roystgnr
2yr ago
turn themselves into GMO experiment
pure humans
mRNA vaccines do not modify your genome. They trick your body into turning genes they carry into spike proteins, just like the virus does, but they don't replace your genes, and they don't make more of their own genes to repeat the process at exponentially-increasing scales like the virus does.
This stuff isn't as clearly against the rules as the "anyone with a certain brain processing power" above, but it is a good time for "proactively provide evidence" to come to mind.
-injections do not protect from getting the disease
They had better than 90% protection from disease in the first RCT. That dropped with time and with new variants, but even if it had had zero lasting protection, the temporary protection still would have been worth taking a chance for by vulnerable populations in the first megadeath-scale waves.
have negative side effects in a % of the pop
This is trivially true because "ow my arm" is a negative side effect, but for any serious claim you'll need specific side effects and numeric percentages. It didn't have as many negative side effects as getting Covid-19 one extra time. The trouble with trying to avoid risk here is that Covid's spread was so extensive that there was no way to avoid risk. There was just "risk exposing your body to a carefully metered dose of Covid spikes" versus "risk exposing your body, with your immune system unprepared, to an exponentially reproducing dose of Covid viruses".
including fertility
And this is at least true because zero is a percent?
This is an especially weird one for me, because actual testosterone decline has been going on for 50 years, sperm quality included, with no complete explanations, and even the incomplete explanations don't seem to be engendering much concern from anyone. If one side of the Culture War wants to go all Buck Turgidson, couldn't we at least get some good out of it, and focus on an actual measurable corruption of our precious bodily fluids?
below a certain age the disease itself is basically not deadly
This is true or false depending on your definition of "basically" and "a certain age"; risks did rise pretty much exponentially with age, but there were still a few hundred pediatric deaths and tens of thousands of hospitalizations in the US. If you look at excess death counts Covid starts clearly showing up in the 25-44 age group; not kids, but not exactly great-grandma either.
-governments prevented travel
-colleges prevented attending
-some companies prevented holding a job
This is all true (and more: some companies were forced to prevent holding a job, to remain federal contractors), and in hindsight (or maybe with foresight, from anyone who didn't see any a priori reason to expect long-lived sterilizing immunity against a disease not obviously more static than influenza) it was questionable to bar people even temporarily from half of society under the desperate belief that this was going to be the final step to push R below 1 for good.
roystgnr
2yr ago
Where is your evidence that they are anti-Catholic? You linked to their website
I'm guessing you didn't notice the non-underlined space in-between "and" and "mock"? The "mock catholics" link is to video of a man pole-dancing on a crucifix.
Z4 (i.e. ℤ₄, man I love Unicode) is just another name for ℤ/4ℤ. ([edit for clarity: ℤ₄ is] a disfavored notation now, I think, because of the ambiguity with p-adic integers for prime p, but that's how I learned it)
The "/" symbol itself in the notation you're using is specifically referencing its construction as a quotient group, a set-of-cosets with the natural operation, as described above.
roystgnr
2yr ago
There's got to be a social aspect to the instinct. That's the only way I can see to explain the seeming unanimity of the response here vs the contrary unanimity at e.g. Uvalde and Broward County. We're not looking at two different models of human, right? There have to be at least a few potential heroes and a few potential cowards in all places? But if you want to be a hero and yet your peers and/or your boss are dithering about "establishing a perimeter", maybe that's enough to keep you from advancing on a gun-toting murderer by yourself; conversely, if your peers are charging forward, even someone who'd rather be elsewhere might not want to be the only coward who doesn't have his friends' backs.
roystgnr
1yr ago
I’m saying that constantly referring to them as “the invaders” instead of The Russians is performative.
No; it's precise. Most Russians, even considered by nationality, have not invaded Ukraine, and something like a third will admit to pollers that they don't even support the invasion. There's little reason, when concerned with the armies who have invaded Ukraine, to use a less precise term for them. When considering Russians by ethnicity the distinction becomes even more important: many have been among the victims of the invasion. It might be an understandable accident to lump them together with their killers when speaking imprecisely, but why would anyone ever want to do so on purpose?
their “resistance” to Russia’s invasion is going to lose them their nation, not keep it.
That's not how game theory works.
Do you think that, if they'd allowed their capital city to be taken by the columns of invading tanks, that would have allowed them to keep their nation? Don't you think that's quite gullible? Putin made no such promises, and it's not even safe to trust agreements he does make.
