NullHypothesis
No bio...
User ID: 2718
NullHypothesis
8d ago
One day you'll be old too, so I'd be cautious of discounting old people as mostly just a burden.
Funnily enough this isn't a new idea. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, founder of the Futurist movement of the early 20th century asserted in his Manifesto of Futurism the idea that the old were useless and that it was the young with creativity, strength, and innovation.
The oldest of us is thirty: so we have at least a decade for finishing our work. When we are forty, other younger and stronger men will probably throw us in the wastebasket like useless manuscripts—we want it to happen!
He was 32 when the manifest was published. The guy lived to 68 and went on to fight in both world wars, enter politics, write books and poems, have a family, and continue to advocate for futurism. So doesn't seem like he upheld this portion of his manifesto... otherwise he would've stepped out of the way after he hit 40. Its easy to demand others do something until you also have to do the same.
Anyways if we want to actually tackle what utility old people can provide, I'm going to say the nuclear family structure has been detrimental to a role old people have played for most of human history. Older people in an extended family structure can provide support for the family through housework, taking care of the children, companionship, and yes, knowledge counts too. Also, it is older folk that is going to have the most knowledge of family history and pedigree. For a lot of people knowing their family and history gives meaning and a sense of legacy and purpose in context of the wider world. ChatGPT is not going to have information about your family history. It should also be the role of older people to act as a glue that keeps the wider family connected. They have the time and pre-existing relationships to maintain the network of family and having access to such a network provides value. ChatGPT is not going to provide that network. Older people can also fill less desirable jobs and roles that need volunteers.
Consider all the inventions, works of art and literature, businesses, etc that have been created and developed by people in their older ages. Is the rate lower than the rate at which younger people create these? Obviously yes, but your claim was that the elderly will never do anything for the human race. It's also likely the success of work produced by old people come from having many years worth of experience in life. Do you think JRR Tolkien was capable of writing Lord of the Rings in his 20s? If yes, why didn't he do it in his 20s? He began his most famous work at around 62. Also, the average age of a successful startup founder is 45. This is after filtering out small businesses with no intention of growing large. Should the group most likely to have a successful startup not reap the benefits of their risk and effort in their old age? Why would anyone bother taking that risk if they aren't allowed to do so?
Also, does legacy mean nothing to you? Would you not like to have grandchildren, maybe greatgrandchildren and see to their growth and success? You don't think you'll be able to provide them any value other than your previously accumulated material wealth? Do you believe that you would serve them better by dying and giving them an inheritance than guiding their growth?
I'm not fully discounting your complaints either, because things like advances in medicine has caused older people to live longer than they used to which has increased the strain on social security. Couple that with less people having children and this is one of the great pressing problems of the 21st century. Personally I'd restrict voting power to adults that pay taxes and that'll probably address a good chunk of the issues you point out. Maybe even have it proportional to the amount you are taxed up to a cap. But I don't think "clearing" out old people is the solution. What exactly do you mean by "clearing" out old people anyway? Make it illegal for everyone over 40 to have a job? Let them starve to death? Mandatory assisted death over 60? It's not like basic resources are an issue - we currently grow enough food to feed 10 billion people, and if people aren't having kids then eventually the population is going to start shrinking. You might think old people are getting the in the way of young people, and to an extent that may be true, but is that the main factor?
For example, lets consider the high price of housing and rent. A common sentiment I see online is that the boomers are hoarding all the property so young people cannot afford homes. But is that really the main issue? The cities with the worst housing markets are the ones that tend to have the most restrictions and regulations on housing and rent. In a city like New York, rent control leads to a lot of empty apartments because it's cheaper for the owners to leave it empty than to spend the money necessary to renovate it to a livable standard from updated codes in NYC. LA has restrictions on the size of apartments and in San Francisco you can spend years waiting for a permit because a study has to be done on the environmental impact your new building will have on the local bird population before you can begin construction. That's not really an issue with the existence of old people holding homes as much as it is an issue with government mandated regulations making it harder to increase supply of housing. The homes older folks tend to live in are also cheaper homes in LCOL areas where their money can go further, while young people are more likely to be competing for homes in more expensive cities where there is more opportunities in their career. I haven't crunched the numbers to see what has the bigger impact but my gut feeling is that the restriction on housing supply due to not being able to construct enough new homes is a bigger factor than the housing supply being constrained due to old people buying up all the homes.
