omw_68
1d ago
The culture war element here is that there are women going on the defense for Lindsay Clancy because she is a woman and because they want to defend the people who think like them. It's a combination of insane empathy coupled with identity politics that makes this what it is. It’s mostly the same crowd that demands full agency for women who are now pivoting to "women have no agency, so it's not her fault" to defend one of their own.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with this 100%. I don't have a strong opinion about the case itself -- quite possibly she really did have a psychotic break. My objection is to people (mainly women) who automatically side with her because she's a woman. And to this idea that women get to pivot back and forth between being children and adults depending on what's most convenient. And to this idea that women should never be held criminally responsible for anything. (Admittedly, the last two sentences exaggerate the feminist position a bit, but it's really not that much of an exaggeration.)
omw_68
2d ago
Perhaps what you are trying to argue is that all things equal a larger amount of black crime would be interracial compared to white crime?
It seems to me that this would apply equally to both perpetration and victimization, so @Jiro 's point still doesn't make any sense.
So for example, suppose there are 100 blacks and 100,000,000 whites in society. If crime is randomly distributed, one would expect that if a black person is involved in a crime, almost certainly the other participant is white (while at the same time, if a white person is involved in a crime, almost certainly the other participant is NOT black).
But critically, this point applies equally to both black perpetrators AND black victims. So that if one looks only at interracial crimes, the ratio should still be equal.
Here's the point that was being responded to:
nearly all cross-race rapes between Whites and Blacks involve a White female victim
The argument that @Jiro made -- about relative sizes of populations -- doesn't explain this at all.
omw_68
2d ago
Damn, are we even breaking arithmetic and/or algebra to carry water for blacks now?
FWIW I agree that @Jiro's math is nonsensical. It doesn't matter what the relative population sizes are, because a smaller population size means fewer potential rapists and fewer potential victims, which should precisely balance out (assuming even distribution of criminality and random victim selection).
that does mean that black men are more prone to committing rape than white men and/or are more likely to commit interracial rape.
Part of the issue, which came out during the Duke Lacrosse hoax, is that white on black rape is so rare as to be practically unheard of. This is a fact which causes liberals to freak out almost as much as other, more talked-about, racial disparities. And probably it's part of the reason why hoaxes like Duke Lacrosse can get so much traction.
omw_68
2d ago
I read "nearly all" to be a statement about ratios, not absolute numbers
Even so, your math is completely wrong. In a hypothetical world where (1) blacks and whites are equally likely to be rapists; and (2) victims are chosen at random, one would expect the ratio to be 1:1 as between black on white rape and white on black rape.
omw_68
3d ago
There isn't much of an opposite side on the Russian invasion of Ukraine
I tend to disagree with this, but in the interest of avoiding a culture war skirmish, perhaps you can give me a few examples of popular views on the Latest Thing for which you would agree there is an opposite side?
omw_68
3d ago
Sadly, I've spoken to enough friends in real life to know that it isn't astroturfed.
Are these friends the sort of people who more or less go along with the Latest Thing? For example, how did they feel about the Russian invasion of the Ukraine?
If your friends are real independent thinkers, then fine, but in my experience such persons are pretty rare. And if they aren't independent thinkers, the fact that they oppose data centers (arguably) is not evidence one way or another on the astroturf issue.
Perhaps I am misusing the word "astroturf" here. I don't dispute that there are a lot of real people out there who are opposed to data centers. I just get the feeling that there is some institution or government entity which is quietly rousing and encouraging the opposition. It reminds me of the anti-nuke campaigns in the 1980s
omw_68
4d ago
I have not been following the issue closely, but FWIW to me there is kind of an astroturf vibe to this opposition to data centers.
omw_68
4d ago
The problem is, those are all sort of plausible lies
I basically agree. I think it would have been "roughly equivalent" if (1) he had claimed to have been a medal of honor winner who singlehandedly prevented the massacre of a village; and (2) he had publicly made the claim BEFORE he had been made professor in 1979.
The world, of course, is full of liars. But a rarer breed is a person who I would call a "compulsive liar." What I mean by this is a person who instead of telling lies which are occasional, calculated, plausible, and difficult to falsify, tells lies which are outrageous on their face (or at least highly suspect), and much less likely to stand up to mild scrutiny.
When a person is a compulsive liar, it usually becomes pretty clear after the second or third whopper, at which point most people stop taking the person seriously.
I think it would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, for a straight white man to make it through college and grad school and to get hired as a professor if he were a compulsive liar. Because at each level there are recommendations, interviews, etc. and it's difficult to get past these hurdles if (1) people don't take you seriously; and (2) for whatever reason you are unable to stop yourself from making statements which damage your credibility.
