@non_radical_centrist's banner p

non_radical_centrist


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 23 15:54:21 UTC

				

User ID: 1327

non_radical_centrist


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 23 15:54:21 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1327

I wanted to write about my state banning non-"cage free" eggs

The blatant lying aside, where do you stand on animal rights? Chicken cages do look fairly torturous.

Why do people buy name brand over generic groceries? They're often identical. Are people just stupid? But it's such a blatant case about which product is better. They'll be identical products, next to each other on the shelf, except one costs about 25% less. The only difference is that the other product has commercials advertising it. I have friends insist that name brand tastes better, but the contents are literally identical.

The language of a single podcast of course isn't the sole hinge on which Putin's justifications turn. But it is a small piece. I think Putin's casus belli is made very slightly more valid if Zelensky speaks Russian. And very slightly less valid if he doesn't. Putin talked about the medieval history of Ukraine and Russia being one country to Tucker for so long because that type of thing does matter to Putin, and to many other Russians.

I looked at this list of records for the Badwater Ultramarathon. The women are fairly competitive with the men. That would never happen in something like powerlifting, or intellectual sports like chess or esports, or sprinting.

https://www.badwater.com/results-history/

Give an inch, they take a mile. If you just let China take Taiwan with no fight because the war would be so costly, why would China stop there? Would you let them conquer every island in the Pacific until they have everything except Hawaii too?

I don't think Trump has an obligation to stick to the planned debate. But I don't think you can say Kamala's the one trying to stay out of the spotlight either. If Republicans want a spotlight on Kamala to put the screws to her, all they'd have to do is stick to the original planned debate.

War is brutal. Israel has done many bad things, perhaps more than necessary, but that's how war goes. America was hardly polite and soft on Japan in WW2.

If Native Americans started randomly suicide bombing American cafes and launched roughly one attack every twenty years that would kill hundreds, how many Native American civilian casualties would you max out at before saying "no, the cost is too high to keep bombing reservations"?

She is obviously trying to leverage her current fifteen minutes of fame into becoming a political commentator, but that doesn't make her a "grifter". Especially since her comments align with radical feminist beliefs, yet she participates in porn, yet she has done a podcast episode with Richard Hanania. That seems to me the mark of someone who's honestly living their beliefs, not someone trying to tell people what they want to hear in order to scam money off of them.

I mean she is doing porn for money now

Is that an actual bad outcome? She earns far more money than she would using her degree. If it's solely as a result that it'll be harder for her to find a job or a man after she ages and Only Fans doesn't work for her anymore, what'd go wrong with changing society not to hold Only Fans as a black mark against her?

You are typing a lot of words and I really don't understand what point you're trying to make. Can you, in one paragraph, describe what bad stuff happens as a result of our current racial and cultural appropriation policies? Then in one paragraph describe what you want the world to look like? Then in one paragraph describe why your model would be better and not have problems?

I just really need something succint and clear.

How mainstream is her view? My impression is that a lot of Israelis/Israel supporters implicitly think that ultimately there’s no long-term solution other than the killing/displacing all the Palestinians, but aren’t willing to bite the bullet and explicitly advocate for genocide (or know they should be more circumspect about it.)

I'm pro-Israeli and think Israel over all is one of the more moral countries in the world and has just been put in a very difficult situation. But I think the settlements do not have good justification at all, and because of that complete lack of justification are a blight on Israel's record.

The Netanyahu government seems like it’s on her side at least through benign neglect. Why does her cause have so much political power?

I'm given to understand in modern politics, a very dedicated interest group can wield a ton of power even if they aren't very large.

Does a settler/activist like her count as an enemy combatant? On one hand she operates under the colors of being a civilian. On the other hand it seems a little unfair for someone who is actively working to conquer your land to declare rules like “no sorry you’re only allowed to shoot at the guys who have rifles and body armor otherwise you’re a terrorist.”

I don't know what the international law is, but personally I think if someone illegal crosses into another states territory during a period of heightened tensions like the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, that state is allowed to kill them.

For moderate pro-Israel people, is “kick all the settlers out of the West Bank” something you’d be willing to accept as part of a broader peace deal?

I'd prefer it over a deal where they were allowed to stay even if Israel got nothing else for it. The settlements aren't a deal breaker for my support for Israel, but that's just because I think Palestine is even worse. The settlements are still a bad thing.