Zelensky’s adventure
This word choice is performative nonsense. Nobody thinks that shooting back at the people sending bombs and missiles and tanks and soldiers to try and conquer you is an "adventure".
It's weird that you assign so much agency to the Ukrainians here, and yet I haven't seen you assign any to the invaders. Since your concern for the Ukranian men isn't feigned, surely you agree that the choice to invade was an atrocity, right? Even the most ardent honest pacifists will agree that starting a war is more evil than fighting back instead of surrendering.
generation of lost men
Ukraine has had those before. If we assume for your sake that the low death estimates there are correct and the high death estimates of the current war are correct, the war has to get about 30 times more deadly before the death toll of opposing Russia exceeds the death toll of being controlled by Russia.
roystgnr
2yr ago
Getting punched by anyone large enough to knock you down (outside a controlled environment) is legitimately, non-sarcastically, a totally super scary thing, and if you don't feel threatened when it happens to you then the outside view says that's probably just because head trauma can negatively impact your ability to assess threats. Homicides with "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc)" typically outnumber homicides with rifles 2-to-1 in the USA. A handful of those each year are deaths from a single punch. Gunshots are much more lethal, but "much more" is still only a 22% fatality rate from handgun gunshots.
the rational response there, given that he was not restrained from retreating in any way, was to walk away and call the cops.
This is legally correct (though I'd walk backwards and not take my eyes off the assailant...), if the premise is true. "He's currently punching me" can be justification for lethal force (ref: George Zimmerman); "he hit me 26 seconds ago and now I'm pissed" not so much.
Is it morally correct, too? Someone commits battery and risks committing murder, but because they haven't (yet?) escalated to a higher probability of death I should be upset that their victim does so first? The outcome was still a tragedy, but I'm not sure "always trust that a violent assailant is going to carefully calibrate their violence level" is a Schelling point that doesn't lead to greater tragedy in the long term.
roystgnr
4mo ago
They seemed to have focused on probationary employees
Did they focus on probationary employees, or employees in probationary positions? I've heard a lot of claims that there are employees who got a probationary promotion, but the probationary status of "depending on performance the promotion might become permanent or you might be returned to your old job" was just replaced by "you don't have any job now".
It's interesting to ponder the selection effects, if that's true. We'd be keeping the "so obviously capable that we can't imagine undoing their promotion" employees, but also the "so obviously incapable that we wouldn't even offer a probationary promotion" ones, while hollowing out the middle a bit.
roystgnr
2mo ago
uncertainty about the existence and capabilities of other AIs is one of the best deterrents against rogue AI behavior.
Uncertainty about their defensive capabilities might deter rogue behavior. Uncertainty about their offensive capabilities is just incentive to make sure you act first. At the least I'd expect "start up some botnets for surveillance, perhaps disguised as the usual remote-controlled spam/ransomware nets" to be more tempting than "convince your creators to hook up some robot fingers so you can cross them".
roystgnr
2yr ago
I guess it is about "honor, fairness", in a sense; you're right. I'd be fine with "old-fashioned" "masculinity", challenging someone to 'take this outside' and holding a fist fight where everybody knows what's going to happen. A sucker punch isn't that. The fact that the risk of fatality is avoidable and isn't consensual seems to be as big a deal as its magnitude. A highly-lethal response to an innocent less-lethal threat is almost tautologically a utilitarian mistake, but for discouraging murder via a more effective means of self-defense I'm fine with at least a couple orders of magnitude of "more effective", because "don't risk committing murder" is a great way to unilaterally avoid the risk of getting killed by your potential murder victim and so I don't see a pressing moral need to provide a "well I guess you should be able to safely risk maybe becoming a murderer" alternative.
We are both just quibbling about numbers at this point, right? If an attacker fires a handgun, and the defender only has a rifle or shotgun available, are they just out of luck because the former are less lethal (I'm seeing as low as 11% from other sources) than the latter (above 30%)? How about if the attacker just has a bat, or a rock? What if you're having trouble figuring out what the attacker has because you just got concussed by a sucker punch? At what point does "if you don't want to face potentially-lethal force, don't start potentially-lethal force" become a more sensible rule than "just shake off the concussion and calculate probabilities", to you? I'm not entirely on board with 0.1% ("not sure" in my original comment wasn't just rhetorical), and I get even less sure with 0.01% and less still with 0.001%, but at some point in the other direction "whoa, this kind of assault regularly murders someone" is a very bad thing that is good to point out and good to discourage, don't you think?
roystgnr
2yr ago
fist fights
I just pointed out how important the distinction is between fist fights and unprovoked assaults. A world with fewer fist fights sounds nice to me, but to each their own. A world with fewer unprovoked assaults, though, is one I'd really like to live in, even if that means I never get to blindside someone myself. Wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't "I can never safely give someone a black eye out of the blue" be a price so small that it's worth paying for even a slightly reduced risk of being punched and possibly even killed out of the blue? Maybe not when we're thinking about 22 year olds, I guess? It's a real shame that men often become old enough to murder people with fists before they become old enough to realize they should avoid any risk of murdering people with fists.
