@pusher_robot's banner p

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

				

User ID: 278

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 278

Do you not think it is desirable for white to become a minority?

I know what anti-racism is, and Tolkien saying “I have the hatred of Apartheid in my bones” fits.

No, that's being "not racist." Totally different than anti-racist. A "not racist" person believes in color blindness and treating people equally and putting the responsibility for differential outcomes on the individual. An anti-racist person believes in structural racism and fighting it by treating people differently in order to compensate. Where is the evidence that Tolkien acknowledged the existence of structural racism? Where is the evidence that he ever advocated or personally gave special dispensation to URM in order to counteract the effects of structural racism?

I think it's reasonably plausible that Tolkien was not racist, but I don't see much evidence that he was anti-racist.

One thing that might be likely is for him to get to appoint a SCOTUS justice. Sotomayor could and probably should retire and let Biden appoint her replacement while the Democrats control the White House and Senate, since there's no telling how long it might be before they control both again. A quality pick would be a good legacy.

It's not clear how he could force that under any circumstances. John Rambo he ain't.

In that case I don't understand the objections when that word is used to describe what happened to white ethnics in urban cores in the sixties.

I doubt they could afford it, and no NGO will touch them

As I've said before I tend to agree with @Primaprimaprima that many, perhaps even most people, will prefer to see a human doctor for the majority of symptoms.

As a member of the large category of men who generally dislike going to the doctor and won't unless there seems to be an urgent problem, I think I would be more likely to go if I was certain the doctor would be a dispassionate robot.

I really don't have any reasonable basis to either agree or disagree. My uninformed prior is that weirdo sex perverts (not generically LGBT, mind) probably commit roughly equivalent crimes or worse at around that rate.

I've not thought of nor seen a solid rebuttal to this proposal.

The simplest rebuttal is that it is immoral to tax people for having natural human feelings of attachment to their home. You could make the same case for forcing people to set a sale price for their children. Very efficient for clearing the adoption market. Or for their spare organs, even. By forcing people to pay for the right to not be forced from their home, you are turning a voluntary market into an involuntary one, which degrades the market and degrades basic human rights and dignity.

That said, I'm not totally against the use of eminent domain powers where you have obstinate sellers blocking genuine civic improvements. But I think the "public benefit" of such seizures needs to be adequately established.

I wonder how long it will take for the real gang members (if there are any being deported) to wisen up to the fact that murdering an ICE agent (or just a random civilian bystander) will immensely improve their outcomes (if they survive the encounter). Then they get a nice long trial in the US.

Why? Is there something that would prevent the U.S. from deporting immediately and letting El Salvador prosecute the case?

This is the most important point. You can't appeal to a "Rules-based order" by handwaving the rules, which explicitly do not guarantee Ukraine's territory against Russian perfidy.

Not necessarily. The Court took pains to explicitly disallow the use of racial stereotyping. I take this to mean they can't assign points for being the same race as other people who experienced hardship and bigotry, but they could assign points if you, personally, experienced hardship and bigotry.

Most of these problems seem to be unrelated to the extent to which a city is walkable.

I strongly disagree! People won't want to walk or take mass transit if they feel much more likely to be victimized in doing so. This creates a spiral, where the most walking-friendly destinations and infrastructure end up neglected, making them even less attractive, and people who want to drive end up going elsewhere.

Were cities already plagued by the same issues after WW2, when the exodus to car-dependent suburbs began, and is that why people started to leave?

Yes. People began moving to suburbs almost as soon as they could get cars. Even before, with the "streetcar suburbs" proliferating in the 1920's. Then rising crime and unrest, and safety-hostile urban policies like blockbusting and forced school integration caused mass flight right when the new interstates made it convenient to do so. But notably this happened in the sixties when the boomers were still children or young adults. The highway builders and urban renewists were mostly members of the Greatest Generation. The Boomers just inherited their world, and actually put a lot of effort into fixing the bigger mistakes, leading to an urban renaissance in the 90's, at which point they seemed to have declared victory and turned their attention inward.

I don’t see anything in the ensuing paragraphs that would narrow this meaningfully, although I welcome input from anyone with a sharper legal eye than I have.

Well, the text you quotes authorizes such waivers as are authorized by paragraph (2), so let's look at paragraph (2):


(2) ACTIONS AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary is authorized to

waive or modify any provision described in paragraph (1) as

may be necessary to ensure that—

And then a number of things that can be ensured is listed, but the most relevant seems to be the first, item (A):


(A) recipients of student financial assistance under

title IV of the Act who are affected individuals are not

placed in a worse position financially in relation to that

financial assistance because of their status as affected

individuals;

Ok, so this seems to allow that a waiver can be made to make it so that an "affected individual" is not made financially worse off by virtue of being an "affected individual". This leads to the obvious question, who is an affected individual? Helpfully, the statute tells us in Sec 5:


(2) AFFECTED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘‘affected individual’’

means an individual who—

(A) is serving on active duty during a war or other

military operation or national emergency;

Doesn't apply to ordinary borrowers.


