domain:x.com
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
52m ago
Because 1 clearly doesn't work?
4bpp
After January 20th, all orange flairs are considered political
52m ago
Is there a difference between this level of "not taking [the principle] literally", and it just not being the real principle? If you can "misread" international law as "the US and those in good standing with it should be the arbiters of what is permissible between nations", then you can also misread "do not kill humans even if they are of negative age" as "women should be raising children, not fucking around", and in both cases I would say it's not so much that you don't believe anything, as that you believe the latter but realise that touting that principle is a bad look/likely to decrease support for you.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
52m ago
Your objections are
- Ted Cruz doesn't know the population of Iran
- You don't like Ted Cruz's interpretation of scripture
- You don't like Ted Cruz's SUPPORT of Israel
- Religious people (Huckabee) using religious language.
- An uncorroborated claim that Bush didn't know there was difference between Sunni and Shia
- A similarly uncorroborated claim that Bush used religious language speaking to Chirac
- Various claims, from his enemies, of Trump being unable or unwilling to read
- Biden's senility
- Democratic trans policy.
From this you conclude "There are serious structural problems with how America selects its politicians if this is the calibre of talent that's drawn into positions of great power." But this is mostly a Gish gallop. Cruz certainly fucked up not knowing the population of Iran. But neither Cruz's interpretation of scripture nor Cruz's open support of Israel support that. Nor does the use of religious language; you may find it embarrassing but it doesn't indicate a lack of talent. The various claims mostly from tell-all books published much later (and usually disputed) are pretty much worthless as evidence. As are claims reported in the press about Trump in general. Biden's senility is only weak evidence of a problem with selection; it seems clear his senility got much worse after he was elected. And perhaps I'm being uncharitable, but I'm pretty sure Democratic politicians CAN tell the difference between men and women, but they lie about it for policy reasons; they're evil, not stupid.
My point is that saying something like "our society should push not having premarital sex" is stupid because it doesn't work.
I'm not sure how I would analyze that. Someone in the past might have said that it was similarly stupid to push not smoking. Yet, we did, and major changes occurred. There are all sorts of mechanisms by which a society could push such a thing. Those various mechanisms might have different effects. It's pretty strange to me to lump them all together carelessly. It seems to be actively missing the point to lump them all under "we should simply tell them to not have sex", as if they're all actually equivalent to that. I think it would have been similarly stupid to say that all methods of pushing to reduce smoking are equivalent to "simply telling people to not smoke".
My main point is that it's doubly difficult to analyze how effective various methods could be, given a society that has been pushing for ubiquitous premarital sex for decades. It's just seriously difficult to reason about, and flippant takes like yours are not even really serious attempts at doing so.
EDIT: I will note that my original response was with respect to your statement:
How is convincing western populations not to do this going?
Again, this makes it sound like this is a thing that is actively being pursued. That's sort of the opposite of reality.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1hr ago
We did a bit of a dosey do here.
I responded to a guy (who I now realize is not you) who was saying "don't have premarital sex" by being snippy, then you responded to my response with something that I actually agree with but was kind of different than what I was saying, so I felt slightly confused and restated what I was going at to clarify.
I don't think society is pushing "don't have premarital sex" , it obviously isn't. My point is that saying something like "our society should push not having premarital sex" is stupid because it doesn't work. It's basically "Santa Clause for Christmas I'd like a pony" level of policy discussion.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1hr ago
I've been there
Charge inaccurate hours to make sure you don't come off as inefficient or underutilised? Well the number is all fake anyway, so why track hours in the first place? Timekeeping ends up being a pointless part of the job, a metric that can be optimised for greatest manager and partner satisfaction, but provides zero actual value
Just do this. Just make your boss happy. The best part about timesheets being fake is you don't even need to worry about it. Every Friday just do a vibes based analysis of your work that week, ensuring that 1) you hit utilization and 2) you weight your hours towards the biggest files so no one gets mad about going over budget
So many things in large bureaucratic organizations are stupid wastes of time. So just play the game, fly under the radar, and the second you make senior or manager retire to industry.
