@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

Okay.

To the contrary, other Republican presidents have been famously bad at picking justices, having them often as not join the liberals in landmark decisions, from Warren Burger to Souter, Kennedy, and Stevens.

melatonin content

Melanin?

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. The lack of a legal barrier to Fetterman running doesn't mean it's not a legitimate voting consideration though. Unless you are making a stronger argument that it is wrong to even bring up a person's age or health in a political race.

It isn't. Grooming in the context of CSE means to try to position a child so that you can have sexual contact of one sort or another with them. If you convince a child to wear a thong via drugs or alcohol or love bombing or manipulation so that you can have sex with them, or derive sexual enjoyment from watching them, this would be grooming. If you did so for any other reason it really shouldn't be called grooming. It's probably a terrible idea and might open your child up to positions where OTHER people can take advantage or derive the sexual pleasure talked about earlier, but it isn't grooming in this context.

I don't think I agree with this. If a mother is, e.g., using psychological pressure on her child to tolerate her boyfriend's sexual abuse out of a sense of loyalty or even fear of the boyfriend, I would still characterize that as a central example of "grooming".

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.

Can you elaborate then on what you see as the difference between not-racist and anti-racist?

If Kendi's definition is more prevalent in academic, scientific and governmental discourse, would you at least acknowledge that your usage is nonstandard?

I don't think this is entirely new; before phones people would bury themselves in newspapers and magazines when bored or not feeling sociable. The biggest negative effects are, I think:

  • The collapse in publishing cost pushing the quality threshold to best zero to get something published;

  • The associated war for attention necessary to get advertising dollars incentivizing nuclear hot takes which directly leads to radicalization and polarization;

  • General anxiety and the bed-friendliness of phone reading killing people's sleep

There was a mini-genre of raunchy female blues musicians singing about their men.

E.g.,

Long John Blues

I've got a dentist who's over seven feet tall

Yes I've got a dentist who's over seven feet tall

Long John they call him, and he answers every call

Well I went to Long Johns office and told him the pain was killin'

Yes I went to Long Johns office and told him the pain was killin'

He told me not to worry, that my cavity just needed fillin'


He said "when I start drillin', I'll have to give you novocaine"

He said, "Yes, when I start drillin', I'll have to give you novocaine

Cause ev'ry woman just can't stand the pain"

He took out his trusted drill

And he told me to open wide

He said he wouldn't hurt me

But he'd fill my hole inside

Long John, Long John, you've got that golden touch

You thrill me when you drill me, and I need you very much

Or how about Don't Come To Soon?

Come and see me baby

But please don’t come too soon

We’ve got a date at eight

And it’s only afternoon

The way you rush me, it ain’t right

I know you just can’t wait for tonight

Remember, love is like a mashed potato

If you eat it now, then you won’t have it later

ETA: Irritatingly, the preview below the post composer doesn't actually show how it will format in the post.

Such contests always seem unfair to me, but I don't see a clear, obvious, favorite alternative.

As with elections, a simple option is that once the matter is decided, it cannot be re-litigated for some fixed amount of time, like 4 years.

You're really not doing yourself any favors with that kind of "your suffering is a sacrifice I am willing to make" attitude.

I'll do you one better: let's nuke the school system that ties property value/geography to school funding and mix everyone together regardless of class. Bussing but for SES rather than race. No more private schools while we're at it. Let's have the poor kids, immigrants, rich kids and my kids all in the same class and see what happens.

I don't like this debate tactic. You substituted your interlocutor's request, which was basically reasonable and at least somewhat within your power to achieve, for a radical solution that is self-evidently monstrous to most people and completely unachievable, leaving you with no responsibility. It's very easy to make the perfect the enemy of the good when you benefit from the status quo.

You don't like using relatively powerless people in a political stunt, okay. I can accept that. I don't see how that translates into it being unreasonable to expect Martha's Vineyard to bear some of the costs that they enthusiastically impose on other people, especially when those other people they impose on are almost universally lower status than they are.

You've made this general claim about 3 or 4 times now, but haven't provided any sources. I'd be genuinely interested in a breakdown, especially if it distinguished asylum claimants and unaccompanied minors.

Entering a country and requesting asylum is, in fact, following the rules.

I would disagree in the case that your request is facially invalid. In other words, I do not consider bad-faith requests for asylum to be legitimate rule-following, even if it is not specifically criminalized.

Desantis could get most illegal immigrants to leave Florida if he really wanted to. Illegal immigrants generally need to work. If an area made it so they could not find work, most illegal immigrants would leave that area.

Arguably, the ones that are willing and able to work create the most benefit and the least burden, so there's nothing internally consistent about creating an environment where the willing and able are incentivized to stick around, and the unwilling or unable are encouraged to move elsewhere.

If you're actually operating in good faith and within Wikipedia's policies, you're not going to get banned

This is the rub. Most people don't have the time or the patience to learn the intricacies of Wikipedia's byzantine network of policies, pseudo-policies, and unofficial-but-not-really best practices, all of which are referred to exclusively in jargon and wielded as weapons to revert or block even good-faith edits. Editors especially on influential articles are basically lawyers in all but name, and the result of trying to work against their interests is the same as someone with no legal training trying to out-lawyer a lawyer. With enough self-education and persistence, you might have a chance. Otherwise, it's hopeless. But of course, to those on the inside, with the arcane knowledge and the community recognition, it seems so easy! Practically effortless!

Most people inclined to contribute would have no idea what to do if their change was reverted, and either give up at that point or just change it back.

Alright. How could I rewrite my post in such a way that wouldn't provoke such a response from you, while keeping the same general point intact?

What is your point, exactly? You originally seemed mostly upset that people are picking on Martha's Vineyard, or that some people got used in a political stunt, but now it seems like you're just generally sad that people are upset about this. If your point is that obvious grounds for compromise are getting torpedoed by political stunts, I think it's on you to demonstrate that this is actually the case.

I absolutely disagree that it's 'self-evidently monstrous' to mix students together regardless of their class and I'm baffled why you would think so.

The history of using forced bussing in the United States is that it basically destroyed the cities. People with means simply moved as far as necessary to make bussing impractical, and at the same time tight-knit minority communities were broken up for the sake of forcing minorities to go to school as minorities in their school. Most people would find it self-evidently monstrous to use government power to force people to work in a certain office or attend a certain church, so it's baffling to me why you think using this power on peoples' children - notably, using those children as means for the end of a social benefit, rather than for the benefit of those same children - would be positively viewed.

Wow, even Brannon Braga was able to make this dynamic mostly work in Star Trek Enterprise between the humans and Vulcans (though proceeding on the opposite narrative arc ). Where are they finding these writers?

What recession? The media made it very clear that two consecutive quarters of negative GDP doesn't necessarily mean a recession, until the experts declare it so.

FWIW I think "elf-lover" is more evocative of "jew-lover".

I would assume with that level of medical technology they would have a simple and effective cure for any kind of dysphoria.

Working through Leviathan Wakes on Audible. Had a notion to listen to several of the novels before I watch season six.

Yeah. Just like the ACLU.

Their main problem was that they took anywhere from 10-120 seconds to reach their full brightness; more in the cold. So every time you'd turn the light on, you'd be disgusted by this dim, wan light until you gave it time to warm up.

The lumen per watt efficiency was quite good, so they were well-suited for fixtures where they would be left on for hours at a time. I had one in my basement that I just left on 24/7. Now LED lights equal them in efficiency and beat them in every other way.