you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
No bio...
User ID: 92
Reading Sotomayors and Jackson’s dissents all I can think is: “this is an excellent example of why affirmative action needs to be banned”
A post that is 100% culture warring, and booing outgroup scores (+44/-5) and has no mod action. If the majority of readers here want to read posts that dunk on leftists, then they should expect to run out of leftists to dunk on.
Either we all need to spontaneously coordinate and suppress our base instincts, the mods need to start cracking down on culture warring (as distinct from analysis, which is what the Culture War thread is purportedly for), or we all need to make peace with the fact that our community has exactly the amount of ideological diversity that we deserve.
Edit: previous discussion
I have to admit, when I look at domestic box office numbers I mostly just see noise (a big factor imo is competing films entering the market), but to give some reference:
Disney's previous two big movies were Ant-Man and the Wasp Quantumania and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3.
Ant-Man started at $106M its first week, then dropped to $32M (70% drop) and $13M in the next two weeks.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 went from $118M to $62M (47% drop) to $32M.
The Little Mermaid went from $96M to $41M (57% drop) (also this week isn't finished yet)
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
10mo ago
Was hard for me to find explicit before/after online, so I'll paste the diff I stitched together here:
"Kiss the Girl" changes:
Yes, you want her.
Look at her, you know you do.
Possible she wants you, too.
There is one way to ask her.
Use your words, boy, and ask her
It don’t take a word. Not a single word.
If the time is right and the time is tonight
Go on and kiss the girl
In "Poor Unfortunate Souls" they simply remove the dialog about men liking women who don't talk:
Ursula: That's right! But, you'll have, your man. Life's full of tough choices, isn't it? Oh! And there is, one...more...thing! We haven't discussed the subject of payment...
You'll have your looks! Your pretty face!
And don't underestimate the importance of body language!
...
The men up there don't like a lot of blabber
They think a girl who gossips is a bore
...
It's she who holds her tongue who gets a man.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
11mo ago
The defense in the article is
“There’s just more and more layers of stuff that hospitals and physicians’ offices—anyone in healthcare—is being asked to do. Documenting and meeting regulatory requirements—all of these have added to the demand,” Selberg told Healthline. “Has that demand actually gone into creating better outcomes…in less time and with lower costs? I think, as the blog described, the answer is no.”
It's hard to know whether this is accurate or not without finding a trustworthy expert. But if "administrative bloat" is where all the money is going, and if there is no good reason for it, this seems more like a symptom of the lack of competition, which is driven by a ton of factors (failures of governments to prevent monopolization, lack of transparent pricing, etc.).
I know you were explicitly asked "where is the money going", but I think it's worth being clear that "where the money is going" is not necessarily the area where Solutions need to be directed. Blaming "administrative bloat" is like blaming "corporate greed" when the paper mill dumps too much pollution in your river. One of the government's core jobs is keeping people's incentives aligned with being pro-social. Forcing hospitals to downsize or pay administrators less (or whatever) is treating a symptom of the overall screwed-upped-ness of legislation of the medical system.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
1yr ago
I feel like this depends what your goal is. Switching between brands should still reflect badly on the person responsible for the brand and send a signal to other companies/brands that you’re willing to vote with your wallet.
I’m not sure its politically valuable to care about punishing the Joe’s boss’ boss for Joe’s decision. You’re talking about really indirect effects (the boss’ boss now wants to hire a boss who will hire a Joe who won’t alienate republicans).
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
1yr ago
I think by far the most important factor is that there's a lot more dating between older men and younger women than younger men and older women, so if you're a younger man pursuing a younger women you need to compete with both your own age cohort and the men older than you. I'd guess dating for older women feels really unfair too for the same reason.
(See an okcupid blog post for data (note it's an archive so the interactivity doesn't necessarily work))
In other words: it's symmetric across age ranges, but not necessarily within an age range.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
1yr ago
Personally, I’ve been trying to dodge the issue by saying “shooter” or occasionally “loser.” For some reason, mass media hasn’t picked that up.
I google "Nashville shooting" and I get
washingtonpost.com: "Video shows Nashville police confront school shooter""
cbsnews.com: "A shooter opened fire at a private Christian grade school in Nashville Monday, killing three children and three adults, officials said. The shooter was fatally shot by..."
abcnews.go.com: "A shooter armed with two assault-style rifles and a handgun killed three...."
There's also reuters.com who refers to the shooter as "a heavily armed 28-year-old"
I don't think the media is failing to think of of ways to refer to the shooter without referencing their gender.
The steelman is that the “alt-right” were basically conservatives who were very loudly anti-immigration and anti-pc in ways that the establishment Republican Party was not (e.g. I remember people on /r/TheMotte itself lamenting that no party would ever reduce immigration).