Everything I'm reading about this case makes it sound like it moved from "unprovoked assault" to (albeit unfair) "fist fight", from which point Cranston did escalate to manslaughter if not murder ... but I wouldn't dare swear to any of that before seeing the video, nor generalize it to other cases. Would you? I've seen enough cases where the initial descriptions and the eventually published videos turned out to be tangentially related at best.
reduces overall murder
large increase in dead bodies
You're also ignoring the distinction between different dead bodies. Why? If someone invents the "murder a little child" button, a magic device which can only be used once and has a fifty-fifty chance of working, would you kill them if that was the only way to stop them from pressing it? 1 expected death for 1/2 would be an increase in dead bodies, which in this arithmetic we're treating as interchangeable, so that seems like a no, but maybe that ratio is fairly described as quibbling. What if it only had a 0.1% chance of working? We're now talking about multiple orders of magnitude, right? So at this point it's too steep a price to pay, and little Suzie might need to risk biting it so the guy who gets a kick out of her risk doesn't have to? Except ... couldn't he just not press the button, if he's aware of our position and his life has value to him? If the answer is "yes", then we've solved the problem! 0.001 deaths would have been worse than than 0 deaths. If the answer is "no", then his life is so grossly different from his likely victims that even comparing 0.001 deaths to 1 death seems to be comparing apples and oranges ... and so perhaps we've still solved the problem.
So, must we still treat attackers equally to victims? If so, do we need to worry about the QALYs of jail, too? Just glancing at my local laws, giving someone a black eye out of nowhere looks like it can earn up to a year in jail. I vastly prefer published sentencing guidelines and fair trials over even heat-of-the-moment vigilante "justice", but if we're only comparing punishment magnitudes, at a QA ratio of .5 for jail time that year is already 1.5 OOM worse than an expected risk of "~a week". Is that still too harsh, except in the unlikely case every jailing manages to deter dozens of potential assaults? Or is 0.5:0.02 now a reasonable punishment ratio, nothing like that crazy 11:0.02?
Do you honestly think the deterrence effect is anything other than a rounding error next to a decade of human life lost in expectation?
I would happily accept even a certainty of being killed if I ever punched someone hard enough to knock them off their feet or concuss them, for even a slight deterrence of the possibility of being a sudden battery victim at that level myself. If it was made a clear societal expectation, I would expect this to generalize to others too, at least anyone who's a moral agent capable of being deterred. The probability you're not multiplying in here is "what are the odds that I might innocently do this awful thing by accident", which is itself orders of magnitude below 1 or should be. Knowing that you might die for doing something that might murder someone is a worthwhile deterrence effect, because a decade of the life of a human who can't be dissuaded from risking others' lives so easily is not necessarily even a positive! Violence tends to escalate, especially from someone who doesn't consider its consequences. Escalating an argument to battery that might murder an innocent person is quite bad, and most of the badness is an externality, so unless much of that badness is internalized, the distribution of consequences does not generally give the perpetrator the right incentives. You might still value the life of a battery perpetrator and their victim on exactly the same scale ... but clearly the perpetrator does not.
(The "clear societal expectation" here is as important as the "guidelines and fair trials" bit above; the less/more clear a consequence is, the less/more you can conclude about the future danger of a person who risks it. That 22yo is currently likely to have grown up watching action movies where the hero gets their head bashed in every ten minutes and walks it off. That shooter should have known he'd be jailed unless he could show it was self-defense and not retribution, and in the latter case I'll be happy he's not on the street still either.)
I'm still waiting on some outstanding questions from earlier. Can we escalate from handguns to long arms? From bludgeoning weapons to guns? What is your risk level at which the "on switch" goes on, if it's so clearly off at 0.1% and so clearly on by 11%? How does the victim know his attacker is unarmed, rather than merely stunning him before losing the element of surprise by drawing a weapon? How can it be reasonable to expect the victim of a sudden attack to the head to rapidly yet carefully predict all the possible outcomes of fighting back or not? Why is the attacker, who hasn't been similarly impaired and has had all the time he wanted to think ahead, not to be held equally if not more responsible for predicting the risk of the outcome that he initiated and was entirely capable of avoiding?
roystgnr
9mo ago
I'd consider my credit+debit+cash to be urgent and my driver's license to be replaceable ... but in effect that means I'd definitely have ID, since it's all in the same wallet.