What do you do when trans people pass so well they fool the caveman brain?

e.g https://old.reddit.com/r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns/comments/lnf0lw/conservatives_dont_really_understand_biology_smh/

Exactly. I think trying to come up with strategies about how to behave intelligently even when being provoked, or trying to tell people that the provocations weren't so bad that we should break democratic norms over them, is fine. But acting all confused like "why could liberals possibly hate Trump more than other Republicans?" is just silly.

This is a genuine question. What is the federal government doing for me that my state couldn’t do? I’ll give you the military, but what else?

People vary on whether this is actually a good thing, but enforce certain rights, e.g minimum wage, abortion legality, no slavery, etc.

There are benefits to having a national system in certain areas like healthcare, postal services, highway construction, etc. where it'd be very awkward for each state to need to find a way to individually interface with each other, although the US federal government is dysfunctional enough it doesn't always see benefits.

I’d say your basically a slowly boiled frog on this twitter stuff.

Maybe. I'm just not convinced this is the most pressing issue. At least because I have never once seen a particularly good solution to the problem of big tech soft censorship, so it doesn't particularly matter how bad a problem is if there isn't anything we can do about it.

Because they know enough to follow creationist or climate change skeptical arguments, but not enough to directly compare them with their opposites, and, well, creation scientists and climate change skeptics are a lot less likely to serve some agenda that's obvious, blatant lies to their in group. Creation scientists and climate change skeptical scientists simply tell fewer blatant lies than the scientific establishment tends to

I'd say creation scientists and climate skeptics are pretty obviously wrong in a way that pretty obviously serves their interests, even if I'd believe they aren't consciously lying. And yeah the scientific establishment would probably be better served if they held to the pure truth even more strictly than they have, but over all I think they've done pretty well on those issues, as shown by how evolution/climate change are both pretty well regarded as "True." these days by most people. Now all that's debated about climate change is its exact severity/the best policies to mitigate it, as it should be.

Exactly. I could not ask an Ukrainian to die fighting for NATO. But if they wanted to do so anyway, I'm more than happy to provide them the weapons to do so.

From my half-rigorous polling, about 20% of women are slutty and largely motivated by looks and aren't really that ashamed to admit it. 80% of women are more selective about their partners, and while looks do still play a large role for them, personality/beliefs do play a large role. It's that 20% who are slutty who make up the majority of hook up participants- at 25 they may have had roughly 30 partners where a member of the 80% has had roughly 5(most of whom were long term partners, not hook ups), as estimates.

I think the hypocrisy comes more in that the 80% don't acknowledge/aren't aware of the 20%. So they act like of course a hot man with a terrible personality would have some difficulties getting a girlfriend, since if all women were like them, the hot nazi would have some difficulties. Part of it is just virtue signalling too, a hot nazi would still do better with them than they'd admit, but most of the incredible success of hot nazis would come from the slutty 20%.

Most peoples are able to achieve 100% peace. Maybe not 100% agreement, but 100% willingness not to join partisan terrorist groups when they lose the vote. I don't think Palestinians would, I think at least 0.1% would commit terrorist attacks in a way most peoples wouldn't. And unlike other peoples such as the Irish, just being given their own state and some concessions wouldn't be enough to mollify them, I think they'd keep doing it until they controlled all of Israel/Palestine.

I think that 100% peace would never happen either. I also think Palestine will never defeat Israel militarily either, that if they did it'd be just as big of a humanitarian crisis, and keeping this miserable status quo for the next centuries isn't the best was can do. That's why I think the best outcome would be a refugee process where Palestinians officially don't get the right of return, and are relocated to other countries. Hell, I think it'd be cheaper for a lot of places if there was some international cooperation to build the Palestinians a nice artificial island they can live on far way from Israel.

And I think we should move our cultural navigational aids more towards being anti-hook up culture without moving all the way back to purity culture.

It wasn't supposed to be a slight at him. Khan Academy is a great learning resource, and I'm pretty sure he's never learnt any economics beyond articles and blogs(If he has and just chose to reject it, then I should stop wasting my time here). I think he'd learn from just going through the lessons there than any amount of arguing with me or reading more articles and blogs, because there are actual graphs and formulas involved that Khan Academy is better set up to teach.

and geopolitically, a local boot to put on Arabs in the region is very useful.

And to have a competent ally in the area against Iran, who's probably the US' most dangerous enemy these days after China, Russia, and maybe North Korea.

So I take it you're a socialist or communist of some sort?

What do you think it is that stops McDonald's from charging $10 for a bottle of water?

Why?

I wish more people were introspective and aware of their internal motivations. It's annoying to have a girl say "I'm just not feeling it" after a few dates with no further feedback.