It is clear that being loud and proud that “we don’t care if the left calls us bigots, stopping immigration and keeping trans advocates away from our kids is super important” is now very prevalent at the national stage in a way that it wasn’t in 2015, and that Trump demonstrated a clear departure from historical norms. Whether you want to call that “the rise of the alt right” or not is a narrative question more than a factual one.
Can you tie together the first part of your post (linking to a blog post about free speech) to the second part (baseless speculation that your outgroup is behaving like dicks)?
The two people that were laid off on my team were lower-than-senior engineers who hadn’t been promoted in a long time. From what I can tell this is the general advice given by consultants to upper management for figuring out who is a weak performer.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
1yr ago
It's just order of magnitudes. I don't expect you to know the US is 2500 miles across. I expect you to know it's not 250 or 25,000.
"It took me 5 hours to drive across Iowa at 60 miles per hour, so Iowa is around 300 miles across. There's no way the ocean is deeper than that." Or, if that doesn't satisfy you, "therefore the continental United States is around 3000 miles wide which is roughly the radius of the Earth. There's no way the ocean's deepest point is anywhere close to 10% of the radius of the Earth".
I'm not sure I really believe "self censoring" is a coherent concept. For example, if you're predicting the probability somebody will default on a loan and white people have lower credit scores than asians people, is any model that notices assigns asians a lower probability (on average) not "self censoring"? If 99% of people who eat sushi default on their loans, is it "unfair" to penalize them?
To be frank, I've never heard a definition of "ignores race" that isn't implicitly asking for just nakedly pretending all races have equal odds of defaulting on loans, regardless of whether that's accurate or not. I think people are actually asking for this "post-hoc fairness" should be explicit about that. Instead when I say "so you're saying we should just retroactively make the outputs of the result less accurate and pretend men and women are equally likely to commit murder", the response I get is "you're just straw-manning me, I just want a model that's fair".
It's frustrating that the complaints about bias seem contradictory and/or unsatisfiable, and the people making them are unwilling or unable to elaborate. If somebody is going to criticize my model, they should give me a well-defined notion of fairness that it's actually possible for my model to meet. If their definition of fairness means "deliberately cripple your model and force banks to give out loans that are unprofitable" they need to actually own that instead of hiding behind ambiguity.
Edit: The "post hoc" solution (which I think is the only solution that meaningfully satisfies progressive demands) is:
-
train a model that uses every variable
-
train a model that only uses variables you want to ignore (race, sex, etc.)
-
your predictions are model1(x) - model2(x)
Apparently actual progressives disagree, but I've never heard anyone give an alternative.
my churning viscera limits my rhetorical strategy from being much more sophisticated than…
If all you have to go on is an internal sense of revulsion, I’m not sure you should be trying to convince him the first place.
The argument that you want to disincentive teens from becoming prostitutes seems weak to me, since it seems really inefficient — how many girls are you saving from a year of prostitution in return for condemning this woman to never have a family for the next 60 years?
I’m guessing very small — probably less than 0.1. Prostitutes are pretty rare in the US so it’s hard for interventions targeted at random people to actually hit their target, and even then, how many teens are going to know she’s single because she was a prostitute (the answer is zero), and finally, your targets are unlikely to have great impulse control anyway.
Or, to make it simpler: how often did you, as a teen, think about the life of an adult you knew when making a decision? The answer is: never, because you didn’t know anything about the personal lives of more than 6 adults, and you didn’t see their lives as relevant predictors of your own life anyway.
Trying really hard to out-contrarian the folks who think that mile time would be a better filter for IQ than college admissions, huh?
There are a billion second-order arguments for and against any conceivable policy. If you're going to posit meaningful indirect effects of policy changes you're going to need to bring some kind of evidence to the table to make it interesting. Otherwise why should I take this any more seriously than a recommendation to let kids steal more (so would-be thieves understand that stealing is mean), or that giving money to poor people makes them worse off (because it makes them dependent on welfare)?
Without evidence, I'm inclined to KISS: the main effect of allowing kids to bully each other is more kids suffering under bullying. This is bad, so we shouldn't let kids bully each other.
Perhaps most importantly... is there any possibility at all that the phenomenon isn't blatantly deliberate agenda-pushing?
Competent non-white men putting incompetent white men in their place seems like agenda pushing. At least naively, a competent white man dying for someone else seems like it should be glorifying white men -- it just doesn't feel that way from your examples, since that's clearly not the goal of the creators of the movies.
But also I don't think A Man Called Otto is a very good example, since he's not choosing to save her and/or secede the future to her -- he just dies from heart failure. If he explicitly gave her his house and went on living, then I think you'd have a case for "Hollywood is trying to convince white people to just surrender everything to nonwhites". But in this case I think the point was just to give a touching ending that was somewhat faithful to the original story.
An example of a non-white savior saving a white person is Lee Everett from The Walking Dead, who altruistically protects Clementine with his life; Clementine then goes on to be Lee's successor (in both a narrative sense, and in the sense that you literally play as her, so she's literally making making the choices that Lee would have made).
