domain:inv.nadeko.net
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
14hr ago
Sloot and others have already covered it, but I thought I'd give you a youtube link to a Filipina who worked in 'tourism' and lays out the scam for you (warning NSFW language).
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
15hr ago
I sincerely doubt that the average person, or even well read feminists, are aware of the precise IQ stats here. I didn't know the how the skew worked a mere few years ago, and I've been keyed into the IQ 'debate' for ages.
hydroacetylene
15hr ago
Men are better leaders than women even when IQ is identical, though.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
15hr ago
Yeah I have that impression too, primarily based on the fact that every progressive woman I have talked about it with in person, upon explaining the iq variance situation, immediately scoffed "Oh so men are smarter than women are they?" And when I say "Yes, but it also means men are dumber than women." They usually stopped being so angry. But their anger doesn't go away entirely, and it feels like wounded pride to me.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
16hr ago
Spicy and educational.
ulyssessword
16hr ago
This is the classic counterargument to the straight line proving OSHA's ineffectiveness.
TL;DR: Lots of provably important thing don't make jumps in other lines, so it's probably that people (governments, companies, the public) set a goal of X%/year, and that was one thing they used to reach it.
ControlsFreak
16hr ago
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
It's perfectly legal to have an air force.
There are significant concerns with such a flippant reading. The Constitution goes on to explicitly grant particular ways that such a thing can be done. One must read those clauses out of the Constitution in order to take such a broad reading here. A couple examples just to give you a sense of some of the gymnastics that are required. It's pretty clearly motivated reasoning, saying, "I really think we should have an Air Force; how do I torture the Constitution (and my own interpretive system) in order to get the result I want?"
The real problem is that there are structural reasons why states get bigger, I think it's mostly due to technology.
I thought that was actually the crony capitalism business. Crony capitalists want growth of the administrative state and presidential power... so long as they feel they have a decent handle on their ability to steer it to their benefit.
As technology develops, there are more capital-intensive technologies that only states can manage efficiently.
This seems counter to the actual world in which non-states are efficiently managing extremely capital-intensive technologies.
Liberalism has a weak immune system because it is naturally liberal and open to new ideas
I think this is confusing what it means to be a Classical Liberal.
BahRamYou
16hr ago
It betrays a reductionist, colonialist attitude toward a country with a rich history, a diverse region with a stunning variety of cultural and geographical beauty.
You've clearly never been there. And you misinterpreted a lot of what I said. so whatever. thanks for trying I guess.
The other day I started reading Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card. Only about twenty pages in but I'm liking it so far.
FtttG
17hr ago
Richard Hanania certainly agrees with you.
Reddit is really not a good place to have reasoned arguments with people who are interested in actual engagement. I tried getting back onto there under an alt account talking mainly about non-political topics, and made a fairly long post where detractors (including a small number of self-proclaimed credentialed professionals) came in and decided to soapbox at length while refusing to address any of the statistical data posted. The overwhelming sense I got was "I don't have time for this crap".
Just reminds me how much better this forum is as a place for discussion. Not perfect in the slightest, but stepping foot back onto Reddit is like debating with a bunch of bad actors who really just want to soapbox about how right they are, and who love engaging in selective myopia as soon as something doesn't confirm their viewpoint. It's not the kind of forum I'm interested in anymore.
I've been thinking that perhaps the woke/liberal/feminist (there is a lot of overlap between these groups) hatred for intelligence research and FUD-creation around the IQ concept is not merely about the incendiary topic of "race" or ethnicity and IQ that might pop up if society takes IQ seriously, and not just about the basal opposition to anything that goes against "tabula rasa", but perhaps also because men are more extreme in IQ than women. Nature takes more risks with men, while women are somewhat more clustered around the mean. Why does that matter, if the average IQ is almost the same for women and men? Because most of the geniuses are going to be men. Even at 130 IQ there is a major difference. Something like 6/10 of individuals with 130+ IQ are men. If you go up to 145+ IQ, there are fewer and fewer women compared to men. With high intelligence being one of the key ingredients to make for better leadership of groups and societies, this should naturally lead to an overweight of positions in the highest offices being filled by men in a meritocratic society concerned with getting the best results for its future. Feminists may have discerned this IRL and in data, and of course do not want to be ruled over by men. Thus they seek to obfuscate and mislead around the topic. Thoughts?
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
17hr ago
So, what are you reading?
I’m finally on ‘The Far Side of the World’ – perhaps the most famous novel in the Aubrey/Maturin series.
Captain Jack Aubrey, expert sloth debaucher, knowingly recruits enough lunatics and mutineers to fill out the complement of the ‘Joyful’ Surprise, before pursuing an American cough ‘French’ Man of War around Cape Horn and into the Pacific.
And after spending nine novels vociferously proselytizing his hatred of alcohol abuse to anyone who will listen, Dr Stephen Maturin has now chewed, injected, snorted, smoked, enema’d, or otherwise ingested most drugs found anywhere in, on, or adjacent to, the entire Seven Seas.
