domain:archive.ph
Dean
Flairless
14hr ago
There are a lot of people jumping through hoops to not to validate a source, true.
ZanarkandAbesFan
14hr ago
and sounding like the penultimate act of The Feminist.
God that's a weird read.
UrgentSloth
14hr ago
So much effort avoiding addressing the argument. It looks exhausting.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
14hr ago
I'd be interested in seeing the studies on carbonated water being bad for teeth. Coke zero still has added acid, so it's certainly worse for teeth than carbonated water.
At a minimum, "scalia clerk" means "Justice Scalia, hero of the conservative legal movement, thought this person was smart enough to aid him."
If I go through your posting history, how many examples am I going to find of you demanding an explanation of the significance of a commentary source? Will they all be sources critical of Trump?
gattsuru
14hr ago
One wonders what qualifies as "immediate and irreparable harm" in the US Court of International Trade if not that.
The courts have very stupid standards for 'purely' economic harms, since they treat these as if they could always be remedied with money (even if the courts won't or can't issue that money). This was a big deal during a lot of the COVID cases. The arguments for the TRO thus rested pretty heavily on harm to goodwill or reputation that were... not very strong.
((That said, courts are also quite willing to munge on the sides of this norm; the NPR and especially trans military employment TROs are pretty significant in certain senses because they're bent over backwards to depart from this normal rule.))
The SCOTUS might even uphold the ruling? Huh.
It's unfortunately likely to be a for-the-case-only sort of thing rather than a serious revival of the non-delegation doctrine, but possibly. That said, I'd put an emphasis on 'possibly'; the focus here rests in an ugly crux on questions that border on political in a law that specifically lay out the approach Congress could and should block it, while Congress hasn't.
With judges appointed by multiple Presidents (though not Trump)?
Rief is a Trump appointee, although the CIT appointment process tends to make it somewhat less politically loaded than, say, SCOTUS or federal appeals courts.
The court finds the President overstepped the authority delegated to him by Congress under IEEPA by declaring a fake emergency
No, the court specifically finds that the declaration of emergency is not in question in this case:
"In doing so, the court does not ask whether a threat is worth “deal[ing]” with, or venture to “review the bona fides of a declaration of an emergency by the President"[...]
Instead, the court focused on whether the tariffs were exercised in "exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose." This still comes across as an awkward fit, by my eyes, but it's a different question.
I read >0 amount of political analysis about this and nothing seemed to cover the US CIT striking this down as a possibility. Does the media just suck?
May depend on when you were reading about it. The VOS case was filed relatively late, compared to several other cases filed in other jurisdictions (eg two weeks after the NCLA one), which may impact what extent you heard about it.
Somin's been pushing it pretty heavily at Reason, unsurprisingly given that he's a major booster for the case -- I can't really promote the blog for its legal analysis anymore, but if you want to know what people want the law to be, it's still pretty informative.
oats_son
14hr ago
Do you not see that puberty blockers themselves are permanent, irreversible alterations to the body more than puberty itself is? What kind of evidence would you need to see to believe that?
erwgv3g34
14hr ago
That's just religiously-flavored wireheading.
...and the puberty blocker discussion in particular was very vexing to me. I just genuinely don't know how anyone can be okay with the idea, especially now that we know way more about it than we did 10 years ago.
I'm basically pro-puberty blocker in principle, and my reasoning is as follows:
-
Adults should, broadly speaking, be allowed to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, including physically transitioning.
-
Whether a trans person begins to physical transition before or after adolescense seems to have a big effect on how effectively they'll eventually pass as the opposite sex.
-
I'm quite uncomfortable with non-adults making permanent, irreversible alterations to their body.
-
Therefore, if someone has made clear they want to transition and there's a way for someone to reach adulthood (or get closer to it) while preserving the best chance of passing as the opposite sex, I would be in favour of it. Puberty blockers seem to be a reasonable solution to this problem.
In practice of course things quickly get messy and I don't know what the ideal criteria should be for getting blockers prescribed nor what the trade-off is between possible side-effects and potential benefit. I leave that to people more invested in the topic.
