phosphorus2
No bio...
User ID: 3264
phosphorus2
12d ago
Here is the Imperial War Museum's purpose, in its own words:
IWM was founded in 1917 to document the First World War in real time, and to preserve for future generations a record of everyone’s service and sacrifice, military and civilian, across the UK and the British Empire. IWM’s remit was later extended to cover the Second World War and conflicts involving British and Commonwealth service personnel, up to the present day.
The next, and final day, had been organized at my behest. At some point, I'd evinced interest in visiting the Royal Armories Museum (to meet the ever-entertaining Johnathan Ferguson), but was enthusiastically informed by my cousin that we had the Imperial War Museum in town. With a name like that, how could I not go?
It was a bit of a drive, and the exterior was uninspiring. Very 1990s, all angular slopes and little decoration to break them up.
The insides were rather interesting. I was a bit confused by the currently running exhibition, organized by a Punjabi lady and celebrating her experience of growing up in the UK as an immigrant. A lot of East meets West, leaning towards the East. Not particularly exciting to me, I'd grown up there.
Of course there is an exhibit exploring the family, marriage, religion, and the role of women within Punjabi culture in an English war museum. Its like they picked an exhibit as conceptually distant as possible from what they tell the public their purpose is. Its so quintessentially English, of their all encompassing self debasement. Just a little snapshot, a microcosm, of the degradation of their own culture and people perpetuated by their own elites.
phosphorus2
17d ago
America loves doomed interventions and military misadventures, but it loves them because it has such an overwhelming military and wealth advantage over everyone else it can afford to be reckless and half-ass imperialism
Not true, not convincing
I reject that population size is an important factor when deciding to halt nuclear proliferation. It is the military and the President who will handle the logistics of destruction and/or conquest.
If stopping proliferation were all Ted wanted to do in Iran maybe youd have a point. But its not. So you dont.
What? No, of course it means those things. Why do you think Ted Cruz or people who support bombing Iran care about another civil war in the Middle East? So long as they're not nuclear, they're welcome to go full Mad Max.
Becauase if there is a civil war, then all of the progressives in America are going to do whatever they can to import a billion refugees.
phosphorus2
17d ago
The wrong goals were pursued in all of these cases.
Yeah its why I said that American superiority doesn't matter. Seems that you should be not confident in American superiority. And yet you are. Ok.
I asked this to another, I ask it to you: at what point do you think the US military asks Ted Cruz to handle logistics? This is not a Senator's role. The country's population numbers are not an important concern for him. They are trivia.
No, it is not a senator's role to do logistics. Yes, it is a senators role to make informed choices on the people he wants to declare war on. Ted Cruz not knowing basic information about the country he wants to attack is an excellent indication that he is not making informed choices.
Knowing a country's population and demographics is not trivia when you want to overthrow its government. Tucker asked those questions for a reason. Iran's government is not popular. Iran has ethnic separatist movements, there are close to 15 million Azeris. How many want to join Azerbaijan, does Ted know? 10 million Kurds, how many want a Kurdistan, does Ted know? If Syria, with a quarter of the population of Iran, caused a refugee crisis, why does Ted think that won't happen in Iran? Ted Cruz thinks everyone in Iran is Shia Persian, Ted doesn't even know there are tens of millions of ethnic minorities who have a history of separatism. The fact that Ted Cruz could not answer those questions, that he didn't know there were large minority populations, is a damning indication that he did not consider that regime change very likely means civil war and refugee crisis.
phosphorus2
17d ago
This all may be true, to an extent (it's obviously not as simple as adding people means more state capacity).
No. It is true. There is no "may". These things I mention being complicated and multifaceted doesn't mean there is a chance or a scenario in which population is not critical in their determination.
But again: so? I'm confident America is superior regardless.
America was superior to Iraq (2003), and Syria, and Afghanistan, and Libya. Did our intervention in these countries go well for America? No, they did not.