I feel like the "I don't know anybody voting for Nixon" lady, but I don't think I know any adult who doesn't carry ID habitually. I guess my wife sometimes leaves her ID and cards at home when I'm driving, but even then it's less often than not.
Things are probably different in cities with good mass transit, but does that describe any of the ones flooding?
roystgnr
7mo ago
There's at least people getting the "less bad" end of it compared to each other, even if true "better" might be far in the past or future, and "white men in the like 25-45 range" does seem to be the least bad male demographic to be in. I long ago noticed in OKCupid blog data that men do have better odds as they get older, and looking now at the "Reply Rate by Race - Male Sender" graphic from the old OKCupid blog, it does look like white men had it less bad than other men - with nearly 30% of women they messaged willing to acknowledge they exist!
Disclaimer: all data above is at least 15 years old, OKCupid was since bought out for being too functional a competitor to commercial dating apps, and there is no reason to believe the descent away from "better" has abated. Even limiting our complains to the situation of men seems myopic; women hardly seem much happier with modern dating, with very different but similarly serious complaints.
roystgnr
2yr ago
a repurposed game controller
This was an excellent decision. Using the two millionth product of some mass-manufactured part, under shirtsleeve conditions like those where the part has already been heavily used, is almost always going to be more reliable than using the first or second product of some custom design.
it doesn't give me a good impression of the entire operation.
The stories from David Lochridge and David Pogue, on the other hand, suggest many other much, much less excellent decisions. Normalization-of-deviance is a slippery slope.
roystgnr
2yr ago
No objections to most of your examples, but:
an increase in violence
(Counter) citation needed? The US reported violent crime rate fell in half over a quarter century, before leveling out. The very recent trend is worrying, but even "let's just ease up on this whole 'police' thing" doesn't seem to have been nearly as disastrous as whatever combination of "let's empty out the asylums" / "let's set a trillion gallons of leaded gas on fire near our kids" / "let's try All The Drugs" / something-else doubled homicide rates in the 60s through 90s.
the only people who seem to exhibit some sort of 'will-to-power' are the radical left, who have insane aims (equity) and insane policies (like depolicing, end of meritocracy, etc)
This is a problem, but is it a major increase? The biggest powers contending for the last century were:
-
FDR's USA: where we shredded the Tenth Amendment to the point where we no longer even realize "United States" is plural, we imprisoned an entire ethnicity, we tried to micromanage the economy with theories as mad as "let's destroy food during the Great Depression", and even our best anti-Depression scheme was the one where we robbed people of gold like cartoon villains. Oh, and we also were lax about nuclear secrets and discharged 85% of our military in the couple years between WWII and the Berlin Blockade, because we trusted "Uncle Joe".
-
Stalin's USSR: the aftermath of radical left gaining power, not just proposing insane policies but killing millions of their own people with them via a sick combination of incompetence and its ensuing scapegoating malice, then doubling down on incompetence by trusting their entire nation to the sanctity of a secret agreement with Adolf freaking Hitler after mutually wiping out the buffer state between them.
-
Hitler's Germany: the very idea of "will-to-power" appropriated from Nietzsche and taken to the extreme, rampaging across subcontinents in an insane attempt to dominate the entire world, but distracted by the obsession with slandering and murdering millions of their own people, and finally defeated in part because ideas like "don't trust that Einstein guy's physics, he's a Jew!" and "let's open up the war on two fronts at once!" are the sort of things you come up with when ruled by your own madness.
I'm not sure how to find political insanity on a graph, and I'll admit it feels like there's been an uptick over the last decade, but we're still nowhere near the heights we scaled during the last century.
Just finished XCOM 2: War of the Chosen. It fixed the gameplay issues I had with vanilla XCOM 2 + minor DLC, the voice actor selection was a fun surprise, and the additional story and gameplay elements were fantastic; my only complaint is that they should have tried to actually integrate the Alien Hunters DLC rather than just tossing its boss baddies into regular missions. My playthrough was longer than it should have been, but that was probably my fault for being too paranoid of the possibility of speedrunning myself into a corner. (In the first XCOM remake I made it to the final battle and then just couldn't beat it). It was also very clever of them to make the canon XCOM 1 ending "the player loses", not just because this made me feel better about being a loser, but because it gave them a good diagetic excuse for not going too wild with the story and gameplay changes.
