domain:nfinf.substack.com
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
13m ago
Cold coffee? Soup?
you're very unlikely to get an answer like "ethnic spoils" even from the most race realist types
even if true, what does asking this open ended question to "people" demonstrate?
describing LA and NYC as "ethnic spoils systems" is accurate whether or not the above is a true statement
the first time I encountered this idea and these specific examples was from my elderly communist black professor; perhaps she qualifies as "even from the most race realist types"
This sounds like a problem that can be solved through the approach of "don't live in such places"
right, which is what I claimed was the effect in my first comment
it's also a problem which can be solved through the approach of "deport illegals and other foreigners before they take over neighborhoods and fundamentally change it" bringing us back to the subject issue
From "Children Believe Every Lie" by Eneasz Brodski:
I was raised Jehovah’s Witness. As part of this, I was taught as soon as I could understand the concepts that Santa wasn’t real. Neither was the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny. Jehovah’s Witnesses have a near-autistic dedication to being truthful. While many religions informally refer to themselves as “the Faith,” (“she is strong in the Faith” etc) Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to themselves as “the Truth.” As part of this, they believe it’s wrong to lie to children about made-up characters.
This made me special. I knew things my classmates didn’t know. I knew they were being lied to. I knew my parents cared enough about me to not lie to me. The message was very clear: we won’t even lie to you about Santa, despite how popular that lie is. You can also trust us when we tell you the Trinity is just as fake as Santa is. And the secondary message: These people will lie to their own children for no other reason than because it’s fun. You can’t trust them one bit.
When I came to realize all supernaturalism is a lie, and the only way one with intellect and curiosity can believe it is to intentionally blind themselves, I became very angry with everyone who should have known better (or DID know better) and lied to me. Being a Jehovah’s Witness is a life-altering decision. Honestly, any sort of theism should have massive repercussions on how one lives. By lying to me they had ruined my map of the territory so badly that massive amounts of effort had be burned for nothing. And all that trust I had? Burned in the fires of epistemic hell. The sheer betrayal of having been lied to so much but people I trusted so deeply left me angry and seething for nearly two decades.
When I excised that belief from myself I thought that at least I was free now. I would obviously still be wrong or misled about some things in life, but I would never have to again deal with discovering that a bedrock fact about all of reality was literal lies and everything I had been building upon was sand and vapor.
I was of course very wrong.
...
I’ve woken up to how much this happens since that day. It’s everywhere, and I kinda hate it. I almost want to say that parents SHOULD tell their children that Santa is real. That way they learn very quickly in life that everyone will lie to them without hesitation for the most trivial of reasons. They can never trust anyone to accurately represent what they actually think is true, not even the people who claim to love them more than anything else in the world. It would maybe prevent them from reaching their late-30s still believing that leprechauns grant wishes.
But I don’t really think that. I believe that fighting to be as honest as possible will yield good returns if resources are invested into it. I have a vision of a world where acknowledging openly and explicitly that we are acting as if something is true without it actually being true is far more acceptable than just pretending it’s true. Acknowledging that the reality of a situation doesn’t match what we aspire to *shouldn’t* matter, and hopefully we’ll get there someday.
Together we can take the first step, and not say things we know to be false to our children as if they were true. Down with Santa, now and forever.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
28m ago
8-10. Most parents put considerable effort into the appearance of "Christmas magic". There's an adorable age where they're old enough to question, but afraid of what they might find out. They'll test their parents and gossip among themselves. But my own were afraid that if I knew that they knew, then I might not bother with the presents ritual, so they pretended to believe longer. And once it was explicit, they solemnly accepted the responsibility to not break the kayfabe for their younger cousins.
If it's something you've been told since before you can walk, it takes a decent bit of development to get to the point where you notice the fact that it's completely incongruent with everything you know about the rest of the world. In a way, it's a method of gently teaching children that the only real magic is what we do ourselves.
ABigGuy4U
29m ago
Is there a word for this process? Or at least something to say when you notice somebody doing it?
It’s like some kind of... some kind of two tiered argument castle thingy.
Jiro
35m ago
My point is that "it's okay to assassinate people, but they have to be evil" is a belief that's held by approximately nobody. All the people who celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk would never say that.
Brgp12
40m ago
OP said the dog is a Tibetan Mastiff mix. Might be wrong but I think the name is a misnomer - they're actually Mountain Dogs, or Flock Guardians. They generally have low energy levels, bred to either sit around and watch sheep all day or wander around guarding nomadic herds.
Pulpachair
41m ago
I would say it is more akin to slapping a child when you’re short-tempered and they are chewing loudly. Even then, you can explain things to the child later. The dog is just going to be confused by the pain and learn nothing except to fear its owner.
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '24
41m ago
If we are talking about well-behaved gainfully-employed illegals in blue cities like Chicago (which is where the ICE raids causing the fuss are focused), then nobody is imposing. The illegals are in a place where their landlords, bosses, butchers, bakers etc. as well as a super-majority of the community are perfectly comfortable to have them there. The people who don't want them are the people (almost entirely from outside said blue cities) who voted for Trump.
