site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 111035 results for

domain:drrollergator.substack.com

don't allow edits

Ruinous! Posting functions should trend towards forgiving so as to encourage contribution from would-be or marginal posters. Locking people into mistakes that demand more clarifications might be tedious.

don't allow deletion

More reasonable. Ideally users can delete their profiles and history, but the contents of their posts remain up. Maybe an edit lock that only goes into effect after so many days would make the most sense.

Which part is the major issue? Is it mass deletion or user edits bamboozling your replies?

I’d be in

Let’s use Sleeper and try for 12t and SF

But I’m open to anything - anything except using any other app but Sleeper tbh

It’s a gambling filled abomination of an app now but it’s still 10/10 for fantasy imo

Accepting a religious belief you don't actually hold may lead to embracing it, though.

This would be a request for @ZorbaTHut, but while it's annoying when people go on deletion sprees (and we have banned people for it), I don't think we'd want to prohibit deleting a post you had second thoughts about.

To be clear, historically Catholic schools were staffed by nuns(unmarried women) and in the United States other schools were staffed by literal teenaged girls(unmarried women). Now high school teachers require more subject matter expertise(and this probably extends into many middle school grades/subjects) so it seems like this was always a college educated job. Agreed that even the taliban allows preadolescent girls to go to school with no special conditions, and that modern special ed, flawed as it is, is genuinely a skilled profession that is likely an improvement over previous systems. But the fact remains that a bright sixteen year old can teach a 'normal' third grade classroom, elementary school teaching as a career track- and at least a large portion of the administration growth in schools- is about pulling middle class women who love children into careers. Absent that ideological push 'elementary school teacher' would be similar to 'lunchlady' or whatever, where a college degree isn't necessary.

It's also important to note that elementary school used to be much shorter, with less demand for teachers. My own parents remember kindergarten being treated as advanced preschool(and regularly skipped), with no such thing as preK and first grade having a loosey-goosey attitude to attendance, sometimes first and second grades were combined. While not doing this obviously requires more teachers it's not clear that it's better.

Honestly I dunno which ones, there are a bunch of deleted comments in subthreads I\ve talked to people in this master thread.

Undeleting the posts of permabanned members would cover a lot of the same ground. I'm pretty sure the admins can do it; Zorba definitely can.

I don't think it's insane, necessarily, but I can't think of any way to test it off the top of my head, either.

There is a strong case for elementary schools, specifically, and even very conservative communities generally have them. Apparently the Puritans had them, the Amish often have them, Catholic parishes, etc. People who can't do reading, writing, and arithmetic really are at a huge disadvantage, and homeschooling is pretty niche. Even historically, sometimes housewives would also educate their own children to the same standard as a school, but often not. Even Muslim countries have to be very strict indeed to stop sending little girls to elementary school. Sometimes very conservative communities specify only unmarried women can teach, though.

Calling elementary school teaching a jobs program for women doesn't make any more sense than calling policing departments a job program for men.

Elementary special education and the various specialty positions that come with it is largely misguided, in my opinion. But they are not very attractive jobs, as evidenced by the many, many unfilled openings, and the average woman is not very well suited to filling them. Teachers are upset when asked to transfer to SE, and complain about it constantly. There are two sides to that: the low function/high needs self enclosed classrooms, and the inclusion kids on IEPs. The former is probably a function of better healthcare and smaller family units, and is extremely staff intensive, but also extremely draining for the women staffing those positions. Not only the kids themselves (there are a decent number of women suited well enough to that when they're small enough not to be physically threatening), but the compliance paperwork. The overlap between the legal skills and the care work skills is pretty low. Schools are a bit embarrassed about how many SE employees they have, and struggle to hire for those positions.

Junior high and high school are more controversial, but also include more men as workers.

So, what are you reading?

Still on Red Dynamite: Creationism, Culture Wars, and Anticommunism in America.

Darwin was never actually banned here. When we moved off of reddit, everyone started with a clean slate. Darwin and Hlynka and everyone else had a blanket amnesty.