AvocadoPanic
14hr ago
Some non-zero number of 'Chinese students' are also Chinese spies or CCP operatives.
Do you object to the government excluding them?
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
14hr ago
Imagine being close to God is like a drug high, except it's to being high what being high is to being sober. And it never stops with no withdrawal.
PokerPirate
14hr ago
It's not just flyover universities dependent on higher foreign student tuition. Both the CalState and UC systems get tons of money in their masters programs from Chinese students. Top schools (e.g. UCLA, UC Berkley, UCSD) and mid-tier schools (e.g. UC Riverside, CalPoly and CalState LA) would be greatly affected.
I'm not convinced this is even a realistic threat. Who is going to leave behind their house, job, and family, because they're not allowed to goon and/or doomscroll on a mobile device?
Many emigrate from places such as Russia because they were merely afraid that at some point the nuts will get screwed tight enough that they won't be allowed to doomscroll what they want and goon to what they want to on their mobile devices. Or ban being gay, or ban talking about being gay, or do a number of other things the young view as backwards and retarded.
It is not very pronounced in Russia because emigrating to the first world from the second world is hard. The other way around seems like a much easier choice.
naraburns
nihil supernum
14hr ago
It's looking like the main option might be juvi.
A few weeks ago I got about 60% of the way through writing an effort post on "some people I have known," and it just got too long and convoluted... but this seems like a place to tell one of those stories.
I have some neighbors with a 12 year old daughter and a couple younger sons. Beginning when the daughter was 4 or 5, she would leave the house and come knock on neighbor's doors (including mine)--when the door was opened, she would walk right in and ask for something to eat, or invite adults to come play with her, or start rummaging through people's belongings. Sometimes she would ask if she could live with them. Refusal was met with pouting, bargaining, and sometimes screaming fits. Some neighbors would call the mother, some would call the police, depending on their level of integration into the neighborhood community; you would not guess from looking at this girl, or speaking with her, that she has any particular mental disability or whatever. Within a couple of months (during which time they made various attempts at education and discipline and other behavior-modification) my neighbors installed deadbolts on all exterior doors that had to be unlocked with a key from either side. Apparently nothing short of literally locking their daughter into the house could prevent this behavior.
This became particularly apparent when they sent her to school, as she would simply leave school any time something happened to upset her--and then resume knocking on the doors of houses that appealed to her. She was placed into one of those "special" classrooms for discipline cases and slow learners. Within a few years she had received an official diagnosis of "oppositional defiant disorder" with a side of "level one autism spectrum disorder." She made some friends and things seemed to be progressing in a good direction.
When the girl was 9 or 10, inspired in part by the girl's progress and by the growth of their younger sons (who were also generally "locked in" as collateral damage, and who wanted the freedom to play outside without being let outside, or let back in), the family removed the key-only deadbolts. Within a year or so (by now the girl was 11), early one morning, the girl let herself out and took a walk. She left our neighborhood; I don't know how far she walked, but she knocked on a stranger's door and asked to live with them, because her parents were sexually abusing her.
Naturally, these people called the cops. What happened next my neighbor would relate to me later--would relate to most of our neighbors, later, as he canvassed the neighborhood sharing information in hopes of preventing another such incident. From his perspective, the story went like this: after realizing his daughter was gone (maybe half an hour after the daughter had slipped away), he called the parents of a couple of her friends. When none of them knew of her location, he took a short walk around the block, looking for her. Finally, he called the police, who informed him that they had his daughter in custody and would be by the house shortly.
When the police arrived, they left his daughter in the cruiser. They arrived with a social worker. They separated him from his wife and interviewed each of them individually, during which time they asked a series of increasingly upsetting questions. Eventually it was revealed to them that their daughter had given an exceedingly graphic description of violent sexual abuse, which she reported she had suffered at the (joint!) hands of her parents. His wife produced documentation from the girl's psychologist, emails from school administrators and teachers, and contact information for neighbors who could corroborate certain events. The authorities glanced over all of this without much comment.
