philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
philosoraptor
5d ago
If this were happening in a vacuum with no historical context, that might be a good argument. But this situation is all about historical context, and to ignore it to this degree is somewhere between hopelessly naive and wilfully blind.
philosoraptor
7d ago
A 50-year old is an X-er, not a boomer, and not even an especially old X-er. The boomers were their parents' generation.
philosoraptor
7d ago
Please do bear in mind that most people who wanted Ukraine to win thought they were going to lose in weeks/months, and were pleasantly surprised that the Russians proved so incompetent at modern maneuver warfare, and the Ukrainians so resilient. This includes the bulk of Western military/geopolitical analysts.
I do distinctly remember saying at the time - not here, but to friends and coworkers - that Ukraine's best scenario (that was realistic without the US or EU doing most of the heavy lifting) was creating a Vietnam-style quagmire. In broad strokes, it seems to me that's what's happened.
philosoraptor
16d ago
Is it possible this is what Hylynka (sp?) had in mind when he implied that (oversimplifying) basically everyone here was really a progressive? He never made much sense to me when he was in that particular mode, but it seems to me you're arguing for something that could be stated that way.
philosoraptor
20d ago
I quite vividly remember someone posting a comment about there being a siren and someone else saying "can't find any news confirming it" and not piping in with "it's me, I'm the news, posting from the spotty internet in the bomb shelter". And then it became just increasingly not the right moment for it (also I was quite sleep deprived and dealing with lots of other more immediate concerns).
Those posts from the shelter would probably have been awesome, actually, though I completely understand you having other concerns that were far higher priorities at a moment like that.
philosoraptor
22d ago
It doesn't sound a thing like him.
philosoraptor
23d ago
Your math seems to assume they would only have lived one more year each. (If I understood it right, and if I didn't, it might be because most of the symbols seem to be missing...) Many were kids with their whole life ahead of them. It's 11 minutes per year they would have lived on average, plus other considerations of the sort self_made_human pointed out.
Like seemingly a lot of people, my initial guess was 80 mil.
The thought process was something like this, though less articulate. (Coming up with that number took me less time than it will take you to read this, and much less than it's going to take me to write it.)
"I know it's big. Like I'm positive it's over 50 mil. On the other hand, if it was US tier, much less China/India tier, I'm pretty sure I would know that. I wouldn't be completely shocked to learn it was over 100, if it wasn't by too much, but if you made me choose I'd bet against it. But probably closer to 100 than 50... 80 seems in the right ballpark? Maybe 85? More likely 85 than 75, but probably around there somewhere."
I don't quite count that as a win, but I guess I could have done a lot worse.
philosoraptor
1mo ago
Rarely do these things turn out to neatly fit anyone's narrative. I think this or something like it is very likely indeed.
philosoraptor
1mo ago
"Road train" is an Australian term for a semi that's pulling more than one trailer. I only know this from my attempts to decipher Midnight Oil lyrics and didn't 100% follow that part of the discussion myself, but that's the basic thing it's about.
-
Without the last five words, yes. With them... probably still yes actually, but only because it's a good habit to get into.
-
We're notorious here for what's known locally as the "Winnipeg Rolling Stop", so... almost yes? Like, a somewhat close approach to this is generally enough as long as you're paying attention. Personally I'm much more rigorous about red lights than stop signs.
-
No. They're meant for really bad driving conditions, and barring that (or traffic congestion that makes it impossible to reach much less exceed them), it's perfectly safe and reasonable to treat them as polite suggestions. That said, if you're doing 130 klicks in an 80 zone, that's over the top.
-
Again, yes if you'd only leave out the last few words. But riding someone's bumper is never acceptable behaviour. That's both unsafe and assholish and has absolutely no upside. If you ever do this on purpose, you are a dick.
-
Yes, as a last resort. That said, needing to do so usually reflects poor planning on your part. Also, sometimes you yourself are the one who should be slowing down to let them by, then falling in behind them, depending on traffic conditions.
-
Of course not. I'm a very strong believer that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'll pretty much never object to someone breaking any of these in the specific ways I've outlined (except mildly to #5) as long as they're paying enough attention to not pose a danger to me or others.
-
When the light turns green, move your fucking ass!!! Sitting there for 4-5 seconds is a dick move especially for a protected turn signal that may only last 15 seconds or so.
philosoraptor
2mo ago
philosoraptor
2mo ago
You will not make yourself more romantically successful with women by putting on dog ears, getting on all fours and barking because there are a couple women out there that like dogs.