While we will sometimes let someone we suspect of being an alt stick around if they are behaving themselves, we're still going to whack ban evaders when it's obvious, because we don't want people to think they can just spin up a new account and carry on like before. (Some people do this anyway, but they at least suffer the minor inconvenience of having to keep creating new accounts and being unable to establish any kind of reputation or history.)

Also worth noting that Hylnka did not exactly come back "reformed"; @TequilaMockingbird was temp-banned three times and warned many times even before I clocked him (and this was not his first, second, or third alt).

Do you acknowledge that Iran's ballistic missile production facilities and launchers are not all underground? This is a very easy one.

The vast majority of their ballistic missile assets are underground. The fact that they have a handful of aboveground production facilities (mostly holdovers from before they developed their underground capabilities) doesn't change that.

Do you acknowledge that the volume of Iran's launches against Israel dropped off considerably? Here's a clue: https://jinsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Iranian-Ballistic-Missile-Estimates-6-26-2025-6.pdf

I never claimed otherwise, but this doesn't contradict my point which is that Iran launched exactly as many missiles as they needed to hit their targets and to maximally exhaust Israeli AD. Iran had to operate under the assumption that the war could last for months and potentially involve the US, they couldn't just blast off everything they had right at the beginning of an attritional war.

That's not particularly relevant in evaluating the overall status at the end of the conflict, where Israel overwhelmingly kicked Hezbollah in the nuts by killing its leader, a bunch of its personnel, maimed a shit ton more of them, and also significantly reduced their missile stockpile, all while taking relatively light casualties and rendering the missile threat mostly ineffective.

Tellingly, they didn't do much to help out their pals in Tehran. Weird way to behave if actually they weren't hurting so badly. Kinda defeats the point of having an alliance.

Yet they somehow made even less progress on the ground compared with 2006 despite all this. The rate of rocket fire actually increased towards the end of the war. They assassinated plenty of Hezbollah leaders but historically that hasn't made much difference; the day Nasrallah's predecessor was assassinated one of the Israeli papers (I want to say Maariv) ran the headline of "HEZBOLLAH DEFEATED". As Obama discovered, assassinations don't win wars.

There is a different way to read Hezbollah's inaction when Iran was hit, namely that they recognized that their help wasn't necessary. Had they pulled off a coup on day 1 then Hezbollah would have made no difference and otherwise it was clear that Israel lacked the ability to win in an extended exchange.

The most retarded bit of logic here is that if we, for the sake of argument, grant that you're correct about only IAF drones poking around Iranian airspace then, wow, the IAF is really capable of doing a lot of damage to buildings using air-launched missiles at scale. Also, hitting the Mashhad airport at 1400 miles strongly implies operating within Iranian airspace even with ALBMs.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/israels-air-superiority-lets-strike-191600442.html

So all those photos of IAF aircraft loaded with bombs were just for propaganda purposes? Why? Who are they trying to convince? The U.S. and Iranian militaries know the reality regardless.

There's no good reason to believe the IAF is lying here, but you need it to fit your highly evidence-challenged view that actually Iran was the one winning this conflict. The real irony here is that the Iranians don't contest that the IAF was operating in Iranian airspace, they just pretended to shoot an F-35 or two down. You're doing more work than even the Iranian propagandists!

Hitting Mashhad proves that they didn't control Iranian airspace, because it's known at this point that Israel was attacking Iran from the north by crossing Azeri airspace to reach the Caspian. From that distance Mashhad is just 550 KM or less than 350 miles, well in range of ALBMs, potentially closer if they were willing to go through Turkmenistan.

Here's a question: if Israel actually controlled that airspace then why didn't they fly over the most fortified and valuable targets dropping dozens of bunker busters the way they did to get Nasrallah? Instead all of the satellite imagery matches up with the theory of missile strikes on soft targets. If the Mashhad airport strike is your best evidence that the IAF had air supremacy then that basically proves they didn't.