NullHypothesis
9d ago
Do you engage in active trading, and if so have you consistently beat market average returns over a long period of time? How long have you been profitable?
If you do, how much time did you invest in learning before the effort was financially worth it? How much time do you spend now? At what size of your portfolio did it become an activity that became worth spending your time on (if we exclude it being an activity you do as a hobby).
Nobody would accept the possibility of performing surgery or any other skilled work without serious training, but people seem to expect to be able to do well in the markets without educating themselves and obtaining the tools.
Yes, but we can see clear evidence that people do put in the effort and become actual doctors and surgeons. I haven't encountered in my personal life anyone that day trades for a living. The previous VP of tech at my company did day trade, but considering he was still working as the VP of tech I get the feeling it was more of a hobby for him than anything else. Amongst the people who that maintain an online presence related to some form of active trade I found their success dubious or shady (often their online presence is a funnel to some sort of course which is their actual wealth generator). Cameron Ross is a name that gets thrown around as someone who successfully day traded but he engages in very risky trades and I haven't found evidence of anyone being able to replicate his success after taking his courses. On the contrary he had to settle with the FTC after they got sued for misleading his students about the success of following his courses.
Of course since trading is something so easy to get into the failure rates are highly inflated. I'm willing to accept that at certain markets and with enough retail investors playing the field you could get some sort of advantage by being more intelligent and disciplined, and that there could be retail investors with strategies that only work at a small scale that allow them to making a living off of trading. I'm looking for some actual stats on success rates though since there are plenty of other ventures, careers, side hustles etc that have more concrete evidence of success for a given level of effort. Some people have told me it takes on average 2 years before day trading becomes profitable but they didn't provide me with any evidence and the fact that they weren't day trading full time doesn't instill much confidence in that number.
Since we have this weekly thread now and the Motte has a lot intelligent autists I figured I might be able to get some actual perspectives from successful active traders (if there are any here).
Just saying put in more effort if you want to get good at something doesn't mean much, that's just obvious. Becoming a surgeon takes 13 to 15 years. A lawyer takes 7 years. You can land an entry level software engineer role if you dedicate 6-24 months of intense study. What's the average effort threshold for active trading, to say, beat the minimum wage if you had a portfolio of 1 million dollars compared to just passive investing? Last thing I want to do is spend 1-2 years on something that won't yield good results.
NullHypothesis
11d ago
Has anyone here had any success actively trading over a long period of time (at least 10-15 years) and beat the average market return of 10% to 11.5% over that time period? Do you have confidence you will continue to beat market, and how much time and effort do you spend actively trading? If you are making a living actively investing (off your own portfolio, not managing other peoples money, what was the approximate size of your portfolio where it was feasible?
If you do active trading, do you also active trade in your IRA?
My thought is that for most people, active trading is an exercise in futility, and the data seems to back it up. Nearly all retail investors that actively trade don't beat the market average (or even lose money), and even like 70-90% of professionally managed funds don't beat the S&P 500 each year. Over a longer period of time, the percentage drops even more suggesting those funds were just lucky.
Every other week I hear coworkers/friends/people in discord servers I'm in talking about stocks, but I can't help but feel like they're mostly gambling rather than having a system that actually works. Some of them have had successes beating the market but they've also been only trading for like 2 years. I'm always wondering if it's like a gambler bragging about his wins but never sharing his losses (but at least in the stock market the expected returns are positive). Comparison is the thief of joy as the sayings goes so I guess it really doesn't matter how other's are doing on their finances as long as you personally are doing okay, but every once in a while I can't help but feel like maybe I ought to take some time to look more into individual stocks and see if I could do better. But at the same time, for someone in my age bracket I'm doing fine, so maybe I don't need to try to do better in this area, and I can put my mental effort towards other things.
