing:
I never did put any money on Harris.
Part of my process this time was telling myself: "you know she's going to win, so you can make some money on it. Plus, if she loses, you'll be happy, so you won't mind the pecuniary loss. Now is the perfect time to finally get into those prediction markets Scott Alexander is always talking about!"
But I couldn't do it. I had initially thought to make myself a killing by betting $10,000, but I found myself feeling too risk-averse. What about $1,000? Or $100? Every time I opened up the necessary apps to start the process, I talked myself out of it.
So did I really think Kamala was going to win? If I wasn't willing to put any skin in the game, did I really believe what I said I believed? I think I did! It feels like I did. But I can't dismiss the possibility that my instincts are better at math than my conscious thoughts. I saved myself thousands of dollars by being pessimistic, skeptical, maybe even a little superstitious. And I'm not entirely sure what to make of that.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
I don't think Biden will resign for something so symbolic. But he is old and senile, it's not impossible that she still gets a shot at wrecking Trump's "47" merchandise.
I was wrong, badly, and I'll spend the next week saying that repeatedly, I expect. I should know better than to underestimate Musk.
But that doesn't mean the Democrats have given up. The electoral vote probably won't be close enough to make faithless electors a worthwhile scheme, but it will at least be seriously discussed. I expect the weapon of choice here will be lawfare: Trump isn't president yet, so New York could still try to put him in jail, at least for a while.
I did say many times that I'm not a numbers person. But there's still surely a 5% or 10% chance that someone other than Trump gets sworn in next, I would think. My priors on such a thing are low (it would literally be unprecedented) but we live in interesting times.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
The absolute refusal of the progressive press to call Alaska is mind boggling. CNN, AP, NBC, like... they are acting like someone promised them a fourth quarter miracle play if only they can hold the doors open long enough. They're even talking about Trump's next term like it's a sure thing, but they refuse to call the race. WTF?
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
Already drafting those in my head.
Though a lot can still happen between tonight and January.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
Comment downthread suggesting that Trump moving from "don't mail in your ballots" to "vote in whatever way you can" could possibly explain the entire phenomenon.
But CNN is full of cope. Fifteen minutes ago they posted "Outstanding Georgia votes include in-person from metro Atlanta and absentee from Savannah area." They did finally call North Carolina, but Decision Desk is eating everyone's lunch.
This is an angry special interest group casting protest votes in a safe state. The message is that Democrats are eventually going to have to choose between appeasing Jews, and appeasing Muslims--and for the forseeable future, a lot more Muslims will be born into or emigrating to the U.S., than Jews.
But this potentially feeds into the larger possibility of Trump winning the popular vote, which would be quite something to see.
This is not sufficiently charitable. Specifically,
It's fine to raise questions about source veracity, but if you're going to respond to others, you need to actually be responding to the substance of their posts--not ducking into your motte when they raise points you don't care to substantively address. Actually several of your comments in this thread do the "law of merited impossibility" and "Russell conjugation" thing, where you oscillate between "this isn't happening" and "it's good, actually" while rhetorically re-framing specific concerns. This kind of engagement creates frustration and lowers engagement quality, even though it basically keeps to the rules on tone. If done deliberately and repeatedly, it amounts to a kind of trolling. Please engage with what people are actually saying, rather than substituting your rhetoric for their substantive concerns.
More options
Context Copy link