It does not matter if America is superior to Iran. It matters if America can achieve what Ted Cruz wants to do, in the way Ted wants to do it, at an acceptable cost. If Ted Cruz does not know basic facts about the capacity of Iran to impose costs, how will Ted be able to know what costs Iran can impose?
phosphorus2
17d ago
They're a far group whose only relevance is how much they might endanger our investments in the Middle East with their constant terrorism funding and sabber-rattling. There could be ten million, twenty, one hundred, it'd change no calculus.
Iran's population is Iran. Iran, like the US, will act on its own interests. 10 million person Iran has a much different capacity to act than 100 million person Iran does. The extent that Iran can fund terror or saber rattle or endanger US investments is proportional to their population.
Things like industrial capacity, military budget, GDP, are all largely contingent on population.
phosphorus2
18d ago
In the context of the original comment, I am going to point out that a baby is not a potential person. A baby is a person. A gorilla will never be a person, and it will never be a potential person. But otherwise nice thanks, a pretty good way to take it into account.
phosphorus2
18d ago
Its a beautiful book, isn't it?
https://www.themotte.org/post/1208/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/259175?context=8#context
phosphorus2
18d ago
The US is based on this idea yes. But the idea "rights are bestowed by our Creator" is not correct on its own terms. If those rights were bestowed by our Creator, then they would have had those rights. But they didn't. So they fought a war to get those rights. Saying "we actually have these rights, King George is just going against God" or whatever is unfalsifiable. Those rights didn't exist in a material, verifiable, empirical sense in 1770. And if the war was not fought, then those rights would not exist in a material, verifiable, empirical sense.
Hence the position that "right" is a human construct. It exists not as intrinsic, regardless of the claim, but because humans make it exist.
phosphorus2
18d ago
Also, R's are looking to have a durable advantage on court appointments due to Dem weakness in the Senate. The idea that R's auto-lose every court case is just not correct.
You would think so, but it seems that Rs are not as "good" at picking judges as Ds. Taking SCOTUS, from the lens of pure partisan power politics, the Ds have appointed 3 judges, the Rs 6. The Ds judges vote together, at higher rates. The Rs judges are split. 3 vote together, at high but less high rates as the Ds vote. Then there are 3 more moderate, more swing votes from the Rs. So the Ds are great at picking judges that advance the cause, the Rs have a mixed bag.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/02/supreme-court-justice-math-00152188
I can't find the graph, but lower court judge appointments follow this as well. Ds overwhelmingly go for liberal judges, Rs were pretty evenly split. A lot likely due to Rs having lower capacity to draw from though is my guess.
phosphorus2
18d ago
Singerians who think that babies do not have more of an intrinsic right to life than other mammals of similar cognitive capabilities.
seems like a very short term view to have. maybe you can argue that a baby is currently as cognitively capable as a gorilla, but within a year or two there is no comparison, a toddler that babbles dwarfs the gorilla in this realm. do you / singer not take this into account?
does peter singer even believe in intrinsic rights? utilitarianism is not really a rights based philosophy. if singer can be summed up as "actions should be judged by their consequences in terms of maximizing the satisfaction of interests and minimizing suffering", its not immideatly clear why or how rights are needed except for expediency.
even the idea of an "intrinsic right" is somewhat of an oxymoron. a "right" is a human construct. how can a human construct be intrinsic?
phosphorus2
30d ago
Republicans have a strong incentive to drop a big bailout to keep the urban machines from going whole-hog with the democrats again
GOP has no incentive to bail these guys out, and every incentive to let them go bankrupt. The gop will never pull these cities and they know it. Slight chance they could have pre trump, 0% post trump. If (when) they go bankrupt, they have a huge chip to bargain with and will force concessions.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
There's really no way out of this hole that has been created.
