pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
No bio...
User ID: 278
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
8mo ago
The amount of energy being expended over Trump's recent visit to a McDonald's is kind of interesting to me. It seems to have generated an extraordinary amount of media and online attention. On the supporter side, they are hailing it as a brilliant and deeply meaningful activity, simultaneously trolling Harris and celebrating the dignity of unskilled labor, and generating deeply Americana visuals. On the detractor side, they decry it an illogical and bizarre stunt, that it was fake because the store was not actually open, and compared it to Dukakis in the tank. Some have even doxxed the owner who wrote to the state to complain about labor regulations.
Meanwhile, McDonald's corporate HQ sent what I think is a very good memo to franchisees explaining the value of their goal of political inclusivity and how that manifests as allowing visits from anyone who asks and being proud of being important to American culture.
I think this is interesting because symbolically, it's something that cleaves much more at the red tribe/blue tribe dichotomy than the Democrat/Republican one. I think a lot of blue-tribers disdain McDonalds and consider it trashy, but can't really say so too loudly because the poorer members of their political coalition enjoy it. Trump has been mocked in the past for having the poor taste of actually liking McDonald's food as well as catering a White House dinner with it, widely seen as trashy and disrespectful. The imagery of Trump looking for all the world like a store manager from 3 decades ago I think also triggered some nostalgia - or perhaps post-traumatic stress - about the current state of customer service.
I don't have too much more to say and offer no predictions. It just seemed interesting as one of those things that seemed to trigger something unexpected in people for reasons that go way beyond the substance of the actual event, and figuring out what's resonating with people in either a positive or negative way, and possibly why, seems like a good path towards predicting future trends.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
2yr ago
Also, what are the arguments against LVT, besides low-effort "taxes are always bad and raising them is evil?" Genuinely curious for well thought out reasons why an LVT would be a bad idea.
My understanding is that this is effectively an opportunity cost tax. I.e., if you are sitting on a valuable plat which could generate 10 M$ in rents with 1 M$ of improvements, the market value of the plat should be about 9M$, and you would be taxed on that value, even if you were only generating 100K$ of rents (including imputed rents).
This is economically very efficient, as it encourages land to be used for its most economically efficient purpose. However, this butts directly up against peoples' real-world desires to "settle" - to establish a home in a place and be able to stay there indefinitely. If, for reasons beyond their control, the price of their property increases, they can be financially forced from their homes, which is about as soulcrushing as being foreclosed upon, while also seeming much more unfair. It destroys a person's ability to make stable long-term plans regarding a very fundamental fact of life. It also destroys residential community, by creating a disincentive to make a community that people want to live in, which has the natural effect of increasing property value. These are already problems with existing property taxes, that would be greatly amplified by taxing away all of the land value (leaving only rents).
After all, most people recoil about applying the same logic in other contexts: should a person's income tax be based on the amount of money they theoretically could be earning, if they worked as much as possible in the most valuable field they are qualified for, in the location with the highest salary? Hard-core utilitarians have seriously proposed this, but the concept of being treated as an economic ends with no function other than to produce social benefit, rather than a sapient being with noneconomic needs and desires makes most people reject this with prejudice.
[removed, overly emotional]
I think Trump has a point, that arguing the specifics seems irrelevant to me, when the larger issue is unfair treatment. Unfortunately, it's probably impossible to persuade anyone of this to people who consider Trump to be a singular threat.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
2yr ago
And therefore, the West's support for Ukraine is entirely justified by the desire to make sure nobody is allowed to get away with just seizing territory because they want it.
But why do we want that? The U.S. had a clear interest in preventing this when the spread of Communism was a real threat. But that's not the case any longer. What interest do we have in guaranteeing the rights of the weak everywhere against the strong? (Without taking position on whether or not Ukraine is stronger than Russia, the implication seems to be that they cannot win without massive assistance from us.) Some countries, perhaps, are Too Big to Fail. Is Ukraine really one of them? Is preservation of the status quo worth any amount of blood or treasure? I'm not persuaded of the automatic moral duty of bystanders to intervene when one country consumes another any more than when one wild animal consumes another. In terms of international relations, the world is a jungle and jungle rules and ethics apply.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
2mo ago
Given that he was an El Salvadoran national, where else could he be removed to? Are there other countries stepping up to accept deportees on El Salvador's behalf? If the answer is a legal catch-22 where he gets to stay despite being eligible for deportation, then I have no choice but to reject the legitimacy of the process that produces that outcome.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
It’s clear a conviction wouldn’t remove him from the ballot
How is that clear? The recently rejected suits were about a pre-conviction determination.