Why send drones on obvious suicide missions if air defenses are not suppressed much at all?

You think air defenses are suppressed but the political cost of being wrong and an IAF pilot getting taken hostage is unlimited, so you send drones first. The drones get shot down, confirming that AD remains operational. You then agree to a ceasefire, having confirmed that you can't just bomb them without.

Makes more sense then "non-operational air defenses miraculously down drones and then you agree to a ceasefire for no reason"

How many missiles do ya reckon this took? Would the IAF really use its fancy LORAs on a TV broadcaster?

https://apnews.com/photo-gallery/israel-iran-missile-attacks-photos-irib-cfc83190c9bc8f84db79f7624c1309b0

If you thought that blowing up the TV broadcaster would cause the Iranian people to spontaneously rise up then a few ALBMs would be a small price to pay. The goal was clearly regime change, not a war of attrition. As soon as they failed they called in Trump to give them a face saving exit before the cost of using fancy missiles to blow up clocks, jails and TV broadcasters became apparent.

https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-israeli-us-weapons-prove-themselves-in-iran-strikes-1001512893

There's plenty of evidence Israel dropped bombs in Iran, just none you find compelling enough that you have to accept it. You resist the obvious because your narrative collapses if actually the IAF did have air dominance and you can pretend they were going to run out of ALBMs before Iran ran out of its ballistic missiles.

On my side, literally all of the OSINT satellite evidence, strike location and damage assessments matching up with my explanation. On your side, the Israel government making claims with zero proof of any kind.

It's good to see you understand why this is such an important dispute, though,

The IAF demolished large buildings and took out at least one command bunker, we know. Hard and expensive to do that with merely missiles.

They hit took out a lot of military leaders assembled for exercises but as far as I know nobody confirmed that it was an actual command bunker or even that the IAF was responsible. Most of the confirmed assassinations have been ascribed to Mossad drones, Mossad Spike missiles and the occasional Mossad bomb, all of which could plausibly have taken out the assembled generals just as easily as an IAF bomb.

Alternatively, penetrating a bunker is within the capabilities of the higher yield Sparrow variants like the Silver Sparrow and the Golden Horizon. The damage assessed from the (failed) attempted strikes on Arak and Natanz were performed by such missiles so it wouldn't be farfetched to assume that the successful assassination was their responsibility too.

Still, lets be generous here and assume it was the responsibility of the IAF, and that it was a bomb and not just a missile (or several). Why did this only happen on day 1? Why weren't they able to replicate the pace of assassinations for the remainder of the war, or to take out comparably valuable targets like the missile cities? Even if it were true, this seems more suggestive that they had temporary access to Iranian airspace granted by Mossad blowing decades of assets to give a few hours of access rather than actual aerial supremacy.

Trump's change in preference came right after the U.S. strikes on the nuclear facilities, obviously. The volume of Iranian missile strikes was going down and Israel was not taking meaningful damage relative to Iran.

So Iran was defenseless, Trump decides to call off Israel for no reason thereby saving Iran, Israel decides to obey Trump despite having previously had no problem disobeying him regarding Lebanon and Syria. Today, Iran is openly defying Trump by continuing nuclear enrichment and Trump is threatening to restart strikes, yet Israel is still doing nothing to Iran while continuing to bomb Syria in active defiance of Trump. I dunno, I still think the explanation that he was saving Israel rather than Iran makes more sense.

Also, fact check, Israel took billions of dollars in losses over just twelve days, and that was with Israeli and American AD operating at peak efficiency. I've yet to hear what "meaningful damage" done to Iran makes that comparatively not meaningful, since they recovered from the assassinations pretty easily.

Israel did not expect to get regime change that easily. Come on now. As far as we know, the Supreme Leader was not targeted (whether by impossibility or choice I'm not sure).

