pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
No bio...
User ID: 278
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
4mo 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
1yr ago
Do we really want people cooking in their own homes at all? Even aside from the emissions and particulates, food cooked too much is carcinogenic and food cooked too little can cause food borne illness. Both of these are large scale health care problems. People also tend to use too much salt and not enough vegetables when cooking for themselves. And of course the kitchen is one of the most likely places for potentially lethal residential fires to take place, and the countless food prep accidents involving lacerations from knives and appliances. Ordinary stove tops can get hot enough to melt copper! This is incredibly dangerous as burns from hot oil or sugar can cause severe tissue damage and disfigurement.
It might be okay for a properly trained, licensed chef to cook their own foods, and I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to make a peanut butter sandwich or cheese and crackers, but the average person really is very likely to end up harming themselves in some way from long term diseases to death and dismemberment. Wouldn't it be a much safer, more efficient society if we left cooking to the experts and eliminated home kitchens?
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
Poster's point is that Smith is explicitly advocating a "great replacement".
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr 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.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
They do not currently have the names of any suspects or particular statutes in mind that may have been violated but they have started an investigation.
This does not seem like a healthy use of prosecutorial power. This is fully into "I'll find you the crime" territory, if we are opening investigations without even an articulable belief that a specific crime was committed.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
I predict that as he gets too old for leading man status, Cruise will be the new Eastwood: the Hollywood veteran who actually has a firm grasp on what makes a movie pleasurable for mainstream audiences, taking directing roles that give him lots of creative control and reliably turn solid profits, and the occasional vanity project to flex some underused acting muscles.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
9mo ago
I think part of the reason it doesn’t get the fanfare is because it doesn’t create 12 figure networth people. Its a constant costs business versus most building business. Of course if the businesses are not as profitable then the surplus value went to consumers in the form of lower energy costs. Also likely led to America not needing to write giant checks to the Saudis which meant are trade deficit could fund other things and those depend more on price leading to the strong dollar. People working in constant-costs businesses (farming, manufacturing, energy) tend to vote red people working in wide moat with ability to extract economic rents or winner take all markets tend to vote blue.
I think a bigger factor is that this success goes directly against the carbon-reduction platform that is important to much of the Democratic party base. Democrats are not too keen to paint any fossil energy extraction as anything but an economic negative and ate a lot of criticism over things like blocking Keystone XL, even if from time to time they quietly throw their environmentalist base under the bus when it comes to opening federal lands for drilling. But politically, fossil fuels are "bad", and good things can't be caused by bad things, therefore shale oil and gas can not be responsible for positive economic developments. Lucky for them, the press is generally fine with not talking about the double-think taking place because stoking environmental panic is good for their bottom line (and some, I assume, are true believers).
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
shot down by trans activists
So to speak
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
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.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
To do the work of dismantling their privilege
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
10mo ago
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.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
To use a recent example, Hamlin University, the site where a professor recently got accused of bigotry for showing a historical artwork depicting Muhammed made by Islamic artists, backed down on their support of the students who called for the professor to be removed.
No they didn't. The professor is still jobless. The most they admitted was that they may have gone too far by calling her "Islamophobic."
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
3mo ago
You're right, you wouldn't expect any different from the campaign and the partisans. The difference was the way the media treated it, the nauseating network of "fact checkers" and "journalists" who willingly, even gleefully participated in the smear job. It was no campaign worker but a "journalist" who used the debate forum to harangue and "correct" Romney's facts - erroneously! It was not just the Obama campaign and the DNC that mocked Romney for saying that Russia was the top geopolitical foe, it was also newspapers, magazines, late-night shows, and even straight news programs. What the Romney stomping clarified is not that Republicans would be subject to completely unfair smears from their opponents. It clarified that the media was also an opponent, and one so powerful that it could not possibly be defeated without attacking it directly. That is what Trump was not afraid to do, and that is why he won.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
What I find funny is it's almost certainly the "action" part of that formula that provides 90% of the appeal. I think that writers rooms are way to the left of the median American on values. The median American is still basically heterosexual, pro-family, pro-achievement, pro-justice, and generally in alignment with what we might call Western virtues, which cash out by starting as Aristotle described - courage, temperance, liberality, magnificence, magnanimity, ambition, patience, friendliness, truthfulness, wit, modesty, and justice - and probably add some Nietzchean virtues on top of that: health, strength, and a will to power.
Make your show about a protagonist of any color that strives to achieve those virtues and you have a pretty solid foundation. What people are mostly not enjoying are shows that attack these virtues or celebrate vice. People do not enjoy the anti-social, the self-destructive, the celebration of weakness or bitterness or mediocrity. They generally don't sympathize with losers and incompetence.
I think this also explains the perennial unpopularity of Christian media even during periods when the vast majority of people consider themselves Christians. For many, their Christianity is a moral counterweight to the ancient virtues they actually implicitly believe in.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
It suggests that at least in some job markets, the demand for black people far exceeds supply.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
Possibly this wouldn't happen if women would just straightforwardly ask for help with things when they want it, instead of dropping hints and dancing around the subject, assuming their interlocutor will swoop in and fix their problems as a personal favor. With men, I simply don't offer help with anything unless they ask for it. With women, they will take this as gross indifference or deliberate rudeness.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
4mo ago
It should be apparent by now that Garland was not the middle-of-the-road moderate he was painted as in the media. Nothing stopped Obama from nominating someone more palatable to the Senate.
-
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
10mo ago
Given a historically bipartisan-ly corrupt system, how do you begin enforcing the rules without appearing to play favorites?
Easy - you do so in a way that disadvantages yourself voluntarily. If your counterparty continues to defect anyway, you take an L, but that's really the only way to break the cycle. I actually thought the Trump administration coming to power and then legally completely laying off both Hillary and everyone else in the previous administration was a significant de-escalation, given this represented a substantial political climbdown from the election. For better or worse, it wasn't reciprocated.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
10mo ago
This is basic game theory. In any iterated model, fairness matters, whether it's sports, trade negotiations, or political hardball.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
11mo ago
If we're going to demolish civil rights, why don't we start by reinstating stop-and-frisk, and see what effect that has on the crime rates? Maybe actually lock up felons in possession?
I'm not willing to countenance a massive reduction in rights when lesser reductions are taken off the table purely in the interest of racial balancing.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
7mo ago
Party in the USA seems like an obvious choice.
- It has USA in the title
- It's at least somewhat positive about the USA in the lyrics
- It's singable and upbeat
- The other major theme is parties, which are also popular
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
The first can be disregarded, as it was an obvious joke. If he had actually intended to ask a foreign enemy for political help, he would have done it secretly, they way Ted Kennedy did with the Soviet Union in 1984. As for the second, I dispute that "avoid calling elections rigged" has ever been a norm, as you can easily dig up counterexample throughout history. Hillary Clinton herself has repeatedly suggested that Trump's victory was rigged by the Russians, and as was pointed out to you, both of Bush's elections had their authenticity repeatedly and vigorously called into question. Stacy Abrams has practically made a cottage industry out of challenging the legitimacy of her gubernatorial loss, to widespread acclaim and media adulation. So, if one were to posit that such a norm did exist, it would have to be heavily gerrymandered to exclude all these examples.
The actual norm is that losing candidates do not challenge the transition of power with force, but of course Trump didn't do that, so that's not helpful to criticizing him.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1yr ago
(c) requires a "disaster area" declaration in connection with a national emergency, which is a different thing with different consequences.
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