domain:drrollergator.substack.com
AstralMateus
5m ago
Solidly upper-middle by birth and culturally, lower-middle by income. Every male parent and grandparent was pretty successful, and held an advanced degree and/or a position of responsibility.
Downwardly mobile due to complete lack of work ethic, little ambition and no natural affinity for the subjects that allow people similar to me in terms of personality to get ahead in life (computer science, engineering).
People travel less to places when they perceive a danger, even if the danger wasn't presented to them by any policy or authorities.
The danger was presented to them by policy and authorities because the prevalence of covid is effectively invisible to the average person in the absence of being told about it by authorities. What exactly would someone notice, absent being told, that would inform them that covid was around and uniquely dangerous? Approximately nothing. They'd notice people getting colds, as people always do, and old people dying at a fairly similar rate to what old people died at a decade or two ago, and short of carrying out their own far-reaching statistical survey on death rates they'd have no idea anything was amiss. This is roughly what happened in the Flu pandemics of the 50s and 60s - nobody really cared because there's no particular reason you'd notice an elevated risk.
This is hardly some tourists notice everyone who visits X mysteriously comes back in a body bag and therefore stop visiting X. There really is no danger that a layman would be able to detect were it not for authorities insisting there was a danger.
As a rough stand in for "People's unwillingness to go do things during a pandemic"
Not a good way to define it as we have been in a pandemic since some time in the 1980s.
Furthermore cutting out 2020 because "Biden wasn't in charge yet" when 2020 had by far the lowest amount of travel and activity
I thought I had explained this clearly enough, but to try to explain this again: The reason I have cut it out is because the initial dispute is that I believe Biden's actions during covid have done more damage to tourism than Trump's actions on immigration. Therefore, including Trump's actions during covid as part of Biden's actions would be unfair to Biden.
The dropoff of 10-15% suggests that 50% of all travel from foreign visitors has been curtailed by these chilling effects - much more than even the most generous example you can find of vaccine rules.
No, unless you have evidence that the dropoff is all foreign visitors.
Some have argued that it is not the same thing, due to the disparaging comments being immediate, vs old comments dredged up in an attempt to cancel someone.
Yeah, no, this is cope. If you're going to do it, own it. It's perfectly defensible as retaliation and deterrence, but it's lame as hell to put shit under a microscope to come up with whatever difference you can find, and claim it's salient in a totally not ad-hoc fashion, so you're justified in whatever you're doing.
greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
24m ago
In the days following Charlie Kirk's murder, has seen a wave of employers being contacted regarding off-color remarks made by employees on social media about his passing. The debate is, does this constitute cancel culture, but by the right instead of the typical left? Some have argued that it is not the same thing, due to the disparaging comments being immediate, vs old comments dredged up in an attempt to cancel someone. There is a big difference between someone desecrating Charlie Kirk in an overt manner right after his passing, compared to a social media post made 10+ years ago against living targets that could be deemed as racist only under the most uncharitable light.
My take is, contacting an employer with the intent of getting someone fired for something not work-related or fired in the public interest as a 'concerned citizen', by definition, is cancel culture. Sure, one can argue that this is a different degree of cancelation, but it's the same principle. Someone posting a vile comment on his social media celebrating someone's death doesn’t necessarily affect his ability to do his job, like making sandwiches or whatever. Sure, if said individual confessed on social media to spitting in customers' sandwiches or making disparaging remarks about customers, go ahead and get his ass fired to protect the customers if no one else. But this is not like that. Consumers and other employees are not negatively affected by an employee holding a grudge against a dead podcaster.
To turn the tables, imagine if George Soros died and many of those same people wrote "good riddance" on their social media accounts, should this be grounds for cancelation? By the above logic, yes if you want to be morally consistent.
relevant tweet https://x.com/politicalmath/status/1967066826590028174
AmericanSaxeCoburgGothic
Happy to be here! Goal is to post the most exclamation points.
27m ago
I don't think incest is a really royal 'kink' rather a political driven byproduct under a hereditary system where marriage is limited between royal or formerly royal families, further limited by religion (rare Catholics and Protestant intermarriages, and only one royal Orthodox country [though Montenegro punches above its weight before WWI]), and treaty considerations. Which under a paucity of male dynasts can exasperate the situation. So Spanish Hapsburg infantas are marrying Austrian Hapsburgs Archdukes to prevent a succession of their enemies the French Bourbons.