Personally I have about 6% of my portfolio in individual stocks, 1% in crypto and the rest in various index funds. I'm thinking of just selling all the individual stocks and then not having to worry about my stocks ever again, the only reason I haven't sold them is because a good chunk of them are in SAAS and security tech companies who's valuation is lower because of the AI boom, and I'm hoping they recover since my belief is that AI has not yet provided meaningful advantages in those areas.
NullHypothesis
11d ago
My first thought was inflation might explain a good chunk of it but the chart on wikipedia indicates the increase in USAID outpaces inflation (11.8 billion in 2001 should be equal to $21.13 billion in 2024), and also seems like USAID funds really started increasing in 2021. Also that 23 billion is the average after accounting for inflation in 2023 dollars. Wikipedia also says 2023 was an exception year with $16 billion in funds for Ukraine but even accounting for that 2023 had 43.79 - 16 = 27.79 billion which is above the average of 23 billion.
Considering under which admin USAID funding really ramped up I think it's fair to conclude it would've likely kept going up if Kama was president.
NullHypothesis
29d ago
In addition to other comments about how phrasing the question biases the selection, I'm curious how much impact the red/blue color of the button are subconsciously influencing people's decision on what button to press.
Also, I believe that vote count was influenced by the reply to himself indicating "Blue voters hanging on by a thread currently." That might have given enough push for people to be willing to press the blue button to end up with the 42/58 split instead of something closer to 49/51 as it was before the comment was made.
I'm also curious if there is any data on the demographics of the people that would press each button. I think it's very likely women are much more likely to press the blue button, and men are more likely to press the red button. If the men who would press the red button was conscious of this, would they be more likely to change their mind? For example if 70% of women pressed the blue button but 80% of men pressed the red button, that would mean the surviving men now have to live in a world where there are only 3 women for every 8 men. For the red button pressors, does the possibility of having to live in such a world impact your decision in any way? If you knew this possibility was made aware to all red button pressors, do you think it would impact enough red button pressors to become blue button pressors that could change how you perceive blue button pressors?
What if the question was modified so that the death/survival put you into random groups of X number of people? Or more simply, rather than this being a game of everyone, this is a game of a set number of people e.g. 10,000 or even just 100. At a low enough number, your chances of dying if you pressed blue actually increases significantly, if we assume the 42.1% red to 57.9% blue ratio holds true (it likely won't and I already expressed some skepticism at that number being a "true" answer). I presume red button pressors will always press red regardless of the size of the group. Are there any blue button pressors that would press the red button in smaller group sizes? For red button pressors, what if it was a small group e.g. 100, and within that group is a friend or family member that you know would likely press the blue button. What if this button was presented strictly to people in your family (or people in your friend group). Would you be more willing to press the blue button?
What if the percentage of people that needed to press the blue button to survive was increased to 60%? 75%? 90%? Most of the provided reasons for pressing blue still holds true because none of them take consideration any calculation on what percentage of people one might believe to press blue to warrant pressing blue. For the blue button pressers, is there a number at which you would change your mind? There has to be a number, because if the requirement was 100% of blue button pressors must press blue for blue button pressors to survive, knowing there are people that would press the red button even if the number was only 50% required would make any rational actor press the red button instead.
NullHypothesis
2mo ago
https://youtube.com/watch?v=S-sqsvcZJ2w
Forgot who shared this bop before.
NullHypothesis
2mo ago
Someone's age in relation to their net worth is also important to take into consideration. Based on birb's description of his interactions with these people, it's likely they are 35 or younger. Having $10 million in net worth at 35 or younger is the top 0.1% of people in that bracket. He also said they aren't working, if true, would be a different class of people than the people who build up their wealth by grinding away at a top 1% income job.
Like you said I do think a $10million net worth is within the realm of possibility for the average Mottizen. It would also entail never really spending the money that's compounding on anything until you reach near retirement age unless the income is much greater than is needed to achieve the investment value you indicated and I think most people would rather have that money go towards something like a home and creating memories than towards accumulating wealth just so you can say you are worth 8 figures.