Basically everything I have read about transgenderism is ridiculous. Neovaginas, dilators, the fetishes, the entire ideology, like there is no way its true. There is no way it makes these people happy, these people are not going to be happy. They are destroying themselves. The kids parents are destroying them. Why stop them? Why argue to save them? Just let them destroy themselves. Let them destroy their children. These people are my out group, they believe almost every other thing I hate about my society, and they are destroying themselves. Why stop them?
phosphorus2
1mo ago
It shows a reckless disregard for the lives of civilians, for one.
Does it really though? These were pagers that were getting encrypted messages from Hezbollah. They set up a front company to rig them. What exactly is a "civilian" doing with an encrypted Hezbollah pager?
These weren't grenade sized explosions, most people lost hands and eyes not their lives. It wasn't something that would take out an entire room full of people.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
Guys, the subway is not very dangerous during work hours, and the problems with it (congestion, speed) can all be fixed with investment.
People need to get places outside of working hours.
I don't even disagree with what you are saying overall. But "you shouldn't be worried about public transit safety, the subway is not very dangerous from 9 AM to 5 PM" is not a very compelling rebuttal to someone who is concerned.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
OK. I don't take that perspective because lording itself disgusts me, regardless of who does it, and people who lord it over anything/anyone disgust me. I'm not aware that I said anything which could be construed as telling you not to assume that perspective. Why are you attracted to that perspecive?
I like the "overlord perspective" to the extent it is a perspective on ownership as defined. I like having exclusive access to things. I see lots of benefits to ownership. I see lots of problems with sharing. If I own a thing I do not see myself as "lording" my ownership over that thing in the traditional sense of the word "lord" / "overlord" / "lording".
Well, no. Read it that way if you prefer. I'm talking about talking about sharing in the context of actually sharing. Talking about it is part of doing it. Apparently, you've found sharing to be complicated? I haven't. "Why is it not complicated?" strikes me as an odd question. My son at 2-y-o would ask me, "What's that, daddy?" all the time. I'd tell him, and then he'd stump me. I distinctly remember once, driving, he pointed to a dog and asked, "What's that, daddy?"
Ok, I am reading it that way because those are your words and that is what they mean as written. If you want me to read it in the way you are thinking of it then you need to use words that mean what you think. These are your words I am responding to:
"If you're just one of the guys talking how you're going to divvy it up, naw -- not complicated at all."
Like you only mention talking about sharing, so that is what I responded to. Talking about it is a part of doing it yes, but what about the other parts? Why are those not complicated? You don't address why the reasons the other poster gave for why the act of sharing is complicated, you just say talking about sharing is easy.
And you don't actually address why sharing is not complicated, you just say that you haven't found it complicated. Exactly why is sharing not complicated? Others have mentioned it requires continuous coordination, continuous conflict management, continuous interest balancing. But your response is just "If you're just one of the guys talking how you're going to divvy it up, naw -- not complicated at all." Your response give substance to your dismissal of the counterpoints, its just a dismissal with a justification that sharing is easy.
Why is it not complicated?" strikes me as an odd question.
Devoid of context it might seem odd, but you have context. I can rephrase the question:
Given that sharing requires continuous coordination, continuous conflict management, and continuous interest balancing - why is it not complicated? Ownership does not need these things.
Good to know. How would I share with you or someone like you? As best I could without letting your egocentrism negatively affect the people I love and care about. Negatively impact me or mine to any serious degree, and I'll just shut you down.
If you don't know how you would share with someone like me, then, to me, it would seem that your ideas on sharing are more complicated than what you write them to be. In your mind, if there is no legal right to deprive others with ownership, how do you not share with someone like me? How would you shut me down?
phosphorus2
2mo ago
It's "more complicated" if you unconsciously assume the perspective of an overlord responsible to make sure it works.
If I have the legal right to deprive access to a thing, then I am that things overlord. I have great power and authority over that thing. By your own definition we are overlords over our property, why would we not assume that perspective?
If you're just one of the guys talking how you're going to divvy it up, naw -- not complicated at all.
You are conflating talking about sharing with sharing. No explaination as to why sharing is not complicated. Why is it not complicated?
