domain:youtu.be
FlailingAce
2m ago
I can only speak to my experience. I grew up Catholic and was part of the RCC until I was about 33, at which point I left for essentially non-denominational Protestantism. Not for a specific doctrinal reason, but because it's where God was drawing me. That's where I met my wife. Now we attend a Calvary Chapel, which is nominally non-denom but with its own specific distinctives.
In my entire time in the RCC, I never encountered anyone who had experienced a miracle (as far as I know, they may have just kept quiet about it). In contrast, in the evangelical world I hear quite often about miracles taking place in people's lives, healings, financial provision, frankly I consider my marriage a miracle but I won't go into the details that convince me of this. But if I were to suggest to someone at my church that we should bring in some scientists to prove these were miracles, they would (I think rightly) consider that ridiculous and sacrilegious. In the same way that doing a double-blind study to determine if prayer works at improving health outcomes is both ridiculous and sacrilegious. To quote Jesus quoting the OT: you shall not test the Lord your God.
Catholics just have a different mindset about these things. They want to understand everything. That's what leads to thinks like trans-substantiation (we have to know exactly how the Eucharist works, it can't be a mystery).
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
5m ago
I've never seen anyone in-ernest complaining that disparate conviction rates on the basis of gender being a sign of "Systemic Sexism".
Even though that is, of course, exactly what's happening. We more often do that for conviction terms since it's more measurable there.
Female anti-sociality takes a lot more work to root out and is a lot more plausibly deniable than male anti-social behavior, due to a variety of factors (some evolutionary, some not). So a legal system that only sees on bright lines only punishes them when they act out in ways that match male anti-social behavior, which is called that because men function more along those lines.
The ways in we used to tamp down on this behavior in an equal way is what feminists mean when they say "sexism": fuzzy social laws designed to deal with the gender whose anti-social behavior is inherently harder to police in an equitable way compared to the way we punish male anti-social behavior (which we can at least gather evidence for).
Just because you aren't looking for it, or don't have the words to describe it (because they have perhaps been erased) doesn't mean the intent isn't there. Defining rape in a way only men can commit it doesn't magically make women incapable of it.
but the takes aren't typically "eliminate the women's restroom completely" or "repeal Title IX to have a single sports league again".
What's good for the gander is good for the goose.
WandererintheWilderness
8m ago
Never heard this. If someone I worked for told me "yes sir" I'd wonder what kind of mind games they were playing and how quickly I was about to be fired. Regional difference, maybe? Class?
Bartender_Venator
13m ago
You will become notably more attractive to women and up your social vibe if you do yoga/pilates/some other form of posture work. Broader shoulders, an extra inch/half-inch or so of height, not slouching, and just the good vibes of not being in subtle pain all the time from working at a keyboard.
roystgnr
15m ago
Which makes it not exactly baffling that this happens, though it is baffling that nobody seems to be trying to fix it on the cultural level. There are lots of attempts to blame the police and reduce their aggression towards minorities, but I don't see the same level of impetus towards teaching minorities "Don't fight the police!"
Chris Rock: "How Not to Get Your Ass Kicked by the Police"
Of course it's a comedy, and some of the advice either blames the police and/or suggests mutual blame in some cases, but it's mostly comedy built around a kernel of just what you're suggesting.
But if you're trying to reduce your bafflement: note that the genre and source and date of that video are probably not a coincidence. It's long enough after the Rodney King incident that it wasn't going to start another riot, long enough before cancel culture that it was relatively safe there, it's from a comedian, and the comedian is African-American. Rock wouldn't have come up with the routine in the first place unless he was capable of intelligent nuanced thought, sure, but if he wasn't also relatively immune to racism and victim-blaming allegations then I don't think he would have gotten HBO to okay it.
Fun fact: showing this video during police training was considered by an appellate court to be evidence of that police department's "city’s custom surrounding use of force" in an excessive-force lawsuit, leading to a half-million-dollar settlement.
somethingsomething
15m ago
I'm in the camp that basically believe that the gospels were heavily influenced by Paul along with Jesus' teachings while he was alive, so I don't put a huge amount of credence in anything that happened after the crucifixion in regards to Jesus, because I feel like Paul sort of profoundly shaped the cosmology from there going from his interpretation of his vision.
TeknOShEeP
19m ago
No, race realism is also wrong, the actual reason is class/subculture for which you are using skin colour as a proxy, due to the US having a underclass primarily composed of black people. I live in a European country
Respectfully, I have never met a European native who properly groks US white-black race relations, nor the class structure in the US. They both differ in very significant ways from the European experience. Suffice to say, no, its not a class thing, it is a race thing.
there is a social class that behaves in identically disruptive ways on public transport, despite being as white as the rest of the population.
We have those in the US too. They are pretty much universally despised and regarded as being the source of their own problems. The fact that the judgement comes so easily against those with white skin, and yet any level of mental gymnastics will be done to excuse sinilar actions from those with non-white skin... is interesting. (BTW our current Vice President comes from that class, and wrote a very interesting book about his childhood and escaping the destructive cycle. He is quite forthcoming that most of the harms are self-inflicted.)