With men, on the other hand, that'd probably work.
philosoraptor
2mo ago
Rarely do people waste space voicing empty agreement.
Especially here, where low-effort posts like that are explicitly against the rules. This may make some views seem less popular or more controversial than they really are, even among posters here, if that's all you're going by.
philosoraptor
2mo ago
Sulky artist-types are attractive to a lot of women. The "emo" thing is one relatively recent manifestation of it. It's a niche, but a big enough one that some guys do really well in it.
philosoraptor
2mo ago
Yes, I was like "left identifying what, and why did she in particular need to identify it?" until I read it a second time.
philosoraptor
2mo ago
Well, according to the progressives, everywhere, including at least some of what you'd call the "progressive" states.
One screen, two completely different movies.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
Marxism intends to overthrow capitalism. America is still capitalist. Therefore, Marxism has had no impact on American society.
Feminism intended to make women happy. Women are less happy. Therefore, feminism did not achieve anything or cause any changes on society.
Marxism explicitly says it wants to overthrow capitalism. Few feminists seem to think in terms of "happiness" but they explicitly say they want to improve things for women. The people you think are pro-pedo, meanwhile, explicitly say pedos should be put through wood chippers. There's no parallel at all there. The rest is mere sophistry.
I think a very strong case can be made that the New Left, and its subsequent and related movements in the academic left particularly queer theory, is pro-pedophilia (eventually filtering down to the 'woke' public in watered down form). To be more charitable, it's not that they are pro-pedophile per se, but rather that they have adopted a world view that doesn't make a distinction between pedophilia and non-pedophilia.
Regardless of what you think follows from other things they believe, find me a pro-pedophilia social media post from anyone visibly on the left. I'll wait. I predict I'll be waiting a very long time. Not "well if you squint just right and also read these tea leaves over here...", but anything at all that is unambiguously supportive of boinking kids. You'll find a hundred, probably a thousand, wood-chipper memes before you find anything even close. It just doesn't exist, no matter how badly certain elements of the right want it to.
Most of these people have never heard of figures like Firestone, and even if they had, look at what happened to Germaine Greer. They feel deep loyalty to their movement but not a single shred of loyalty to any of the individuals that make it up, no matter how paradoxical that sounds to people like me or what debts of gratitude it might seem that they owe. And even Firestone never seems to have gone as far as openly supporting sexualizing kids, in any sense of the word.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
As a last resort, perhaps. They're much more comfortable just implying that detransitioners don't exist and trying their best to keep them out of the conversation entirely.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
Except this is literally the first time I've heard anyone include the "to do", and the extra two letters were just enough to make it look weird and unfamiliar even though I thoroughly lurked the recent discussions of it.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
Without the typo it was. The extra two letters were just enough to throw me off.
What is the difference between a sincere belief derived from a religious framework vs a sincere belief derived from a philosophical one and why is religion given more weight in this regard?
Legal scholar and philosopher Brian Leiter has a whole book on just that topic, by the somewhat trollish title of Why Tolerate Religion?. His conclusion is the opposite of what people often assume it's going to be based on the title - that all such "claims of conscience" should be treated with equal (and fairly high) respect in this regard, rather than religion having its own special claim to "tolerance" that isn't accorded to anything else.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
TPOASITDWID
This was really confusing at first. I figured it out eventually but it's a really bad idea to use a uncommon acronym without defining it the first time.
Even Google was no help because the two extra letters you added in the middle were just enough to make this thread literally the ONLY Google hit for this as it was typed, as opposed to as it was intended.
Your initial question was:
This is hopelessly naive if you have the slightest familiarity with either side's ideological commitments. No amount of logic-chopping and theorycrafting will make that question not be... well, dumb. The Palestinian side's goal is for Israel to cease to exist.
They probably wouldn't, but that doesn't mean Palestinians would stop trying to accomplish that, or refrain from doing something even worse than 7/10 toward that end. It's clear to anyone paying attention that there's no stable two-state solution in the cards.
Oh my God, no no no no no no no. The only way reaching that point is imaginable is as a temporary and unstable compromise. It is only by pretending it's a theoretical, academic question where historical context doesn't matter that you've managed to talk yourself into thinking otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link