philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
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
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.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Reporters don’t typically have the statistical training to understand the intricacies of concepts like “correlated errors”, so all they saw was an election nerd trying to make headlines by scaring Democrats into thinking the election was closer than it really was. They too were eventually forced to eat their words when Trump won.
I mostly remember them doubling down and implying that Silver was somehow super-extra-wrong and had lost credibility by saying Trump had only a 30% chance... never mind that most other pollsters were much further off (many had it more like 1%) and didn't get the same treatment.
philosoraptor
10mo ago
He's the bullshitter, he's the guy that has to inflate every single thing he does.
And Trump isn't?
People should absolutely be punished for trusting bogus information because that's how you nip that shit in the bud. If you want people to trust government officials your first, last, and only priority should be ensuring that government officials are trustworthy.
Even granting your basic premise, how does your proposed remedy accomplish this? I mean... the suggestion is literally to punish more or less random third parties, who didn't do anything wrong other than believe bad information they were given. If anyone should be punished here surely it's the people who actually dispensed the misinformation. I fail to see how your proposed remedy does anything to disincentivize the behaviour it's supposedly aimed at, because it isn't even aimed at the right people. What I do see very clearly is that it's patently unjust, for the same reason. I mean... people shouldn't be punished for stuff other people did. It doesn't get more basic than that.
philosoraptor
10mo ago
That part is normal and (according to the red-or-darker-pill view being expressed here) even biologically imperative. Presumably the evil part is the part where (again, according to that specific view) they're prepared to dump their existing husbands on a dime for him.
I don't think I'm anywhere near to fully agreeing with this, but I have seen a lot of media geared to women that treats female cheating very casually or sometimes even as virtuous, while this is rarely the case for male cheating in media aimed at men, and it's bothered me before.
Another of my most hated ones is the idea that only 7% of meaning comes from words (the rest from body language and tone). This doesn't even make any fucking sense, much less have any evidence that it's true. It's a terrible description (like, you'd have to be borderline-illiterate to go to the original source and have this as your takeaway) of a study that was making a completely different, much narrower point. (Specifically, that if your verbal and nonverbal communication don't match, people will generally believe the nonverbal portion - e.g. you say to your spouse "everything's fine!" in an angry, aggressive tone, this will not persuade them that everything's fine.)
Thinking for ten seconds about the last non-trivial conversation you had (roughly speaking, one where novel information was exchanged on a topic other than the participants' current emotional states) should be enough to disprove this idea decisively. How, you should ask yourself, could 93% of that information have been exchanged in a way that was independent of the words used? In most cases, you will find that the question not only does not have a good answer, but is hard to even make sense of.
This has not prevented the idea from showing up in training materials from major multinational corporations, not to mention the Web sites of universities that should damn well know better.
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
2yr ago
... context?
philosoraptor
2yr ago
Not that there weren't recognizable proto-wokist streams within leftism at the time, but it wasn't nearly the all-encompassing thing it can seem to be now. In particular race was nowhere near as central to North American leftism before about 2014 as it is now. In fact one of the many things I (pretty leftist at least by current Motte standards) lament about the rise of wokism is the near-total absence of, not only anti-war sentiment, but of any consideration of foreign policy at all, from 2023 leftism.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
What is your overall point? What is the "Morning Chestnut Problem"? What do Japanese sources say about Yasuke that differs from English ones, specifically? How did his depiction go over in Japan?
After all those words, on a topic I do have some interest in, I feel only marginally closer to understanding any of these things. Almost all your explanations feel incomplete, and the lack of structure or things like clear thesis statements doesn't do you any favours either. Impose some structure and make sure all your thoughts actually resolve, and I could overlook the awkward prose.
Your thoughts on Wikipedia are certainly familiar ones here. What most strikes me about your first (English-language) Wikipedia link is the hypocrisy of the principles expressed there when contrasted with how they actually handle any topic relevant to the US culture war.
philosoraptor
5mo ago
They wouldn't if that's all that was going on, but I think you missed the context. They view blowing up hospitals as evil, even when rockets and weapon caches are the reason they're doing so.
Their three paragraphs here and replies elsewhere in this thread can be summarized as; "even if the populists are sucessful (which they wont be) it will be for reasons outside thier control and thus not count."
All three specify circumstances under which he would update, and some of them aren't even all that demanding. None of them require things outside the government's control or at least not wildly more than your list that he was replying to. Reading "here are three ways I would update" as "I wouldn't update" is... certainly a thing someone said on the Internet today.
Honestly, you're not making much sense. You don't seem to be reading what the words in front of you actually say, but what your opinion of the person posting them leads you to expect to be there.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
Hypothetically, if Canada did become the 51st state, would I be right in saying it would be the largest state in the union by landmass by quite a huge margin? Or am I too Mercator-projection pilled?
LOL. By landmass, Canada is the second-largest country in the world, after Russia. It's not just bigger than any US state, it's bigger than the US.
Even by population, it would be the largest, just slightly higher than California.
philosoraptor
4mo ago
Its not 4-d chess, but it is some competent Jui Jitsu.
Jew Jitsu?
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
11mo 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.)
philosoraptor
1yr ago
due to copyright or (even worse) patent laws
At least patents expire in a reasonable(-ish) amount of time.
I also don't see how you could copyright a GMO, as at least to my non-lawyer eyes, it's not a form of expression. But I've been wrong about what lawyers will come up with, and courts will indulge, many times before. Certainly there's been enough discussion here about what they've done with terms like "speech" and "commerce"; it's as bad as the situation with terms like "racism" and "oppression" and arguably even more creative, so I don't want to push that point too hard.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Also he needs to divest all but 100k in crypto and only keep that 100k so that if the guy does break in your friend has something to give him and his family doesn't get killed. I think the reason crypto is dumb doesn't really need an explanation beyond my comment being something anyone with a large amount of it needs to worry about.
Doesn't this argument prove way too much? Why doesn't it apply to money in any form? While I suppose crypto somewhat increases the available attack surface, it seems to me your argument applies to anyone known to be rich no matter where they have their wealth stashed, especially if they manage to make enemies with these kinds of resources.
philosoraptor
2yr ago
I fold in the spots where I'm 60% fave for all my money to save it for the 75% spots.
???
What does this mean, or have to do with the discussion? It's formatted as a quote but I can't find it in OP or anywhere else.
philosoraptor
2yr ago
Surely it makes a difference that "some dude" is a person in an official position whose job is, at least in part, to dispense accurate information about this. If anyone did anything wrong here it's them.
I guess the disagreement is largely about what kind of mens rea requirement should hold here. I don't see why voting illegally should be a strict liability thing like you apparently do, especially if the underlying goal is to prevent *intentional *voter fraud (though such votes should not be counted, if there's a way to enforce that without de-anonymizing them). Doing it with conscious intent, sure.
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
About (aboot?) 40%, but what's half an order of magnitude between friends.
philosoraptor
5mo ago
A few hard-left loudmouths, sure, but not the vast majority of people who think Israel needs to tone it down or just want a ceasefire, any ceasefire.
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?
More options
Context Copy link