-
The size of the Supreme Court shall be permanently fixed at 9 members. All Presidents are guaranteed one appointment per term. If there is no vacancy during the term, then the President may vacate any single judge to create a vacancy at the conclusion of the Presidential term. If there is more than one vacancy, the President may appoint additional interim justices who will automatically be vacated at the start of the next Presidential term. [EDIT] The Senate may veto permanent appointments by a two-thirds majority. Interim appointments may not be vetoed.
-
The House of Representatives shall be expanded to 1,000 members, with additional districts being added proportionally. The House of Representatives must conduct its business in a way that allows members to participate without being present in the chamber. Members shall be required to maintain residency in their district, spending no less then 50% of the calendar days per year there.
-
Birthright citizenship shall be granted only to children where at least one biological parent is a citizen or resident having legally remained in the country continuously for a period of at least 3 years. Children may have no greater than two biological parents.
-
The non-state district of Washington, D.C. shall be formally dissolved and the land de-annexed to the original states from which it was obtained. Congress may designate property within the current district to remain federal enclaves immune to state jurisdiction.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
2yr ago
What do you mean? The president does nominate the person.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
6mo ago
Isn't the through-line that connects these things together just good, old-fashioned Gnosticism? The religious view that the material world is evil and that the subjective relgious experience is primary is all that is needed for to connect propensity to suicide, disgust with the material world, obsession with purity and disease, and antinatalism.
There might be some psychological root to that as well, given that it seems to pop up many times through history, or some kind of philosophical prion that warps the perception of reality of anyone who comprehends it.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
2yr ago
This is my theory - that as part of the settlement the hosts have to get permission from lawyers to run stories on certain topics, and that TC doesn't find this acceptable or was denied permission on what he thinks is a legitimately important story.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
Why, if it does no harm?
The harm is the complexity of creating a policy that allows innocuous things but does not permit obnoxious or offensive things. The bureaucratic burden of having to decide that, say, posting pictures of a ski trip is fine, but posting pictures of a religious retreat is not, pictures of political protesting, or posting pictures of a gay wedding reception - it's all just so tiresome. It's a given that there are people who constantly push the limits of any policy in an obnoxious way, so it's entirely reasonable to set a simple bright-line rule that veers widely on the side of inoffensiveness.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
2mo ago
I've been thinking about whether there are some plausible underlying causes to the sort of political and social chaos that has blessed our recent times and whether there are some things that can be done to improve the health of the civic body. It seems to me that perhaps the biggest problem we face is demoralization.
What is the source of this demoralization? I'd guess there are several. The first is the fruition of a generational demoralization campaign run by the left against America. This started mainly as comintern agitprop and Soviet psyops, and has been gradually adopted across left-progressive institutions, including, critically, higher education. This is the source of a wide variety of anti-American memes, from America being a dystopian late-stage-capitalism hellscape, to America being the most racist and bigoted nation which owes its existence to slavery and can never be free of its guilt, to American bullying and anticommunism being the root cause of suffering and oppression the world over. Centrists who wonder how public perception of their economic well-being is so divergent from what the statistics show, need only watch and internalize that damned Newsroom speech.
There's also the role of the media to consider, which, aside from being heavily leftist to begin with, also has a completely separate set of incentives to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They owe much of their existence to people obsessively following the news out of anxiety and panic. Beyond even pandering to prurient "if it bleeds, it leads" elevation of the worst kind of daily grotesqueries, there are multiple cataclysmic "end times" narratives that almost every event can be linked to, from climate collapse to the rise of fascism to race war.