Plus, you're all in it together seeking the best outcome for everyone involved, so the entire proposition is radically different
Im not in it with you, so how could we be in it together? Im not seeking the best outcome for everyone - I want the best outcome for me and people I know and like. If I am forced to share with you I will take advantage of you as much as I can. What is your plan for sharing with people like me?
phosphorus2
2mo ago
About 2 weeks ago ICE arrested 2 people at the same mikwaukee courthouse and it caused a lot of pushback. They were probably expecting trouble. Also some were plainclothes, they went unnoticed when judge dugan told the rest they needed to talk to the cheif judge. Them going unnoticed and hanging back by the courtroom is how they caught the guy going out the side door.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
Ok in the context of what you are saying US News doesn't matter. I think Harvard and Yale etc. care for bragging rights. But big picture doesn't matter.
None of the rankings or loans or grants really matter, as long as businesses keep hiring from Harvard, bar associations keep admitting Harvard Law grads, Medical Boards keep licensing Harvard Med grads, other schools keep admitting Harvard undergrads to grad school or hiring Harvard PhDs for professorships, etc.
If Harvard Law loses accreditation then Harvard Law grads will absolutely not be hired. In most states, by law, you can't sit even sit for the bar if you don't graduate from an accredited law school. Likewise with Harvard Medical - graduation from an accredited medical school is a requirement for a license in most states. So if accreditation is lost, these schools are done.
https://www.princetonreview.com/law-school-advice/law-school-accreditation https://lcme.org/about/
The agencies that accredit HLS and HMS are given approval from the Department of Education. The DoEd has a lot of power over these institutions, but not direct power to just go in and delist Harvard. But it can apply a lot of pressure. Enough to kick out Harvard? No idea. My guess is not unless forced. The ABA seems very liberal, they're already fighting Trump tooth and nail.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
I think it would harm Harvard a lot. For one they would no longer be eligible for the US News college rankings list. Going from a consistent top 5 to not in contention doesn't seem good for admissions or donation solicitation.
The story will not fully be "Trump targeted us unfairly and stripped our accreditation". It will also include "they already got sued and lost for being racist (SFFA v. Harvard), they refused to stop being racist, now they lost their accreditation. Also antisemitism." Yes Harvard will always be a prestigious institution, yes it would survive the loss, but its still a pretty big egg in the face. I'm not sure they can spin their way out of it. Especially after SFFA v. Harvard.
Students losing ability to transfer credits, losing federal subsidized loans, no student aid would all follow the loss. None of which I think would matter too much, of course everyone will still clamor for Harvard. But accreditation as a concept will survive for these things alone, Pell Grants and subsidized loans may not matter to Harvard students, but they sure do matter for almost everyone else.
And if accreditation were destroyed - what does the current administration lose?
phosphorus2
2mo ago
The Trump administration has made it abundantly clear that showing your belly is the wrong move, because it won't earn you the tiniest shred of leniency.
I don't agree with this, at least in terms of the war on higher education. Can you substantiate? Take what happened with Columbia:
March 7th: $400MM funding frozen to Columbia. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-administration-cancels-400-million-grants-columbia-university-rcna195373
March 21st: Trump admin sends CU a list of demands to unfreeze funding. Columbia publicly agrees to Trump admin's demands. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/nyregion/columbia-response-trump-demands.html
March 26th: Leaked conversations reveal that, internally, CU was singing a very different tune than what they publicly agreed to. CU president Katrina Armstrong minimizes and downplays changes. https://freebeacon.com/campus/what-columbia-university-president-really-told-faculty-members/
April 1st: CU president Katrina Armstrong deposed by congress and questioned, among other things, about the faculty meeting. Transcript (again) leaks. https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2025/04/09/federal-government-questioned-armstrong-over-campus-antisemitism-on-april-1-according-to-leaked-transcript/
April 6th: Katrina Armstrong steps down as interim president of CU
April 9th: CU gets hit with another $250MM funding freeze https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/04/09/nih-freezes-millions-more-funding-columbia
This sequence of events does not read as CU gets hit, capitulates, and then gets hit with their belly showing. It reads as CU gets hit, lies that it will make changes, gets exposed for lying, and then gets hit again. There was never any capitulation by CU.