To be able to reach $10million in net worth and also have a standard of living similar to people within that asset range would require even more income When you factor in how taxes have the function of lowering the amount of money you actually keep the more you earn, and that states where you can find these top 1% income jobs also tend to have state level income taxes, the amount of money you need to actually be earning starts to reach like half a million dollars. That's anything but normal. That's saying to be rich you just need to make a lot of money, or to be in the top 1% net worth of people you just need to make a top 1% income.
NullHypothesis
3mo ago
Speaking of the Atheism+ movement, Scott had an interesting article on that
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/
You would think the atheist skeptics who were anti-feminists would align with the alt-right (or at least anti-woke given their previous anti-feminist stances) but a large number of them ended up on the side of woke social justice.
I wouldn't say impossible, see inattentional blindness. There are a lot of people driving cars that shouldn't be driving cars but do because you kind of need a car to get anywhere in most of the US.
It certainly doesn't help the side that wants to say she had absolutely no awareness, and does help the side that wants to argue she wanted to run him over intentionally. But also, this happens in a matter of seconds, and I'd think someone with the intention of trying to run over ICE with a car would've done it a different way, and invoking Occum's razor I think the answer that she was being wreckless, and a bad driver is more likely than she saw an opportunity to run over an ICE officer and made a split second decision to run him over.
NullHypothesis
4mo ago
From the other videos we can see was filming with a phone using his left hand, he pulls the gun out from the right side of his body with his right hand.
NullHypothesis
4mo ago
Had the vehicle not moved, the spot the officer stopped moving would not have been in front of the vehicle. If you go frame by frame you can see he stops in the area covered by the tree. If you compare that to the angle of the car before it starts moving, if it moves straight forward it would not hit that spot.
I think it's pretty clear the woman did not begin backing up the war with the intention of running someone over.
I also think it's clear the officer did not deliberately position himself in front of the car with the intention of stopping the vehicle.
Considering the officer's previous experience of being run over by a car in a previous incident, it's possible he entered into a fight response, and in response he took out his gun to shoot at a perceived threat. But in reality she wasn't trying to hit an officer, she was in a moment of panic trying to run away from the officer that grabbed the vehicle's door.
It's important to note this all happens in a matter of seconds. There's a lot of analysis about what we can see from behind the car being able to rewind and watch what happened frame by frame. In contrast there is very little analysis about what the situation looked like from the perspective of the officer that took the shot (partially because there is still no footage from the officer's POV).
Stephen Crowder has an attempt at an analysis, although I find it a bit lacking and the positions to be off, but I think the key point he attempts to tackle is general correct, in that the officer has no vision of the direction of the wheel of the vehicle.
Now there could be an argument made about what the officer should've done as soon as the car starts moving backwards. I think my instinctual response would actually to walk backwards, which would actually put me MORE in the path of the car, but it's also possible this may have caused my figure to be more clearly in front of the car and maybe the woman wouldn't have accelerated forward to begin with.
Regardless, I think any analysis assuming he was trying to walk in front of the car is incorrect. I think there can be discussion to be had about his reaction once the car starts moving, but again this happens in a matter of seconds and I'm giving the officer some leeway here considering his previous experience of being run over. (There is also some potential discussion to be had about how someone would react if they had previously been in an incident and how fit that makes them to continue doing their job).
NullHypothesis
4mo ago
I think you mean @zoink instead of @self_made_human for who shared links to multiple angles of the video.
NullHypothesis
4mo ago
- This iceman was hit by a different car previously.
I haven't seen this claim before, so I found this article discussing the issue, in case anyone else here might be curious about this piece of information.
Had the ICE officer not moved left, the path the vehicle took definitely would have hit him.
If you watch the video, he's moving from the right to the left, so he was in the way of the vehicle in the seconds before the car started moving.
Here's what I can see happened from the different videos.