It's been made abundantly clear within Israeli media that they never had a shot at Khamenei regardless of the bluster, they just assumed that taking out a significant portion of the top military leadership combined with direct threats to murder their families if they didn't rise up would cause the regime to collapse. Instead the older and more cautious elements were instantly replaced by young IRGC hardliners, pretty much the exact opposite of the intended result. It increasingly seems like your arguments only make sense if you unquestioning believe Israeli claims and also assume they would never unwittingly do something stupid and shortsighted.

No, they very much did not. All those missiles, so few strategic sites hit. Blowing up grandmas doesn't win wars, even when they were able to do that.

90% of those missiles were basically chaff designed to drain Israeli AD. The higher quality ones actually intended to hit something had no issue getting through and obliterating Israel's highest value targets. The longer the war lasted, the less "chaff" needed and the more effective strikes on target, particularly since several of the more accurate and higher yield (but slower and easier to intercept) missiles weren't even brought out once.

This is backwards logic. The IAF could afford to start hitting secondary targets on day 12 because they had been so successful the previous 11 days. It's not like they suddenly couldn't hit Tehran, as you've pointed out.

The nuclear program wasn't gone and neither were the missile cities. If the IAF actually had total air control then they wouldn't be sending missiles at clocks, they'd be Nasrallah-bunker-busting every Iranian fortress and knocking out those capabilities for good.

There was no "deal" here. It was just an unofficial ceasefire. If Iran was on the verge of really turning the tide against their main enemy who did a surprise attack and killed a bunch of its top leaders and destroyed a bunch of their military and nuclear sites, why would they have stopped instead of getting even? They knew the U.S. really did not want to get drawn in beyond the attack on the nuclear sites. Why would Iran let Israel get away with it?

Yes, the US didn't want to get drawn in. But if Iran had responded to Trump's ceasefire offer by humiliating him Putin style and continued pounding Israel indefinitely then it's pretty hard to imagine Trump not getting drawn in. Beating Israel is easy but beating America is not. Their only options were to risk an existential war immediately or to take a ceasefire and to prepare for the day when Israel no longer has American backing. There are arguments for the former but it's easy to see why they chose the latter. On the flipside there's no reason why Trump or Israel would cut a favourable truce with their worst enemy at their weakest only to impotently threaten to return to fighting by the end of the month because said worst enemy continues to defy them.

Honestly, the ideal way to measure it is buy tracking an individual student through the system and using something like “median student improvement per year” as a way to evaluate the school itself. A school system where students improve by 0.5 a year is objectively a bad school, no matter how the class behind them does.

Maybe quote the post if it's a user known for editing/deletion?

I swear, if it wasn't for my late-Victorian educated granny teaching me how to do long division the old-fashioned way, I'd never have learned the way it was taught in school.

same here, only it was my "learned calculus with a slide-rule" engineer dad who got so fed up with what the school system was trying to pull he just sat me down and long-handed it out with me.

In case anyone doubted my judgment

I did, so good job on the radar calibration.

I do have a question though -- I thought you guys were operating more on the "Mission fucking Accomplished" paradigm for ban evasion? IIRC darwin was doing the same thing for some time in a very obvious way, eventually admitted to it, and still has an active account?

So, like -- who cares? The post in question seemed OK; why are you banning based on (admittedly well-calibrated) vibes at all?

Sure an edit history will be fine, but I guess it wouldn't be simple to implement. At least disabling the delete button and auto reverting edits if they are designed to delete data ought to be enough.

Islamization was thorough, it probably wasn't quick, the middle east was highly religiously diverse within living memory- preferential immigration policies for middle eastern Christians and different fertility rates are what drove the Christian population from an actual majority in Lebanon, near parity in the rest of the levant, and large minorities in Iraq and Egypt to their current pitiful state. The Ottoman Empire had much larger Christian populations than would be expected based on present day territory.

There is also a vast difference in cousin marriage rates between Christian and Muslim Arabs, to say nothing of non-Hajnal Christian societies like Ireland, Iberia, Slavic lands etc and Islamic societies. The real effect of the Hajnal line was raising the female age at marriage very early.