Also warning, tax departments at large dinosaur(ish) corporations like telecoms are incredibly burnt. You won't have much to do and you'll be bored out of your mind. Great if you want kids though.
Why doesn't Ted Cruz know the population of Iran? And what is with him generally? Or the whole upper echelons of the US govt?
I reference a recent Tucker Carlson interview with Cruz, where it turns out he didn't know said population (and has since responded with an AI meme image of Tucker asking Luke the population of the Death Star).
Turns out that the population of Iran is 92 million, I thought it was around 80. 80 would be a fairly reasonable answer. Even Yemen is surprisingly populous, around 41 million. Fun game to try - estimate the population of various countries in these areas.
I thought Ted Cruz was supposed to be super-smart, wouldn't it be natural to read up on Iran? He is on the Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism. It's also relevant to US strategic choices and his particular love of Israel. Knowing about the subpopulations and relative size of the Azeris, Kurds and similar would be relevant to regime change, which is his professed goal:
Senator Ted Cruz has explicitly stated that he wants regime change in Iran. He said on Fox News, “I think it is very much in the interest of America to see regime change,” and that there is “no redeeming the ayatollah” regime. Cruz has called for collapsing the Iranian regime, comparing it to the Cold War-era strategy used against the Soviet Union, and has criticized the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, pushing for stronger actions against Iran.
To his credit he does know that Iran is Persian and predominantly Shia. And maybe being on a bunch of other subcommittees means he has to divide up his time and energy in all these different areas. But it's not like Tucker is asking really sophisticated questions about the position and integration of Azeri elites in the Tehran power structure. That really should be dealt with by an expert diplomat. But senators are supposed to be making strategic decisions, one has to have some base of knowledge to decide upon different courses of action.
Cruz also thinks that the Bible requires Christians to support the nation of Israel, which is somewhat non-mainstream in theology: "Where does my support for Israel come from, number 1 we're biblically commanded to support Israel". Tucker tries to ask 'do you mean the government of Israel' and Cruz says the nation of Israel, as if to say it's common-sense that the nation of Israel as referred to in the Bible is the same as the state of Israel today. It seems like he's purposely conflating the dual meanings of nation as ethnic group and nation as state, which is a stupid part of English.
Also Cruz said to Tucker "I came into Congress 13 years ago with the stated intention of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States”. How would this help in the context of a hostile interview, does he think that's a helpful thing to say? I can only imagine that Cruz thinks this is a winning issue, he wants to play hard rather than go down the wishy-washy 'Judeo-Christian' values route. Is declaring your devotion to a foreign country really that popular in America?
Trump also posted this somewhat ominous diatribe from Mike Huckabee (pastor and ambassador to Israel) praising Trump's divine prominence, his position similar to 'Truman in 1945' and how he has to listen to god and the angels only... https://x.com/Mondoweiss/status/1934999328583713096/photo/1
This episode reminds me of how George W Bush apparently didn't know of the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam until after deciding to invade, he brought up Gog and Magog when trying to persuade Chirac to join the war. Maybe that's false, some have disputed it. Or how Trump apparently won't read any long extracts of text and demands pictures. Maybe that's also false, lots of stories have been made about Trump policy. It's known that Biden didn't know whether people were alive or dead or what was happening much of the time. Large swathes of the Democrats can't tell the difference between men and women.
Here's another one I just found from another US congressman: https://x.com/VoteRandyFine/status/1839686465820766542
There is a reason the first time I shook @netanyahu‘s hand, I did not wash it until I could touch the heads of my children.
That's just weird!
There are serious structural problems with how America selects its politicians if this is the calibre of talent that's drawn into positions of great power. At the risk of sounding like an edgy atheist fighting a war everyone's tired of and moved on from years ago, surely theology should have no place in grand strategy. It's normal to have colourful characters in politics, some corruption, some old people who don't know what's going on, a certain level of lobbying. But this seems to be on a qualitatively different level, with serious results.