Then there are the entirely self-inflicted wounds. In multiple ways and in multiple places, incompetence is tolerated, failure is rewarded, and sloth is celebrated. While institutions may see their own self-preservation as an accomplishment entirely worthy to justify their own existence, outsiders do not. The conduct of the GWOT was bad, the handling of Covid was bad, the administration of local urban governments is egregiously terrible. That these things go not just unpunished but unfixed is corrosive to public confidence. When even public art is instituted not to enliven the spirit but to deaden it, loss of hope should not be surprising!
The symptoms of demoralization manifest in ways that will seem familiar to us, I think. As people lose faith in institutions, they will become angry, fearful, and paranoid. They will choose the defect option across more and more choices. Demoralization increases time-sensitivity, when the future is discounted as likely to be worse than the present. Socially, people become alienated and transfer that dissatisfaction to their own lives. Fertility decrease is, in my opinion, downstream of this as well. Internationally, isolationism and collapse in confidence is the inevitable result. Why would any decent person who has internalized that their nation and their society is fundamentally believe in actions taken by that government on their behalf?
So what can be done to reverse this demoralization? To a certain extent I am afraid there is no putting this genie back in the bottle, save for a sufficiently grave external threat. Certainly academics would never agree to not criticize America, no should they. Freedom of speech grants everyone the right to air their grievances. But would it not be a worthy effort, on the eve of our semiquincentennial, to counter this with praise? This would perhaps have to come from the government itself, and patriotic propaganda risks a slide into jingoism, but is it not, after all, a valid function of the government to advocate on its own behalf? We once did this as a necessity against the creep of communism, but since the fall of the Berlin Wall, efforts perhaps seemed unnecessary.
Some great works would also be helpful. Literal moonshots, Manhattan programs, monumental bridges and dams, mind-bending radio telescopes and supercolliders - these all seem like relics of a previous time. Even now when we decide we want to do something spectacular and potentially society-altering, like a HSR line or a solar megaproject, it fizzles out in a mire of bureaucratic planning, lawsuits, and safetyism. Wouldn't it be inspiring to set out to something amazing and complete it on-time and on-budget? Once people realize that such a thing is possible, might they not start supporting many more such works?
Sorry if this all seems melodramatic. I freely admit that it's not something I've researched and am confident has a factual basis. It just seems to me that what's missing in most of the discussion of our problems is hopefulness and confidence that the future will be better than the present and much better than the past. In the same way that many economic indicators are, at bottom, about confidence in the future, I think many social indicators are as well.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
People stop thinking 'trans' is a thing and it's illegal to call someone by different pronouns than they were born with?
People stop thinking 'trans' is an identity and instead an unfortunate mental illness. Relatedly, mental illnesses generally are viewed as undesirable, both practically and socially.
We go back to having white men be 70% of characters in all entertainment media, and another 25% are white women with zero character traits beyond 'sexy and horny for the main character'?
I would settle with characters roughly in proportion to population, as opposed to the gross over-representation of minorities we see today. In particular, race-swapping characters and even historical figures would require justification beyond "representation matters". Media that appeals to characteristically male fantasies should be permitted to exist on its own terms without its creators being subject to harassing accusations of sexism.
We all agree that actually women and minorities are genetically more stupid and incapable than white men, and stop giving them jobs that earn more than a subsistence wage?
We agree that differences exist and that unequal outcome is not itself proof of discrimination. We explicitly reject equal outcomes as a reasonable policy goal.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
2yr ago
I play the violin in a university-affiliated community (amateur only) orchestra and we just had a concert that went, in my opinion, fairly well.
What instruments do other people here play? Does anyone else play in groups just for fun?
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
2mo ago
Suppose that El Salvador decides he is rightfully imprisoned and doesn't feel like releasing him? How far do you think the court can go to mandate foreign policy to effect his return? Economic sanctions? Military blockade? War?
She is well known for having scolded previous participants including Mike Pence, so I strongly suspect the goal is to portray her dominance by both interrupting Trump and throw him off balance and theteby goading him into a nasty retort, and also to contemptuously scold him if he interrupts her. I'm sure the idea is to exploit female sympathy to the maximum extent possible. It didn't work that great for Clinton though, so I doubt it's worth the bad PR of reneging a fair agreement.
ETA: I previously stated that I much preferred the debate with no talking over and everyone I discussed it with expressed the same. They should keep to these rules purely for the benefit of the viewing public if nothing else.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
3mo ago
Looking for new books as I approach the end of the Harry Bosch series.