So what was different about Jason Arday? It seems to me it's pretty obvious the difference was race. That Cambridge was desperate to hire a black professor and people in the academy are (reasonably) scared to death to question or criticize a black academic.
omw_68
4d ago
"Roughly equivalent" has to do a lot of work
But it's necessary work, in my opinion. So for example, as best as I can tell from the Wikipedia article, Ellis became a full professor in 1979 and started BSing about his past some time after 1981. Moreover, the lies he told were not outrageous on their face, or even highly suspect.
In my view, it would have been roughly equivalent if (1) he'd claimed to have been a medal of honor winner who had singledhandedly prevented a massacre of a village; and (2) he had made the claim publicly BEFORE being hired and/or promoted. But I don't think something like that would have happened. Because people aren't (and weren't) afraid to express skepticism about a straight white man in the way in that in 2026 people are afraid to express skepticism about a black person.
I think that most people have met compulsive liars in their lives. People who constantly tell stories which are just not that believable on their face. For the most part, such people just aren't taken seriously. In my view, what's different about this case is that (1) the compulsive liar was a black person; (2) Cambridge University desperately wanted to hire a black person to be a professor; and (3) people in academia are (legitimately) scared to death of publicly criticizing a black academic.
In other words, it seems to me this is all about race and is not just some kind of generalized groupthink phenomenon which could just as easily apply to a white person. A white person who was a compulsive liar would, generally speaking NOT get into a situation like this.
omw_68
5d ago
I mean, I have to think a great many people realized his autobiographical tall tales were bullshit, but treated them as just that - the tall tales of an eccentric egotist, which academia isn't short on
I would challenge you to identify 3 individuals who (1) are straight white men; (2) are or were professors at mainstream universities; (3) had publicly spun tall tales roughly equivalent to those of Jason Arday (i.e. numerous and highly suspect on their face); and (4) were nonetheless hired and/or promoted in spite of their autobiographical tall tales.
I'm skeptical that such individuals exist. And if they don't, it lends support to the hypothesis that Arday's race was the main factor. That either (1) people knew he was there just to be a black professor and therefore didn't care about this other stuff; or (2) were scared to death of saying anything negative about Arday for fear of being accused of racism.
omw_68
5d ago
I would agree that, broadly defined, emergencyism is pretty common. Perhaps it would be better to call it a "war mentality." Because for the most part, the rhetoric I have seen is framed along the lines of "this is necessary in light of the circumstances" as opposed to "this is only temporary," although the two arguments are really not all that different.
In any event, here's my question: Suppose you are dealing with a political opponent which has an emergencyist or war mentality towards your group. Rightly or wrongly, they see your group as a dire threat and they feel justified in doing what would otherwise be seen as pretty bad things in order to defeat you. Would you agree that under such circumstances, the rational thing to do is to adopt a similar mentality yourself?
omw_68
7d ago
This is why I included a parenthetical in a bracket in the other comment, to clarify the type of perception of lack of agency is involved. Eg slaves in USA in 1850 were known to lack agency, but that didn't confer any particular social or political capital. But that has only a little in common with how Arday was perceived or treated.
I see. I'm still not sure how one would precisely define "social and political capital," but yeah, I would say that if for whatever reason people are obligated to appease you, then yeah, that should probably count.
omw_68
7d ago
That's fair; "definitionally" is wrong in my previous comment. But I do think that people subconsciously seeing you as lacking agency is sufficient for having social and political capital, just not necessary.
Well, let's flip things around. Looking at the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (to the extent they are still around), would you say that FLDS women, as a group, possess a great deal of social and political capital? Would you say that they are seen as lacking in agency?
I'm not super familiar with the FLDS, but I would guess that for the most part FLDS women are seen as lacking in agency, at least compared to men. As far as social and political capital goes, I suppose it depends on how you define the term. Certainly FLDS women are highly valued, notwithstanding the fact that they are expected to play a subservient role.
omw_68
7d ago
I'm not sure how "people subconsciously see you as lacking agency [(in a way that makes it morally obligatory for them to appease you)]" isn't basically definitionally "having social and political capital."
Elsewhere in this thread I gave a few examples of individuals whom I believe (1) have a great deal of social/political capital; (2) were involved in activities which could have subject them to a great deal of criticism; and (3) weathered the (potential) storm, but not by being perceived as lacking in agency.
Those 3 individuals (all white men) were Alan Dershowitz; Richard Posner; and Bernie Sanders.