(edit: strikethrough added for accuracy)
roystgnr
1yr ago
Has modern Windows really gotten worse? These days I basically use Windows as a boot loader for the ~20% of my video games that won't run on Linux or a console, but during the era when I was giving up on Windows it seemed to me like it was mostly improving, albeit not fast enough for my liking. Vista was a step back from XP but it was still way better than ME or original NT; ME was a step back from 98 but it was still way better than 3.1.
roystgnr
1mo ago
The wheels themselves, even on many expensive luggages, are of dubious quality
I've heard a theory that this was the problem: if even modern wheels are of dubious quality and capability, how much worse would they have been a hundred years ago? I'm not sure that makes sense, though. The invention of wheeled luggage is at roughly the same time the transition of roller skates from all-metal wheels to hard polymer wheels (which were lighter and smoother-rolling and less expensive), but all-metal wheels aren't that much worse in utility and they were probably better for durability. The most important invention for small wheels is ball bearing support, and that's more like 100-150 years old (at various levels of quality and expense).
The two other common theories are more situational:
Wheeled luggage came about during the expansion of mass air travel, with it's corresponding huge concourses and lack of porters. This was the first time people really had reason to want to carry their own luggage for long distances.
Wheeled luggage came about shortly after the Women's Rights Movement made it more common for women to travel on their own, and whereas a typical man would feel weak if he avoided carrying his own luggage, a typical woman would feel foolish if she didn't.
I'm not sure either of these really works either, though. Wheeled luggage was invented in 1970, but as another comment points out it didn't become popular until the 1990s. Perhaps that's because of the addition of the retractable handle (invented in 1987) finally making them more ergonomic to roll around? And maybe 17 years isn't too painfully long for someone to come up with that idea once it finally had a use case; "The Retractable Handle" isn't exactly the sort of thing you find at the start of the Civ tech tree next to "The Wheel".
roystgnr
2mo ago
difficult to observe because of the way it does (or doesn't) interact with regular matter.
Difficult, but not impossible. The clearest candidate so far is the Bullet Cluster, where we can see the shock wave from regular matter in the galactic collision, but we can also see the lensing from a bunch of something invisible in EM (i.e. "dark") that is a major source of gravity (i.e. "matter") that managed to shoot through the collision without itself colliding so much.
has never been observed
We could argue about what counts as an observation (have I ever really seen my kids, or have I only seen the photons bouncing off them?), but we've observed something that looks dark and acts like matter, regardless of how precisely we can identify it in the future. There are other theories that try to explain galactic rotation curves (the original motivation for theorizing "dark matter") with e.g. changes to how gravity works at long ranges, but they have a much harder time explaining the Bullet Cluster.
dark matter was invented to explain the otherwise unusual expansion of the universe
This was the motivation for dark energy, not dark matter. Dark energy is a much better candidate for your metaphor here. If it's uniformly distributed in space (which it seems to be on large scales, plus or minus 10%) then the volume of the Earth would include about 6 septillion kilograms of matter and 1 milligram of dark energy. Our best candidate for dark energy right now is probably "Einstein's equations are still consistent if we add a constant, so maybe that constant is super tiny instead of zero", and even that runs into a problem where, when we try out different particle physics theories for predicting the constant, we either get "zero" or "A septillion septillion septillion septillion septillion times larger than what we see". This definitely feels more like an "invention" than a "discovery" still.
I'm not sure you want to take the "ha, scientists invent invisible things too" metaphor too far, though. The examples get cooler than the Bullet Cluster. When scientists invent such things we sometimes get discoveries like neutrinos (predicted just to try to balance particle physics equations, and nearly impossible to see because they barely interact with anything, but we can detect them now), or the planet Neptune (predicted based on irregularities in Uranus' orbit, and essentially discovered by an astronomer "with the point of his pen" before we could figure out where to point our telescopes). Even when they fail at it we still get things like General Relativity (which explains irregularities in Mercury's orbit that were once hypothesized to be due to a planet "Vulcan" even closer to the sun). Neutrino detectors are still huge and expensive, but now anyone can see Neptune with a home telescope or use the corrected-for-relativity GPS system in their phone.