A genre I really enjoy is "competence porn," in which a character or characters overcome challenges and trials via being really good at what they do, either against the uncaring Universe or against an opponent who is also really good at what they do. This was always the appeal of Star Trek, and in books I've enjoyed Andy Weir's novels, the earlier Took Clancy books, Bosch and Reacher, Starship Troopers, Sherlock Homes, and nonfiction like The Right Stuff and Failure is Not An Option. Looking for suggestions of a similar nature.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
The market is not perfectly efficient, of course, but I am not sure why I should believe you are more likely to be correct than the people actually making the decision to hire them.
Not OP, but the obvious rejoinder is that the company but outsources all of the opportunity cost to the employees. The real question is why the prospective employee is so heavily discounting the opportunity cost.
It's fairly widely accepted that the most difficult and most experimental parts of what SpaceX is hoping to accomplish are the re-entry and landing of the orbital vehicle, so actually demonstrating the ability to complete those tasks (albeit imperfectly) is a big step forward. Also high up on the difficulty scale is a precision landing of the booster, and while we don't know if it landed with the necessary precision, demonstrating the capability to do the soft landing on the booster is also a big step forward.
ETA: Given this is the second flight to put Starship into a suborbital trajectory with orbital velocity, I would recommend @ArjinFerman get his checkbook ready.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
We talk a lot on this board about dangerous precedent. Letting an interest group invalidate an election by storming the legislature is particularly bad.
We allow protestors to storm government buildings and interfere with proceedings all the time with little or no legal response. This seems like special pleading to me.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
2yr ago
a decent few are 'sexual deviants', but almost none of them have committed crimes related to it
That you know of.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
2yr ago
What counts as an "abuse of art"?
Propaganda, perhaps.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
3mo ago
It seems apparent to me that digital computer technology in the Star Wars universe is roughly equivalent to human technology circa 1977. They exist and can be used to perform some tasks, perform data collection and analysis, and perform various forms of numerical control. But any electronic devices shown virtually never contain any advanced form of digital processing, and displays and controls are mostly analog or have rudimentary capabilities.
The one exception is the droids, seeming to possess artificial intelligence more advanced than we have with our vastly improved computational capabilities even today. Such computational power as they seem to exhibit implies powerful, tiny, and efficient digital electronics.
However, that is a case of us projecting our own AI developments onto the fictional world. I believe the most parsimonious explanation is that the droids are in fact cyborgs, that consist of a lab-grown and conventionally trained organic brains, embedded in a mechanical body.
Points in favor:
-
This handily explains the discrepency between the capabilities of electronic devices depicted and the capabilities of the droids.
-
We already know that medical technology in that world is more advanced than our own; e.g., Luke's replacement hand and Vader's elaborate mobile hyperbaric chamber. The most salient example is General Grievous, who, but for a few organs, is practically a droid already. Based on this it is reasonable to conclude that bio-electronic integration is more advanced than our own.
-
This explains the relative paucity of droids generally. They are expensive and somewhat rare because they take nontrivial time to grow and especially to train. They cannot be programmed like computers beyond simple instincts but must be trained via reinforcement feedback training to learn the jobs they are expected to perform as well as basic information about the world and how to behave.
-
This also explains why droids have very different language capabilities, based on the lab-induced growth of the language center of the brains. Presumably a mech droid like an R2 unit has a stunted one adapted for a tone-based pidgin, possibly adapted from a bird brain, and a droid like C3PO has a much larger one. Threepio also probably had to spend more time actually learning language nuances. With more advanced medical technology, it is plausibly possible to adapt the structures of the organic brains of a wide variety of species to select the traits most favorable to the droids you want to produce.
-
This also explains the seemingly genuine emotions the droids have. They exhibit these even when not interacting with humanoids, so this is not a case of performing emotions for the benefit of their owners. In reality, these are actually real emotions from real brains, expressed cybernetically.
-
This also explains frequent less-than-computer performance from the droids in tasks involving computation as well as their never being shown to perform tasks that should be trivial for a digital computer, such as high-speed communication between each other or between themselves and another piece of electronic equipment. Their ability to recall facts is also less than perfect and appears to be similar to how organic memory works.