ICE Officer A (the officer that fired the shot) is filming the vehicle of the woman and moves in from the right side of the vehicle to the front of the vehicle. ICE Officer B approaches the vehicle from the left saying "get out of the car" multiple times and as soon as he reaches the car attempts to open the door.
Going frame by frame, the wheels start to move before the officer's hand tries to open the door, but not before the officer raises his hand at towards her.
The car reverses a bit and stops. While this is happening, ICE officer A is in front of the vehicle moving from the right to the left. It's possible the woman's attention is solely focused on ICE Officer B and may not even be aware ICE officer A is in front of her, possibly inattentional blindness.
The instant the car attempts to move forward Ice Officer A pulls out the card and shoots. The time between when the wheel starts to move forward and when he tries to pull the gun out is about 8 frames (going frame by frame on the linked youtube video for angle 2), and since the video is playing at 30 frames per seconds, that is about 266 milliseconds.
So based on what I can see this is what I conclude.
The woman was there to be disruptive to ICE. As soon as ICE shows up and confronts her, she panics and tries to run away. I don't think she was intending to run someone over and it's possible the ICE Officer standing in front of her vehicle wasn't registering in her mind, or the path the ICE officer took walking from right to left in front of her vehicle made her think he would keep moving left out of the way of the vehicle. Perhaps she thought a path was opening up and in a moment of panic was looking for a way to get out as soon as possible. (Which by the way, is an extremely stupid thing to do. Even if you are in the right and an officer is harassing you, trying to run away is one of the worst responses you can do other than physically attacking the officer. In this situation, even if unintentionally, attempting to run away also cause the possibility of physical harm to an officer. The behavior of the type of people to run and resist police might be interesting to dig further into but likely has already been discussed heavily here in the Motte already and this is already going too far off-topic from the point I want to make so I shall abstain from commenting further for now.)
Regardless, when she decides to try to move the vehicle forward, he is very clearly standing in a spot where the vehicle would hit him. 266 milliseconds from when the car starts to move forward to when he starts to pull the gun out is well within standard human reaction time. There's about 36-38 frames from when he begins to pull the gun out to when smoke appears from the gun. I think it is within possibility that the moment he detected the car driving towards him the ICE officer felt his life threatened and used his gun as a response, and not that he was waiting for an opportunity to shoot someone. If he had been pulling the gun out sooner, I think the arguments that he was looking for an opportunity to shoot someone would be stronger, but here that is not the case.
I don't think a lot of people understand how dangerous vehicles are due to being around cars all the time. Due to their size, even at a small speed it can do significant damage to the human body. For example, if you had a 4500 lb SUV accelerate from 0 to 5 mph in 1 second that's approximately 10,000 N of force. For comparison, a punch from an elite level boxer would be around 5000 N of force. From what I saw in the video, I don't think the vehicle would've killed the officer if it hit him, but it could've done significant physical damage if he didn't move out of the way. If a guy was running towards an officer trying to punch him and got shot, it would be very hard to defend that. A vehicle accelerating to even 5mph when it would hit someone possesses way more power behind it. Intentional or not, that was the level of physical force that could've hit that officer. Driving a car is an insane privilege with great potential for damage that I think a lot of people simply don't respect.
EDIT: There is a 4th angle video that makes it clearer what happened.
Officer A went to the car in front of the woman's car with the door open (perhaps to grab something or check something on the system), then he turns around and starts moving towards the woman's car, but he is NOT in front of the car. When she begins moving backwards, that positions the car to be angled towards him. Officer A stops his walk. The charitable take for the officer is that this triggers his memory of being run over previously, and he enters a fight response, causing him to pull out his firearm and shoot. It's important to note that the decision for the women to reverse and for the officer to shoot happens in a matter of seconds.
I think this makes it clear several things
-
The woman did not purposefully attempt to run over an officer when she made her decision to back the vehicle up. It's very likely her attention was focused on Officer B that grabbed her vehicle's door and in fact Officer A was clearly not in front of the vehicle when she begins backing up.
