domain:streamable.com
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1d ago
That's very kind of you, and I'll see if I can take you up on that! The Florida climate should feel like home, and I'm used to handling packs of street dogs. What is an alligator but a very slow, cold-blooded and 'ornery dog?
When it comes to Boston and their brahmins, alas, I'm a lower caste than that, and it'll come down to fists and concealed carry laws.
Mihow
Lipstick on a guitar
1d ago
Come to Florida
I’ll buy you the ripest of IPAs and grill you a very large ribeye
You can’t walk anywhere tho - or take the bus, so I imagine you’ll move to Boston and we’ll be reading about your hijinks as related to Massholes
No_one
1d ago
I listened to Carlson's interview with MM and I remember MM making a claim that Epstein was more of a freelancer. Surely at times he worked for Israel and other western services , but mostly he was in it for himself and for profit - and what he did was help with tax evasion using shady financial means, steal from his clients - more for the love of the game than actual need and so on.
No_one
1d ago
Still, a lot of epistemic commons are burned in the process, and I really don't like that.
Still, a lot of epistemic commons are burned in the process, and I really don't like that.
Compared to what went on before - e.g. transgender self-id, male pregnancy etc.. I don't find this newest, frankly pathetic attempt meaningful or even very aggravating. It's just what the post-tumblr left does. Back before it's brain was melted by lack of talent and internet, they just played games with language.
Now, the games are stupid, nobody who isn't a tumblr-type person can take it seriously and they keep engaging in circular firing squads.
Not sure this is going to influence anyone - people who already believed Trump is a philandering stupid bald nazi clown etc.. he's already maximally bad in their eyes. Everyone else has tuned out their yammering and they no longer have much of a megaphone to command with the decline in TV viewership.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Right wing complaints of voter suppression?
Maybe not direct voter suppression - at least I don't have a definite proof of it yet - but we have multiple and very well verified instances of speech suppression, economic suppression, access suppression etc. And this happened both on governmental level and on the level of various non-governmental gatekeepers, such as academia, media industry, entertainment industry, big corporations, etc. - every level that defines how the society is managed has multiple examples of people being suppressed for being on the Right.
The argument that social bonds are weaker because new people showed up seems weak and weird
How it's weird? Who am I likely to bond with - the person I (and my ancestors) lived next to for three generations, or with somebody who showed up around yesterday, doesn't speak my language, has totally different culture and beliefs, wears something I can't even name, and can't answer positively to any of my "remember when" questions? I'm not saying the latter is impossible, but claiming it's less likely than the former - if anything is ever "weird" is claiming something like that, and without any justification, just dropping it like it's the most obvious thing in the world. Of course it's not.
A pedophile, in my book, is someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent kids. Often, the term might imply exclusive pedophilia, e.g. someone who is only attracted to pre-pubescent kids. This seems like the worst sexual attraction card to be dealt, while being straight, gay, bisexual, into MILFs, or into BDSM, or most other kinks means you have a decent chance of getting laid, the lack of adults who could pass as pre-pubescent means that there are no sex partners who could consent. If used as an insult, the unfortunate implication is that people are morally responsible for their sexual inclinations.
Your book is not the book most people are using. Most people don't think about sex in those terms (they don't really think 'straight' or 'gay' either)- otherwise, the group(s) that wants to impose those definitions/morality on everyone else wouldn't need words words words to do it.
For most people, "pedophilia" means "man on little girl" exclusively.
Men can't be raped, so we don't really care about man on boy (unless it's a political group we hate for other reasons that was covering it up, which in combination with that hatred is sufficiently scandalous to destroy them- we're not really after boyfuckers qua boyfuckers, that's a side-effect). As for woman on boy, our reactions range from Nice to "if we don't throw you in jail for this, society's standards might shift and allow man on girl, so off you go". And woman on girl is a statistical anomaly.
Feminists/gynosupremacists launder the moral disgust with "man on girl" into the "man on any woman" definition they've always wanted (though note that this is fundamentally a woman vs. woman thing about how best to exploit men rather than primarily being man-hating, which is how men perceive it). This is why they push to have older and older women be considered "children", and why white-knights (traditionalists and progressive men) accept that. It's also why all the "pedo" literature progressives use only features man on boy (or man on boy-dressed-like-a-girl).
As you noted,
I think that power discrepancy is why we have age of consent laws
is correct, but those laws aren't set up that way to protect children (they aren't the right tool for that). They're primarily for keeping young women out of the sexual marketplace and providing women-as-class a weapon to exploit men more powerful than them (to which they are inherently attracted).
