@non_radical_centrist's banner p

non_radical_centrist


				

				

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

				

User ID: 1327

non_radical_centrist


				
				
				

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1327

The Lord of the Rings cards could exist in a world where skin colour can have a wide variance from one's family based on exactly which genes someone gets and nutrition and what not. Like how a short mother can have a tall daughter, a dark skinned father can have a pale son. It's a bit ridiculous and personally I don't like it, but it's Or maybe genes don't exist there and people physical traits are personally determined by Eru when they're in the womb. It's silly and I don't like it, but it's ultimately one change to the world: skin colour isn't genetic like how it is in our world(unless they release other materials indicating that in their set Eomer is actually adopted or something, which would bring back to being really upset).

I'm reminded of that case of the guy restraining the addict on the subway who was making everyone uncomfortable.

He killed the homeless guy. I'm sympathetic to the issue of nuisances on subways, but the right solution isn't literally killing them. From the Wikipedia page, it seems like he didn't choke the guy for less than 5 minutes. Depriving the brain of oxygen will start causing permanent damage after 1 minute, and will just about always be lethal by 5 minutes.

They might not, but He does. They just decided to highlight the foot washing because they personally thought it was most valuable to highlight. Even if you think it didn't deserve to be highlighted, doesn't mean it was theologically incorrect.

There is more to womanhood than being attractive to men, and some trans women embody that better than some cis women.

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/

Women are the thing that trans women are attempting to emulate.

So what do you do when a trans woman manages to emulate womanhood better than many real women? Man and woman is not a binary; you have feminine men, masculine men, feminine women, masculine women. There are absolutely males who are so feminine they better encompass the "woman" concept than a good chunk of cis women.

Like this meme: https://old.reddit.com/r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns/comments/lnf0lw/conservatives_dont_really_understand_biology_smh/

I wouldn't want the person on the left to be in a woman's washroom tbh. And to a lesser degree, I wouldn't want the person on the right to be in a men's washroom.

I didn't read the article you linked and honestly I don't really care enough about the topic to.

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.

I haven't seen any actual significant numbers of lefties complaining about DignifAI, only people on the right crowing about how it owns the libs.

I missed your reply originally and was just going over my old comments.

Anyways, I very much hope you wouldn't spend much time writing 3 paragraphs to clarify the position you already thought over in great detail, enough to write 3234 words(including quotes) in just your previous response. My whole point is I want something short, about 250 words max, that I can actually understand.

I don't know why you comment on this site. I do it because I enjoy being able to think through my thoughts, have others point out any mistakes I make or facts I miss, to convince others of my positions, and to get upvotes. You writing out what's basically a 12 page essay that I can't understand the thesis or conclusion of doesn't accomplish much of that, and I don't know what it did accomplish

If Jesus can wash his disciples feet, his disciples can wash the feet of the homeless and desperate.

Now, you could argue that grammar isn’t all that important, but if it is, I don’t see how you’re going to teach it in history class. Or take metaphors and figurative language.

If they're still at that level, they aren't really ready for Shakespeare either. I am talking about replacing Shakespeare and To Kill a Mockingbird with history. Below that, fiction is fine.

Alternative hypothesis: the story is actually deliberate propaganda against a particular type of guy (and against a very specific guy, once you're familiar with the details), and arguably even a particular type of girl, and it's reacted to accordingly. It's a little bit like someone wrote a ficitional story about Jews murdering Christian babies, and drinking their blood, and when understandably people got upset you counter with "Well, do you murder Christian babies and drink their blood? No? So the story is not about you". Bonus points for the characters closely resembling a particular Jewish family.

I think a complication in this metaphor is that, as far as I know, Jews murdering Christian babies and drinking their blood was never once actually a thing that happened. But this archetype of creepy man is very much a real thing, and I know of a few guys at the school I went to like that. I am sympathetic to your point, because when the archetype in fiction and also the blogosphere becomes really common, it makes it seem like roughly 50% of guys are like that, and that's like an attack on all guys. But there are a real rough 1% of guys who really are just like that and I think it is important for people, and especially women, to be aware of and slightly on guard against that archetype.

I think they do exist and have a measurable influence, but that influence is about as small as possible while not being non-existent. I would agree that alien abduction believers are more influential.

https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Richard Spencer does have 70k followers on Twitter, and while he does seem smart enough to avoid putting any blatant "Blacks are dumb beasts and Jews want to control us" on his actual Twitter, his podcast is a bit less veiled and does get at believing blacks are worse than whites.

My opinion is that people panicking about Nazis being on the verge of taking over are fools. But that it is a good policy to do stuff like ban open Nazis from social media platforms, because spreading that rhetoric isn't good.

I think the investigation of Hillary was definitely botched. I don't have a strong opinion of whether they should go back and arrest her today. But ultimately this is about Trump, not Hillary.

That may be a stupid decision on a personal basis, but if these really are Top Top Important Documents, then isn't it better to be able to get them back?

That's true, but the problem is Trump didn't give them back. They were requested multiple times but he held onto them and didn't give them back, and showed them to people without clearance. What option besides arresting him is there when he does stuff like that?

I can't pretend to know the exact numbers, but I think you're vastly underestimating the danger men pose women, and the numbers can shift truly massively. I think a lone woman walking through a busy mall in day time is almost certainly will not experience any violence. There is a slim chance, there are some mentally ill psychos out there who randomly assault women, but it's neglible.

Meanwhile, I think the odds of a lone woman walking through certain Chicago streets at night is almost certain to experience violence. Far greater than just 1% at least, despite how low her odds were around dozens of men in the mall.

Being in a random forest with a truly random man would be somewhere in between those. The man, on average, would probably be worse than the men in the mall, since a random man could be a guy in jail or a 3rd world militant, but also is probably better than the men hanging out on the Chicago streets at night. Both of them being alone would be in between the woman being surrounded by civilized strangers in a mall and the man's criminal buddies on the street too. I'd give somewhere between 0.1-5%, personally, of being assaulted.

So if I was a woman, I'd probably take a man over a black bear, but not other types of bears.

I'd be more worried about the conflict dragging in Pakistan/India/China who are borderline undeveloped themselves and already have nukes

I recommend Khan Academy as an intro. They have video lessons, and built in problems for their website. And being able to actually solve some problems is necessary to really understand economics, stuff like macroeconomics can be pretty unintuitive to think about.

For some people it's a core part of their identity. For other people it's just a shorthand to describe their dating practices. That's true for all sexualities.

Sexuality covers a wide range of things. Ultimately they're just a shorthand to describe what sort of sexual activities someone gets up to. The words don't necessarily represent just what gets someone's dick up. Someone could get horny at the sight of both men and women, but ardently only sleep with one gender; are they bisexual? I think it's entirely up to them whether they want to call themselves bisexual or not.

So how does a politician apply that rule when it comes to an issue that's a values judgement, like abortion, or the best amount to redistribute from the rich to the poor, or gun rights, or freedom of speech vs hate speech?

Those might be better options, but that dodges the question of what responsibility the politician has when their voters say they really want price controls but would in reality prefer one of those options, or even doing nothing, over price controls.

So is a politician justified in restricting the rights of minorities, if the populace is deeply bigoted and actually want the politician to go even further?

That's kind of my point. The people think they want one thing, but they really want another. I don't think people really want to erase minority cultures or kill a minority population with roving death camps either, they just get tricked into thinking they want it. But what rights do politicians have to bypass what the people think they want?

People are already achieving that level of communication with randos in online comments sections. Pen pals rarely formed very tight bonds.