domain:savenshine.com
kky
1d ago
I dunno, feels pretty fair as an opinion. The book-cookers get blocked from business, Trump gets a shorter-term injunction for orchestrating it, but because no real harm was done, the penalties are struck down as deranged and vindictive. I don’t see a better way of threading the needle between condoning fraud if you’re important enough and deciding on damages based on how much our feelings are hurt.
crushedoranges
Can Marx explain the used panties market?
1d ago
You must consider that the boyfriend is not being pigheadedly stupid and recognizes the offer on the table: and she is really that bad. That even a life of easy living is not worth the trouble of marrying this particular woman.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
I don't know, a bit of naivety in a girl is cute... but being able to keep up intellectually, and even contribute to an intellectual conversation, is beautiful.
kky
1d ago
It’s a strange sentiment to me… I’ve never really thought it or felt it. Idiocy in a girl kind of gives me a sinking feeling, “oh no… ugh.” Intelligence is interesting and makes me want to stick around. I guess I’m the odd duck if people are stating it so confidently, though.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1d ago
Maybe he has other aspirations?
"Desolate Ancient Moon looked at him with pity, but her voice was tranquil: 'Rockman, I did not want to kill you. But you blocked my path to success.'"
Tao Zhu also comes to mind on the topic of RI and blowing a cute wife and huge wealth... Also, people can just be dumb without higher meaning in their actions.
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
1d ago
My brother in $deity, you do this every week, and also in the Fun Thread. I look forward to those posts, but I think it makes a powerful statement.
kky
1d ago
Yeah, I’m not very sympathetic to Roberts here. This precise case is, I believe, best read as a naked power struggle between the voters and the legislators. The latter had a privilege the former believed was being misused and wanted stripped from them. The defense of the legislature was best read as “you don’t have the right to tell us what to do, only we can decide whether we have this power (or Congress with an amendment), and we say no.”
Given this, what recourse would the voters have? They’d have to make this a single issue or else give up. And I’m really not sympathetic to the idea that a certain class - and politicians are by now definitely a class - deserves inalienable privileges over the rest.
Finally, his example of senator elections is trite. The question for senators was formally, how those elections should be operated. That obviously requires an amendment, since it’s changing a specific process. The point of the section on state elections is that the details are deferred to the state. Nothing more is specified beyond “the legislature.” Would Roberts have objected to a legislature voting for their own independent districting body on the basis that the Constitution forbids it? Or if you want something even wackier - the US Constitution does not specify the political structure of the states (beyond saying that the federal government will ensure they can have a republic, which was not defined as the American structure prior to America)! That is done by the state constitutions, individually. It is convention that they all resemble one another. But if a state rewrote its constitution to move the legislative power to something like, say, a series of elected bureaux, what in the Constitution would forbid this? Is this not a power delegated to the states? And then would “Legislature” in the Constitution refer to the legislating bodies, or to nothing at all, rendering the point moot? Or what if, oh, I don’t know, the state had rewritten its constitution to allow voters to legislate through the ballot? Does that include them in the legislating body? If not, then was the ballot initiative law unconstitutional? How can there be one without the other, when the Constitution does not state explicitly what structure it wants the states to have?
Roberts’ dissent is beyond specious. I rest my case.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
1d ago
Thank you for responding. You bring up a good point--when I mentioned that dad is the model, I did not mention or consider (though it is relevant) the idea of genetics. In some ways I see my wife in both our sons--my oldest seems to have no concept of how to be on time, for example, which is a trait my wife (though she is Japanese, thus against stereotype) has, while I am nearly always very early for everything.
So in your case Junior is a chip off the old angry block?
Again, the vagueness of your description makes the advice here very reddit-y (i.e. useless) because no one here knows what's going on. Reading the tea leaves and pattern-matching to our own experience can only go so far. It's true, as others have said, boys need outlets, boys need male role models (see my earlier post alluding to my What Would Dad Do? tendencies) and if your son doesn't have any that's something you should consider--though much of modern mainstream society tells us lesbian couples and villages of women are perfectly capable of raising non-toxic males who will wash the dishes, never raise their voices, and help mom replace the carburetor and caulk the bathroom tiles when needed (I'm showing my age referencing carburetors), I would bet large amounts of money that this is a myth. A boy needs some sort of male figure in his life and on a regular basis, preferably way more than one. (This could be uncles, or even trustworthy neighbors, coaches, youth pastors, older brothers, etc.) Usually life takes care of this on its own due to family juxtaposition, or--at least when I was in school--the way boys are filtered into groups of boys doing sports and girls into girls doing sports. I have no idea what happens now. (Do girls play in shirts and skins games?)