So I think it's not quite the same thing.
omw_68
9d ago
"They" are at least arguably not a completely unified discrete group, though I get the spirit of your response. I would suggest humans in general regardless of political stripe are capable of deceit and even fraud, as well as a conviction that their own side is morally superior and thus its rules should be foisted on the perceived opposition.
In theory I agree, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that modern progressivism is a magnet for psychopathic grifters, given that (1) progressives have a great deal of influence over all the major institutions in the West; and (2) the progressive philosophy gives its adherents permission (and encouragement) to aggressively inflict harm on anyone who can be labeled an enemy.
If we were in 13th Century Europe, I would guess that the frauds, charlatans, etc. would be concentrated among the religious institutions.
omw_68
9d ago
The line between retarded and crazy is thin. But the point I'm trying to make is still that Candace Owens had to actually hone her craft as a professional liar in the open marketplace of ideas lies. She had to develop soft skills, coping mechanisms, how to navigate the ecosystem and network. How many times has Owens been caught peddling bullshit? How many times has she lost her patron and had to find a new audience? I think she might be the singular personality from the Gamergate era that is still keeping up a grift. It's honestly astounding, and speaks to a reserve of grit and work ethic that is rather impressive, being a crazy/retarded liar aside.
Compared to Ardey who never failed in his life, no matter how outlandish his lies were, because he was being kept as a pet by his betters. Then suddenly he encountered the real world despite their best efforts, and the shock was too much for him. It was cruel to gas up a retard that much.
I think this is an interesting point, and it sounds to me like you are probably correct, but it raises a question: Why didn't Candace Owens just join the Left? As a reasonably attractive black woman, she surely could have gotten some kind of reasonably well paying public intellectual position. Or she could have stayed with the Daily Wire if she had just stayed silent about Israel. (As a side note, I strongly suspect that Matt Walsh has pretty strong negative feelings about Jews but is smart enough to keep his mouth shut.)
I note there's another thing your 3 examples have in common. I don't think that's what protected them, but it's curious that a commonality like that exists among the 3 scenarios that came to your mind.
I would ask that you speak plainly and not cryptically. I suspect you are trying to imply that there is some dark Jewish Conspiracy which, for reasons best known to the conspirators, goes out of its way to cover for Bernie Sanders (who has led the effort in the Senate to end US military aid to Israel) but persecutes Zionists such as Harvey Weinstein.
But I am not inclined to try to guess what your point is. So . . . what exactly are you trying to say here?
Edit: Oops, I misread your post. You said that the commonality did NOT protect them. So now I have absolutely no idea what your point is. I thought of 3 outspoken Americans, two of whom are attorneys, and they all happen to be of Jewish descent? Or maybe it's not the Jewish angle? Is it that they are all white men? (That's kind of the point.)
Seriously, what are you trying to say here?
omw_68
10d ago
Maybe those two things are related.
Well here are a few scenarios I thought of:
Alan Dershowitz, a well respected attorney and law professor who (1) was caught up with Jeffrey Epstein to some extent and accused of having relations with Virginia Giuffre (probably a false accusation, but still potentially damaging); and (2) was accused of plagiarizing parts of a book (as I recall, he blamed his research assistant);
Bernie Sanders, well respected among progressives, socialists, etc. despite having a substantial personal fortune;
Richard Posner, a well respected judge whose writings arguably contain a lot of political incorrectness.
My sense is that the social and political capital possessed by these men helped protect them. But what's interesting to me is that for the most part, people didn't take the position that the problems these men got into were the result of them being victims of circumstance, being innocent pawns who were manipulated by larger forces, etc. It seems they were all treated as having agency.
By contrast, it seems that this Jason Arday is thought of as lacking agency by both his supporters and his detractors.
omw_68
11d ago
It speaks to the inordinate amount of social and political capital that black people have today. There wouldn't be a shred of sympathy from either aisle if Arday was Israeli or Indian
Is it their social and political capital? Or is it that people subconsciously see them as lacking agency? With Arday, it's hard not to see him as a child who was in way over his head, being used as a pawn in someone's status game.
omw_68
11d ago
Presuming he killed himself, it was likely because his sins were so egregious that even his own tribe could not overlook or excuse them. Nasty and vicious jeers from the outgroup are merely badges of honor, but the disappointed glances from the ingroup hit like a freight train
Yes, I think this is a good point. I'm speculating a bit, but my guess is that his university had one or two high level people who served as his "advisors" or "mentors" or whatever you want to call them. Any time he had a problem, he just had to call them up and they would use their considerable power to help fix the problem. (Kind of like the parent of a spoiled child.) I would guess that his mentors told him they couldn't help him and it would be best if he resigned.
omw_68
11d ago
Uh, Domino was well-cast, that actress has good physical presence and doesn't, to my knowledge, race-bait.