Bartender_Venator
20m ago
I agree with 99% of this, great advice.
Fast forwarding the tape, eventually you will have a circle of friends who do things and (social things).
The fast-forwarded bit is actually really important. Turning people from activity acquaintances into contacts and casual friends is a skill that should be consciously considered and practiced. Become the guy who proactively gets people's contacts, the guy who creates the groupchats, the guy who says "let's do X", the guy who picks the bar when people are vacillating. If you want to go to the next level, become the guy who founds things and runs events (I've had multiple women get very interested in me after watching me in charge of an event, even though there were no-shit movie star handsome guys there too).
If you try to setup such a system, you may be successful in "getting laid" and you'll be successful directly in proportion to your anti-social capabilities and the emotional frailty of the other party.
This is good advice to a new guy who doesn't have the radar, but if you're looking to stay casual you can also just pick the girls who aren't emotionally frail and refrain from sleeping with the ones who are.
Re: Part 3, I just don't believe in those "day game" style meet-cutes at all. They probably work pretty okay if you're confident and play the numbers, but not enough to convince me to broil myself at a summer farmer's market talking to innumerable women in the hope that one is single, into me, and not a pain in the ass when we properly meet. If you want the dark arts to getting laid, it's very simple: find the right bars, learn to stay up till 2am without nuking your sleep cycle, and learn how to stay in a bar till then without getting too drunk (and, obviously, do not take advantage of girls who are way too drunk, you're looking for the ones who are there for the same reason you are). If you don't want to do that, stick to the apps or, I would suggest, serious dating via the social circle you're building.
Hard to even pass the smell test as a primary driver when tylenol was invented in the mid 1950s and its use was more prevalent and at higher doses and during pregnancy for decades before some of its dangers were better known. Did the Autism increase markedly in 1960? 1965? 1975? 1985? No, it didn't. Did Autism see a marked decline (even with a delay) when tylenol use collapsed in the early 1980s over the tylenol murders? No, it didn't.
RFK promised to deliver something and maybe even has something. If I had to guess, he was told to slow his roll or even go back and get more and better evidence about vaccines specifically by the Trump admin, or more specifically people like Pam Bondi, Susie Wiles, and others closer to Trump's ear in the admin with deep ties to pharmaceutical companies. And so RFK is going to attempt to dent the barricade or perhaps even craft a trojan horse and test out the message using tylenol because it likely is an aggravating factor to the primary cause which is likely the vaccine schedule. Along with this announcement comes recommendations which alter the schedule or at least how it's typically administered, so I suppose it's a distraction from the other stuff which came along with the announcement and which makes a dent in fortress vaccine.
daguerrean
25m ago
I see that you are one of those law-n-order conservatives who never expects to find himself on the wrong end of such a situation.
But I would never find myself in such a situation precisely because I never engage in pointless dominance displays. I've been pulled over several times, I've always responded politely and it has neither been humiliating nor escalated. In fact, despite flagrantly speeding I have always gotten away with a warning and never actually received a ticket precisely because of unfailing politeness.
It is only humiliating if you choose to make it humiliating. I say yes sir and no sir to everyone I interact with in commerce, whether it is a cop or a taxi driver. And because I don't have a basketball mentality this doesn't cause me any psychological distress.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
25m ago
you'd only say "Yes sir" to someone in a position of authority over you
I say "yes sir" to people not in a position of authority over me all the time. I even say it to people over whom I am in authority (e.g. people I hire to do work).
crushedoranges
Can Marx explain the used panties market?
28m ago
I subscribe to the philosophy that the process is the punishment. There is no inherent way of making an arrest or a fine a happy event. No one in the history of the universe has ever been overjoyed to sit in the back of a police car or to pay a fine. Any other frame of viewing it is too idealistic for this sinful earth.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
30m ago
Has that happened for literally any other protest fad?
If “trigger confidence” wasn’t enough to show up in mortality rates, this isn’t going to be any worse.
In high school, I bit a man because he was bullying me, in a sincere effort to do him harm.
But I didn't attack the teacher that was sent to collect me, and I certainly didn't scream at the police officer that I talked to.
It would have been very silly of me to do so. Childish.
I knew what I had done was shameful and wrong, but I didn't regret it. And since I had the intelligence of the average person, I didn't take it out on them. And I felt no shame for not quixotically attacking authority in the aftermath. I had already gained my satisfaction.
So you presume wrongly. I demand an apology.
Jiro
35m ago
No shit, being arrested sucks. Being ticketed sucks. But, as you can imagine, that's part of the deterrent value. Why would it be pleasant?
Being arrested and being ticketed are not supposed to be deterrents at all. Actual deterrents are administered after a conviction.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
39m ago
Aren't there a few cases where "am I being detained?" is actually a reasonable/correct response? Pretty sure it's followed by "if no, leave, if yes, ask for a lawyer".