Once you understand the concept of "consent" is a lie (and intended to confuse "raping little girls" with normal human behavior) you can start to understand how people actually think about sex. Then, you can also see that Rs have a better understanding of this than Ds do because they're more likely to reject this framework (to the point that even traditionalist Christian sexual ethics paint a better picture), so Rs are less likely to be concerned with "non-consentual" behavior than Ds are.
Also, a tangent:
It bears saying that a significant fraction of child molesters are not exclusive pedophiles but just men (mostly) with broader sexualities who use the opportunity of the power discrepancy between kids and adults.
Well, if you're only looking for physical penetration as a subset of "abuse with sexual intent", yes, you'll find that's mostly men.
Men and women are different especially when it comes to the way they think about sex; thus we should expect the ways they intend and perpetrate sexual abuse would be different.
TowardsPanna
1d ago
I've been to the Round Table Hold now and bought a longbow! Also got the claw mark seal (can't remember how) and bought a couple of faith spells. Fireball and urgent hp. The fireball does decent damage despite my faith being at 10. Range isn't great though. Still might come in handy from time to time.
Can't equip three weapons (sword, flail, bow) without going into heavy load. So now I'm almost forced to increase endurance. :P
I saw some items for sale that would help with online play, like one that summons a hunter ally for when you get invaded. I'm playing offline but still get invaded by those red jackass NPCs. Guess there's nothing to be done about that. I very nearly died to one of them after going a long time without finding a new site of grace. In fact the "Tarnished-Eater" spawned as a result of trying to enter a church with a grace site. Welp!
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
1d ago
WW2 affected more people than just jews.
At the risk of invoking a meme around here, "What did you think 'Never Again' looked like? Vibes? Essays? Poetry?"
Of course it potentially meant finding or making a safe place for themselves and investing in defense spending to be too thorny to tangle with again. That mentality clearly seems to explain how they interact with parties that call for their deaths regularly (see the Houthi flag, for example). Many of those calls come from Muslims, but I'm not sure they like Richard Spencer any better.
But that 'Never Again' thread runs in other groups too: see defense spending in Poland and Finland, arguably China and Korea too. Or why you shouldn't ask the South American with a German last name when their ancestors moved to the New World (not always 1945, but it's common enough).
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
1d ago
Part of the problem with just opening a discussion on "individualism and meritocracy" is that these are very fuzzy and connotationally charged words. It's therefore best to talk about specific examples as much as possible---this was just a relevant one that's somewhat timely. Any specific example is going to have a billion imperfections and distractions, but I really think it's still better to be concrete. If your quibble is that I picked a bad example, maybe you have a better one in mind?
I also think there's an huge difference between saying "most posters here are ideologically degenerate" in some absolute sense and saying "I have the impression that most posters here have values that are incompatible with my own for these reasons, am I right or wrong about this?".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I think in one of your past posts you called yourself "a one issue voter on the subject of identity", and as time goes on I think I agree with you more and more... in a very Anakin and Padme kind of way... In any case, yes, it's one of the most important questions of our time, though I'm somewhat frustrated by the conversation not really going anywhere, and just getting restarted every few months.
You focus on the disagreement with the part where he says having ancestors that fought the civil war grants you a stronger claim to the country than agreeing with it's creed, but can you talk about your agreement with the concept of the "credal nation"? Vance picked "agreement with the ADL" as a criterion for adherence to the American creed, would that something you agree with? If not that specifically, what would you say is the American creed? If we're going by the credal nation, and the historical core principles of the USA, doesn't that imply that any socialist, communist, critical theorist, non-liberal feminist, devout Muslim or black separatist, can be deported on sight? Regardless of whether or not he was born there, and regardless of any heritage?
Does this place actually overwhelmingly support JD Vance's statement?
That's a very collectivist question, woudn't you say? But if you want my personal opinion, I agree with his statement.
Is this statement actually anti-individualistic and anti-meritocratic as defined above?
I think the most you can get is "anti-individualistic", and once someone takes that on the chin, claims of "anti-meritocracy" start falling apart. For example, does Ukraine have to hire a Russian general as there supreme commander of their armed forces, if his resume looks better, or else accept they're being "anti-meritocratic"?
Are the above interpretations of meritocracy and individualism reasonable and consistent with anti-individualism and anti-meritocracy being very bad things or are they just word games?
That's probably the most complex question you asked here. Yeah, sometimes people play word games. Sometimes consciously, because they want to win, sometimes unconsciously, because they really like the idea of something being true. Sometimes a completely sincere person uses the exact same argument that a 100%-dishonest word-game-player.