My neighbor said he couldn't imagine how his daughter had even learned about some of the things she'd accused him of (their internet is pretty locked down, and his daughter does not have a cell phone), but he's pretty sure it was just information gleaned from her "friends" (and their smartphones) in the discipline-case classroom. Despite grilling him to a distressing degree, he says the cops didn't find his daughter's story very credible--but as a matter of policy, child abuse allegations are of course taken very seriously even when they are clearly fantastical. When the grilling was done, they brought the daughter into the house--screaming all the while that she hated her family and was in mortal danger--told the parents "good luck" and beat a hasty retreat.
As soon as the cops were gone, the daughter stopped screaming, assumed a totally flat affect, and asked for something to eat. Her parents explained to her that she had put them and her brothers in quite serious danger, and the daughter responded that she didn't intend for anyone to get hurt, but she wished she had a family that was more "fun," and that was all she was trying to accomplish.
That is in broad strokes the story my neighbor told me, stoically, as he provided me with a color printout of his daughter's face on a list of contact information--not just his and his wife's, but also her psychologist, her school resource officer, some nearby family members. He apologized for the imposition but asked me to please call whoever I felt most comfortable calling, if his daughter ever showed up at my door or even if I just saw her wandering around unattended.
I've known children prone to fits and outbursts, prone to theft and prevarication, prone even to inexplicable physical violence. But this particular girl strikes me as exactly the kind of straight-up "psychopath" that academic psychologists have been reluctant to recognize as such. If her parents hadn't been meticulously documenting this girl's behavior for years, would they still have custody of their children? Might one or both of them be in prison, right now? And looking forward to her teenage years, assuming she continues to harbor this peculiar impulse to get away from her family, what actions might she take? At the extreme end, maybe she just kills her parents, but in lesser tragedies she might run further away than the next neighborhood over; she might very easily be lured into running away with a predator; at best I suspect she will continue to internalize the negative influences of her discipline-case peers and fall into drug use or theft or other anti-social behaviors. She's not mentally disabled; with daily supervision she could probably live a normal-ish life, but only if she could be persuaded to accept such supervision in the long term, and only if someone is willing and able to provide that supervision. Today, that's her parents, but even if she remains with them well into adulthood, she should outlive them by decades.
Cases like this are not common, I think, but similar situations ("on the same spectrum" we might say) are common enough that they capture something really challenging about living in a society. Low information, low intellect, low agency people exist in dizzying array. Their lives would generally be better if they were supervised. Some of the worst off do get such supervision; if they aren't born into attentive families, group homes and halfway houses and the like also exist. But in our relentless pursuit of dignity and autonomy and equality for all, we have made it all but politically impossible to act on the idea that a meaningful percentage of our population would genuinely be much better off if their lives were managed by someone else. Because the difficult question is always--who?
HereAndGone
14hr ago
Oh, right: I was reading it as "three out of four" not "three or four". I get you now!
HereAndGone
14hr ago
If I'm taking this right, you think that getting swipes is more important than going on dates from the swipes? So 100 'yes hi' and nothing more is better than three dates from three 'yes hi' messages?
That seems to me to be a strange measure of success, but it does seem to fit the theory that "women don't go on dating apps to meet men, they go on dating apps to receive validation by getting swipes".
Is that what you are aiming for here? More swipes means more validation but you don't actually want to meet or date any of the people who matched?
I got into an argument on JK Rowling recently. That was mildly annoying, but then it shifted to transgender stuff in general, and the puberty blocker discussion in particular was very vexing to me. I just genuinely don't know how anyone can be okay with the idea, especially now that we know way more about it than we did 10 years ago. The dismissal of the Cass Review on the part of the pro-trans side has increasingly looked like the stereotypical right winger doing mental somersaults to any science they dislike. But I have some questions on it, there were some things I didn't have great answers to.
-
What are the actual requirements for getting prescribed puberty blockers? The pro-trans tribe insists that it is a very rigorous process involving thorough checking of gender dysphoria, and it's not commonly done, despite being a readily available tool in the toolbox of clinical practice. I do not believe this after examples I have seen, but I have nothing to cite.
