domain:youtu.be
YoungAchamian
5hr ago
This is literally the same logic as the libertarian "taxation is theft" argument
I guess I see that. I am libertarian-adjacent... I've spent time arguing that argument and I think the devil is in the details. They tend to smuggle a bunch of assumptions into the "is theft argument" even if the core of the argument is the same as mine. Assumptions about the role of government and the necessity of funding it. The President has no clothes argument is meant to convey that the law can be without real governmental purpose unlike most taxes.
I see what you are saying about the noncentral fallacy argument. You are right it does apply. I also understand how it can be abused. However I feel that leaves me at an impasse. To me this argument is not prescriptive, but descriptive. I would love for someone to prove to me this is not how the government functions, it's not now how societies function. Calling this the noncentral fallacy (even if the shoe fits) is essentially trying to ignore the actual meat of the argument to argue over the colloquial definition of violence. "The logic is sound but you can't call it violence because people don't want to think about it like that", feels like an appeal to lemmings and ostriches. Idk how to craft the verbiage to get around that counterpoint. And so it feels like the attribution to a fallacy is akin to attempting to silence the argument. The noncentral fallacy is in of itself a rhetorical trick.
With the qualification that it's not absolving the perpetrator of blame or evil spirit. I suppose I can accept that the words themselves are not directly violence from a definitional standpoint. But from a functional standpoint I think someone acting with "evil" intentions towards you, and using words as a medium for those actions merits a response that might heuristically map towards words->violence.
Magusoflight
5hr ago
It’s about 9000 words too short to be a lefty meme but thanks for trying
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
5hr ago
when you kill fascists
lmao bottom text
Magusoflight
5hr ago
Yeah I was referring to centrists, maybe I should’ve been more explicit
Magusoflight
5hr ago
Relitigation is literally all we do
I’ve seen that meme too. Let’s see your Charlie Kirk joke, I bet it’s real funny
Of course, Charlie was also infamous for his nigger jokes
MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
5hr ago
Trump not being elected
I am increasingly coming round to the view that you can only have a healthy political culture if you have a strong centre-right party (or centre-right faction within a big-tent right-wing party - as long as it is powerful enough to keep the centre-left honest). If there is nobody for the small-c conservative normies to vote for in order to signal "actually, don't blow up the system" then someone is going to try to blow up the system. The nature of factional politics in left-wing parties means that the faction that will blow up the system (either deliberately or through naivety) will beat the faction that is committed to not doing so - the only thing that stops this happening is fear of losing elections. You see this with Trump in the US - the Democrats' instinctual response to his nomination wasn't "All hands on deck to stop the orange fascist" - it was "Now the Republicans have nominated a non-serious candidate we can engage in infighting rather then focussing on winning."
You can have healthy political cultures where the two largest parties are a centre-right and a far-right party (Poland, Czech Republic), where they are both centre-right (Ireland), or even a healthy political culture with only one strong political party - as long as it is centre-right (Japan, Singapore). The main examples of healthy political cultures with consistently left-wing governments are Sweden (1936-1973) and Israel (1945-1977). In Sweden the possibility of a coalition between the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Centre Party (all centre-right) was sufficient to keep the Social Democrats honest throughout the period, but there was no serious centre-right opposition to Mapai in Israel until 1965.
The strongest non-Trump candidate in the 2016 primary was Ted Cruz, who is not centre-right in the sense I am using here - he was definitely committed to blowing up the system, just in a different way to Trump. I suppose the GOPe gets another chance in 2020 if Trump loses in 2016, but I see a Ted Cruz-style movement conservative winning on a "Trump wasn't conventionally right-wing enough, plus his character stinks" platform or Trump running again on an "I woz robbed" platform (like he did in 2024 - he had the false allegations of election fraud teed up in 2016 too) as more likely outcomes for the hypothetical 2020 primary.
Jiro
5hr ago
I don't think people should be debanked at all except for organised crime and terrorism.
I would further limit it to people who are out of the country or otherwise unreachable. Otherwise debanking becomes an end run around due process. If you think someone should be punished, arrest him and put him on trial. If you don't have the evidence to put him on trial or if he hasn't done anything you can try him for, then you aren't supposed to be punishing him.
Muninn
"Dick Laurent is dead."