Either way, I don't think you're playing word games, but I disagree with either your basic assumptions, or a logical step you're taking somewhere, but I'm not sure which.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1d ago
Israel has been doing all those things for months. The vast majority of structures in Gaza are destroyed or damaged.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1d ago
I don't think there have been any prominent "calling it" moments like this. The four most similar cases I can think of where someone is/was crying wolf about their assassination and it didn't happen, but if it had died (or do die) there would definitely be retroactive conspiracy theories are Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Julian Assange, And Edward Snowden. So if you're being maximally harsh you could call it 1/5. But none of these have had quite the same level of strength. Everyone believed that Epstein had dirt on prominent politicians that he had not yet spilled, which made getting rid of him quickly a priority. People hate Trump and Musk for public reasons and while killing them would remove them as an annoyance, it wouldn't keep any politicians out of jail. Assange and Snowden already leaked their secrets and assassinating them would just be petty revenge, it wouldn't unleak the secrets. Assassinating any of those four would increase the risk of a politician going to jail, not decrease it as in Epstein's case (conditional on the probability of getting caught being less than the probability of him spilling the beans). Additionally, the U.S. government has never had one of those four in custody in a way that would provide such an easy opportunity to off them. And, while I don't pay a ton of attention, nobody has been warning about the potential for assassination attempts on these four except for Trump, who has in fact been the target of attempted assassinated multiple times (though not necessarily by a conspiracy unless you count stochastic terrorism). So depending on how you categorize it we're either 1/5, 2/5, 2/2, or 1/1. Personally I'd go with 1/1, since Epstein was (as far as I know) unique in circumstance of being in a prison with known incriminating evidence on (probably multiple) politicians.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Does this place actually overwhelmingly support JD Vance's statement?
"This place" can't support anything, not unless we form a representative government and give it the rights to represent us in this matter. That's certainly not what I am here for. I think if you want to talk to people, talk to people. If you want to fish for a sweeping statements like "this place is full of X", whatever X is, please don't. Yes, for some values of X it may be true, but it's not the point of the thing.
I personally think Vance's statement makes sense - if somebody traces their ancestry from before the Civil War they certainly should not be excluded when defining what "America" is.
Is this statement actually anti-individualistic and anti-meritocratic as defined above?
No. This statement does not say America must only be hereditarian, it says common history must not be excluded. I think this is true - while for a startup nation, bare idea may be enough, for the nation with 250-year old culture history is a big part of it. True, 250 years is not a lot, some nations measure in millenia, but it's enough to consider it seriously and not throw it out, especially because of momentary partisan considerations.
A few weeks ago, J.D. Vance made a statement that citizenship in the US should be based on ancestry instead of individual choices and beliefs:
I don't think you are describing the content of this statement properly. The proper description would be that Vance thinks just individual choices and beliefs are not enough to make somebody an American, but being a part of ancestry that created the culture we now call "America" may also be considered as a factor. If you lived somewhere in Galapagos Islands and you've just read the Declaration of Independence and you thought "actually these guys have some pretty decent ideas!" that doesn't automatically make you an American. You can become an American, and maybe you will, but you are not yet are. I don't see anything wrong with this claim.
Moreover, Vance specifically said he does not have the answer to the question of what is an American, and only calls to begin working it out. Presenting it as he already prescribed the "ancestry" answer gives me the strong "fine people" vibe. This is not a good way to conduct a discussion.
Are the above interpretations of meritocracy and individualism reasonable and consistent with anti-individualism and anti-meritocracy being very bad things or are they just word games?
No, the definition of individualism does not exclude considering the individual's history or culture. No person exists as an island, people are social animals, and being a social animal means being part of the culture. And culture is rooted in history and ancestry. True, history and ancestry does not define the individual, as doesn't genetics or, in general, any wide-area criteria - it's impossible to define an individual by metrics that count in millions. But that doesn't mean those are to be completely ignored. Cultures exist, and individuals are heavily influenced by them. That does not deny the fact that the individual has to be evaluated on their personal merits, at least when it is possible. But one also has to realize these merits do not come from nothing. Ancestry is not the destiny, but it's often the foundation.
The tools you have described are indeed powerful, but they are secondary to defining the goals. To illustrate that, let's abstract them out and define a quality called "awesomeness". The person is more awesome if they are more efficient in achieving whatever they want to achieve. Looks good so far? Now, do we want to have more awesome people? Do we want to make immigration policy depend on awesomeness - the more awesome you are, the higher your chance for a citizenship. Before you answer, consider an awesome drug addict, an awesome psychopath, an awesome flat Earth cultist, an awesome Islamic (or, if you wish, Christian) fundamentalist. Does "awesomeness" looks as good as before, or do you want to put something in front of it? And if so, what exactly?
(@OracleOutlook had a similar response so I hope this works as a reply to both)
First, since citizenship in certain countries has such a huge material impact, it is a "reward" whether people want to think of it that way or not. I think your argument boils down to saying that citizenship has some extra, special qualities that make thinking of it as a reward misleading word games.