There are a few pieces that don't fit and may be counted as points against:
-
C3PO, despite having his language enhanced, also appears to have computer-like ability to perform calculations, e.g., the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field. However, this may only be a piece of recalled information, and as it turns out, he was probably not correct. In another case, R2D2 performs a similar probability calculation on the odds of Luke's survival, though as a tech droid it is plausible has a cybernetic pocket calculator embedded in his toolkit of a body. Such calculators are compatible with the circa 1977 level of electronics.
-
Droids are never shown to eat or consume any organic substances that would sustain their organic brains. However, this may simply never be shown, and it is possible that they have the capability to generate to synthesize ATP in a closed loop purely from the stored power we see used to charge them up as with R2D2 on Dagobah.
-
It would seem plausible, with this technology, to place these trained brains into ships and facilities, to act as integrated operators, but we typically see that things are always operated by humanoids. For example, why are there no self-flying TIE fighters? There may be several explanations. First, being partly organic, droids would require periods of rest and be subject to some of the same limits of focus and attention as humans, so their supremacy at given tasks may be minimal in the first place, and if you are going to have a slave, it would make sense to make as general purpose as practical. Second, if electronics are limited to circa 1977 levels, it is likely that droid vision is greatly inferior to the Mk. 1 eyeball, a considerable limitation in many applications. The brains may not easily be adapted to perform motor control of things not closely analogous to body parts, and as stated in Andor, it is highly probable that due to their self-replicating and self-training nature, fully organic humanoids are less expensive than trained and purpose-built droids, particularly for an organization like the Empire capable of conscription.
-
On a couple of occasions, a droid is seen communicating with a "computer", either internal to the ship or the Cloud City facility. These are suggestive of computers that actually do have droid-level intelligence. However, it seems likely that these are colloquial terms for cyborg agents and not digital computers. There are non-primary resources that suggest that the Falcon does actually have a salvaged droid brain integrated into it, which apparently has some sensor input but is not shown to be capable of directly controlling the ship. Luthen's ship Fondor is directly shown to have what appears to be a droid integrated into the ship as well, which evidently is capable of some control over ships systems, though never pilots it during critical moments and is implied to be a ship full of unusual and expensive upgrades. The Cloud City "central computer" talks to R2D2 over what is probably, given the speed of communication, a simple analog language channel like a telephone, and again is probably just a droid charged with administering simple facility operations such as work dispatch and security lockouts.
Probably the biggest counterargument is the droid army depicted in the phantom menace. These appear to be simple electronic robots and crucially they shut down when the central command center was destroyed. However, the cyborg theory is still salvageable if we assume that the organic brain in each battle droid is designed to be tiny and grown quickly in large quantities, and deployed with minimal training beyond instincts, explaining their dimwitted nature and inability to do much more in combat than advance and fire. Because of this, they could not be relied upon for reliable operation outside a command and control structure issuing a constant stream of detailed commands, likely from a smaller number of more advanced and remotely positioned command droids, and therefore it would make sense to engineer a simple failsafe shutdown mode in the event that command and control is lost that cannot be overridden by the local wetware. This would also explain why they were never used much in other conflicts – the trade federation had a unique combination of high wealth and low manpower, and while they were somewhat effective in combat, humanoid soldiers with initiative and capable of independent operation would invariably be superior soldiers. The more advanced combat droids were presumably capable of independent operation, but likely much more expensive than conscripts or even a volunteer army, with the resource better used on more advanced weapons and vehicles, as shown in the Republic Army.
So if droids are expensive and have these limitations, who would want one? They would be useful in several scenarios:
- Where manpower is limited or unreliable, as with the droid army
- Where they can be superior at specific tasks, such as mechanical maintenance and repair (R2) or translation (C3PO) or brute force (K2SO, IG88)
- Where they need to work in harsh or unpleasant environments (R2)
- As a personal servant with high up-front cost but lower TCO (C3-series)
- As helper pets (B2, mouse droids)
In conclusion, what we see in the Start Wars universe is a world in which computer technology is circa Earth 1977, but with much improved medical technology, energy storage and production technology, and both gravitic and FTL technology (possibly related and possibly not). As a result, there are some substantial holes in their technology for computer processing and automation, but these are filled somewhat by the existence of cyborg slaves, which are manufactured using organic brains specially grown and requiring considerable training, but can perform basic and specialty tasks in harsh conditions and without pay. They will still have personalities and emotions, based on the characteristics of the brain and the training received, but are in nearly every case considered to be property.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
5mo ago
So, if all the really bad things about fascism are not the ones that we are doing, what exactly is bad about fascism?