5hr ago
Funny, of the three that you've listed I've only ever tasted Kona, though I have a Colombian Gesha and another one that I don't remember off the top of my head (don't think it was Panamanian), both waiting for me to clean my roaster and run a couple more batches through it so that I'm sure that my beans are tasting right again. Anyway, I generally steer folks away from the more expensive and rare pedigree coffees and usually recommend starting with trying some Central and South American coffees and some African coffees, but Kona and Gesha are both pedigree coffees for a reason, so if you want to start with one of those, go nuts. A good Nariño should give you an idea of what Colombian coffees can bring to the table: a nice silky body, a complex taste with hints of raw sugar sweetness. See, this is the wine talk stuff here, but I don't think you'll go wrong if you find some that's freshly roasted.
But yeah, if I'm going to name other regional coffees to try, Ethiopian is always high on my list, so if you see an Ethiopian Yirgacheffe, Sidama, or Guji for sale, they'd be good coffees to try. Sadly, I can't put Harar coffee on that list anymore but it's an old favorite of mine and my first, "yeah, this fresh roasted coffee thing is legit," coffee and was/is infamous for its tangible blueberry note. I've had lots of good Burundi coffees in the last several years, and have liked the coffees that I've gotten from Kenya and Tanzania as well.
Moving to Central/South America, Colombian is nice stuff as I said above, and Guatemalan coffee is another favorite of mine, Huehuetenango in particular has been a coffee region that I keep coming back to, and Antigua has been growing good coffee for hundreds of years. I could go on forever, but will say that more generally, as long as the beans and the roast are good, you're going to get a good coffee. I've also had tasty Costa Rican and Nicaraguan coffees that have worked for me, and I've had a couple of interesting Brazilian coffees as well. I think the only reason I haven't tried more Brazilian coffee is that there just haven't been many Brazilian coffees for sale when I'm buying, which is probably a me thing as much as anything else--there's a particular Christmas espresso blend that I absolutely adore and I invariably buy way too many other coffees to try when buying it so I don't tend to do any buying in the early parts of the year.
Okay, I've already geeked out for way too long on coffee. My suspicion is that you're going to find that there's something to this craft/specialty coffee business and that if you decide to keep at it you'll find plenty of different coffees that you like in your own right. Subjectivity aside, there's a definite superiority to this side of coffee that may well keep you coming back.
Jiro
5hr ago
Cancelling people for racism is heavily prone to motivated reasoning to use it only against one's enemies, since 1) accusations of racism are partisan and 2) whether an incident is racist has a heavy subjective component. Genuine opposition to assassination would oppose it when done by both sides of the political spectrum, and it's easy to tell when an incident is an assassination.
durdenhobbes
5hr ago
I understood a few of those words.
But seriously, could you give a little background/context/de-abbreviation for the elderly among us?
aaa
6hr ago
"Ciao Bella" can be a number of things, but one of them is a HoI4 meme.
"Bella Ciao" is an italian antifascist song.
aaa
6hr ago
The water boils because of a transfer of energy not because of causal power.
If you think that this materially changes anything I said then I don't know how to reach you
I think it does change things because every time I've heard that argument it ends with "and that's why god needs to exist here and now" and you don't get there with energy transfers because once the energy is transferred the source doesn't need to continue existing.
But there would be a reason why it's in one pattern instead of another. And mentioning light is actually more relevant to my argument! Because light is outside the infinite mirrors. There could be infinite mirrors and no face because no light! The infinity of the mirrors does not create an image.
I really don't know what you are even saying at this point. Usually these arguments are trying to prove the existence of god through a logical impossibility (i.e. non-existence of god is logically impossible thus god exists). I don't think there's anything logically impossible in the existence of an arbitrary arrangement of light, it doesn't need a cause.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6hr ago
Does this mean we have open season for dark humor, and you will defend the type of humor you don't like, or is this a lame gotcha attempt?
NullHypothesis
6hr ago
I didn't know that about Destiny. Interesting.
It seems like Destiny's campus videos is a lengthier version of the Crowder change my mind segments. That being said, Crowder has had longer conversations with students too. Kirk has also posted full length hour long + uncut videos. I don't think Shapiro has ever done the campus sit down style videos. The conversations on average does seem shorter but I took a quick look at Destiny's change my mind videos at the average seems more like 15-25 minutes per student which is still higher than the average for Kirk (5-15 minutes).
Kirk's format is different because the student can come up and talk about a topic of their own choosing, versus the change my mind format videos where there is a set topic to be discussed and debated. Kirk was also massively more popular, so I think there is a tradeoff of trying to let as many students speak as possible.