Aware of his addiction to the laudanum from his own medicine chest (that somehow didn’t make it into the screenplay), junkie Maturin decides that the only sane course of action is to wean himself off with the aid of a new wonder drug; Cocaine.
And that’s before he tries to cover up a fellow officer’s cuckoldry.
Unhappily, Peter Weir somehow felt the need to rewrite the film version to appeal to a broader audience.
For shame.
who may or may not have been a prostitute
I found Giuffre more sympathetic than, say, Maria Farmer, who seems a little crazy (but at least said No to Maxwell). I also think it's clear from Giuffre's own barely readable biography that she was definitely whoring herself out from a very young age, well before Maxwell marked her for Epstein. Now did she have a terrible home life? It certainly seems so. But Epstein didn't make her a prostitute. That she happened to be working at Mar-A-Lago was an absolute fluke. It's also clear she ran the game as far as she could until she felt she was fed up with it, at which point she bailed to Thailand on Epstein's coin and decided to run for it. It's a compelling dramatic story but the narrative (now set in stone after her death) that she was always Epstein's victim leaves out a lot of her own really shitty choices. I do feel bad for her, but hers is a tragedy in the Greek drama sense --her determination, her ability to push through and survive, ended up leading to the life that destroyed her.
2rafa
20hr ago
Epstein making allusions is peak Epstein. There’s nothing in this statement. What did he know? As usual, unreported because there’s a good chance it was either third-hand hearsay or nothing.
2rafa
20hr ago
It’s just extremely disingenuous to suggest that warlords raping 8 year old boys is the same as Prince Andrew having sex with a 17 year old who may or may not have been a prostitute.
I support the latter being illegal, but there are obviously tiers of criminality. The sad reality of prostitution is that a large, disproportionate number of prostitutes are 16/17 and lie about their age, particularly in the poorest parts of the west, street walkers and truck stop sex workers, sometimes escorts on seeking arrangement / sugar baby sites too. Underclass and working class men hire them all the time without consequence, buying into the implicit suggestion they are adults if their conscience cares at all (it usually doesn’t).
It’s like the outrage over rich young actresses fucking ugly fat producers to become movie stars. I sympathize, but these are not the top victims of male predation. The purchasers of sex do something I think is wrong, but they aren’t worse than the millions of other men who do the same every day.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
21hr ago
The reverse uno option here is genius and the absolute best move for you here Bah. If there is one thing that is clear from your replies in this thread, it's that you really want to have a kid with a Pilipina dame. You aren't so much asking for advice as you are looking for a reason to believe her when all your instincts tell you not to. Sloot's strategy will prove one of you is right.
If it's your position that attraction to 16-17 yo girls is "pedophilia" and there's a national emergency of "pedophiles" in positions of power, why not just bar heterosexual men from positions of power?
These men aren't being lambasted for being attracted to 16-17 yo girls. Men are being lambasted for fucking them with dubious consent and legality. It's the difference between desiring money and defrauding. Impulse control.
Furthermore, having extremely restrictive rules of engagement for hoi polloi while the billionaire elites get away with it is a cucked attitude.
Elites should not be breaking the law, they are supposed to be exemplars. Higher standing, higher rewards, higher standards. The FBI and CIA especially are not supposed to be breaking the law, they're supposed to be enforcing it.
How are you supposed to have a functioning country if the elites and officials are basically robbers, here for temporary gain, don't believe in anything except personal gratification (financial or sexual), don't care about enforcing rules evenly, take bribes or implicit promises of favours from powerful figures, take revenge on you if you report them? This is third-worldism not in the geopolitical sense but the social sense, third-world values. 'We shouldn't report or rally against the corrupt official because maybe the central government will punish us in retribution' is a supremely servile attitude. The Taliban were formed in large part to massacre child rapists amongst the warlords of Afghanistan. We may not share all their values but at least they believed in something more than short-term political gains, that's surely a large part of why they won the war. Why should those from the richest, strongest, most cultured nations hold lower standards than illiterate Afghans?
The rule of law is usually only brought up to justify judges or international courts nobody's ever heard of issuing strange and bizarre orders but this is a core example of where the rule of law should be invoked. No cover ups.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
22hr ago
Alternatively you could just not know anything about the region and not understand that dissolving itself as a state is the minimum demand from the other actors you're asking them to be diplomatic with.
Totally wrong. Read my posts above, understand them, then research the 2002 Arab League peace plan, then at least read the wikipedia article on diplomacy and learn that it means give-and-take rather than just accepting people's demands.
I'm not going to lay out a peace plan because that's not my job and you don't understand any of the history, second-order effects or even the simpler points I'm making so it would just be pointless nit-picking. Your own theory is that Israel should intensify its bombing and destruction (with no further details provided, naturally), doubling down on a predictable political failure.