Do you have any examples of colleges who actually capitulated and got hit again?
phosphorus2
2mo ago
Columbia caved and didn't get their funding back, so there's not much reason for Harvard to accommodate the Trump administration's demands that they install right-wing commissars to monitor the university for wrongthink.
The Trump admin has the power to crush Harvard. They have HUGE reasons to play ball, the things that the administration can do to them are existentially threatening. They can probably fight and defeat a lot of Trump's demands in the courts, but I don't think they can fight them all.
-The total amount of funding to Harvard under review is 9 billion, 2 billion was just frozen, so there is another 7 billion for them at risk.
-Trump has also threatened their tax exemption status (501c3) per the BBC. From what I can tell there is precedence for stripping tax exemptions status due to racial discrimination in admissions. See the Bob Jones case below. Now connect the dots with SFFA vs Harvard.
-They can also threaten their accreditation status - no accreditation, no federal student loans.
-Another avenue would be sicing the DOJ on Harvard Professors. If you receive a federal grant and plagiarize or fake data then that is fraud. There is history of professors getting prison time in egregious cases. A bit further reach that I am not fully sure of would be charging plagiarists with wire fraud - if you knowingly plagiarize a paper, put that paper on your CV, and then got a job with that CV then wire fraud charges might be possible. I think it would be hard though, from what I can tell you would have to prove that the plagiarist got the job from your plagiarized paper. You'd have to prove knowingly plagiarism too, and I think that might be hard to prove to a jury. Even in the case of someone like Claudine Gay.
-Last, but still impactful, would be revoking or denying student visas. They have already been doing this. Foreign students are a quarter of the student body.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz01y9gkdm3o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States
phosphorus2
2mo ago
The IRS has stripped 501c status from universities for racial discrimination in the past.
"Neither petitioner qualifies as a tax-exempt organization...[i]t would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools' policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above 'charitable' concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States
In SFFA v. Harvard Harvard's admission policies were found to be in violation of the 14th amendment, and racially discriminatory. Which seems like it could threaten its 501c3 status.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
Its not every winter, they measured when exposed to 19 C. Which is basically room temp. So it would be every month about 3k calories (1 lb) for the warm conceived groud vs the cold. Just because they were born when its on average 10 C outside instead of 18 C.
Its ridiculous lol
phosphorus2
2mo ago
These people are legitimately claiming that being conceived April 16th through October 16th means you have a slower metabolism because it was warmer out and that did something epigeneticly to you. And it is to the extent, per Fig 2.2b, that people born in the cold half of the year burn 1650 cal /day vs 1550 cal/day for people born in the warm temperature half of the year.
From the study:
Preconception exposure to low outdoor temperature and temperature gap affects offspring’s metabolic phenotype, promoting higher EE in humans. Our findings propose a conceptional theory, named PfOHaD. This concept suggests that environmental factors, such as temperature exposure before conception, can programme physiological traits in offspring, potentially influencing their health outcomes across generations.
Is there any evidence, outside of this study, that being conceived April 16th through October 16th (or in warmer months / areas / seasons in general) will lower your metabolism at all, much less 100 cal/day?
All else equal, the same person conceived in Nigeria will have a slower metabolism than if they were conceived in Norway?
I find this noteworthy for three reasons —
I don't think you should find this noteworthy, I think you should find it not true. "You burn an extra 100 calories if conceived in winter because epigenetics" is a very strong claim with very scant evidence.
You are misconstruing
as
If Mamdani did actually did actually give a speech at an event for socialism, in which he described himself as a socialist, while approvingly quoting foundational socialist texts - that is very obviously not "one time said something in a speech".
More options
Context Copy link