-
Officer A did not deliberately position himself in front of the car to block the vehicle from moving. It just so happened that the vehicle began moving backward while he was moving towards the car. If we go frame by frame and look at where he stopped moving relative to the direction the car was facing before it began backing up, he would not have been in the path of the car had it moved straight forward instead of backing up first. So my initial assessment that he was walking right from left in front of the vehicle was completely wrong.
What pisses me off is that on Twitter and Youtube and Discord the culture war warriors are arguing over the demonstratable facts of the case rather than the interpretation of the events. Everyone has the same access to the videos I do and linking the exact same video I watched and yet they seem to have missed key details entirely and then forming their entire opinion and analysis based on it. The "analysis" videos are even worse, I saw one circle the random pedestrian (not the officer) and add an arrow to officer B (but no highlighting of Officer A) and now people on Twitter are sharing that video as proof that the Officer A was not in front of the car. Or the screenshot of the officer shooting at the car but not the frame before showing that the car would've hit the officer. Are the people liking and sharing this dishonest evaluation, not watching the video? Are they mentally blocking any information that would provide evidence towards the conclusion they don't like, and only looking for the conclusion they would like?
This is nothing new, of course. There were people that believed Rittenhouse shot a black person even though the video evidence was available even before the trials. But you cannot even have a proper conversation when the core facts of the situation is in dispute and one side refuses to acknowledge the reality of what happened. You can have an argument about who is in fault here (is shooting the right response or a reasonable response, do you deserve to be shot if you're running away in a vehicle and in the process put someone in harm's way), you cannot have an argument with someone that believes that the officer was trying to block the vehicle with his body or that the vehicle was never pointing towards the officer because the fundamental assumptions of their argument is completely false.
NullHypothesis
6mo ago
Some people have gone and fixed stuff on their own, only to be fined and ordered to stop by the very city that hasn't fixed those issues for one reason or another. When you have to fix problems on your own while also hiding your identity, it's sign of a failing society. The problem shouldn't have gotten this big to begin with, the system should've solved the issue when it arrived, and it shouldn't be punishing people for solving the problems it failed to fix to begin with.
if we accepted donations like the one you suggest, there would be an imbalance between neighbourhoods. Richer neighbourhoods would have better amenities and poorer neighbourhoods would remain slideless. But you can pay to install a bench with your name somewhere in who-the-fuck-knows-where. We'll take your money, but you can't tell us what to do with it.
This kind of ideology, the need to value equality above all else, is really upsetting and possibly one of the worst ideas ever to come into the public consciousness as a "virtuous" idea. The implication here is that every slide in all the neighborhoods are broken, and unless they can fix every single slide in every neighborhood and give them all access to slides, nobody should have access to slides. Insert meme about the equity solution to three people of different heights watching a baseball game is to cut off the feet of the 2 taller ones.
I'm left to wonder if they really think that or it's just the excuse given to hide some other reason, such as embarrassment from not being able to fix the issues plaguing the city or laziness or greed (donate money, we'll build a bench for 50% of the donated money and pocket the rest).
All this alarm about Nazis and no attempt to demonstrate any policy position these supposed "Nazis" hold that would make them actual Nazis.
Holocaust denial does not make you a Nazi.
Making edgy jokes does not make you a Nazi.
Thinking Hitler did some good things (or at the very least for the German people) does not make you a Nazi.
Having some overlap with the Nazi platform does not make you a Nazi. As the classic argument goes, Hitler liked dogs, so if you like dogs, does that mean you are a Nazi?
Being antisemitic does not make you a Nazi. There are plenty of people who express antisemitic views from the left.
Heck even calling yourself a Nazi does not make yourself a Nazi. I can call myself the richest man in the world, it doesn't make me the richest man in the world. I can say I'm a Christian, but if I don't believe in Christ as savior or do anything associated with typical Christians such as going to church or praying, am I really a Christian? You have to believe in the values and core tenets of the Nazi ideology to be a Nazi.
Since you seem so keen on raising the alarm on the rise of Nazism, how about you actually define what are the core ideas and values of Nazism, that way we can actually pit all these supposed Nazis against these values to determine if they actually are Nazis or not?