I've found the recent imbroglio with Congress v. the University Presidents pretty interesting due to the somewhat conflicting reactions I've had and just wanted to post some thoughts.
For those not aware, the Presidents of Penn, MIT, and Harvard recently appeared before at a Congressional committee on the subject of antisemitism on campus. Somewhat unexpectedly, the video of the hearing went somewhat viral, especially the questioning of Rep. Elise Stefanik, who repeatedly asked point-blank if calling for the genocide of Jews would be a violation of the campus code of conduct, to which all the Presidents gave evasive answers. The entire hearing is actually worth watching, at least on 2x speed.
Some of my thoughts:
Rep. Stefanik has a trial lawyer's skill for cross-examination. Her questioning was simultaneously obviously loaded and somewhat unfair but also dramatic and effective at making the respondent look bad. However, I wish she would have focused more on the obvious hypocrisy of claiming to only punish speech that effectively is unprotected by the First Amendment, pointing out some of the more obvious cases where they elevated things like misgendering or dog-whistling white supremacy to "abuse" and "harassment" while refusing to do the same for genocide advocacy. In fairness however, other representatives did ask questions along those lines, though not nearly as effectively.
The University presidents were either woefully unskilled or badly coached on how to handle hostile questions like this. They gave repetitive, legalistic non-answers and declined to offer any real explanation of their underlying position or how to reconcile it with other actions taken for apparently viewpoint-related reasons. Stefanik was obviously getting under their skin, and their default response to grin back while answering like Stefanik was a misbehaving child was absolutely the wrong tactic. The Penn President came across so poorly that she felt she had to post a bizarre follow-up video to almost-apologize for not appearing to take it seriously while at the same time implying without really saying that calling for genocide might be harassment.
Their performance was especially frustrating because they were taking a position that I basically support: that the University will not police opinions, even terribly offensive ones, but will police conduct and harassment. It's not that difficult a position to explain or defend on basic Millian principles, but they couldn't or wouldn't do it. Granted, Stefanik would probably have cut them off if they tried, but they didn't try. They didn't use their time during friendly questioning to do so, and they still haven't. I want to support them in an effort to actually stake out that position. But--
It's hard not to think that the reason they haven't is because they don't believe it. Actions speak louder than words, and there have been a number of cases of Universities, even these specific ones, taking action against people for harmful "conduct" or "harassment" when the conduct in question is actually just expounding an offensive opinion. "Safety concern" has also been a ready justification for acquiescing to heckler's vetoes against disfavored speakers. I simply don't believe that they believe their policy requires them to allow hateful speech against Jews. I think they are lying, and that makes me want to not support them.
The episode seems to have especially impacted what I'll call normie Jews, who are reliably blue-tribe but not radically woke. On the one hand, I think they have a legitimate grievance against the hypocrisy of how the code of conduct policies are interpreted for some opinions vs. arguable antisemitism. On the other hand, I think it's bad policy to not be able to make antisemitic arguments ever, even if maintaining civility. I don't actually believe that hate speech is violence, even antisemitism, and I don't support their movement to make antisemitism a per se violation. On the other, other hand, the cause of knocking down the prestige of the Ivies and exposing their rank hypocrisy might be worth allies of convenience. On the other, other, other hand, as a SWM I feel like the prisoner in the gallows in the "First time?" meme. You have a grievance at their hypocrisy, but I have a grievance at your hypocrisy. Most normie Jews have had no complaints at all about woke people saying similar or worse things about "white people." Some of those woke people were themselves Jews, and I suspect that if the universities capitulate, it will be by making Jews a special protected class, which would further from the outcome that I want. I've had a superposition of all these reactions going on.
More options
Context Copy link