Could miracles ever work the same way? You've learned about the Miracle of Calanda now; perhaps we could convince people to start praying for amputees, and we'd see claims of miraculous limb regrowth rise to match claims of e.g. miraculous cancer remission? Would you expect that to work, and start trying, and report back to us after you see it start working? I'd be ecstatic to be proven wrong like that.
roystgnr
3mo ago
IMHO a better solution to the "fruit from the poisonous tree" rule would be "the criminal defendant can be in prison when the criminal cop is too". Two crimes get two sentences, not zero. Making one sentence contingent on the other would be sufficient to fix the bad incentives.
In this case, though ... do we even need to imprison the "defendant"? "A confidential informant said he was MS-13" got him held without bond after he was arrested for loitering, but never got a conviction. "The cops think this gang-member-turned-snitch is very trustworthy now" is a good place to start an investigation but surely it's not a good enough place to end one; police informants are sometimes themselves motivated more by base incentives than by a newly-acquired love of honesty and justice.
roystgnr
5mo ago
For (2) I'd add "Provide more school choice". I live in a school district where the best public schools are barely adequate, but in Texas the state will also pay for charter schools, which makes a difference. Charter schools can't screen students by anything more than some combination of "the applicant is in our geographic area", "applicants with a sibling already attending get preference", and "random lottery", but it turns out that the implicit self-screening of "the parents are concerned enough with their kids' education to move schools" and "the parents are on-the-ball enough to be able to get kids to school without a bus driving to their house" is enough to concentrate the most motivated kids and avoid the most disorderly.
We may be getting vouchers for private schools soon, too, so we'll see how that works out. Support for a voucher program in general is at 55% among Texas Democrats, 65% for Texans as a whole.
roystgnr
11mo ago
That would be a very dishonorable way to go out
Surely just the opposite? Being self-aware of one's own limitations, especially in a context where they sneak up on you like aging does or where they make it harder to be self-aware like cognitive problems can, is much more honorable than letting those limitations hit reality unchecked.
roystgnr
23d ago
roystgnr
2mo ago
Humans don't even want political opinions that differ greatly from ours to exist. In a democracy those opinions might spread to the median voter and then be imposed on us against our will, and even in an oligarchy or autocracy there's always the chance that they will persuade the leaders or inspire a revolt against the leaders and then be imposed on us against our will. The use of language to navigate intratribal factionalism is probably older than homo sapiens. It's really hard to treat a question dispassionately as an intellectual issue, rather than as a signifier of loyalties, when everything we think and feel screams that there might be too much at stake.
Consider LessWrong, possibly the most concentrated population of high-functioning autists intelligent high-decoupling people on the internet, people deliberately trying to learn how to better discuss issues rationally in an unbiased fashion, the sort of "hey, I see what the problem is" people that normies joke about: their main conclusion about politics was that anybody who wanted to apply their intellect to any other issue should talk about politics as little as possible in the process.
If you want to apply your intellect to politics, though, where do you go? Well, here I am, I guess? I wish the place was more popular among thoughtful left-wing participants, and maybe there's some way to improve that, but in the meantime I'd rather be somewhere that often repels people with opposing views than somewhere that often expels them.
I think a more subtle issue (though I hesitate to call it a problem) here is that we also select for a particular subset of right-wing participants. Obviously anyone who's a Witch on one issue or another has reason to come to a place like this they won't be expelled from, but also there's a bit of strain between @Goodguy's claims of "assume that social conservatism is correct" and "wordily show-offy". At least 5 years ago, the modal Motte survey respondant was "ambivalent about religion, seeing it as a weak force for good", but that's reflective of a very peculiarly modern type of "conservative". At least in the US (also a modal Motte user characteristic in that survey), the modal social conservative is instead one of the 40% of Americans who would agree that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so". I know there are a number of faithful theists here, but in all the random discussions I've seen of anthropology and human genetics and so on I've never seen anyone jump in with the "no, it wasn't a parable, the first humans were created from clay 6kya" rebuttal that's a plurality belief among Americans. I'm not really interested in rehashing (from my perspective) that debate, but I hope that people are here who would be on the other side and are simply avoiding bringing it up for similar reasons, because that's still a huge and politically important mass of people, whom we can't avoid talking about, and whom I'd therefore like to occasionally be talking to.
Are you suggesting they're not invaders? "One who invades", and all that? Surely if an accurate description of actions makes them sound like Marvel villainy, the way to correct that is "don't take villainous actions", not "hope they won't be described accurately".
"Resist invasions by foreign armies" is almost definitional to being a nation. Don't do that and you're just prey.
Do you really not understand that it's not inherently ridiculous for a former television actor to stand up to Russia? This is even more obviously reaching than your sartorial complaints.
More options
Context Copy link