The special quality you're focusing on is an analogy to family membership. There are two reasons why I think family membership is special
- An ideal family is supposed to provide unconditional love and support---it's an insurance policy in the world that no matter how much you screw up, you'll always have something. In particular, you should never worry about being completely disconnected from other people.
- Families are very small sets of people. Due to Dunbar-number effects, morality in small groups (that our instincts are perfectly optimized to handle and where you actually personally know everyone you're interacting with) is very different than morality applied to broader society. Tons of things are ok in family settings that would be horrible corruption in a corporation---since our instincts are so finely tuned in the small-group case, we just feel the exact cases when its ok and when it's dangerous.
Of these two, only the first really applies to citizenship---that's easily resolved by rules against making someone stateless. So with that one exception, it should be fine to reason about citizenship as other rewards, particularly positions in other sorts of large organizations. Sacrifices happen in these too!
Are there other important special qualities of citizenship over other material rewards that would change this?
P.S. I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that genetic similarity is the best way to judge if you can relate to someone. Here, education, values, and interests seem to matter much more. It's way easier for me to relate to a random mathematician of any race than a random person of the same race as me. I don't think this is that unusual---at the very least, having a college degree is probably more relevant to relatability for you than race.
atelier
Jimmys: unrustled
1d ago
The nineties was a wild time but it was widely recognized that supervisors fuck their underlings was coercion. The Republicans had nearly used expulsion to remove a sitting US Republican senator at the beginning of Clinton's 1st term.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
1d ago
Refusing to step on a trap isn't incompetence.
The only way to win was not to play. Given that the question would surely come up in cases shortly after her nomination, too, it was an unfortunate fumble.
Also seconding Arjin that a simple question becoming a trap is a symptom of a much larger problem. It might be a loaded question but it's hardly "yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?" The culture that loaded that question by hollowing out language created its own issue.
But that's something I'd frame as a failing of charisma more than intelligence.
I didn't say it was a failing of intelligence either; the implication is that it was a failing of skill defined generally. Charisma is a good suggestion for a narrower term; I'd also accept wisdom or to be playful, dexterity.
I think KBJ is quite smart, less of an institutionalist than ideal but I liked the KBJ/Gorsuch pair-ups from last term.
FlyingLionWithABook
Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.
1d ago
Yeah, I can’t blame you: after all, I don’t believe the UN or Hamas. This war is one of those situations where we won’t really know the truth of what’s going on until it’s a decade or so later and people have had time to investigate. Maybe three decades later, wait for enough people to die who would otherwise be embarrassed.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1d ago
So... Instead of the sloppy but intuitive test of "does she look old enough" one would now have to literally ask if she has a license?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1d ago
Let's say you currently live in Botswana. You could move to Lesotho, where you'd be 95th percentile, or to America, where you'd be 40th percentile. I think most people in that situation would still choose America, even though there's no substantial difference in switching cost between the two options.
Corvos
1d ago
The same was true of Jimmy Saville:
The BBC allowed all manner of creative swearing and graphic insults to air during The Thick Of It.
But there was just one line in all of the scripts that made executives so nervous they insisted it be censored, creator Armando Iannucci has revealed.
The excised line, spoken by Peter Capaldi’s fiercely foul-mouthed spin doctor Malcolm Tucker was: 'That's inevitable. It's as inevitable as what they'll find in Jimmy Savile's basement after he's dead.'
'The BBC lawyers said you can't say that,’ Iannucci told an audience in Melbourne
Although Savile died in 2011, between seres three and four, the extent of his sexual abuse of children only began to emerge in September the following year, a month before the final episode aired.
Everybody in TV knew. And were performatively shocked later on, of course.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
1d ago
I did debate in high school and it helped me reason quite a bit. Having to argue for both sides of a resolution is an excellent way to teach genuinely flexible thinking.
My hypothetical plan for killing the guy would basically be "contact some organized criminal enterprise that has associates already in said prison, and guards already on the payroll, and arrange for there to be a window where those associates can access the cell just long enough to strangle the guy and leave without being observed."
I assume that targeted hits in prison are an order of magnitude or so more common than hits outside of it (in the U.S.). So we just need means and opportunity.
Ironically putting him in prison allows you MORE control over weird variables, rather than having to arrange for him to be suicided outside of prison, where he has some freedom of movement and can set up countermeasures, AND you will have to do a lot more cleanup of evidence.
A single look at the period photo of the prostitute he got into trouble with - Stormy Daniels(middling tasteful nude) makes it pretty clear he's not interested in teens.
More options
Context Copy link