philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
philosoraptor
3mo ago
One solution might be to make a territory, not a state, so they wouldn't have the right to vote.
If this was the proposal, there's no way in hell it happens in a voluntary way, like Trump seems to want at least according to the video.
Not that I give much odds of that in any scenario, but especially that one.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
What, some coalition of black people, Hispanics and Asians decides to oppress white people?
Well for one thing, BIPOC (like URM or the even more direct NAM) specifically excludes Asians.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
I think the person you're replying to is talking about within the US, where supposedly most "African-Americans" have at least some white ancestry, and they seem to be comparing against the largest genetic difference you'll find between white Americans, not the average or most common case. Certainly the context of the larger conversation is about something that primarily applies to the US.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
About (aboot?) 40%, but what's half an order of magnitude between friends.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
Yeah, the territories would probably have the same "no, you don't get to sit at the big kids' table" status as they do now within Canada, if not moreso. Might want to merge some of the Atlantic provinces too, making ten provinces into something like eight US states.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
Look at the recommended charities on GWWC (GWWC is recommended as the best overall resource for charities on ea.org). GiveDirectly spends 95% of its money on charitable expenses. For AMF it's 99.4%. Malaria Consortium is at 12% and HKI is at 16%.
If I'm understanding your links right, you flip what the numbers mean in mid-paragraph here - the first two (in the 90s) are the amount spent on actual charitable expenses while the last two (in the teens) are the amount they spend on overhead. This makes it look like the last two are really terrible wheras I take your intended point to be that they're nearly as good as the first two.
To be brief (yeah that part didn't work out), yet still give this more attention than it deserves:
At no point did I say anything about what Trump or anyone in his administration believes. The point about balancing trade deficits is that it's probably a stupid goal. The problem is that Trump is sincere about pursuing them, not that I think he isn't. Unless you think Trump can do no wrong - and I'm trying to be more charitable than this but it increasingly seems like the only explanation for some of the things you type - this is a take that should at the very least be well within the bounds of reasonable debate.
Also, I said right-leaning, as in politically, not right-thinking. Basic reading comprehension fails like this... well, don't exactly fill me with confidence about where you're coming from.
The bigger problem here, though, is that you're latching on to the same fucking sentence like a pit bull on more or less anything, as though the post you were replying to consisted of that same sentence twenty times and nothing else. You're in such a state of rage that you can't seem to see anything else, especially the parts that directly contradict your take, except that one sentence. Stop, take some deep breaths, and actually read. You are, again, not responding to the words that are actually in front of you, but to some made-up construct in your head.
We're not supposed to assume bad faith here (not that you're letting that stop you) but it is increasingly hard to believe this is an honest take. To be clear, I'm not saying Trump or the majority of his administration or hardcore supporters don't believe the things they say. But the specific things you are saying here in this thread are so mismatched with the plain black and white text they are ostensibly responding to that it's becoming difficult to understand how they could be sincere. At the very least, I'm quite certain they're a long way from being the best takes you're capable of.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
Its not 4-d chess, but it is some competent Jui Jitsu.
Jew Jitsu?
philosoraptor
3mo ago
We don't really do the Euro-style coalition thing. A minority government has to scare up enough votes from the other parties to pass any given piece of legislation (or any non-confidence motion that the other parties might be able to force). But it isn't as formal, and in practical terms, it isn't necessarily the same party all the time. In this case, for a long time Singh and the NDP could mostly be counted on to support the Trudeau Liberals and several of the thousand cuts they died of took the form of Singh withdrawing that support.
philosoraptor
9mo ago
Abortion will still be a sore spot for Trump and Kamala will focus tehre
I'm not sure why it's a sore spot, but then I may not have kept up with the "debate" on that topic. Can't Trump honestly (for Trump) say something like:
"What are you talking about? I've been saying all along abortion should be left up to the states to legislate, and oh, look, now the Supreme Court says I was right all along, it should be left up to the states. Which contrary to your side's usual fear-mongering, is all the ruling says. I already won! The federal government is out of the abortion business. Don't take my word for it, ask the Supreme Court, that's the law of the land now. There's nothing either of us can do about it, even if I wanted to, which I don't!"