To an extent I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that almost certainly she was cast because of her race. It reminds me of when Billy Dee Williams was cast in "The Empire Strikes Back" back in 1980 in response to criticism that the Star Wars universe was too white. Unlike a lot of DEI movie characters, Lando Calrissian had a lot going for him: He was an interesting character, he wasn't a race-swap; he didn't follow the usual tropes of being wiser and/or more brilliant than any of the white characters around him. But the problem is that these sorts of casting choices normalize and legitimize diversity casting. And suddenly producers are inserting so-called "magical negro" characters everywhere, even in productions which are set in medieval Europe type settings.
In my view, accepting a race swap of this Domino character is accepting the camel's nose a little bit into the tent.
omw_68
11d ago
I was especially amused by this doubling down:
“If the movie’s producers had to go outside of the normal stunt community to find someone who was both qualified and resembles the actress, that speaks to a problem of lack of diversity of stunt performers,” says Darnell Hunt, the dean of Social Sciences at UCLA who helps produce the annual “Hollywood Diversity Report,” which comes out before the Oscars every year.
It costs something like $100k to get a commercial pilot's license. Once you have that you generally become a flight instructor, which lets you log hours on the dime of one of those flight students while they spend their own $100k to get their own commercial pilot's license. After 1250 hours of that, plus a few other side quests, you qualify for an airline transport pilot certificate and can finally work for an airline.
On a side note I've always found it funny that virtually every civilian flight student is taught not by a highly experienced pilot with a genuine interest in developing the next generation of pilots, but rather by someone barely out of flight school themselves who is only doing it to tick the box they need to go after the job they really want.
Only in the military do people become instructors at the tail instead of the start of their careers, and that's why I have a lot more faith and trust in pilots who joined the airlines from the military than from the civilian path.
So I was curious about this, not curious enough to look at lots of sources, but curious enough to ask the AI "are there student loans available for flight school" Here was the response:
Yes, you can get student loans for flight school, but availability depends entirely on whether the program is an accredited, degree-granting college course or an independent vocational flight school.
Federal vs. Private LoansFederal Student Loans: Available only if you attend an accredited college or university offering an aviation degree (such as an associate or bachelor's in professional flight) that qualifies for Title IV federal aid. You must fill out the FAFSA form to see if you qualify.
Independent, non-accredited flight schools do not qualify for federal aid.Private Career Training Loans: If you attend an independent vocational flight school (like ATP Flight School) or a non-degree program, you must use private lenders. Lenders like [Sallie Mae](https://www.salliemae.com/student-loans/career-training-loan/flight-school-loans/` or Ascent offer specialized career training or airline career loans that cover up to 100% of flight hours, ground school, and gear.
Alternative Aviation FinancingAOPA Finance: Organizations like the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association offer specialized aviation lines of credit and loans targeted at distinct licenses (like a private pilot or instrument rating) rather than a massive upfront lump sum.
Airline-Sponsored Programs: Some major airlines and partner academies offer deferred tuition, career pathways, or tuition reimbursement once you commit to flying for them post-graduation.
Flight Training Scholarships: Numerous independent aviation grants and scholarships exist through groups like Women in Aviation International and the AOPA.
I then asked "what are the downsides to using private loans for flight school" and received this answer:
Using private loans for flight school carries major financial risks, including high interest rates (often 12% to 17%), large monthly payments that clash with low starting pilot salaries, and strict repayment obligations even if you lose your medical clearance or fail to find a job.
Finally I asked "is it common for flight school graduates to fail to find pilot jobs" and received this answer:
Yes, it is common for some flight school graduates—especially those with low flight hours—to struggle to find immediate airline jobs. Most entry-level jobs require at least 250 hours, while major airlines require 1,500 hours, leaving graduates to compete for scarce time-building positions like flight instructing.
Why Finding a Job is Hard The 1,500-Hour Rule: Pilots need 1,500 flight hours for an Airline Transport Pilot certificate in the US.
Low Hour Pool: Fresh graduates usually have only 250 hours.
Fewer Instructor Openings: Flight schools can get full, leaving new graduates with no way to build hours.
Hiring Waves: Airline hiring goes up and down based on the economy and travel demand
This contradicts the optimistic idea that there is a straightforward path for any young person to obtain a high status good paying job. Obviously I am skeptical of AI, but this answer is consistent with common sense. The idea that there is a large and perennial shortage of pilots and most people can become one by taking out $100,000 in loans and paying their dues over a few years is like saying that there is a stack of $20 bills on the sidewalk waiting for anyone to pick up.