Nazi is a term with an extremely negative connotation and reputation. Why were the Nazis so bad? A big part of the reason is that the Nazis killed millions of Jews during the Holocaust. Antisemitism alone does not lead to the killing of 6 million Jews. If you want to argue all these supposed new "Nazis" want to kill all the Jews, then make that argument instead of just calling them Nazis.
When you label your opponents as Nazis with little to no care, all it does is erode away the negativity associated with the term Nazi. The fact that more people are now okay with being labeled a Nazi is evidence that the term is losing the negative power associated with it, which was due to the liberal application of that term to people who actually aren't Nazis. You've called all these people Nazis, yet if I imagined any of these people you have mentioned being put in charge of a country and given complete authority to do whatever they wanted, I don't think any of them would recreate the holocaust. So how exactly are they Nazis and should be ascribed all the negative things we associate with the actual Nazis from WW2 Germany?
NullHypothesis
7mo ago
I haven't heard of the Young Republicans before this.
Their Wikipedia page is almost empty except for the story that just broke out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Republicans
They have under 4000 followers on Twitter https://x.com/yrnational
I checked their website and most state chapters have at most a Facebook page.
They haven't seem to have accomplished much that would be newsworthy.
I'm sure they do stuff, but as an outsider doing some minor research, I can't say I'm impressed.
NullHypothesis
7mo ago
Epithets like “f----t,” “retarded” and “n--ga” appeared more than 251 times combined.
I just found it funny the writers censored out "faggot" and "nigga", but not "retarded". So they're trying to get the list of the worst offensive things that were said but the 3rd item on the list wasn't offensive enough to censor but it's all grouped together to get the 251 count?
Mosiman was derided by members of the chat as “beaner” and “sp-c.”
How come they didn't censor out "beaner", isn't that racist too?
What's with the self-censorship, anyway? Politico had no problem quoting faggot just a year ago:
https://www.politico.com/search?q=faggot&s=newest
Same with bitch, cunt, nigga, nigger, spic, and chink. All words that have appeared in previous politico articles uncensored.
NullHypothesis
7mo ago
Sounds like McDonald's should've sold a 1/5 burger for the same price then.
NullHypothesis
7mo ago
I think there is a significant difference due to which population gets impacted; prohibition impacts citizens, ICE doesn't. Certain rights are determined by whether you are a citizen of the country or not. I don't think it's inconsistent to want less freedom for foreigners than for fellow citizens.
NullHypothesis
7mo ago
There is a culture war angle here about how some people like animals way more than humans.
Considering all the things Hasan has previously done and said (things that break the Twitch TOS like doxing other people and arguably inciting violence with inflammatory rhetoric), if this alleged mistreatment of the dog is what gets him cancelled, it's pretty revealing what certain people's priorities actually are.
This story was brought up on some discord servers I'm in with people that lean mostly left/center and the consensus is that's "subhuman" behavior from Hasan. So it's not something that's just circulating around his haters.
That being said, I highly doubt this is what gets Hasan cancelled, or that this will be a major blow to his reputation. Anyone who isn't a fan of Hasan probably already greatly dislike him, and many people on the left aren't huge fans of Hasan. The worst this can do is get some of his existing fans to stop watching his content.
NullHypothesis
7mo ago
According to a 2020 survey of South Koreans, 83.8% of respondents reported to never having consumed dog meat before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat_consumption_in_South_Korea
It was more common several decades ago, but it's in decline. The people who have eaten it before are of the older generation, and most of them do not consume it regularly.
If you're talking to a Korean online (especially in English), they probably have never eaten dog before.
NullHypothesis
7mo ago
Why is it that I will forever know
As long as you keep bringing it up it'll get stored in your memory more. If you said your mother's middle name every day for a week and every week for a month and every month for a year and every year for the rest of your life, you'd probably remember that too.
see nothing but excuses, equivocation, or using tragic events as an opportunity to dunk on his political opponents
This is fairly uncharitable given nearly all of these events Trump does have words of condemnation to say of the violence, so "nothing but" is inaccurate.