That's actually less exaggerated and blustery than the average policy-related thing Trump says; as far as I know it's basically true. He's probably the least anti-abortion Republican president in living memory, yet has (indirectly) given that side its biggest win of my lifetime. It seems to me neither side can attack him convincingly on this topic. What am I missing?
philosoraptor
4mo ago
I only know who one of those even is. I don't know if online life is to blame like someone else said - it seems to me to slightly predate modern social media - but whatever the reason, music is so fragmented now that it's almost inconceivable someone could get the whole culture following them the way the Beatles did. Taylor Swift is probably the closest thing currently possible but it's not that close.
philosoraptor
10mo ago
This is silly, it's important to actually get the facts straight and one shouldn't respond as if attacked when corrected on the facts.
The suspicion is that those facts are being weaponized, and that the same people doing the "correcting" would be soft-pedalling them or even being actively misleading if they didn't fit the narrative they wanted to push (and, in fact, have a history of doing just that). You can't (well, okay, shouldn't) make arguments for years on end that rely on conflating "trans" and "intersex" and then get all huffy and indignant when people confuse the two in a way that you don't find politically convenient.
(Generic "you", not necessarily you personally.)
A quick Google suggests approximately 1/15.
In my neck of the woods, black doctors, especially those who've come onto the scene recently enough for this to potentially matter, are almost invariably relative newcomers from Nigeria (and often Irish-trained). They seem as competent as anyone - in any case I've been quite happy with mine.
They're thus unlikely to be affected much by lowered standards, actual or perceived, in the North American continent. Now you have me wondering if this might also be part of the answer to your question - clinics consciously avoiding potentially less qualified candidates from nearer to home, in a way that still makes them look "diverse".
philosoraptor
2mo ago
Where? Do you have examples?
philosoraptor
4mo ago
Even then, the same thing can be inexpensive (as government programs go) and worth keeping. Dropping such a thing wouldn't be likely to cause a recession, but barring cases where they specifically say that, there's nothing wrong with that logic.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
"House of the Raising Sun" (because I misremembered the vocalist drawling "gambling" there)
If you mean The Animals' version, I think there's a slide during the first syllable that probably threw you, but it's still only one syllable.
philosoraptor
10mo ago
Millions of streamers are now salivating at the prospect of commenting on a sassy black woman putting misogynist old huwhite Drumpf back in his place or glorious tangerine god emperor throwing Kamabla in a volcano of facts and logic.
Neither of these seems likely to me. Kamala doesn't seem that witty, and "facts and logic" isn't the kind of witty Trump is, even when he's on.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
I tried like 8 times to write a long one and it all seemed absurd.
That's telling you something.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
There's been infinite debates on "mansplaining" but I believe there is a kernel of truth to it and it's revealed through behavior.
My own experience is very strongly that this has nothing to do with gender at all. In fact, nobody, nobody, is more prone to condescendingly explaining things to people who already understand them (and frequently just finished making that unmistakably clear) than the kind of feminists who talk about "mansplaining"!
philosoraptor
1yr ago
That's 7% of all interracial marriages that are black man/white woman compared to 9% of interracial marriages that are white man/asian woman. Hardly a substantial difference.
It's huge when you consider the relative proportions of Black vs Asian people in the US.
philosoraptor
2yr ago
IME actual doctors are confidently wrong with some regularity too.
Look, way back in the 70s, D&D players were raising questions about the "Always Chaotic Evil" trope. Just why should every single Orc be born evil?
I don't understand why Orcs have always been the go-to example for this. First of all the "Always Chaotic Evil" terminology only goes back to 2000 and was gone again by 2009 - it originates with the 3rd Edition Monster Manual introducing a bit more nuance into alignments, with the usual alignment now preceded by "Always" (for things like demons where that alignment was part of their nature), "Usually" (where it was more a case of strong cultural associations with that alignment), or the rarely-used "Often" (like usually but the association is much weaker). I think humans got "Often True Neutral" but I can't remember another case where "Often" was used.
And Orcs were firmly in the "Usually" bucket. You even gave some of the reasons for this. All over the Internet people talk like they got tagged "Always Chaotic Evil" and it's just not true! In both editions where that terminology exists they are "Usually Chaotic Evil". The problem they are referring to (EDIT: insofar as it ever existed, which wasn't very) was already fixed in the same book that originated much of the terminology used to discuss it.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
That was in New Jersey.
Without the typo it was. The extra two letters were just enough to throw me off.
More options
Context Copy link