Jazzhands
29m ago
The author of Luke-Acts is trying to ground his volume in history and does his best to set the the scene but when we look at Josephus there are some contradicting details.
Can you expand on this? I don't recall Josephus mentioning Paul at all; I'm not sure what they could really contradict each other on.
hydroacetylene
30m ago
I think this is misstating the motives of left-wing radicalism. Like, yeah, they call the GOP racist. But that's basically a snarl word. They call right wingers antisemitic but that's also a snarl word, and it's not as if they have a revealed preference for actually caring. It's pretty easy to find antisemites they're pretty cool with.
What left-wing radicals are actually upset about is sexual conservatism. Trans, yes, but also abortion, LGBT, support for abstinence.
oats_son
31m ago
My God, man. I'm sorry to hear that. I thought you were being overly narrow, but I see it's a response to my ban state comment. I had no idea it was like that anywhere in the country. That's really disturbing.
MonkeyWithAMachinegun
Dancing to Tom Paine's Bones
33m ago
... well shit. Upon going back and reviewing the table, it looks like all three of those got included as an "indictment" instead of an "attack." So they were filtered out when I chose to limit the data set to attacks. That's incredibly frustrating, thank you for pointing it out.
Chrisprattalpharaptr
Ave Imperaptor
39m ago
How did you manage to exclude the pittsburgh synagogue shooter, the el paso walmart shooter, and the Charleston church shooting?
hydroacetylene
39m ago
And moreover mass casualty attacks are a known problem with a long history in Asia, with 'running amok' or Chinese mass-hacking attacks.
hydroacetylene
47m ago
This is mostly due to the violence as a dial versus violence as a switch view- ask an average red triber and he'll tell you of course the second amendment is there for political violence, it's just not that bad yet to take the gloves off.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
48m ago
Private purchase of firearms is not legal in New Jersey. And none of this is unconstitutional; the Third Circuit says it is OK and the Supreme Court says they're not interested in Second Amendment cases.
zeke5123a
50m ago
I don’t disagree (ie do t leave your keys in your convertible with the roof down).
The difference I see it is (1) the poster called Kirk a bigot and (2) used the word graciously. The latter has a connotation of being good and well mannered. The opposite is bad and uncouth. So the poster is saying “if Kirk wasn’t a bigot and didn’t do this bad thing, then he’d be alive.”
That strikes me as categorically different than “if Kirk didn’t give his view, then he’d be alive.”
The first is value laden to suggest Kirk maybe it had it coming. The second is purely descriptive
hydroacetylene
51m ago
seducing his daughter was just as infringing on his honor as violently raping her, so often there was no legal differentiation.
This is a misrepresentation of ancient law codes around rape; a distinction between forcible and statutory(and these societies tended to define 'minor unable to consent' as 'woman who has never been married') rape generally existed. The distinction was often primitive by today's standards- eg the bible's 'did someone hear her scream' standard- but it existed. What ancient law codes did round off as seduction was what we would call 'date rape' today.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
52m ago
Type II fun. Burning through 30 hard bouldering problems, rolling hard in BJJ against a slightly better opponent, going for a brisk walk for 26.2 miles, rowing a hard 5k.
It's after times like that I am truly relaxed.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
56m ago
Slurs are best modeled as verbal acts signaling that 1) I'm the kind of person who regards you that way 2) I'm allowed to feel that way and you don't have the power to stop me.
In that context, Nazi pretty well fits, in that calling someone a Nazi is a verbal act indicating that I don't have the power to stop you from calling me that.
there342
56m ago
The people whose fear you appeal to are generally not reasonable. Charlie Kirk did not want them dead. The fact that so many of them find satisfaction in his death is only proof of their absolute ignorance.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1hr ago
An old Jewish Holocaust survivor dies and goes to heaven. He gets the chance to speak to God when he gets there. God tells the old Jew, you have a moment to speak to me directly is there anything you want to ask me or have me explain to you? The old Jew says actually I want to take this time to tell you a joke, I'm going to tell you my favorite Holocaust joke. He tells God the joke. God says, man, that's not funny. The old Jew says eh I guess you had to be there.
It's cancel culture and it's bad, and employers should refuse to listen to (all) such complaints in the same way one refuses to negotiate with terrorists.
On principle, a rando calling in to get someone fired should be treated as inadmissable evidence.
More options
Context Copy link