You want more weird German puns? This is how you get more weird German puns...

I too watched that smilling giggling asshole before the cameras at Sandy Hook, they nailed Alex's ass on a technicality, as far as I'm concerned Sandy Hook was a hoax, also global warming has been a grift since the beginning, they gaslight the public about carboon footprints while a single person can't offset enough energy their entire lives to make up for a jet airplane doing a single cross Atlantic hop.

These Islamic societies were not majority Islamic

This would be highly surprising if true; I’ve seen persuasive evidence that the elites of these societies were not majority Arab, but my understanding is that Islamization was extremely thorough and brutal — hence the flight of the Zoroastrian dissident population all the way to India, where they persist as Parsees to this day.

As for the cousin marriage thing, clearly many forms of Christianity also failed to effectively stamp out the practice (hence the discussion around the so-called Hajnal Line) so this seems far from dispositive regarding the superiority of one over the other.

I honestly, earnestly, really believe in God and Jesus Christ and the Sacraments. It's not much deeper than that. To me, your question is almost, "Why should we enter into a relationship with the Creator who has a plan for us all to live in happiness and perfect fulfillment, instead of trying to find a connection with Him through less certain methods or worshiping demons instead?"

I don't know why anyone would convert to Christianity except for the reason that they think it's true. Yes, society will suffer the further we get away from God. Pretty much every successful society had some sort of ritualistic belief in God, a higher order, and some kind of cosmic punishment for wrongs committed. This is a relevant statement:

Pro-religion people (like me) will suggest that decreasing religious commitment is reducing trust. That’s obviously true. At the heart of our society (and especially our legal system) is the expectation that virtually everyone will tell the truth under oath, that they will keep their promises, and that they will do what they “ought” to do even when doing so is to their own personal disadvantage, and even if they are confident no one will ever find out. This norm simply works better if everyone believes that God will send them to Hell for breaking it.

I’m not saying the norm completely fails if you don’t believe in God; there are plenty of moral atheists and doesn’t-matterists who would never compromise their own integrity. There are articulate cases for things like “secular humanism” and “the categorical imperative” and just “don’t be a dick.” Moreover, there are lots of psychological reasons why humans enjoy acting with integrity, even without God looking over their shoulder.

I am only saying that our society was built on the assumption that something like 99% of people will act with integrity 99% of the time it is tested. If just a little less fear-of-God means that number drops to something like 90% of people acting with integrity 90% of the time it is tested, that sets off a cascade, the incentives to do the right thing shift, and our society collapses into Escape From New York.

But committing to a religious belief that you don't actually respect is not going to magically create that integrity either. Much the opposite, if I had to guess.

So-so? I tend to use it as halfway between the two (plus fiction writing). I find the benefit of LLMs over an encyclopedia is that I can drill down and use them as a sounding board, and conversely unlike a sounding board I can pester them about details.

I also want Catholicism without the baked-in commitments to universal human equality and open-ended duty of care to the least productive, least valuable members of the human race. (Commitments which appear to be a large factor underlying why the Catholic Church is one of the largest and most committed facilitators of mass immigration to Europe and the United States.) I’m also uncomfortable with how many of its most important saints are venerated precisely because they were persecuted by the society around them; this seems yet again to center the outcasts, the dissidents, the weirdos. Catholicism built a very impressive edifice atop a Third-Worldist-adjacent ideological chassis, but the underlying logic was inevitably going to take over and become dominant at some point, which is (in my opinion) how you get modern Catholicism.

Or allow editing but have a button so users can see the audit trail? I understand the intent of the request, but I'd never want to lose the ability to fix spelling mistakes, and I often see people add [edit: reason] tags due to a response causing them to update on something or clarify a fact in the original post.

Doesn't seem like a real objection anyway -- data can always be adjusted by birth year or held-back status. The school obviously has the data, even if it's not currently being collected in a way that would enable it being used.