Dylann Roof
Cesar Sayok
Trump, speaking at the 2018 Young Black Leadership Summit at the White House, called the sending of the bombs a “despicable” act that has “no place in our country” and vowed that “swift and certain justice” would be delivered.
“We must never allow political violence to take root in America. We cannot let it happen. I am committed to do everything in my power as president to stop it and stop it now,” he said.
According to Wikipedia's summary of the events trump says this first:
My highest duty, as you know, as President, is to keep America safe. That's what we talk about. That's what we do. The federal government is conducting an aggressive investigation and we will find those responsible and we will bring them to justice. Hopefully very quickly. Any acts or threats of political violence are an attack on our democracy, itself. No nation can succeed that tolerates violence or the threat of violence as a method of political intimidation, coercion, or control. We all know that. Such conduct must be fiercely opposed and firmly prosecuted. We want all sides to come together in peace and harmony. We can do it. We can do it. We can do it. It will happen.
He starts attacking the media the day after. So I think your summary is uncharitable, unless the Wikipedia summary missed something Trump said before.
The Whitmer Kidnapping Plot
He does dunk on Whitmer. He also said he condemns violence and that he defends all Americans, even his opponents.
I'm going to stop going down the list here, but I'm sure I could find an example of Trump condemning the attack and disavowing political violence for each one of these. Yes, I realize this doesn't fit your extremely narrow criteria you defined, which I will question below, but it does provide some context for your summary of the events.
Name one instance where someone on the right engaged in violence or violent rhetoric and Trump offered nothing but a full-throated, unequivocal condemnation. Name one.
Why is this the requirement? The issue a lot of people had with rhetoric from the left is there were a lot of people who wouldn't even condemn the killing of Kirk or of any political violence at all. At least Trump had the sense to condemn the events before he starts dunking on his political opponents. Is there one instance where someone on the left engaged in violence or violent rhetoric and the left or the media offered nothing but a full-throated, unequivocal condemnation? I'd also like to note trump dunking on his political opponents is not an endorsement or excuse for political violence.
I'm not interested in which side has more total incidents or who started it or any of that, because it honestly doesn't matter at this point.
Why does it not matter? None of these events are equivalent to the Kirk assassination. Nor are they equivalent to a literal expression of wanting to murder the other side. Nor are the reactions to these events equivalent. Has Trump been calling for the literal deaths of his opponents, especially by shooting them? It seems unfair to demand the absolute best behavior from Trump while simultaneously waiving off any bad behavior from his opponents by saying you're not interested. Can we at least demand the left match Trump's behavior of condemning political violence before dunking on their political opponents?
turn down the temperature
I'm not sure this type of messaging will resonate with the right at all. One side watched one of their own get murdered in cold blood and in the aftermath watch a pretty significant portion of the left actively cheer for it. Why is it up to the side being attacked to try to "turn down the temperature"? If one side has people calling for the literal death and murder of their opponents and the other side has Trump making jokes about his political opponents, which side has more heat?
There definitely is truth to the notion that many on the right seems not willing to want to reconcile with the left anymore. Most of this rhetoric was in response to the response to the left of Kirk's assassination. I do think long term if no solution is found this will only continue to divide America. That being said, willingness to reconcile has to come from both sides, with both sides being willing to addresses bad actors on their party.
insinuating that the ends justified the means; right-wing extremists were okay because they at least wanted the same things he did
Could I get a source for this? It does seem alarming for Trump to have said Right wing extremists are okay (assuming he's talking about violent actions from the far right are okay).
the Democrats didn't do a good job of stopping the 2020 protests (never mind Trump was president)
So when democrat states and cities were allowed to do what they want, was it a failure on Trump? What are your thoughts on Trump now using federal troops to enforce laws that these places refused to do? Was there anything Trump should've done to minimize the damages caused by the 2020 protests?
There's some data to suggest at least in the online dating market women dominate before 25 but afterwards the average man of the same age has higher desirability.
More options
Context Copy link