domain:savenshine.com
Moreover, they can't care about it because the people that do care have infinite time to devote to political games
That's just the Iron law of Oligarchy. You will be ruled by people who care about politics more than other things. That's a given. That's how human society works.
But scientists wanted to rule themselves and have influence over policy. So now they get to fight in the mud with the politicians.
You should have stayed benign if you wanted the protection of that status.
Do you really want me to tell you that universities should not exist as such because they are State funded propaganda machines and thus undermine the very foundations of truth seeking by connecting it to power, and thus by their very structure can only be tools of modernist totalitarianism?
We can get into it. But it's off topic. And you don't seem to understand the difference between description and prescription anyways so it's a non starter.
"You can't understand the nature of politics and hold Liberal ideals" is a nonsense argument. Bertrand de Jouvenel exists. My commitment to liberty does not require me to hold any delusions about the necessity for the leader of a coalition to punish his enemies and reward his friends.
Recognizing the nature of the world is only supporting its tragedy in the mind of a child.
obesity was the result of food science creating hyperpalatability without thinking about whether it was a good idea
While the spread of over-engineered McDonald's-style fast food can't have helped, I don't think "food science" was more than a force multiplier here. There's enough palatable and addictive foodstuffs in nature and traditional recipes to build an obesity crisis. When economic development reaches a level where any idiot can buy as much chocolate and bacon as he can eat, it becomes the natural outcome with or without scientists to formulate ever more addictive forms of mass-produced slop. Sufficiently idle pre-modern noblemen became fat and gouty just fine, living off the most non-processed kind of food imaginable (game hunted from their lands).
Trump very much did not run on nuclear disarmament. The mild respectable Romney types haven’t been in charge for a while. I’m sure Romney would let UCLA get away with discriminating against Asians and Jews. But Trump and his ilk are not hypocrites for punching back.
This like when the governor of Massachusetts threatened to gerrymander her state. Can't threaten much when you've already fired all of your ammo.
Meditation, prayer, et cetera. The standard religious and spiritual practices.
I don't know how to dance with other people, especially how to dance up to a girl to get her attention. Any advice here? I often find myself dancing faster than everyone else.
Take partner dance lessons! Just do a 101, probably some type of swing. I prefer West Coast but it's a bit more complex than east coast. You could also try salsa but imo it's much harder than swing especially to start.
I'd say at an event like that deeper conversations aren't that appropriate, especially for folks you just met. Ideally you get to know them and then have a more intimate hangout/date/whatever and talk more deeply there.
Also, good on you for doing this stuff.
I get a big improvement in mental state after lifting, but it's after work 3 times a week. I used to improve my mental state by running, but my legs can't handle that and squats at the same time. What could I do on off days/daily?
Have you tried some sort of meditation? Metta especially can help with mental state, loving kindness meditation.
Also if you're in the rave scene it would probably be popular there.
I'd say the best thing to do is get him into a physical activity where he can release the anger. Martial arts, some sort of weightlifting, even boxing or chopping wood or just a punching bag or something. Some physical release where he can productively channel the anger.
Have you read DARPA grant applications? I remember (in 2005) PIs filing all kinds of "we will use micro-scale flux capacitors to create a mobile platform capable of detecting chemical and biological weapons so as to ensure American victory in the GWOT".
Interesting example given that conservatism is generally the one associated with denying evolution. And hey wait then, did you just show there was something about your own group you were accidently blind to?
Well, good luck with that. It won't work. If you're young as you say, you haven't yet experienced the crushing disappointment of realizing that the institutions that ostensibly protected these things have all been hollowed out and taken over by illiberal enemies. There's no going back. It sucks.
Why not? Trump won two elections, this second one being the popular vote win and a majority in Congress so it seems like the backlash against woke/Covid lockdowns/etc did bring about a change.
But as polling suggests, this seems to be fading away pretty quickly as he makes the same mistakes Biden did last admin. A lot of your supporters as a politician aren't dedicated idealogues, they're moderates or have their focus on other issues especially ones like prices and economic security.
I think that's part of why we see such swings between parties, they get into power and see an idealogical mandate that they don't truly have and then get pushed for it.
What are you talking about? A rational civilization will want to grow. They'd seek access to more resources. Exponential growth in population demands it.
it doesn’t address that when kids are optimized, parents want something back from that
They could legislate and move against zero-sum competitions, especially if they're a civilization composed of geniuses. We can avoid zero sum competitions and handle collective action problems sometimes. So can they. Imagine they've been through these cycles and traumas and declines many times, their history is thousands of years longer. They'd learn eventually.
A powerful civilization is not South Korea with a few more fancy gadgets, just like we are not Ancient Egypt with combustion engines. The whole structure of their society would have developed to fit with their technology base. They would be on a whole other level to us.
Perhaps there are no families and engineers are in charge of making children by carefully splicing together genes, there are no parents, only technical factors, input and output. Perhaps they're educated and raised in a series of simulations carefully orchestrated by AI so they have excellent skills and character. Perhaps they're uploaded beings that can reproduce in a tenth of a second, printing out bodies like clothes.