(I also want to give Uncle Tom's Cabin as an example, but I haven't actually read it so I'll let somebody else make that case and/or tell me why that's wrong).
If the Jews were behaving like sovereign citizens and (e.g.) refusing to pay taxes or follow laws, then "persecuting the Jews is no worse than a conflict with a foreign state" might be somewhat defensible.
But it sounds like you're saying "Yeah you pay French taxes and follow French laws and have lived in France all your life, but you don't follow French culture, so you shouldn't get the game-theoretic protections of being part of France". If you agree that (e.g.) Mormons deserve to live without persecution, I feel like that should also extend to Jews.
here is Science insisting that trans women don’t even have an advantage
This isn't a fair characterization of that article. While I agree they're arguing for trans women to be allowed to compete, their argument is primarily that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate trans women have an advantage (i.e. a negative claim), not that trans women don't have any advantage (a positive claim).
While everything you said is true, it avoids the main crux of @JarJarJedi's point. The typical American makes $1-$2 million in their entire lifetimes and, as awful as lies were, it's really hard to argue that the damage they did to the parents is 5-10 times the amount an American produces over 40 years.
Bringing up Jone's "profit" seems irrelevant, since we're arguing over compensation for the victims (which ought to be decided by the harm inflicted on them), not a fine that goes to the government.
It literally doesn’t matter whether it’s statistically true, (though, yes, it’d be nice to see you at least verify your sneers are accurate).
Sticking a “and also he’s probably fat” at the end of a paragraph is clearly intended to be insulting, not to advance your thesis, and “it’s okay that I said that, since most Americans are overweight” is not a defense.
As ZorbaTHut has recently reiterated the first rule is
Be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary for your argument.
The meat of your objection is that wignats would have to violence to achieve their policy goals, but ... that's true for every political movement ever.
I hate to state the obvious, but just because Jimmy Carter and Joseph Stalin both used "violence" to achieve their policy goals does not mean I can't prefer Carter for killing fewer people and pursuing better policies than Stalin.
/u/TheBookOfAllan is making the entirely defensible claim that the cost of deporting/imprisoning/killing millions of Mexicans is incredibly high compared to typical policy goals and compared to the benefits. It's not helpful to respond that it's no different than enforcing vehicle registration.
I had three different HVAC repair men come to look at my furnace and all three gave me completely different diagnoses with very similar prices (~$1300). My aunt has a list of repair men that she has collected over her life (mostly recommended by friends I think) and is adamant that word-of-mouth recommendations are the only feasible way to get a good contractor.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
6mo ago
We can be the place where high effort discussion happens or we can be the place where we talk about how we deserve blowjobs. I've never seen an Internet community capable of accommodating both.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
7mo ago
Jesus telling you to love your neighbor and saying rich men won’t enter heaven isn’t at all similar to Marxism?
the detente is over and was over when the state closed churches and masses for COVID
Covid policy ended an individual family's "détente" over Christianity? Letting national politics (and they're barely even related specifically to Christianity!) shape your personal relationships with your family seems hopelessly mind-killed.
My mom isn't a fan of Big Tech but I don't give her the silent treatment whenever the EU hands out another fine.
Saying anything along the lines of "The corporation wants/cares/etc about $foo" is always going to run into trouble. Individual people continuously fail to have coherent desires. Companies (at least, companies with 10+ people) are always going to be worse.
Here's what seems like a pretty sensible framing to me:
I'd be surprised if Bob Iger (or Mark Zuckerberg, or Sundar Pichai, etc.) were "true believers" in identity politics -- if nothing else, consider what Wikipedia has to say:
Iger has described himself as a political centrist, while he has publicly identified with the Democratic Party.
...
In 2016, Iger switched his party registration from Democratic to independent.[1]
(For full disclosure, Wikipedia also mentions
Iger considered running for president as a Democrat in the 2020 election, however ultimately decided against running.
though I don't think that's a good signal of whether he's woke).
At the same time this doesn't say very much about what their companies will or won't do. I'm sure there are woke decisions that get made to maximize revenue. Similarly there are woke decisions that get made because some random person in middle or upper management is a true believer and nobody wants to be "that guy" who says "no, we're not going to make the next main character a woman/black/etc.".
I still don't think it's meaningful to say Disney "really cares", since I'm still skeptical that the CEO and/or most of the employees care. At the same time I'm sure some percentage of employees are genuinely woke, including some of the leadership.
I expect a crucial component is exact what is meant by "homosexuals". The decision to identify (either to yourself or publicly) certainly correlates with many other variables, many of which correlate with IQ (simply becaise few variables in social science are independent).
For example, if going to college makes you more liberal and more likely to identify as homosexual, then that would increase the average IQ of self-identifying homosexuals.
I'm skeptical you're actually interested in these, uh, incidental (?) correlations though? Which makes your question seem kind of poorly defined.
More options
Context Copy link