domain:youtu.be
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
21m ago
Hostile work environment doctrine was introduced to prevent employers from evading discrimination laws by, say, hiring black people but making fun of them for their race at work so that blacks simply wouldn't want to work there.
Ah, but telling white people that they are harmful or evil or oppressors due to their race is A-OK? Because that's the order of the day at some employers (including the well-documented case of Google) who dismiss for "hostile workplace" directed against their favored groups.
My take is that its the fragmented regulatory, consumer and financial markets that are the biggest problems here. It's not that there is a ton of regulation its that there are 20+ versions of the onerous regulations.
It's too difficult to scale a business in europe because despite efforts and the goal of the EU it is in no way a single market. When you want to scale your business rather than just export consumer products this becomes a massive issue, which is why every notable new company in europe usually starts in their own country (and perhaps very similar neighbours) and then rather than expanding into Europe they launch in America and eventually list themselves there, and only then start expanding into the rest of Europe.
Just "assholes"? On my scale, if they're "assholes" then that automatically elevates Kirk to "kind" and "nice".
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
23m ago
Now there is actually a (semi) synoptic gospel that does tell us it was recorded by an eyewitness the gospel of Thomas.
Gospel of Thomas is a different situation because it's young, likely 3rd Century, doesn't have 2nd century sources quoting it or talking about it, and the early Church did not treat it as of Apostolic origin. The early church treated Luke/Acts as having Apostolic origin and they had access to lots more sources than we do today.
Similar response to the Apocalypses of Peter. It's young and doesn't have popular attestation to Apostolic origin.
I am not arguing that every writing throughout history has been entirely honest, not propaganda, etc. The gnostic gosples are examples of people lying through their teeth to create their own cults where they have special knowledge people can't get through the (small-c intentional) catholic Church. A comparison might be made to the Book of Mormon in modern times.
However Luke/Acts does have popular acclimation of Apostolic origin. Luke uses "we" in Acts to describe him going on trips that match up with his presence in letters of Paul.
Another interesting thing, Paul quotes gLuke as scripture:
1 Timothy 5:17–18: Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching; for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The labourer deserves to be paid.”
Maybe you will argue that Timothy isn't a genuine Pauline letter but as you can imagine I'm not very persuaded by such arguments so far.
I've always felt like Bart Ehrman has just wildly different intuitions than I do to the point where we are reading completely different New Testaments. It's a personal failing of mine, but I saw him in a debate start to lose and then go on a rant saying (approximately): "If it were all true that would be horrible! It would mean gay people shouldn't get married and evil things happen and God lets them happen! It can't be true!" I wish I could find it again without watching dozens of hours of debates but his arguments haven't had the same credibility to me since then.
Acts has the martyrdom of Stephen and James in it. I disagree that Luke would shy away from Paul's martyrdom as some kind of defeat of Paul or his preaching, when so far he's treated martyrdom as a crown jewel on someone's life. Stephen gets one of the longest sermons recorded in the Bible before he "fell asleep."
Also something not explained by Ehrman's quote is why does Luke say Paul was in Rome for 2 years, instead of 5? It's almost certain that Paul was in Rome for more than 2 years.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
24m ago
They are also often assholes about it.
gattsuru
24m ago
The notices bulge one is a furry meme, rather than trans. (Not even girls-with-dicks side of furry, afaik; I've seen it more from the gay side, and not just in the sense that I would see more of the gay side.) Kinda has escaped containment since it originated as a bit of an anti-furry thing making (fair) mockery of cringy RP conventions, so might just be general too-online reference.
Rov_Scam
25m ago
You can talk about edge cases all you want, but there's a Chesterton's Fence element here too. Hostile work environment doctrine was introduced to prevent employers from evading discrimination laws by, say, hiring black people but making fun of them for their race at work so that blacks simply wouldn't want to work there. "You can work here, but it will be hell" doesn't exactly advance the aims of the Civil Rights Act. You can argue that in some instances courts have gone too far, but you can do that with respect to any doctrine. When discussing tradeoffs, guys being able to look at porn at work isn't going to win against making it difficult for women to be employed there.