Lizzardspawn
1hr ago
Shotguns also are good in reducing polygamy/polyandry to monogamy.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
anyone who says "we should simply tell them to not have sex"
Good thing I'm not doing that. Perhaps I need to repeat my claims?
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
1hr ago
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
You might have the causality reversed. Average age of first marriage rose significantly after a societal push to embrace ubiquitous premarital sex.
The far-right (which includes most people on this website)
I'm gonna go one step further than Amadan on this and actually give you a (mild) warning here: bring evidence in proportion with your partisanship, but be particularly careful about how you characterize "this site," as doing so tends to fall into the problem of consensus building.
It has been a while since we had a thorough demographic poll, and "far-right" is probably a moving target, but the mainstream meaning is something like "identitarian right" or "authoritarian right"--white nationalists, especially, though probably not exclusively. I do think there are some white nationalists who post here, but they are a small minority. All the demographic information available to me suggests that the site 's userbase has a "grey tribe" plurality, which is tough to classify but most often shows up in approximately "centrist libertarian" land over on /r/politicalcompassmemes.
It's possible that you have fallen into the same trap that many blue tribe institutions have fallen into, basically using "far-right" as a sloppy shorthand (or outright smear) for literally anything to their right, or even just anything that they don't like. I don't know whether you have used the term purposefully, or incorrectly, or sloppily, which is why you should consider this a mild warning, but in general you're better off just not characterizing the userbase here at all: address individual arguments, then individuals, then specific groups if necessary, then general groups only with extreme care and much evidence. "This site" is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
Notably, this was not part of the original violinist argument. It was pretty clear from the original violinist argument that they were positing a cabal of music fans kidnapping someone in the middle of the night and attaching them without consent. This version is getting close to my preferred analogy - rock climbing.
When two people go rock climbing, they intend to have a little fun. They 'hook up', using the best safety equipment possible, intending to make the probability of an issue be as low as possible. But Murphy's law happens, snake eyes come up, and your partner ends up dangling at the end of a rope attached to you. Maybe that rope is causing you a little discomfort; maybe it's threatening minor rope burn; maybe it's threatening one of your limbs; maybe it's threatening your life. Lots of possible variations to handle a variety of scenarios people want for abortion. I don't think people are nearly as likely to say that you can choose to pull out your pocket knife and intentionally cut the rope, knowing that it will surely lead to your partner's death, completely regardless of what the danger is, all the way to the case where there is literally no real danger, just that they are relying on you to not cut the rope.
More generally, the idea of prospective consent exists elsewhere in the consent literature. The classic example is Odysseus asking to be tied to the mast. It would normally be objectionable for his men to tie him to the mast (or to keep him tied) against his objection. He had reason to believe that his future self would protest profusely, demanding to be untied, but we respect his original consent to overcome his later objections. A related example is the skydiver example. A new skydiver might know that they have a fear reaction to actually jumping out of a plane. It is normally not allowed for someone to just strap their bodies together and throw them out of the plane. But the new skydiver can prospectively consent, saying, "I know that I'm going to protest when we're standing on the edge, but I still want you to pull me off the plane with you."
Nearly all of contract law is an attempt to enforce prospective consent to things that you might not want to do at a future time. Even the most basic, "You give me stuff now, and I'll pay you money later," when at a later time, after having received the stuff, one might protest and want to withdraw their consent to paying the money. But there are clear responsibility laws/rules/norms in gobs of different situations. Commercial passenger pilots, for example, are known to have taken on a responsibility to stay in their airplane and try to save it and the lives of their passengers, even when they might want to just grab a parachute and leave the passengers to somehow save themselves. I think many people would also consider that to be literal murder.
Botond173
1hr ago
the victorious British (if they were lucky) or French (if not) troops
Care to explain the distinction?
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1hr ago
Brother, I saw the words "emotional damage" in your initial post and combined with the fact you haven't even had sex?