Moreover, it's easy to see how the deck could be stacked against white men: Admission to accredited schools which offer aviation degrees; scholarships; opportunities to accumulate the necessary hours; airline hiring during the inevitable lulls; etc. are all areas where institutions have the opportunity to put a big heavy thumb on the scales in favor of women and non-whites. Based on my general observations in life, I'm pretty confident that this sort of bias is present.
I think that over the last few decades, basically any job which is (1) high status / cool; (2) is gate-kept by large institutions, has undergone DEIification.
There is no peaceful solution. You have two groups of people that have a multi-generational blood feud going.
Although I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with your reasoning. There is a saying which goes along the lines of "If the Arabs lay down their weapons, there will be peace; if Israel lays down its weapons, there will be no more Israel." Is that saying true? The experience with Jordan and Egypt suggests that the answer is "yes." Israel has not attacked Jordan or Egypt even though it has more than enough military strength to do so. Almost certainly Gaza could have gone in a similar direction after the Israeli pullout 20 years ago, but Gaza's leadership instead chose a different direction.
That being said, I agree that a peaceful solution to the current conflict is very unlikely. The key point is that the main goal of the Palestinian Arabs is to destroy Jewish Israel. As long as they have some hope of achieving that goal, the conflict will continue, unless of course they succeed. Thus, there are basically two ways for the conflict to end: First, Israel gets destroyed (obviously violent). Second, the Palestinian Arabs are completely subdued, their hopes and dreams of destroying Israel getting crushed in the process. It's difficult to see how this could be accomplished without violence.
This distinction matters. Putting pressure on Israel feeds the hopes and dreams of the Palestinian Arabs, leading to more intense conflict.
Israel is in deep trouble. The original framework of support for Israel was US/Western World in favor (out of a combination of guilt and wanting to spread democracy), communist world against (mainly for reasons of optics/opposing western imperialism
I disagree with this analysis for a couple reasons. First, the US gave Israel very little support before the 1970s and Israel did okay. In fact it was the USSR that was a big weapon supplier to Israel in the 1940s. Second, there has still been a tremendous amount of support for Israel in the United States notwithstanding the end of the cold war. Third, even without Western support, Israel could defend itself pretty well against Arab attacks just like it did in 1967.
Its secular population is declining at the same rate as the rest of the developed world.
In absolute terms, I would probably disagree with this. Secular Israelis (the type who drive on Saturdays; who eat shrimp; etc. but who go to the local synagogue for funerals, weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc.) are holding their own pretty well compared to other secular groups in the world. But in relative terms? Yes, the religious populations in Israel are outpacing the seculars by a wide margin.
But in general, the conditions that the Palestinians have been subject to has made them into a vengeful and violent people, and I don’t know what country would be willing to risk taking them in.
I agree that they are a problem population, but I don't think I would blame it on their conditions. Not those of the last 100 years, anyway.
given the horrific deaths the Israelis would likely meet at the hands of an invading Arab army,
That was tried back in 1967 and it didn't work out for the Arabs. And it was more because the Israelis were more determined and better organized than anything else. At this point, the Israeli military is far stronger than it was in 1967, so I think it's unlikely that such an invasion would be attempted, let alone having a reasonable chance of success.
I'm not a representative of Israel, but I am pretty sure Israel would claim that it's Jew hatred.
This is apparently from the original Hamas charter:
Of course, anyone can say anything about their motivations, and people (obviously) have a strong tendency to engage in whitewashing when describing their motivations. It's pretty likely that if you asked Hamas leadership today about their motivations, they would insist it's just about "fighting Zionism."
But consider that (1) Egypt occupied Gaza for many years; and (2) Egypt blockaded Gaza for many years up to and including the present day. What did the Palestinian Arabs do to resist this "occupation"? Practically nothing. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, back in the day the PLO issued a statement to the effect that it was not contesting Egyptian control of Gaza or Jordanian control of J+S.
The phrase "targets for elimination" seems oddly worded to me. As if the person who wrote that phrase is trying to create a misleading impression. Do you believe that there was significant religious persecution of Jews in the Ottoman Empire?
Can we agree that there were significant attacks against the Jews in the area before 1948? Can we agree that numerous Arab countries formally declared war on Israel before being defeated in the 1948 war? It seems to me that if you include this context, it appears that the Arabs created themselves as enemies before being defeated in the 1948 war.
More options
Context Copy link