@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

See, in the twist cap situation, I would always lead with, "may I offer a suggestion?" When they inevitably agree, you're now offering solicited advice. You've engaged them in asking for your help, which makes them inherently more open to accepting it. "Don't offer unsolicited advice" doesn't mean "speak only when spoken to." And of course etiquette always takes a back seat to actual danger.

Also on Wheel

Trump is probably the most centrist candidate, if you look at actual polling on the issues. He's only "not centrist" in that he dissents from the nondemocratic "Washington Consensus" established by entrenched by would-be technocrats, bureaucracy, and special interests.

I think the writing overall was better enough that it made for a satisfying watch even if you disagreed with the messaging. I think often about the TNG episode First Contact. In this episode, the crew is making covert overtures to an alien world with no prior knowledge of the existence of aliens about joining the Federation, which is fanatically opposed by Krola, an alien minister who is a clear conservative stand-in: suspicious, paranoid, religious, xenophobic, cruel, and fanatical. We the viewers know he is wrong in everything: we have prior knowledge that the Federation is benevolent, peaceful, and altruistic and that his concerns are groundless. But at the end of the episode, the leader decides that he has a point: the Federation were actually infiltrating them, and the changes they are offering may actually be destructive to the society they have. He rejects their offer, at least for a while, and they leave.

The intended message is clear: unfortunately, less-progressive attitudes have cost this society a chance to join the glorious future, and this is an parable about how conservative attitudes in contemporary society hold back the glorious future depicted in the show. But the writing is intelligent enough to see that there are both benefits and costs to any change, and actually gives their villains an in-episode win while still promoting their message. That's good writing. That makes an episode enjoyable to watch, even if you think the intended message is wrong or not a good parable.

So it is effectively "don't ask, don't tell" with respect to blessings? I hope it works out better than it did for the military.

I expect pedophilia and bestiality not to get normalized because kids and animals don't actually want to have sex with you, there's an actual victim there. I expect that the future will normalize a lot of things I find weird or upsetting but which don't actually harm anyone on net, which is how I see the trans movement.

Here's a mechanism: AI-generated (or hand-drawn) CP doesn't actually have any victims. No actual person is harmed on net, except by very legally tenuous chain-of-causation. By your logic, banning this is unreasonable. However there are fairly obvious paths by which the legitimization of CP which doesn't harm anyone leads to increased tolerance of CP generally, and increasing exposure and tolerance (in the lack-of-disgust sense) to the idea of child sex as a concept.

I agree, but it does go well beyond the ADL. Nearly every prominent Jewish academic, entertainer, or magnate has voiced similar views.

Agreed, seeing multiple major online publishers run near-identical stories with near-identical headlines at the same time was a gigantic redpill.

This sounds like a failure of academic research. In a case like this where you know the results could be hugely valuable, i.e., profitable, there is no shortage of venture capitalists who would be interested in properly funding the research at least to the point where its value could be proven out.

My first guess was that it meant skepticism of fiat currency.

The underclass already elects to just skip insurance

And frequently, licenses as well

I wouldn't know. I can basically never remember my dreams unless I'm startled awake or feverish.

I agree, I think a lot of people are serious denial about the degree to which these opinions have broken social media containment and bled out into the real world. I'd guess mostly because of TikTok, but that's just speculation.

I'm confident they'll find a way to criminalize it

I actually agree with you that Caroll doesn't seem credible. I have a strong suspicion that Trump would have won that case if he had a better lawyer and listened to their advice.

Okay, but with that opinion, the best you can muster is apparent bafflement that "somehow" his support increased anyways? Do you, as a human being, dislike people to a greater degree when you honestly think they were railroaded in court because they didn't have the top lawyers? I would assume that like most people, you would be sympathetic, and perhaps more likely to believe that they have been railroaded unjustly in other ways as well. I do not believe that you find this puzzling at all.

Why wouldn't this be an obvious case of dogwhistling hate speech, like posting "It's OK to be white" posters for example? Surely some people actually just believe it's OK to be white?

ETA: I agree they probably correctly deduced how their answers might be weaponized, but they still did I think a very poor job of providing a satisfactory answer. A difficult task, sure, but they're highly paid heads of administration. This is a core job duty for them.

I don't really think they are allies, is the problem. Just have a common antagonist, like US and USSR in WWII.

Agree with all of this - especially that hanging out in a not-very-goal-oriented environment is key. I would recommend checking local gaming clubs or hobby shops, and find an IRL weekly tabletop, card game, board game, or D&D group looking for recruits. Then you just have to show up, bring some snacks, and play some low-stakes games.

This makes me wonder if the WASP superpower really was the nuclear family, in which the only "close" family to which you owe substantial loyalty is your parents, children, spouse, and maybe siblings. This is often criticized as being excessively atomistic and promoting anti-social attitudes around individualism and intergenerational social responsibility, but the contrast as described above seems like it has even worse tradeoffs.

It can be hard to get the best lawyers when that can be a career blackball for them.

It's not just the criticism, it's the ratfuckery. We're talking about constant escalation. You think it's a uniquely anti-Trump phenomenon but that doesn't seem plausible to people who've observed nothing but continual escalation this side of the millennium.

One additional distinction I want to draw that I personally adhere to, but that doesn't seem to be the position of most election "deniers" is that I don't think the cheating is mostly the proverbial deep state conspiracy, I think it's about dispersed efforts to push, bend, and break rules among people that don't need some grand organizer to tell them which way they should go.

The "deep state conspiracy" part of it is the general unwillingness of the actual upper-level state and federal officials to seriously do anything to prevent the low-level rigging that advances their party interests. If rigging happens and investigators slow-walk inquiries, evidence is "accidentally" disposed of, and prosecutors sit on their hands, what recourse actually exists?

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.

Just a virulent bronchitis, I think. I and everyone I know got it, and the cough persists for weeks if not months.

That would work too. The critical goals are (1) to regularize appointments so that there is a more linear relationship between winning the Presidency and influencing the Court that is less based on luck, and (2) taking Court-packing off the table completely.