HereAndGone
25m ago
Gay marriage, specifically, was about equal rights
It was about more than taxes and hospital visits, the compromises around civil/domestic unions and partnerships would have given them that. They wanted marriage and nothing less, to force it into the mainstream. Whether or not breaking the last few shreds of bonds holding civil marriage together was worth it for society in the long run, it was a very successful tactic.
However, now there is no reason to treat "only two persons" as the sacred inviolable unchangeable number, so why not "these three or more people really, really love each other and only want to be able to file taxes and visit each other in the hospital?" when it comes to poly marriage down the line? We've generally increased the age at which it's legal to get married, but why not lower it (e.g. if we're going to bring the voting age down to 16, or if we think 14 year olds are mature enough to be having sex and using contraception) in future?
We've now reduced marriage to "the state must recognise we love each other until the time we don't and want to break up" and that's it.
A set of statements in simple argument form:
-
Free speech (as a concept, not just under the 1A) is generally good. Certainly preferable to open violence.
-
Belief in and support of Free speech requires you to allow people to actually speak.
-
Killing someone who ONLY engaged in speech is very bad. Full stop.
-
If you support and celebrate killing someone over mere speech, you do not believe in free speech (see 2).
-
If you do not believe in free speech, you're estopped from complaining if your own speech is curtailed or punished. Stated differently, we are not required to extend the protection of certain moral/ethical rules to people who openly reject them.
-
Therefore, cancelling someone for speech celebrating murder (see 4.) is easily morally permissible (see 3, we won't kill them, but we can do other things in response).
-
And a step further, it actually helps protect the concept of free speech to punish those who openly do not believe in or support it.
-
Therefore, actively identifying and cancelling people who are open about their rejection of free speech... is good.
Which of these do you disagree with, or think fallacious?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
29m ago
Because he was not a very nice person? He was very often a rude asshole. Please, watch this clip and tell me Kirk in it could be described as "kind" and "nice."
Just for calibration, If that's "rude asshole", what do you call people cheering on his death?
Rov_Scam
30m ago
Maybe, but it's hard to tell. If I'm an employer I have reasons for not wanting employees to tell nigger jokes at work or request blowjobs from female staff regardless of the liability situation, and as a matter of public policy we don't want employers to encourage the above as an end-around to avoid anti discrimination laws. The law involves tradeoffs, and most people's desire to bring politics into non-political jobs, or hear about other people's politics, is outweighed by the desire to prevent real discrimination. Talking about the apparatus of oppression only makes sense in this instance if you're talking about the employer's interest, because there's no free speech guarantee when you're on somebody else's time.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
31m ago
I'm really struggling to see how any of this is actually about academia qua academia.
Wait, when you said "these people" you meant academics? I thought we're talking about progressives. I don't think academics are bad, though I'm extremely frustrated with their complicity. In fact, the reason I'm all Something Must Be Done about this whole thing, is that I think academia is pretty important to society.
ISTM that the goal would be some form of reducing that influence or the effectiveness thereof, rather than detonating all of academia, itself. Would that at least be a reasonable statement of a plausible goal?
Yeah, but the reduction has to be pretty drastic (even if it takes time). The levels of their dominance over the institution seems to be fairly massive.
HereAndGone
32m ago
God's law in stoning people like you to death
Old Testament law, now we are under the New Testament grace, not law (since Kirk was a Christian, not a Jew). I think the problem has arisen from American Protestants hammering the Old Testament and ignoring the New except for the epistles of St. Paul.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
34m ago
Why?
Because he was not a very nice person? He was very often a rude asshole. Please, watch this clip and tell me Kirk in it could be described as "kind" and "nice."
Wouldn't you want someone who believes in God's law in stoning people like you to death to make arguments to peacefully convince others through persuasion that this is correct?
No I would prefer they shut up and keep their opinions to themselves.
The most likely alternative to that seems to be using violence to actually enact God's law (something that we know God's followers have historically not been shy about doing). And that tends to be less pleasant - and often more effective, sadly - than argumentation pretty often.
I don't know. I get the sense that if Kirk personally tried to enact God's law the most likely outcome is he would be dead or in prison from the attempt. That could be better than convincing a large number of people that gay people should be stoned to death for being gay.