(B) is performing qualifying National Guard duty

during a war or other military operation or national emergency;

Doesn't apply to civilian borrowers.


(C) resides or is employed in an area that is declared

a disaster area by any Federal, State, or local official

in connection with a national emergency; or

To my knowledge, this did not happen, i.e. the entire country was not declared a disaster area, so does not apply.


(D) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result

of a war or other military operation or national emergency,

as determined by the Secretary.

This would be the one to hang your hat on, but would seem to require, at least, some demonstration that the borrowers suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of the national Covid emergency. Linking economic hardship to COVID-related employment problems is a possibility, but that's not terribly "direct", particularly since forbearance was already granted. And, this would not seem to obviously not apply to relief granted to borrowers who remained employed throughout.

So, I would disagree that the law clearly and unambiguously grants the Secretary this authority.

Sure, but he's not under U.S. jurisdiction. I don't see that we have any obligation to bust him out of prison over the objection of El Salvador.

Someone convicted in a U.S. criminal court (and provided reasonable time to appeal) has been provided with ample due process.

That's just the normal state of democracy, I think.

They seem to be coming around though!

https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1906727995307381025

Summary: TracingWoodgrains ran a poll for both left and right respondents, asking if they'd rather have their opposite running the world vs. China.

For left respondents, China won handily, opposite for right-responders. Obvious selection bias and all, but troubling. The days of substantial fifth-columnism may be returning.

Couldn't resist just dwelling on this for a second too. Now, obviously no-one has to buy into avant-garde views of gender/sex, but to be simply unable to entertain the plausibility of a scheme of gender which includes trans women among women betrays a quite remarkable lack of intellectual imagination, and, frankly, intelligence.

This is completely missing the point. Most people who are not academics do not live in a world of intellectual imagination, they live in a world full of practical concerns, and these questions need to be boiled down into yes/no policies, procedures, and judgment calls. When a teenager with a penis demands to use the girls locker room, you cannot handwave the issue and appeal to imagination! Do Democrats understand that they are running for control of the government, and not the English studies department?

Of course, there are some on the American right who would be only too happy to dismantle the post-WW2 alliance system in favour of a more narrowly transactional approach, even at the cost of global influence and leadership.

What "influence and leadership" does the U.S. have that is not transactional already? EU seems to believe U.S. "leadership" consists of them making decisions and us paying for it. Our "influence" in most other countries consists mainly of bribery in the form of foreign aid and trade concessions. This is all transactional already! What soft power we do have comes from cultural output completely independent of and irrelevant to our foreign policy establishment, and that has all gone to absolute shit anyways.

From my perspective it seems like we're the Sugar Daddy who is promised that we're really, truly, loved and fun to be with, so long as the wallet comes out. They'll say nice(ish) things about us exactly as long the checks keep flowing. One second later, we're monsters who are killing the entire world.

If you are a non-minority non-veteran, those jobs are all but closed to you.

At this point it seems like the idea that elections are rigged is functionally unfalsifiable.

So is the idea that elections are not rigged. The real argument is over priors.

ETA:

Is there anything the government could feasibly do to nudge Republicans towards accepting the results of the election in the event that Trump loses?

Most posters are talking about regaining trust, but I'll point out that's not part of the question: you could achieve the result of "nudging" people to accept the results - at least publicly - by much more harshly punishing nonacceptance.

Okay, but John Roberts doesn't command them, the President does. If there is no acting President, then I suppose it would fall to the a agency leadership, and why would they do anything to help the person they hate and who they may believe stole the election, and when they are about to be fired anyways? Suppose they just order their people to stay home?

EscaPADE

Each identical EscaPADE spacecraft has a mass under 90 kg. The spacecraft bus is 60 x 70 x 90 cm. The spacecraft is powered by two 480 x 70 cm solar panel wings extending from opposite sides of the spacecraft.

This doesn't make sense at all. Falcon 9 can already deliver about 4000 kg to Mars, so this hardly seems like a game-changing mission. If you want to talk about LEO, which is obviously what the DOD is more interested in, SpaceX in 2023 put over 1,000 metric tons into LEO. Even without Starship, there is no other company that can hope to do anything like those numbers anytime soon. The idea that the DoD is being held up by SpaceX is ludicrous. DOD is concerned about launch cadence, but with regards to ULA, not SpaceX. The only customer that could claim to be reasonably concerned about pace would be NASA with respect to HLS, but since the entire Artemis program is already underfunded and way behind for other reasons, they have little actual grievance.

Have you never grilled out and drank beer with friends on a nice green lawn?

To sum it up, the only real question is... Why are they like this? Who hurt them?

The answer is bums, hobos, panhandlers, psychos, perverts, buskers, criminals, litterers, and generally obnoxious people, and the leaders that do nothing effective to stop them from shitting the commons.