It's definitely overused, though.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
40m ago
I see that you are one of those law-n-order conservatives who never expects to find himself on the wrong end of such a situation. I guarantee that if you ever do, you will feel the same visceral aversion to engaging in the appropriate submissive display as Mr. O'Keefe did; perhaps more so because you never expected it. And if you do indeed manage to engage in it, you will feel humiliated and ashamed over your submission, at least until you can concoct yourself some sort of rationalization.
zoink
40m ago
They seen a youtube video and don't understand. To actually pull it off you have to be on time of your game and people don't realize that 1st Amendment auditors often orchestrate the interaction from the start. They are purposefully being belligerent to try to illicit a lawsuit. The am am 'I being detained?' is an important demarcation point where they will alter their behavior. They will get very physically compliant and often verbally compliant once the words are said.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
42m ago
I think there is a strong case for canceling particularly egregious forms of political responses to the death of political figures simply because of the radicalizing effects of being on social media especially those curated by algorithms and that act as filters for content. To be blunt we are not only radicalizing people, but normalizing it, and now celebrating the deaths of political opponents. Unless we very quickly return to the norms of civility and decency that used to exist — where you could disagree with people and even fight for what you believe in, but you also respected the other side and didn’t treat it as a death-match. I find it unfortunate to have to resort to cancellation, but I can’t really think of any other effective means to force de escalation here. Letting people do happy dances on TikTok celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk and letting people normalize extreme rhetoric about political opponents is simply lightning the fuse on whoever (left or right) is going to tick off the opposite filter bubble the most. Firing people is extreme and shouldn’t be done lightly or for mere opinions, but I also think it’s perfectly reasonable and appropriate to fire people for promoting extremism or violence or celebrating violence.
TK-421
42m ago
It's really not, and I say this having had plenty of interactions with law enforcement - even one where I was questioned as a suspect. To use simpler words: the police and I are on the same team. I'm not being dominated by showing a baseline of respect and cooperation, that's just how you interact with teammates. The police are not perfect, neither are doctors; the fact that some doctors cause errors or are power tripping dickheads doesn't mean that I shouldn't be on the hospital's side if I'm in a car accident.
Anti-social people who bicker with the police over their attempts to enforce the law are not on my team. It is easy to see that worlds where I side with the anti-social against the police are worlds that are generally criminal. I do not like crime. I do not want to live in these worlds.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
46m ago
The winning move is to get the cop to beat you up without doing anything a reasonable-to-moderately unreasonable observer would construe as deserving (ideally while shouting "come and see the violence inherent in the system"). The insight of people like Gandhi and MLK Jr. was that while the Boot of Power does not tolerate face to face defiance, it ultimately derives its power from a body politic which can, very occasionally, be shamed or disgusted into punishing abuses done in its name.
Unfortunately, this also involves getting beaten up and has a pretty mixed record (bare minimum 1/3rd of the population will say you must have done something to deserve it).
where even advising a woman against putting herself in a position of vulnerability around strange/potentially malicious men with alcohol or other drugs involved is considered full-throated justification for her being raped. Heck, even pointing out the fact (citation needed) that this raises one's odds of being sexually assaulted has been equated with explicit condoning of rape.
Lately I have been reflecting on the strange parallels between this and the recent cancellations for improper reactions to Charlie Kirk's assassination. I have to admit I have maybe found a bit of hypocrisy in myself and I'm unsure how to feel about it.
When I was perusing Reddit in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, I saw a lot of reactions along the lines of "Well if you're spreading hate and antagonizing people you can't be surprised when somebody snaps and kills you shrug." And to be honest, yes, at the time this seemed to me to be a justification for his assassination and an expression of implied support for it.
But truthfully, this isn't that different from responding to news of a woman being raped by saying "Well if you're going out doing XYZ you can't be surprised if somebody rapes you shrug." I was never viscerally angered by people offering such rape commentary the way I was by the Kirk commentary I saw last week. Obviously, there are object-level objections that could be made here, Was Charlie Kirk really "spreading hate"? and so forth.
I think it has caused me to have greater sympathy for the feminist side. While I won't go so far as to say that well-meaning advice on avoiding rape is never appropriate, I think, like comments on Kirk's death, it should be done with exceeding care and sensitivity which I myself lacked in the past.
Celestial-body-NOS
Supra tumulum tuum, astra nobis.
55m ago
Yes, and?
AND, it is an act of injustice for society to demand such.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
57m ago
How many academic journals would even consider a well-researched trans-skeptical study? Not even publish, but get to the point of doing a serious peer review?
In theory, a fair amount.There was the Cass Review, which included many published and peer reviewed papers, and the recent Gordon Guyatt drama resulted from trans-skeptical studies being published, though as the authors would have it, the issue was not the studies themselves, but the fact that they were used in a trans-skeptical way, which is why the customary activist pressure was applied.
Yes, you've put to words a lot of concerns I had here. Hitting up people at a farmer's market is not my idea of a good time, and probably not very likely to make anything happen. Who even goes to those kinds of things alone? That's just not how it works. I'm not looking for any casual fun here, I want something serious that ideally turns to marriage, because I'm 28 and not getting any younger. Actually, it would be better if we didn't have sex at all until we were engaged at least, but is there even any place for my sensibilities in today's sexual marketplace? I thought "getting a life" would be my best chances of keeping these values, because I doubt most women on a dating app would be understanding, even if I did get good photos somewhere and they overlooked my Norwood 7.
More options
Context Copy link