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

Showing 25 of 10125 results for

domain:parrhesia.co

I definitely know a few hard leftists/socialists who were quick to go cold on him as well. But in general Dem normie-sphere, he was a gold standard POTUS who reigned without controversy, and his photos were posted wistfully in the Age of Trump.

I sense that too has been fading, though. Although I think that's more due to aging out of relevancy than a reappraisal of the man and his admin.

You could say they're not the real Left, but they're the one that matters.

And as a big Obama supporter for both his terms... yeah, there was a 'culty' (generously described as enamored) vibe going on. Even the Daily Show poked fun at this, with John Oliver even going to the DNC in 08 and getting little more than 'Obama will fix everything' from the crowd attendees.

I believe a normal person should not have their rights abridged.

And a "normal person" will never have seen a mental health professional, will never have been confused about the names of his medications, will have three friends willing to swear he's moral enough to buy a firearm, etc, etc. In fact, perhaps a "normal person" wouldn't want a gun at all.

No. If you want to be a strong advocate of the Second Amendment, you must think those carveouts must be small and strongly limited. Carving out those convicted of a felony is OK. Carving out those who some psychiatrist once thought wasn't in such great shape is not. Carving out those who aren't socially connected enough to get people to vouch for them is not. Yeah, this is really hard, because it means some people who you probably don't want having a gun will (if you get your way) lawfully be able to get one whether you like it or not, but that's part of the cost of being a strong Second Amendment advocate.

Important to note is that you can sue for inappropriate involuntary commitment and that this is a major cause of malpractice claims. The opportunity to defend yourself from malfeasance is there. Yes psychiatrists have notoriously cheap malpractice insurance.

Sure, who are the courts going to believe, the psychiatrist or the crazy person?

I mean vs Ukranian civilians relative to population size for both countries.

So per 1,000 people in each country, there ~30 Gazan civilian deaths per capita for each Ukranian civilian death.

Color me skeptical that there's going to be any direct dynastic successor to Donald Trump. None of his children seem to have his sheer unprincipled audacity, nor will they inherit his cult of personality. I think once Trump himself is out of the picture, the knives are going to come out and the Trump children are going to discover their fellow Republicans don't like them very much.

Yes, but I was answering your question. As a father the question of whether my kids will have kids unnerves me much more than the prospect of natural family planning.

Grenfell tower

A much smaller concrete building.

Thinking that someone using natural family planning within a Catholic marriage is going to be what ruins their lives is uh, an interesting conclusion

There was a grappling tournament on a 5v5 format called quintet which made grappling really exicitng. I'm a purist in mma but we do need freakshow fights. Half of pride was the best vs the best and the other half being freakshows.

Musk's revealed preferences (ie, actions) strongly indicate otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, if i had a few billion dollars, I would also maximize my number of offspring, but the ideal of the involved father in a typical happy 90s marriage is not something I would suggest musk actually, demonstrably wants for himself.

It’s the only steel framed skyscraper in history to do that. Grenfell tower was burned to a charred husk and didn’t collapse.

I believe a normal person should not have their rights abridged.

However, I believe a convicted murderer shouldn't be allowed to have guns. That's pretty common sense (although I'm sure some disagree), in the same way that I am strongly pro-1A but don't want a nuclear scientist giving detailed instructions to ...certain kinds of people.

Some carve outs should be allowed.

Some people shouldn't own guns.

Another clear category is schizophrenics. Once you get the schizophrenia diagnosis (assuming it is well formulated, which it may not be) then you should never ever allowed to own guns because you don't know what is real and that makes you a huge risk to yourself or others.

If you are involuntarily admitted to the hospital that means at some point you were a imminent serious risk to self or others (thats more or less the commitment criteria in most states), and while some people have one episode and then they are done, generally that is not the case. The risk calculus is instantly much different (sidebar: if you believe people have a right to end their own lives even when they have a potentially modifiable medical or psychiatric condition then this changes the calculus significantly).