Like, maybe his opinions were evil or beyond the pale or whatever. But he did seem rather nice and kind in how he tried to persuade people of his evil opinions. I think if both people with evil and good opinions decided to emulate his way of being nice and kind while commentating, I think America would be a better, safer place, especially for the types of people that would unfairly suffer if all the people who thought like Kirk decided to eschew scruples around niceness and kindness.
I defy you to watch the clip above and tell me that Kirk is "nice" and "kind" in it.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
35m ago
Discord is a stand in (though a solid one) for all the various pozzed environments people let their kids simmer in without even thinking twice about it.
I've seen gloating on twitter that this kid is a right winger (because his parents are right wing), that the kid is antifa (because of statements he made to family about Kirk's "hateful" rhetoric and the messages written on the weapon and bullets), that the kid is just a schizo edgelord (alternate explanation for the messages on the gun). I've seen people speculating that he has SSR-eyes, that he was radicalized by college, etc, etc.
Also apparently he tried to get his roommate to pick up the rifle he ditched, and communicated this via Discord?
Like I said elsewhere, deep in my heart I fear he could be, I donno, a Groyper or something. Not like I have any reason to actually think that, it would just be the worst of all possible worlds, and the depressive part of me thinks that makes it the most likely. The left would get to have it's day of celebration, nakedly cheering and clapping and celebrating a person not substantially different myself being gruesomely murdered in public, and then they'd get to plausibly wash their hands of all responsibility for it.
I mean they're going to gaslight everyone about their rhetoric the last 10 years anyways, and all the gruesome celebrating we just saw. But it's just easier for them if the assassin isn't even one of theirs.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
35m ago
Even the Tuskegee airmen portrayed in Masters of the Air were played by British actors. That part felt particularly weird.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
36m ago
But he did seem rather nice and kind in how he tried to persuade people of his evil opinions.
Did he? I get the general impetus to not speak ill of the dead, but unless he'd taken a turn very recently that I'm not aware of, Kirk was not doing good-faith outreach. He was generating content.
faceh
37m ago
This is what I fuckin' mean.
If the liberals aren't willing to rein in their own side, get them to at least SHUT UP for a few days before pulling this stuff, who will?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
37m ago
If you think it was wrong to kill Kirk for his speech (as I do) then that's fine. If you want to go on to talk about what a great commentator he was and how kind and gentle and worthy of emulation he is, maybe you should quote some of the things he actually said.
faceh
37m ago
Well, enough to fill multiple threads on twitter.
The thing that does get me is how many of them are doing it happily with their own name and face attached.
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1966009268819186132
Crazy enough, people will also do it IN PERSON:
https://x.com/DineshDSouza/status/1966130048882414006
Why is that guy saying "WE got Charlie in the neck," btw? I see complaints about righties lumping all lefties together, but it sure looks like that's what they WANT.
https://x.com/saras76/status/1966112944112156696
https://x.com/DrewPavlou/status/1966272838534574119/video/1
You have to explain why these people would feel bold enough to do this within punching range if they're not actually reveling in the outcome.
Blueberry
38m ago
There is this famous graph of consumer price changes in the last 20 years:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/price-changes-goods-services.jpg
Massively cheaper: Technology like software, computers, big hd televisions.
More or less same: Material consumer products like furniture or clothing
More expensive: Food and Housing
Massively more expensive: Services like childcare, college, hospital services
functor
38m ago
He wasn't a random civilian but a high up political figure. Clearly the US considers those to be valid targets for assassination.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
38m ago
a reference to a “copypasta”
Someone in the BBC is trying to shift the attention away from gay furries.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
39m ago
Every decade or so some dude gets tired of coding, and comes up with a new retarded paradigm that amounts to putting the same shit in a different package, but he can now go around big corpos selling workshops.
I think the point is that a small and unpopular ideology has hijacked large swathes of the administrative organs of power, abused them, and is increasingly doing harm to society.
Now people who are otherwise principled are abandoning those, and those who aren't are considering doing worse things.
If the majority of people feel the use of something that should be common sense and stabilizing is abuse then it doesn't matter what the point was. It's abuse.
The threat of of this HR stuff is used to oppress me and others, and from what I can tell often the things we might otherwise say are fine or acceptable (and sometimes not) but you can't assess that safely because of the chilling effect.
Misuse of these tools and perceived misuse generated by other abuses is tearing society apart.
Sorry I'm going in circles here.
More options
Context Copy link