This isn't worth it, this isn't worth it at all. Run, run run run and put your energy (and newly learned lessons) into someone who you can actually see/smell/touch, also also hopefully who generates less emotional damage
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1hr ago
I mean yes? I'm not sure what that has to do with this but it's true
anon_
1hr ago
Bring James Carville back in some very visible fashion.
[ Unfortunate given his made-for-radio face, but oh well ]
sun_the_second
1hr ago
I see no shortage of conservatives assuming their opponents are stupid, insane, satanically evil or all three.
If your definition of "basic self-respect" is "take advantage of everyone in any way that the authorities tacitly allow (or don't punish hard enough to matter for you), and if they were weaker than you they deserved it anyway", then I suppose you're correct by your definition.
The way I remember it is that he did it utterly regardless of whether or not they did anything to wrong him, he only didn't take all their money so that it wouldn't completely invalidate the allowance the academy was giving (and thus invite harsh measures), and while he went unpunished it wasn't something that was regularly done by the biggest kid on the block.
Your logic is confused.
The majority of US states are (still) allowing underage marriage (age 16 or 17) if a parent or other legal guardian consents, but that doesn’t mean that parents can legally force a marriage against the will of their child.
Or if in a restraining order a judge forbids you to get near someone, that doesn’t give the judge the power of an “anti-restraining order” where you must stalk someone.
There are many (state) law exemptions making underage drinking legal when provided or in the presence of a family member. But that doesn’t mean your parents can legally force you to get black out drunk.
If my rent contract specifies that I am not allowed to paint walls black, that doesn’t mean my landlord can force me to paint the walls white. That would need to be another term in the contract.
Terracotta
2hr ago
If this is a TikTok/ Twitter/ Insta thing, have you considered that the algorithmic video influencer mechanic is also what brought us mukbang, cinnamon challenges, contour makeup, Lil Tay, faking your own death for clout, etc. etc.?
The bad guy in a pro wrestling match is not actually trying to kill anybody with a folding chair, the monster truck with the teeth decals is not actually trying to eat the cars. The crazy infuriating shit influencers say (or their followers parrot) is not actually representative of what sane people act on in their personal lives.
Dean
Flairless
2hr ago
You're probably thinking of the time Justice Jackson claimed that black children are nearly twice as likely to survive if they have a black physician. This was part of her dissent in the Harvard admissions case, in which her dissent was in favor of Harvard's racial discrimination practices.
She was making an argument that racial admissions are a matter of life and death, because the lives of black children hinge on racial preferences getting black doctors into schools like Harvard, with the proof being the (bad) study.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2hr ago
I think it’s the narrative liberals tend to tell themselves in which the only reason someone disagrees with the liberal position is that they have a defect, either moral, intellectual, or in cases where they feel charitable, educational. You didn’t, according to this narrative, study the issues and come to a different conclusion. You came to that conclusion because you’re stupid or uneducated unless you just somehow get off on hurting people. So when white wine moms talk to you about why you came to the wrong conclusion, they assume that they’re talking to a lesser being not as evolved or educated as they are.
Conservatives don’t have quite the same narrative. They don’t assume that their liberal counterparts never studied the issue, they assume that they’re perhaps sheltered and get their information from biased sources. But that doesn’t make you stupid or uninformed.
Did you read the dissent? Heightened scrutiny applies when the state makes legal distinctions based on sex. Any reasonable reading of the Tennessee law does this. If a 13-year-old girl starts developing unwanted facial hair, a doctor can prescribe certain medications that he would be prohibited from prescribing if a 13-year-old boy had the same complaint. You can argue semantics and say that this technically wouldn't be a prescription to treat gender dysphoria, but I don't think the legislature's goal was to make sure doctors coded such prescriptions differently. You don't have to agree with this interpretation, but saying that it's so completely devoid of reasoning so as to question the intelligence of the person who expressed it doesn't make sense.
More options
Context Copy link