domain:philippelemoine.com
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11hr ago
Nick Fuentes is probably the second most important person to watch on the Republican side after Trump himself.
That's... quite a statement.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
11hr ago
How many of them would describe it in those terms? I guarantee you, Harris never framed it as ethnic cleansing. As far as I can tell, the closest she got to mentioning the death toll was acknowledging the “suffering in Gaza.”
oats_son
12hr ago
Now that I've read this article, I find this comment at the end funny:
But you can’t blame the travel companies for focusing on the millions of women eager to explore. Men will just have to find a way to break the chains that stop them from seeing the world.
This is like, the exact opposite sentiment you'd get if it was men traveling and women staying at home.
Actually, yes, travel companies should focus more on women. Women only don't travel because of historical oppression. We need equality in frivolous traveling.
3472094371
12hr ago
Nice quote, did you steal it from the President?
3472094371
12hr ago
Thanks for the tip about trying to pass an arbitrary parameter, unfortunately, it was discarded by the offender. And in my defense, the significance of that circumstance which solved it for you only dawned on me in hindsight...
Jazzhands
12hr ago
American right-wingers love to smirk knowingly about stories of the rampant “knife crime” in the U.K., safe in the assumption that this is overwhelmingly a non-white phenomenon.
This isn't why right-wingers smirk at it. "Knife control" was the right-wing reductio ad absurdum of "gun control" until the UK came along and said "yes, I am the straw man you would imagine, I don't even recognize I am saying exactly what you predicted in exactly the way that proves you right."
Payback23
12hr ago
It would be more than slightly different context. There is certainly context clues that make it probable the 12 year old wasn't trying to attack a 28 year old man for no reason. You would agree attacking an old man is different? from your story. I feel if the races were different so would be your response. But maybe I am wrong. Are you aware of what has been happening in the UK? Or do you think it is made up hysterics?
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
12hr ago
Can a Bannon-Groyper Alliance Derail Vance?
This was a fun article looking forward to 2028. Here are the main points:
- JD Vance is the overwhelming favorite to win the R nomination in 2028. He has a >50% chance as of now, while the next nearest candidates are <10%.
- However, the Groyper faction, i.e. people who associate with Nick Fuentes, is not happy with him.
- Nick Fuentes is probably the second most important person to watch on the Republican side after Trump himself. He has a lot of "energy", and has the benefit of being extremely online. People keep making the mistake that the "real world" is more important than a small fringe of online crazies, and they keep getting proven wrong over and over and over (e.g. with woke, the alt right, gender identity on Tumblr). The arc of MAGA is long, but it bends towards Based.
- The best case for Vance is one where he becomes the heir-apparent to the Trump cult through an explicit endorsement from Trump himself. If he plays his cards right in that case, then the 2028 R nomination could look like a coronation with Vance simply refusing to debate any challengers and sailing to victory without really having to make his case beyond generic Trumpy pablum.
- The worst case for Vance goes something like this: he doesn't get Trump's endorsement, perhaps from his rivals spreading conspiracies that any faults of the Trump admin were from Vance being insufficiently loyal to Trump. If Trump is flattered by these ideas he could stay out of the fray, which means Vance would have to do a real campaign. Then, he could find himself under a pincer attack by Groypers slamming the fact he has an Indian wife and brown children, while Bannon attacks him in a conventional way for something like insufficient loyalty to Dear Leader. In this case, Vance could find himself in a similar spot to Jeb Bush -- a frontrunner with little "energy" who's mercilessly savaged from all sides until he has a few disappointing results and drops out.
- Expect the Republican consensus on Israel to crack at least a little bit over the coming decades, again thanks to the Groypers.
If Blaisey Ford had a video of herself dual wielding at Kavanaugh, filmed from his perspective, telling him to leave her alone, I think I might believe her.
And this works both ways. If you want to call out our hypocrisy, show us your MeToo era posts first.
Throwaway05
12hr ago
For a few reasons, one is that the hospital is not in charge of the patient's bill, they are in charge of the bill that the patient's insurance gets. They don't have access to or control over that information, what the hospital can provide is something else.
Another is that anything more sophisticated than "the average patient in the ED generates X dollars in charges, here are the error bars" requires significant clinical time to develop. Do you deliver the patient only ICD codes? CPT codes? One primary code vs all encounters with comorbidity? Who is "like me" for expected billing purposes is NOT an easy question.