-
Is there any actual scientific evidence in favor of social contagion playing any part in transgenderism? The pro-trans tribe claims that social contagion plays no role, and to me, it's trivially true that social contagion plays an astounding part, as well as fetishism and abuse, and autism. I have no idea how many kids genuinely become gender dysphoric due to genetics, if there are any at all. And if there are any, I certainly don't think that it's a given that they need puberty blockers. How the hell did that become the default? But anyway, has The Science turned up anything on social contagion?
-
Are there any actually valid critiques of the Cass Review? Pro-trans tribe will cite the Yale Law retort, then when I point out the responses to it, either holes are poked in them or they just go back to their priors that the Cass Review was methodologically bad, done by a transphobe, misinterpreted studies, and went against the scientific consensus and ruined its own credibility. Actually, they say the same about the recent HHS Report. Please show me if there are any published valid critiques of the Cass Review besides the Yale thing.
-
What are the probabilities of serious consequences from puberty blockers? I brought up infertility, and the pro-trans tribe claimed that it's actually a very low chance and that it's not anyone's business anyway because not everyone wants to have kids. The latter half of that is completely inane when we're talking about life changing decisions for a demographic that cannot consent, but the former, I don't know. Do puberty blockers cause the infertility, the loss of ability to orgasm, and the complete lack of penis tissue with which to create a neovagina, or is it the ensuing hormones that do this?
Sadly, none of this will do anything to convince anyone on either side anyway. There's really no way out of this hole that has been created. Sometimes, I kind of hate this world. I really thought "don't give minors seriously debilitating life changing pills to solve a solely mental disorder" was an easy hill to stand on, but the fighting was just as vicious as anything else with the gender issue.
Edited to be slightly less angry.
Lizzardspawn
14hr ago
I was thinking about hunger strikes recently. And I figured out there are two things to be done - either force feeding them, or locking them in a room to make sure they won't cheat for at least 60 days.
Seriously, better photos will make an awful lot of difference. I've read some of the rationalist dating docs on the ACX dating threads and the photos made my heart sink, because by their self-description they were clearly nice, genuine people but the photos they picked made them look like the equivalent of wilted lettuce.
Both are lettuce, but which do you think looks better? This or this?
It is possible to revive wilted lettuce, just make the effort!
What are examples of irrationality in these discussions to you?
Instead of talking about a hypothetical dismissal, please actually explain the grounds on which you want to dismiss it yourself.
I'll be happy to, but I must also note that the dismissal would absolutely take place (and that you know it would), because the non-rationality of the discourse is part of our conversation. If you want a non-hypothetical example, just look at the conversation in this thread, and note the amount of people that don't even bother questioning OP's evidence, putting forward arguments that are later refuted with evidence, but not changing their mind, etc. This sort of stuff happens all the time, has always happened, and will continue to happen. At some point we should just come clean and admit that the conversation we're having is not based on reason.
Usual objection: coordination problem.
We ban shit all the time, and you don't need a dictatorship for it. The EU basically forced retarded cookie banners on the world, so they can force porn sites back into the underground as well.
how do you stop people from defecting to a country that doesn't participate in the bans, and that country subsequently curbstomping yours?
I'm not convinced this is even a realistic threat. Who is going to leave behind their house, job, and family, because they're not allowed to goon and/or doomscroll on a mobile device?
Uh, it depends on what exactly you define the problem to be. Do you want people to report happiness/satisfaction of a cluster of needs that could be summarised as "companionship", or do you want people to pair up?
The latter. If I wanted to maximize reports of happiness/satisfaction, I'd be hooking people on heroin, and ensuring they answer the survey while high.
To a skeptic, this exchange may be isomorphic to something like:
Tribal elder: It is a problem that nobody sacrifices to the grain gods anymore, but you progressives will never acknowledge that there might be a problem there because there is no progressive solution to it.
Progressive(?): Well, there's a perfectly progressive solution. We just have to build up a fertiliser industry and develop industrial farming, so there will never be a shortage of grain again.
Aren't you the tribal elder and me the progressive in this scenario? I'm the one insisting the goal is reflective of material reality, while you're the one pushing for a simulacrum with no connection to it.