A conservative assumption is that they'd have biological immortality which renders fertility much less relevant.
The shifts on this one over time are fascinating and not addressed well enough that the ostensibly pro-evolution side shifted to anti-genetics
I agree it is really interesting. The left generally accepts evolution while somehow being opposed to the idea that different races could differ in other ways and I know plenty of religious folk on the right who accept genetics as an explainer for differences but can't seem to accept that divergences could add up over long periods of time for evolution. The "micro evolution not macro evolution" crowd. One of my college friends was a Southern Baptist who believed that.
I appreciate your optimism and will try to adopt some of it as my own, rather than my knee jerk pessimism. Thank you for taking on the challengers and not getting irate in this thread.
This is the internet, there are far far worse people I've dealt with.
You can only be a principled liberal if you've been oblivious to the progress of the discourse of the past decade or so. (And indeed, I was right: they were just too young to have lived through the events of the oughts.)
And although their lack of exposure to these seminal events may give them a belief in liberal idealism, it doesn't incline me to take them seriously. When you start going on about 'we freedom fighters' there's a lot of 'who, whom' to be asked about.
Do you think he'd endorse MAGA to get more funding? Because I don't.
"Look, Charles, I know you look at those organisms there and note their similarities and differences and think this is good evidence that they arose via natural selection of variations among the offspring of some parent organism. But Archbishop Wilberforce, he's looked at the same 2500 organisms and he sees in them the hand of God. How are you so sure he's the biased one and not you?"
What are the consequences for a NYT or New Yorker journalist, or Yale speaker, or children's book author, that refers to white people as a cancer, as goblins, as a deal with the devil?
It depends!
One thing that most first amendment scholars and libertarians will agree on is that private action and government action are different things. While we should still embrace freedom of speech in private proceedings, there's a difference between say, your boss firing you for your speech criticizing they had an affair and a city council gaveling you down for alleging one of them had an affair.
For a private organization like NYT or New Yorker, the consequences for such speech is on the owners of the private organization. Do they want to fire the employee? They can if they want. Do readers want to boycott over the employee? Also fine.
I would expect the same if someone said blacks were animals or Jews were parasites or anything else. The owner of a private company has editorial control over their company.
What are the consequences for a 14 year old that sang along to the wrong rap song in a Snapchat video and is trying to get accepted to college 4 years later? I assume he got in somewhere, eventually. But not his top choices.
For a public university? There should be none. For private universities it's a more difficult question. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/private-universities
I would hope they hold themselves to the standards of free speech as they often claim they do, and they should be bound to any promises they make regarding such freedoms but ultimately as FIRE puts it
It is important to note, however, that if a private college wishes to place a particular set of moral, philosophical, or religious teachings above a commitment to free expression, it has every right to do so.
And if you think about it, groups like private Christian/Jewish/Muslim religious universities wouldn't be able to exist if they were legally bound to the same standards as public ones since they would not be able to select off religion as they do.
Again I would hope that private institutions embrace free speech and free expression on their own accord, but they have every right not to.
I hear that kind of thing, but up until Trump's re-election they didn't bother providing any evidence. After, they just point at Trump, which I don't find convincing but it's better than a huffed "obviously!"
I can name two pretty big examples of the top of my head, the targeting of evolution and the targeting of climate science.
Well, good luck with that. It won't work. If you're young as you say, you haven't yet experienced the crushing disappointment of realizing that the institutions that ostensibly protected these things have all been hollowed out and taken over by illiberal enemies. There's no going back. It sucks.
Well, I more or less am one, and for obvious human emotional reasons I enjoy spending time around other ones, so subjectively to me, while I do find them unfortunately much much less common than I would wish, at least to me they don't seem so rare as finding a unicorn.
I'm not really talking about national politics, I'm talking about the petty intradepartmental stuff. Or maybe it's just "all politics is local" again.
Moreover, they can't care about it because the people that do care have infinite time to devote to political games.
The leftist war on ideas didn't win
Yet! Growth mindset. (just a joke)
they tried to silence evolution... genetics
The shifts on this one over time are fascinating and not addressed well enough that the ostensibly pro-evolution side shifted to anti-genetics. The original ostensibly anti-evolution side hasn't really changed much though.
Far more powerful threats to freedom have tried to take down the constitutional rights, the freedom fighters who don't give up keep pushing it back up.
I appreciate your optimism and will try to adopt some of it as my own, rather than my knee jerk pessimism. Thank you for taking on the challengers and not getting irate in this thread.
Yeah, the kind of person whose opinion matters is only the kind of person with political stature.
Writing some boilerplate doesn't require politics. It's indicative of someone whose political stance is to recite whatever those who care about politics care about in order to do esoteric math.
If I started beating my wife to the point that she snaps and starts physically assaulting me while holding a gun, am I able to then accuse her of "underdog bias" and talk about how I'm actually the one being attacked when she strikes back? Are you sure she's not just failing to see the ways her own side holds institutional powers/firearms unfairly?
More options
Context Copy link