Another is that this information is materially valuable to the hospital's "enemies" yes that means competing hospitals but also the insurance company who if they have more complete information can leverage that. Famously - hospitals go bankrupt if they only get paid in Medicare and Medicaid (which is less than cost often), extracting the most money from commercial insurance is the only way to stay afloat without significant financial subsidy from the government, with Hahnemann being the most infamous example of how that isn't usually enough. Also see the recent issues with rural hospital failure.
The last reason is that the information is beyond the average person's ability to use and can significant problems. Someone with good insurance might go to the hospital with chest pain, generate 300,000 dollars in charges for their insurance and then be on the hook for a 150 copay. If you get a piece of paper that says "1 percent of ED visits generate charges more than 250,000 dollars" then the average person will sprint away before they can be told that their insurance is never going to charge them that.
You might maintain that you will use this information sensibly and that may be true but the average person is not you and you are unlikely to be you if you are in a moment of medical extremity. The graph isn't that useful and will literally cost lives even if they aren't lives you particularly care about.
Nobody who has complained about this in this discussion or last time has really given me an example of a clinical situation where they would put this information to use. I imagine it's not running away from the hospital when they have a ruptured appendix. It's probably for trying to figure out which colonoscopy is cheaper and shit like that. That's a much more fair use case but hospitals are disincentivized from providing these numbers for multiple financial and liability reasons and it's extremely hard to legislate this given things like the difficulty in defining care settings (What's ASC? You are telling me the ED and Obs are not the hospital even though they are in the hospital and your are on a hospital floor? Oh they are for some things but not others.....blah blah).
Hospital spending is the largest single category of healthcare spending.
Fortunately, it's not true and I have all the proof I need of that.
As I said, I don't think aliens could imitate God either. Don't take the high ground about rejecting that position now.
You really don't get it. Your question is, "What if I rip all the significance out of the world? Would you still call someone by their chosen name?" And the answer is, "Why on Earth do you think a name matters?"
No, it's not about the name, it's about the person behind the name. Real life doesn't work according to definitions. If I define OracleOutlook as "the person arguing with me who has orange hair" and you don't happen to have orange hair; that doesn't mean OracleOutlook doesn't exist, it means I was wrong about who you were. Same with God. You're still mixing up identifiers with definitions.
I thought I made that clear when I brought up the hypothetical about my dad secretly having a different name, or secretly not being my actual dad.
If morality doesn't inherently proceed from God, then God cannot possibly have a perfect understanding of morality
This is not the objection.
It's the objection you made. You said "'the Ten Commandments were really our best guess at moral laws but we are not really the basis for goodness.'" You truly seem to think that God cannot be omniscient outside of classical theism.
The objection is, if morality is outside of God, then God is held to an outside standard. There is something outside God which is sovereign to God. In which case, cut out the middle man.
Again, "cut out the middle man" only makes sense if you're still in the classical theism framework. You need to understand that if the framework is wrong it is wrong.
I also believe God isn't the inventor of truth itself, nor the definition of it, nor whatever more complex thing classical theism would use to describe the idea that the concept of truth proceeds from God. 2+2=4 even if God doesn't exist. This doesn't mean God is "subject" to 2+2=4, or that it's an "outside standard he's held to", and it's utterly nonsensical to think, even if it were a standard he were held to, that one should therefore worship 2+2=4 instead. The law that 2+2=4 isn't written anywhere, it's not even necessarily a "law" at all; it's just how reality is.
If He can be evil, then following Him unreservedly is unwise.
Again, you're still within the classical theism framework. LDS theology holds that there is a 100% chance God will never be evil. He simply won't do it. "But within my framework if God can be evil he will be." OK, but if God can be evil then by definition we're already outside of your framework, and it no longer applies.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12hr ago
Pardon? You think we look at videos like the one you linked, and go "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed", or something?
Sloot
12hr ago
A Black teenage girl named Ma’Khia Bryant was killed because a police officer immediately decided to shoot her multiple times in order to break up a knife fight. Demand accountability. Fight for justice. #BlackLivesMatter.
Not the particular tweet I was expecting, but amusingly enough it was the incident I was expecting. I was expecting this classic Tweet:
Teenagers have been having fights including fights involving knives for eons. We do not need police to address these situations by showing up to the scene & using a weapon against one of the teenagers. Y’all need help. I mean that sincerely.