Anyway, this only proves my thesis. Either your example is reflective of our case - two people talking about two different issues, and the progressive is more than happy to chime in, because he has a progressive solution to a progressive issue - after it's been reframed to be about something else (grain production, rather than the originally raised decline of religion). Or - let's assume the Elder was actually worried about a potential famine - he's happy to talk about it because there is a progressive solution on offer.
In my entire social bubble, tracking from early graduate school if not earlier, there are few signs of "romance recession"
Like I said, not a rational conversation. This argument would be immediately dismissed if it was used to argue for something you disagree with, and you know it.
Instead of talking about a hypothetical dismissal, please actually explain the grounds on which you want to dismiss it yourself. I don't see anything obviously wrong with it
You really don't see an issue with the bit I quoted? You'd accept an argument like "in my geographical bubble there's few signs of 'global warming'"?
variants like "$country will be majority-Muslim in a few years even if we stop immigration now" are structurally exactly the same thing deployed to right-wing ends.
Not exactly. Sure, it's possible that resistence to anti-natalism will be passed down, but then again it's also possible that it won't, so you're basically saying "we might recover or not" and bring no new definition to the table. And even if recovery does occur, your argument offers no insight into what such a world will look like, and whether we should embrace or avoid it.
Do you think that one can be dismissed too, or are Muslims uniquely capable of receiving the boons of natural selection?
I actually think Muslims in Europe are just as susceptible to progressive anti-natalism as Europeans, they might still end up the majority because of different starting points for the trends, but I'm not in favor of naive extrapolation of the present state.
HyphalKnot
15hr ago
Well firstly I said that I primarily use hinge. How old are you? Tinder is pretty dead for Gen Z, at least in NYC. Secondly, going on dates with attractive women is literally the only success metric that matters when talking about dating apps. Whether or not there’s a second date/you get laid is almost totally determined by your game and her mood, rather than how good you looked in 6 photos. Also your example is totally irrelevant because it has no time measure, no location settings, and more importantly no info on how hot these matches are.
Big ups to you if you've heard of the US Court of International Trade before yesterday!
On April 22nd this court denied plaintiff's motion to issue a TRO against the Trump Liberation Day tariffs
The Court of International Trade on April 22 denied a group of five companies' application for a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani held that the companies "have not clearly shown a likelihood that immediate and irreparable harm would occur" before the court considers their motion for a preliminary injunction against the tariffs.
That seems crushing but then yesterday they issued a summary judgment declaring the tariffs as unlawful.
https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf
(1) What. Also, this was months ago but I remember a ~10 point market swing and business leaders expressing general panic about when/how to invest in the US. Port deliveries ending. Truckers saying they have nothing to truck. One wonders what qualifies as "immediate and irreparable harm" in the US Court of International Trade if not that.
(2) At first I thought this was some administrative agency in the executive branch defecting against Trump, but this is apparently a real court? In the judicial branch? With judges appointed by multiple Presidents (though not Trump)? The SCOTUS might even uphold the ruling? Huh.
(3) The court finds the President overstepped the authority delegated to him by Congress under IEEPA by declaring a fake emergency and using that to impose broad peacetime tariffs, something it was never meant to authorize.
I read >0 amount of political analysis about this and nothing seemed to cover the US CIT striking this down as a possibility. Does the media just suck?
HereAndGone
15hr ago
I'm old enough that all his swipes about "oh, you're asexual" are water off a duck's back (plus I suspect I'm a good few years older than he is, even if he's in the age range 30-40, so it comes across as toddler tantrum) and you're happily married, so we don't have to wring our hands over our complete inability to understand what women like and why average men are, in fact, all smokin' hot studs.
Girls, women, ladies, if this is the quality of men you are dealing with in the search for love and romance, let me say I am very, very happy I never got into the entire thing ever.
HereAndGone
15hr ago
I'm not sure why you being a woman means you are innately blessed with the knowledge of what most or all women find attractive. Being a man did not endow me with the power to know what kinds of women most men were attracted to, nor did it give me any mystical or unique knowledge about attractiveness.
I can definitely agree with the final clause of that sentence 😁 Thanks for this entertainment on a humid Thursday afternoon round these parts!
Were those empires successful in maintaining their empire with foreign brains?
It would seem the better plan would be
More options
Context Copy link