zeke5123a
1mo ago
She assumes women face oppression qua women. She assumes blacks face discrimination qua black.
Why isn’t that victimhood mentality
zeke5123a
1mo ago
I’m just not convinced racism is the big bad. Treating a black family coldly just because violates hospitality which is its own sin.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
It’s almost like borrowing and dropping a bunch of cash into certain industries have caused costs to explode.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
God Xbox live. Great time to be a teenager. I remember the tea bagging after killing or getting killed.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
No. There is a massive difference between a group of young Asian guys and black guys hanging out. Basic stats will tell you this.
Yes there are other indicators (eg if they were all wearing suits you’d feel more comfortable). But if you understand crime stats, being black is highly predictive in the same way being male is.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
I actually ran into this in real life. Not contrived. I was dropping my then fiancé off in NYC at our apartment when I was having to drive somewhere else. I was going to drop her off on one end of the block since I would’ve had to drive around a few blocks given the one way nature of streets.
I noticed a group of young black men and re calibrated. My then fiancé asked me why I hadn’t drop her off at that end of the street. When I explained, she thought it was racist. I explained it was Bayesian and in any event did no harm to the young black men.
I’m curious if my now wife would have the same attitude today.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
It’s late at night. You are looking for a street parking spot. Nearby an open spot, there are a group of young black men loitering. Is it wrong for you to avoid that spot and try to find another spot?
If it is wrong, then I question why being moral is even worthwhile.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
Sure but it also seems the established Church telos isn’t Christ but some vaguely fashionable leftist social project.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
Frankly, I think the bigger problem is that the immigrants don’t share the same civic value and frequently benefit from government largesse.
So on the one hand they help destroy the fabric that makes growth possible and on the other hand a not insignificant portion take more than they give (eg Somalians)
zeke5123a
1mo ago
Seems like there is a third choice: sometimes paper tigers are actually dogs. Trump attacked Iran and weakened them militarily. He expected to create internal instability leading to regime change within but Iran grouped together like a pack of dogs.
So Trump’s hope for a quick victory was not realized. He was then given the choice of either a prolonged attack against a determined but weakened foe or cutting bait. He seems to have chosen the latter.
The question is how big of a cost was the gambit and what does Iran look like in five years. If the answer is “not much” and “the same or slightly degraded then it’s largely a whole lotta nothing.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
As did Trump with Venezuela.
The real question is “what happens when you meet with determined resistance.” Option 1 is forever war. Option 2 is get out quick.
Trump may take Option 2. Iran is heavily degraded but putting up enough fight that it ain’t worth the squeeze
zeke5123a
1mo ago
Sure they were positively correct. But that doesn’t mean unenumerated rights don’t exist in the U.S. constitutional system.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
I would slightly disagree with your formulation that that aren’t unenumerated rights that the federal government (and state governments) can not infringe.
The entire anti federalist argument against the bill of rights was that people may assume that what was not written meant the government could invade those rights. The response was the 9th and 10th.
And there are certain rights (rights of Englishmen) that were long standing that were not reduced to writing. But they need to be carefully limited grounded in history and traditionalist justices supplement their will for democratic will.
Abortion pretty clearly was not an August right enjoined by all. It was in fact illegal in the vast majority of states. There was no recorded strong history of allowing abortion. The rules pointed to were presumptions (as it was hard to delineate between miscarriages and abortions).
zeke5123a
1mo ago
I agree that it is complex. Plain reading is also dangerous when 150ish years removed (ie what was it understood to mean in the late 1800s).
My response isn’t to say “it is obvious.” My response is to say it isn’t obvious and it isn’t nitpicking.
The other poster tried to compare Roe (a case about unenumerated right that seemingly wasn’t recognized anywhere before) and this one is about untangling a challenging phrase. They just aren’t the same.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
It isn’t nitpicking to figure out what the words “subject to the jurisdiction” means.
Clearly there is a limitation (otherwise no need to insert the phrase). The real question is how far do you read that limitation.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
The most important thing is being able to assign the opinion if in the majority.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
Another poster brought up LOTRad being relatively low brow compared to PM work. But your post reminds me of enduring truth JRRT embedded in LOTR: most of the time, knowing what is the just thing to do isn’t complicated. Instead, choosing to do good even when you know you are likely to fail is the important thing.
People often scorn LOTR because it lacks moral complexity (somewhat unfair criticism). But in reality, the simple truth of “do good even when it might cost you or you might not succeed” is in reality a powerful antidote to the “problem obsessed but no solution” attitude you identify in PM work. And sometimes, that good results in restoring the kingdom.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
To add, SCOTUS clerks aren’t doing menial labor like disclosure. They go straight to appellate practices because contra the main post they now spent a few years writing opinions for some of the best judges and Justices in the world (unless you use the misfortune to clerk for KBJ)
zeke5123a
1mo ago
I think you meant to reply to @FlyOnTheWall but I think the OP was using that example to prove that even though wokes should hate island we know they support it thus saying wokes dislike Indians because Modi is right wing misunderstands woke.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
Not just that but we know that researchers were more than willing to lie (see the infamous paper orchestrated by Fauci et al) when they internally came to different views (yes they make claims they internally changed their mind due to new evidence but that new evidence shouldn’t have changed the predictions materially nor did it justify the venom by which they attacked their critics).
So when the experts are both incentivized to be biased and have been caught lying, why would anyone trust the experts? Even when they produce evidence there is a real question of whether they doctored the evidence or that they would ignore evidence to the contrary.
Well no. I actually would not want to send my kids to a school with a lot of minorities even if it were a “good” school. I think the cost to diversity is frequently higher than the benefit
More options
Context Copy link