While they do get it wrong some times the vast vast majority of committed people have some combination of a. incredibly serious mental illness. b. credible suicidality or homicidality. c. are an absolutely enormous asshole.

Society is almost certainly better off restricting the rights of those three kinds of people and doing so results in less death and crime.

Important to note is that you can sue for inappropriate involuntary commitment and that this is a major cause of malpractice claims. The opportunity to defend yourself from malfeasance is there. Yes psychiatrists have notoriously cheap malpractice insurance.

Personally, I see this as Mamdani doing much, much better among kitchen-table issues for the median voter. All about affordability. Of course, the merit of his attempt is a separate question. He's pro rent control (economically sketchy but not unheard of), wants to create public supermarkets (horrible idea all around, supermarket margins are very small), taxing the rich (will they flee or not?), and is obviously young and not super experienced.

Something I would note is that for all handwringing about socialism*, none of this is particularly atypical of a progressive candidate. Which is not the strongest endorsement, but he seems well within norms for silly-but-popular policies. The public option for Bodegas is the most out there, and even that isn't as out there as people think (it's still a bad idea, but it's a tried and proven bad idea). Some of these things aren't even new polices. NYC has rent control!

This more or less comports with my expectations. To one side, Mamdani seems kind of vacuous - he mostly seems to agree with whoever he's talking to. A useful trait for a politician, but not particularly indicative. To the other side, it's unsurprising mirror of the right-wing. The Right hates the aesthetic of radicalism, and will try to present their policies as common sense even when they're completely bonkers. The Left loves the aesthetic of radicalism, and will try to gloss normal policy as revolutionary.

Aside: Mamdani winning the primary seems to have aroused a spectacularly unhinged fury from certain sectors, e.g. one representative calling for him to be denaturalized and another saying he was the vanguard of an effort to turn NYC into a Shia Caliphate.

*illustrative: I once had an argument with a guy who was stridently advocating for socialism, and when I pressed him for specifics on what that would entail, it basically boiled down to UHC + a sovereign wealth fund.

Yes, but notice that the easily quotable catchphrase that Loose Change coined, “Jet Fuel Can’t Melt Steel Beams” works to take your focus off building 7, and put it onto buildings 1 and 2 where there is at least a plausible argument that the building collapses were caused by the plane strikes.

the current government controls people through threatening their driving licenses

This is a pretty odd thing to say given how generously drivers are treated in much of the Anglosphere. To actually get banned from driving in the US or UK you have to be preposterously negligent. Recently a footballer here in Britain was caught speeding eight times in as many weeks (and none of them were even close), lied to the police after some of them and was given a driving ban of less than a month. There are perhaps few less sympathetic groups in the Western world than suspended drivers.

Just saying, "this person is too crazy to have a gun" overlaps with "the police are unfairly ignoring threats to this person's life"

I know this is bait, but the number of childless women I know is so much higher than women who have ruined their lives with natural family planning or children out of wedlock.

This seems like PMC selection bias, unless you have a very diverse social group. And Catholics who are really committed to natural family planning usually have their lives in order already.

Childless woman is the scarier outcome for a daughter than even teen pregnancy IMO.

This depends a lot on the teen's family situation.

I grew up in WV. A state that is deeply misunderstood by our ruling class, but I can tell you that teenage pregnancy is not a pretty sight. Even if things turn out alright eventually (and they don't always do), the first several years can be very rough for both mother and child. Mother and father splitting up is also a lot more likely when both parents are young.

It burned down because it was on fire.

The standard meaning of "neoliberal" is "person with economic views to my right who I dislike" in the same way that the unfortunately now-standard meaning of "fascist" is "person with social views to my right who I dislike."

Ten years ago, I would have agreed with you, but it's extremely common to see right-wing populists use it as a pejorative as well, targeting people to the left of them economically.

The richest man in the world has basically the same political program you do (like literally wants everything in your list), and he's powerless to enact it for this specific reason.