Throwaway05
12hr ago
My apologies but I don't really feel like we are going to have a productive conversation and we should call it here.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
12hr ago
That's actually a very good example. Thank you.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
12hr ago
Do the hospitals have the data on how much similar simple ED visits have costed in the past? If they do, literally how hard it is to literally print it out as a distribution graph and hand it to the patient?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
12hr ago
I want to register my prediction that the story of this video is far, far more complicated than what is being presented by agitprop Twitter accounts. (A bold prediction, I know.)
Is there at least a decent possibility that this girl and her sister are helpless victims of harassment by scummy Pakistani men and neglect by a heartless police bureaucracy? Sure! But we have plenty of teenagers here in America who carry weapons to use on each other, or occasionally on bystanders from outside their social class.
I have personally been harassed and threatened by roving gangs of feral kids in this country, and in many cases they were certainly no older than this girl. Now, those kids were pretty much exclusively from demographics which many people here (myself included) instinctively sort into “outgroup”, and therefore right-wingers have no difficulty taking seriously accusations against them. Like the girl in the video, those teenagers, if and when confronted by adults, effortlessly shifted from brash aggression to the performance of fear and vulnerability. (“We’re just kids! Stay away from us, you weirdo!”) It is trivially easy to see through this tactic when imagining a gang of, say, black teenage carjackers.
What Americans in particular seem not to grasp about Britain is just how terribly dysfunctional its white underclass is. American right-wingers love to smirk knowingly about stories of the rampant “knife crime” in the U.K., safe in the assumption that this is overwhelmingly a non-white phenomenon. However, Scotland and the North of England have had an entirely native class of dissolute criminal youths for a very long time. Drug abuse and broken homes have gutted these communities long before brown immigrants started showing up in any significant numbers. Yes, the mass immigration is obviously bad; it has both compounded existing problems, and introduced a slew of new ones. But trying to sort this altercation into a clear tribalist frame — “I see a white British girl and a subcontinental man, so I know everything there is to know about who’s in the right” — is widely irresponsible given the total dearth of solid information.
What I see as the likely explanation here is that these two girls, possibly as part of a larger group, were acting disorderly and aggressive in this park. The man filming and another woman (apparently his sister) either confronted the girl, or were approached by her, and began filming. He did so because he believed that, if this escalated, he would be served by having video evidence of her wielding weapons. (That way if she tried to ditch them somewhere and deny having them, he’d have counter-evidence.)
These girls are likely from a very broken family environment and may well have suffered abuse in the past — either from brown immigrants, or from their own white family members, their gangster boyfriends, etc. — and their fear in that moment could be genuine. (As could their fear of being caught.) That doesn’t make this guy wrong for filming them or approaching them. If these girls are old enough to roam around unaccompanied, carrying bladed weapons, they are also old enough to be filmed. That can be true even if their reasons for carrying the weapons end up being totally innocent/justified! Multiple people involved in this altercation can all have legitimate motivations and be acting rationally according to their perceived interests.
If the agitprop narrative ends up being fully corroborated, I won’t find it especially surprising. Obviously there have been massive negative consequences resulting from mass immigration to the U.K., including rape gangs targeting precisely this sort of dissolute underclass girl. This city, Dundee, has a foreign-born population of 9%, including apparently roughly 4,000 Asian residents. It wouldn’t be surprising if some of those guys have been caught harassing/propositioning white girls! Still, at this time we lack anything remotely close to enough evidence to confidently assume that’s what happened here.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
12hr ago
I recall being part of a student group at university (Computer Science) that aimed to explore the Apollo Moon Mission's onboard computer. My job was explaining orbital mechanics to everyone...and I completely overshot and took about an hour to do it in a 20-minute time-slot, giving far too much detail.
Somewhat later, I'd write my own (purely keplerian) orbital simulations, mostly in C#.
To some extent, nerds are all the same, no matter the time and place.
Men are more risk tolerant, novelty-seeking, and higher-earning, so it might sound counterintuitive to some that women travel more than men. Indeed, at least one article reports that 64% of worldwide travelers are women. The article mentions the male privilege of dying earlier as a possible source for the greater pool of female travelers.
Perhaps women have more free time taking more time off between jobs, or having better work-life balance jobs where they can take long stretches of time off. Women also retire earlier, if they were working at all in the first place.