I am not suggesting to throw him back in with a man you consider volatile and unstable (again, I'm relying on your adjectives, no one here can truly read your situation. You could be either an over-reactive shrew or a knowing Cassandra, you've a small comment count so it's hard to know.) But it's something @Iconochasm has already suggested: male role models.
Is this going to be an insta-fix? Probably not. Good start, though. I'd agree that even the very best-case scenario with medication and a lot of caring female souls around him would be that you create a docile male who stays home a lot, has para-social relationships with Youtubers he never meets, and will double check with you if he's wearing the right shirt, at age twenty. Which, hey, I think a lot of women want that. I'd argue that that's not an ideal outcome.
Is he interested in any sports? I'm not saying throw him in football if he's 130 pounds, but even someone at 130 lbs can run track or play tennis or pickleball or join the swim team. You'll see a difference if he's regularly exerting himself physically. Again, though, mom needling him "Get up and do sports!" is a recipe for a backdraft explosion. Ideally he would have dudes who are friends joining sports teams. Parenting can be hard.
I had to look up AuDHD. From what I am reading, this is not actually considered a clinical diagnosis? It was referred to on one website as an "unofficial but popular" term. This bears consideration, as unofficial but popular smells of making-shit-up. (Though I am not a medical doctor or psychiatrist.)
Throwaway05
1d ago
Yeah it's a problem as old as the republic and has a buncha good to go with the bad - making a minority district so the minority actually gets a representative instead of just getting diluted is a good thing. Or a bad thing?
...It's deeply complicated.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
I mean, there's that point up in the thread OP:
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
There are cases where one can actually pull the "yes, ALL OF THEM" card and make it stick, and those are all right AFAIK assuming the logic's either laid out or obvious. Like, for instance, "all serial killers are hostis humani generis"; a serial killer is someone who kills people for no reason other than liking killing people, and that really does create a fundamental conflict between a serial killer and any society he belongs to. It's just, most sweeping generalisations that get said are exaggerations, and exaggerations about people are high-heat-low-light because their translation matrices are not the identity matrix (causing confusion) and because people really hate false negative claims about themselves (causing flared tempers).
Or in less words, it's to avoid dishonest debating and the usual result of such i.e. degeneration into a poo-flinging contest.
kky
1d ago
Gerrymandering as a term dates to 1812. Some gerrymanders are more egregious than others, but the practice is very hard to expunge. It’s also limited by the fact that the canvas these districts are painted on, and the political parties themselves, are ever-shifting. A gerrymander can only ever be a temporary success. If a party gets too strong, and too unrepresentative, people will successfully organize to take it down a notch. That’s how it’s always been.
I’d relax about this particular problem. Unless your specific qualm is that you’re a Democrat in Texas and are worried about being disenfranchised. In that case I fully understand your concern and would recommend you view it as a personal issue (and move states) or a local issue (and organize with state Democrats to undermine Republican rule by adopting a more Texan-palatable local platform). I wouldn’t think of this as the end of Democracy in America. It’s just the usual political grift. Unpleasant but sustainable.
WandererintheWilderness
1d ago
I should hate the tiger that is trying to eat me
…Wait, what? Why? Feeling hatred for a non-sapient animal seems bizarre to me. Never mind whether it's ever good to feel hatred even about fellow human beings - I find your example baffling on its own terms. You may as well hate a thunderstorm when it threatens your town, or rage against the concept of gravity as you're falling off a bridge. Like… you can hate any one of those things if you really want, I guess. By definition it's not like they're going to mind. But it seems deeply pointless, bordering on maladaptive. I certainly don't see why you "should" hate the tiger, whether that's a moral argument of a practical one. If it's a moral one, what has the tiger done to 'deserve' hatred that the concept of gravity has not? If it's a practical one, what does hating the tiger accomplish that is not better accomplished, and in less stressful a way for you, by dispassionately, rationally accounting for the tiger's behavior, or indeed, by simply being afraid of the tiger?
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '24
1d ago
Norms only matter insofar as they're supported by a belief in a level playing field. Outside of boomers and some nothing-ever-happens centrists, both left and right seem to believe that the other side is an existential threat that cannot be stopped within the boundaries of our current norms, and so the shredding will continue at an increasing speed. At this point, all democratic norms should be considered pre-shredded, they are in a stack next to the shredder waiting their turn. The only reason they have not yet all been shredded is that the shredder operator works with an urgency that is proportional to the amount of political unrest in the U.S., which is currently only at a moderate simmer.
There's no reversing this until either both sides believe the other is acting in good faith, or (IMO) more likely the losing side is shut out from power and the winning side splits into two factions with enough political common ground to trust one another to uphold a new set of norms.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1d ago
Okay, but I was not talking about him, I was talking about Sigal Chattah.