Um, what? Elon Musk is modelling dysfunctional ghetto family norms.

I think you’re going from the wrong assumption here. Kids and grandkids of Trump have much more in common with stereotypical children of wealth than they do children of celebrities. Confusing the two is a common mistake, but they are extremely different. A child of wealth learns that they have a parachute if they screw up. A child of celebrities learns that attention = survival, and are clearly poised to learn counterproductive lessons.

Speaking of children of politicians as a sort of weird third category doesn’t make sense. Either they are kids of the attention seeking variety (where some craziness is expected) or wealth (where they largely turn out fine). And I think you far oversell the number of crazy kids of wealth. Now I grant you part of that is wealth does better at hiding even after being busted for something (eg the children of the Reuters guy and their nanny). Despite that it’s impressive how relatively few wealthy kid screwups there are.

I think I'd be more wary about calling Confucianism a religion or religion-like without bounding what is meant by religion and Confucianism respectively.

Speaking of language, the Chinese term for Confucianism is 儒教 (rújiào) - the former character means 'scholar', and the latter means 'teaching', 'school', or sometimes 'religion'. Confucianism is the teaching of the scholars. I bring this up because it's similar to the names of schools that are uncontestedly considered 'religions' in the West.

It is true that Confucius has a temple, and he was himself strict about the preservation of the rites of Zhou and other traditional religious institutions, and many aspects of Confucian thought has seeped into Chinese folk religion; the Classic of Changes literally originates from treatises on divination...

But when I read most works in the Confucian school I get a different sense -- that it is "religious" to the extent that all political systems and philosophies in classical antiquity are religious, and it is less overtly religious than many of its contemporaries!

樊遲問知。子曰。務民之義、敬鬼神而遠之、可謂知矣。

Analects 6:22. Fan Chi asked what constituted wisdom. The Master said, "To give one's self earnestly to the duties due to men, and, while respecting spiritual beings, to keep aloof from them, may be called wisdom."

子不語怪,力,亂,神。

Analects 7:21. The subjects on which the Master did not talk, were: extraordinary things, feats of strength, disorder, and spiritual beings.

On the other hand, many of the Socratic dialogues reference gods and the divine much more directly than the Confucian classics do, but I think we would still consider Euthyphro more of a philosophical work than a religious one, right?

Regardless the ancients would have drawn less stark a divide than we would regarding the secular and the religious, if they did so at all.

And Confucianism is also -- I think more commonly -- referred to as 儒家 rujia (家 jia, lit. family/home, in this case meaning "school of thought"). Other contemporary examples of this usage include 法家 fajia (the Legalists) and 墨家 mojia (the Mohists), part of the Hundred Schools of Thought which we identify nowadays as primarily political or philosophical schools rather than religious ones, even if these philosophical schools were bound at the time to various superstitions and religions as well.


This is not to obfuscate the mystical parts of Confucianism, of course. The Classics referencing rites implies a certain belief in the validity of those rites, and we have further developments (e.g. 理學 lixue, often translated as neo-Confucianism) that have a more explicit focus on the metaphysical. But I would still put it as that Confucian thought is a largely humanistic school of moral philosophy that was nevertheless grounded in a superstitious and religious society, and thus utilises the assumptions and language of that society.

The woman in the article is 25. She's at no risk of imminent infertility. And it's not like she's trying to conceive to avoid being childless, she's trying not to conceive using a less-effective, lower-class method due to conspiratorial ideology.

These types of oddly existential/cosmic horror-laced memes are basically 90% of the videos on burialgoods' channel. Pretty sure he has actually done a voiceover of the processed ham meme at one point.

and I'm a very strong 2A advocate

If you claim to be a strong 2A advocate yet your reasoning keeps leading to people not being allowed to keep and bear arms, you are not actually a strong 2A advocate.

No it’s… not?

There’s pretty strong agreement on that from all sides of the political spectrum.