Women might also care less about splurging on travel from a lifetime of not needing money to attract/entertain men, and might have a reverse-endowment effect if they're spending money they didn't fully earn themselves. This would be consistent with women being the primary drivers of consumer spending.
There are further key differences in the female vs. male traveling experience, especially for young women and young men. Women's sexual market value is automatic and portable through their looks; men's not so much as male status is more situational and contextual. Women can just show-up and have FUN things happen to them.
-
Traveling for women means having excuses to take thotty photos in exotic locations for social media; getting introduced to, invited out, taken out to cool places by local and tourist men; having a limitless selection of tour guides, monkey-dancers, and court-jesters from online dating upon arrival, the option to ride the carousel with local and/or tourist men to their heart's content. Language barriers are less of an issue because local and tourist men will make the effort to communicate with them, whether it be in the women's native language or patiently in the local language.
-
Traveling for men means having to research any place you might want to go; having to figure out where the cool spots are; competing with both local and tourist men for the limited number of tourist women; figuring out how/where to meet local women and having to grind out approaches yourself; grinding hard for weeks on social media and online dating prior to the trip to hopefully have a non-zero number of dates. Language barriers are more of an issue because local and tourist women will usually not take the initiative to attempt communication in the men's native language, and have less patience for tourist men fumbling around in the local language.
HeimrArnadalr
English Supremacist
13hr ago
some kind of incredible cognitohazardous superstimulus version of the real incident (which I had already stumbled upon, found evocative in a vacuum, and now find even more evocative given the context)
You can't just say that and not share it with the rest of us!
atelier
Jimmys: unrustled
13hr ago
I still think of that Developers Developers chant that went viral years ago and have a good chuckle. He was probably more but he'll always be a clown to me.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13hr ago
No?
Yes? I don't know about you, but I never had to pay more for coffee because the espresso machine broke down earlier that week, or because the waiter they hiree recently is slower than average and can't cover as many tables as fast.
Nobody is really calling for this
Is there a reason why you keep moving to arguments that aren't relevant to the conversation?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
13hr ago
The appeal to me is that it's true. I haven't chosen my opinions based on which ideas I liked most.
Fortunately, it's not true and I have all the proof I need of that. However, if it were true I should just commit suicide and get it over with. Maybe that's extreme, the point is I would need to reevaluate quite a lot.
You really don't get it. Your question is, "What if I rip all the significance out of the world? Would you still call someone by their chosen name?" And the answer is, "Why on Earth do you think a name matters?"
\3. If morality doesn't inherently proceed from God, then God cannot possibly have a perfect understanding of morality
This is not the objection. The objection is, if morality is outside of God, then God is held to an outside standard. There is something outside God which is sovereign to God. In which case, cut out the middle man. Also, God can now be evil. If He can't then He's not free. If He can be evil, then following Him unreservedly is unwise.
Also, He could be lying to us about morality. A classical understanding of God provides the necessary background for something that "Cannot deceive nor be deceived." Take that away and we open up both doors.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were two chav-adjacent girls doing chav-adjacent things in the park with their friends, and an innocent immigrant found himself caught up in the mix. I also wouldn't be surprised if they were indeed two Scottish girls innocently defending themselves against a molesty migrant with a knife and hatchet, in which case they can call me in a few years to fix them, but they don't need fixing. Yes, yes, I know, how brave of me to fence sit.
The online right becomes two-soyjaks-pointing when there's a potential young female heroine to simp for in pwning the libs, even if the vibe/behavior/lifestyle of said potential heroine would, ex-ante, be nominally contrary to the modal views of the online right. Funnily enough, in the AI-generated of her in Scottish garb and Celtic war paint that's making the rounds, she's still emblazoned with the Nike swoosh, which the online right would normally denounce as the ultimate symbol of globohomo. Free advertising for Nike.
Recently there was Sydney Sweeney, who somehow became a darling of the online right while being famous for getting naked and simulating sex on screen. There was Taylor Swift before her, who has a music video promoting a fictional half-black love-child, and who's about 2/3-3/4 of the way to being able to fill out an 11 v 11 football game with a list of just her known paramours (the side with the NFL tight-end would presumably be the massive betting favorite). There's somehow like an entire ecosystem of rightoid e-girl influencers—who surprise surprise, basically just thot around like any other e-girl behind the scenes.
More options
Context Copy link