MaximumCuddles
The world-spirit texting on the toilet
1d ago
You’re interpretation is the correct one, which I thought was rather obvious. It was a paraphrase of an earlier comment I made about a similar subject;
There comes a point when a house is so pockmarked with termites and water damage that the only sensible solution is the wrecking ball.
Are there some sections still good and salvageable? Yes. Could you theoretically save sections of the house? Yes but the time and effort needed makes the opportunity cost too high.
Or to put it in more bloody terms it’s like Iwo Jima; eventually you just learn to throw grenades in every cave and light fires at every entrance. Sometimes there’s enemies there and sometimes not. There may or may not be scant civilians clinging to life in the caves.
The rational conclusion is to not care, and go forward in a workmanlike manner and get it done, and quickly. Delays only serve to weaken you.
Which is why I found this ban to be particularly annoying even if it was so brief.
But I’m a bit surprised that it’s against the rules to say something to the effect of it being rational to consider an entire institution including every single member a target. That’s not what I was saying exactly but that’s a perfectly legitimate point of view.
YE_GUILTY
2d ago
"After an incident involving an undersea nuclear test, Forrest and Dan turn out to be the only shrimpers catching non-radioactive shrimp..."
Ponder
2d ago
I don't know how to dance
The neat thing about the rave scene is you can do flow arts instead. Usually, you can find a few people that just enjoy watching and complimenting you even if you are beginner. It also gives you a reason to talk to the other flow artists to ask how you can get better.
brought a polaroid camera
Another thing that might work well in the rave scene is to make friendship bracelets (referred to as kandi in the rave scene). Put words/jokes on them and then you can give them to people who look like they would vibe with the bracelet.
I don't really know how to flirt
This is where being in a slightly altered state can help. It helps your intuition take over even though you can’t logically think it through. I like to use Phenibut (but only up to once a week and never mix it with other CNS depressants). Micro (or a very light dose) of psychedelics might work if it doesn’t make you anxious.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2d ago
Which doesn’t matter at all because we basically never lived in a true democracy. I’m just kind of tired of the elite playing games as if they’re actually worried about the votes of the plebs.
birb_cromble
2d ago
Wonderful. Another norm for the shredder.
I'm not sure if that norm wasn't shredded years ago. I've been hearing complaints of gerrymandering since at least Bush II, and that's only because I wasn't really paying attention before that.
In your opinion, what makes this qualitatively different than past instances of gerrymandering?
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
2d ago
Not an Israeli government official.
I was talking about the Israeli government official involved in the case - Tom Artiom Alexandrovich (who has such a slavic name I would not be surprised if he was the descendant of one of the ethnic Russians who snuck in rather than an actual jew). The claim I believed I was making (my apologies if I was unclear) was that people who work directly under Netanyahu in the Israeli government are all zionists, not that all jews are zionists.
Sure. Names will be withheld to protect the guilty innocent, but yes.
No_one
2d ago
One of those guys..
I've heard good things about the books but every time I opened one in bookshop /online & an excerpt it looked illgical/ silly liberal/commie/green idiot stuff so I never read any of it. I like near future SF but pious liberals at least need to make some sense (e.g. C.Stross)
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
2d ago
· Edited 1d ago
For the sake of argument:
Dude with an IQ of 130. Girl with an IQ of 90. Her parents and sibling are roughly 130.
The heritability of IQ is between 0.5-0.8. Let's run with 0.6.
Mid parental IQ is 110.
Deviation from population mean: 110 - 100 = 10 With heritability of 0.6: Expected deviation = 10 * 0.6 = 6
Expected IQ = 100+6 = 106
My understanding is that this would have an SD of about 10-15 points.
If the girl too had an IQ of 130, the expected value would be 118, which is a big jump.
I'm not quite sure how to account for the fact that in the 90 IQ scenario, the girl is more likely to have environmental contributors that lower IQ rather than genetic issues. I'm not Cremieux. All else being equal, 12 IQ points is a big deal! I'd pay a lot to have my kids come out with an additional 12 points. I would fistfight a dog smaller than a labrador for a mere five.
Why not 'neither is quality?'
The question of a reason is neither answered or addressed by pointing to a boo group. Even if we were to agree that the boo group is not [good quality], it does not imply that the alternative is thus [good quality]. They can both be [bad quality].
A fresh and youthful attitude is lovely and joyous. Is that what people mean by retarded, do you think? What, do you have to be jaded and brooding to be intelligent?
Well, whatever. I’m in agreement with you in any case.
More options
Context Copy link