You're not answering the question and I'm not going to address your gish gallop until you do. Who precisely do they do diplomacy with? A PA that they install over Gaza and no one recognizes? Lay out an actual plan instead of using every opportunity to litigate a plainly one sided retelling of history.
edit: my suspicion is that what you actually mean by "diplomacy" and why you're being weaselly around giving it definition is that by "diplomacy" you mean Israel should dissolve itself either by granting an unlimited right of return, essentially becoming an Arab state or by even more extreme means. Alternatively you could just not know anything about the region and not understand that dissolving itself as a state is the minimum demand from the other actors you're asking them to be diplomatic with.
Irrelevant even if true (and I'm not sure a meaningful measurement is possible).
Yeah it does, any individual inefficiency and weakness is a lot less meaningful when the whole thing is made up of inefficiencies and weaknesses. Like let's use top athletes and gamers as an example, they're having to optimize the most niche and unimportant elements of their field in order to gain an advantage while beginners just have to do simple things like practice a few more times or learn the rules more to get significant improvement. One of the things I noticed watching bronze OW players in vod reviews years back is that quite a few of them just needed to learn what each characters ultimate did.
When there's much bigger issues in a less competitive environment, smaller optimizations don't really give that much of an advantage. A player who knows what the characters do and how to hold high ground and hits 54% of shots will almost always do better than the player who doesn't know but hits 58%.
Being a slave owner doesn't make you a personally unproductive leech, any more than being a factory owner does.
The slave owner doesn't provide zero value, they do serve similar to a factory owner in that they're the peak of management. But unlike modern capitalism where people tend to get in that management position because of talent and skill at management, slavery tends to happen because of skill at other things. Especially back when generational wealth and power was even more meaningful, fail child kings and queens would stay in place until a revolution whereas the big rich names of 50-100 years ago are practically meaningless today. No one is talking about the Rothschilds and the Carnegies, we're talking about Bezos and Musk.
In the trial court, he pleaded guilty to the three felonies. The state supreme court now has reversed those convictions and remanded the case back to the trial court. The prosecutors technically are allowed to try prosecuting the three felony charges again, but there wouldn't be much point in doing so with all the evidence of those crimes suppressed, so they probably will just drop the charges. (I assume that, four years after the event, it's too late for the prosecutors to charge him with the misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated, which they previously didn't bother to charge him with.)
TournamentFishing
23hr ago
Those seem like reasonable responses and I'm neither right-wing nor religious.
I feel like I must be missing some context here.
magicalkittycat
23hr ago
not accused of wrongdoing," LOL, when the guy's a f***ing pimp. The Online Right could use this to dunk on the dishonest mainstream media and in defense of high-minded Western ideals like telling the truth and not putting much stock in the testimony of admitted drug-using pimps and hookers.
Or maybe they read it like I do as "not being charged with crime".
Suppose the Clintons, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, Prince Andrew, Jean-Luc Brunel, a few Democratic Senators and governors and a bunch of celebrities go to prison for "pedophilia."(more on that later) Throw in some top FBI/CIA people responsible for the Epstein murder.
Here's what won't happen. They will not go to white separatists, revolutionary communists, trad Catholics, and the Nation of Islam and say "your hands are clean, now it's your turn to exercise power." Governors will appoint replacements for Senators. Minor actors will receive major actors' roles. The bank's vice president will replace the imprisoned CEO. Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, and Pete Buttigieg, who were too unimportant at the time to be associated with Epstein, will still be there. It might even benefit the Democrats by clearing out the gerontocrats.
Certainly there's room between "literally nothing changes" and "the white nationalist commie trad NOI extremists take control" right?
Most of the Epstein victims were 16 or 17. "Pedo ring" people don't talk about this fact, gambling that fear of being called a pedophile will dissuade people from bringing it up.
Bruh, people call that pedophilia all the time in other cases too. The "it's actually ephebophilia" statement is practically a meme of its own! And lots of people do get arrested for sexting/banging minors so I don't see why elites should be any different.
Also interesting little hedge in there of "most", ok so what about the ones that were a fair bit younger?
After all, most are "pedophiles" by that definition.
But they weren't just attracted to the teens! They were apparently trafficking them, pimping them out and having sex with them. People already get arrested for that and called pedophiles.
Indeed, the establishment might use the necessity of preventing further pedo rings as justification for Patriot Act-style restrictions on civil liberties. You might not fall for that, but what about the average 55-year-old woman who gets all her news from the MSM?
Doesn't seem like they need it too much, even just the stuff we publically know suggests they have access to a lot of our phone and computer data already.
Ah yes, the plan hamas refused to even acknowledge and included vague language about a "right to return" that was never clarified. Isreal has since normalized relationships with the member stares since then anyways. So say they went all in on 2002 what does that change today? Hamas wasn't party, iran wasn't party. The houthis weren't party(Yemen was but the faction of Yemen that isn't controlled by the houthis).
But the again the idea that the Israelis haven't been diplomatic is a lie. They just have a set of pretty reasonable non-negotiables like their ability to maintain security. And, the real sticking point, that they won't let in a vague number of refugees that would make them a minority. These requirements haven't prevented them from having normal relations with their neighbors like Jordan and Egypt or regional powers like the Saudis.
This is not my "theory", its what I believe the result of your plan to sanction Isreal world realistically result in.
More options
Context Copy link