I am a white American. My neighbors here in Japan like me well enough. I perform community service and pay taxes. I have children here and am well-integrated into the community. If I had come here on a tourist visa 5 years ago and the Japanese immigration services finally caught up to me and deported me, would you find that outrageous and unjust? For consistency's sake, you may respond to me in this thread saying that you would. But if your eyes passed over a headline reading "American man deported from Tokyo over illegal visa violations" would you immediately be shocked and upset by this? Or would it pass beneath your notice as a mundance "dog bites man" story? The outrage over punishing immigration crime really seems like an isolated demand. It's only bad when America does it, for some reason.
07mk
43m ago
At what ages does one normally outgrow Santa belief in America? I never believed in Santa (I recall being told around the age of 4 or 5 and finding it absurd, especially since our family didn't have a chimney), but also, Korea didn't have as much of a Santa culture as America. I moved to America in 1st grade, and I don't recall my non-believing of Santa ever being something that even came up, so I figured that, by grade school age, kids had outgrown it. But it sounds like that's actually not the case?
Quantumfreakonomics
44m ago
The specific prohibition is against “hot drinks”. Coffee and tea are brewed hot. Monster (as far as I know) isn’t.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
47m ago
I am actively working on finding a spouse with whom I can raise a family;
I swear I've thought you were married with kids for years.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
48m ago
I hurt myself doing hammer curls. Just too much weight after too long a time of not having that particular motion in my routine. My problem is that after an initial crappy couple of weeks, the issue has lingered for a few months now. It's not terrible; I can do about 70% weights on my gym routine with no extra pain, but there's consistent low-level pain to it that occasionally flares up when I try to do things like one-handed pull a bag of cat litter out of a shopping cart.
I think the problem is one of the extensor muscles, on the outside of the forearm near the elbow. During previous elbow injuries, I've had great success working it out with exercises, either flexing the wrist against tension using rubber bands or getting a Tyler bar. But nothing I've found has really helped with this one.
Any advice or suggestions?
anti_dan
53m ago
The rest of the case is on PACER, there are several unavailable documents that, most importantly, stake out ICE's position, as well as the order granting the TRO.
However, if I take the judge's written orders at face value I think the original article was not as misleading as I had anticipated.
Basically, I thought the article was describing the normal application of 18 USC 3142(d) (and analogous provisions in the immigration law, particularly 8 USC 1226) and the associated rules of criminal procedure (such as rule 43) where a detention-eligible defendant is physically unable to be brought to court, in this case because he is hospitalized.
Instead, what appears to have happened is a very odd plan by ICE. I don't know why they did what they did, whether it was just laziness, forgetfulness, pants on head level stupid, or an intentional ploy to generate a test case.
Again, in a normal case, you'd file charges or file for removal and then go to a judge and say, basically, "hey we know the statute says we have to release this guy in 10 days, or have a detention hearing. We can't have a detention hearing because he can't come to court because he's in the hospital." Then the judge sets it over a few days or weeks depending on the diagnosis and then you have the hearing once they can come to court. ICE did not do this. Why is the question, because there were entirely well worn legal ways to keep this fellow detained.
Arguments for laziness/forgetfulness: This case is in California. ICE in California is essentially blockaded within its own facilities. To actually fingerprint and process the defendant requires them to get him into the facility or a similar facility (which local municipalities won't let them use), and then he'd have to be taken back to the hospital. This is a lot of work for essentially finalizing what in their mind is a formality. Once he's fingerprinted they know they have the right guy, and by the way he's in the hospital so he's not "really" being detained in that he can't go somewhere he needs to be.
Arguments for pants on head: This appears to be pants on head stupid. They could just file the right paperwork for a removal proceeding and have mooted this entire habeas petition.
Arguments for intentional test case: The petition itself appears to be highly focused on, and critical of what they call the DHS “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission,” which according to the petition "claims that all noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection shall now be deemed “applicants for admission” and subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)." This is a new interpretation of the law that ICE and DHS appear to be intent to apply to this fellow. It is easy to see why, this new interpretation, if adopted by courts, would make their lives much easier. It also apparently has many other "test cases" pending which largely are being pursued in places like California that have mostly hostile judges, so DHS has fared quite poorly (at least according to the petition). On this last point, I think the petitioners really have a point. That new guidance is likely to fall and never be reviewed by SCOTUS because it is pretty dumb.
So, that is basically what I am able to glean from the very incomplete record in the case, because most of the documents are not available even to someone with a standard PACER account that normally gets you all the filings in most cases.
OliveTapenade
55m ago
For what it's worth I put that one in because I have heard others talking about it. Personally I cannot remember ever believing that Santa was real, but neither can I remember ever being edgy about it. I can't remember anyone else ever believing that Santa was real either. My recollection of being that age is that of course we all knew it was a game of pretend, and of course we all played along with it for fun.
I may have been very atypical, I don't know. I have never thought about what to tell children about it myself. We'd probably just play the game, but I don't think I'd go to any real effort to hide the truth if a kid was curious.
That is question begging of the real sort. A state medical board could say it has authority to regulate radio programs, and under your definition, that would make radio broadcasts medical treatments.
More options
Context Copy link