I feel like in general, the average left leaning student in a college campus tends to be less informed on the reasons for their position compared to right leaning students. I think right leaning students are more used to having to hold their ground and thus have the greater willpower to continue a conversation even if their arguments get dismantled. The intention to communicate from both sides matters. Did Destiny get many hostile students that are easily triggered coming to talk to him?
I think Crowder was also the pioneer of the format and had to enter much hostile territory compared to Destiny or even Kirk. Crowder was definitely the more crass one too so he had a lot of haters. I don't think it's fair to criticize the length of the conversation if the student comes in with hostile intentions. It's not easy to build rapport with someone that hates you and isn't arguing in good faith. Even more so if they get triggered by an idea and become unable to discuss said topic. I don't feel much sympathy for students that willingly come up to discuss if they can't even discuss the idea. Maybe Crowder could've tried to coddle them, but if stating basic facts is enough to trigger an individual, I don't think there's anything you can do. Maybe they do go in with the full knowledge that there are students like that that will come and create a viral clip, but what would their options be? Not create the event to begin with? I guess someone operating on pure principle could choose to not share said content, but I'm not naive enough to believe Kirk and the like is operating solely on virtue.
I've seen segments where the student does come in with an open mind or is wiling to actually engage in discussion, and these are the ones that lead to longer conversations.
Posting edited clips of the conversation, I think is a fair criticism, but if you're running a business you play the game algorithms gives you, and I believe 2017 YouTube really favored 10-20 minute videos. Nowadays, it's shorts and long form videos. From what I see, they post the full video but then create clips from that video for the viral moments.
I don't think I can decouple Destiny's twitter persona from his in person persona, considering I've seen clips of Destiny being confronted on his twitter takes, and not only did he not apologize or downplay it, he doubled down on it, and so I take his word for what he thinks about people on the right. It looks like he also stopped making the campus style videos which only strengthens my notion that Destiny has completely given up on reaching out to the right, so he's probably focusing on the left/far left bridge as you mentioned.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
6hr ago
But if we have evidence that secular organizations in history have been as violent, dogmatic, and successful as the Taliban, then I’m not sure how you are reasoning that the Taliban’s afterlife belief has been instrumental to some particular “benefit” of their movement. Even in regards to their suicide attacks, we have plenty of cases of suicidal acts from secular organizations, like the Japanese in WWII or among the Romans. It is not sufficient to claim that the Taliban benefits from their afterlife belief just because (1) they have such a belief & (2) their movement is highly motivated, because there’s also a dozen other things that the Taliban are doing.
Surely belief in an afterlife is at play in at least some individual cases [of charity]
In some cases, sure. But I think it’s complicated by a lot. Jews give proportionately more to charity than Catholics and usually do not possess an afterlife belief. Bekkers’ “The Pursuit of Differences in Prosociality Among Identical Twins” finds that charitable donations are mediated by frequency of church attendance, with each additional visit resulting in $20 more to charity. Something noteworthy about Jewish charity is that its mediated by perceived victimhood, such that Jews who have “experienced antisemitism” donate 10x more on average to Jewish charities. This little factoid is very insightful in explaining how prosociality functions within group dynamics generally: the perceptions of injustice as a class and a common enemy propel in-group benefitting. Not only does this make sense in light of evolutionary biology, but it also makes sense in light of early Christian history, as they emphasized their victimhood, their enemy, and their common “class”. And of course this propelled Marxism too.
Give all superfluous possessions to the poor" as such isn't really a clear Christian teaching
You will not be able to find any early Christian Father who said that one can be spiritually perfect while being wealthy. Catholicism venerates those like St Francis in part because he gave all of his wealth to the poor — and his family was quite wealthy.
first off, this does happen. There are nuns and monks and religious orders and missionaries. Those all exist.
In many cases these are career decisions decided a young age. How many rich Catholics ever decide to do this? 0.1%?
you seem to think that Scripture says "be poor and you get into heaven" which isn't the case
If giving your surplus wealth to the poor instead of buying a mansion earns you a greater reward, which every Christian thinker of the first 500 years would have told you, then we should expect reasonable self-interested afterlife-believer to do this given the cost / benefit analysis. Do you disagree that giving to the poor and abstaining from worldly pleasures provides a greater reward? Do you disagree that it makes salvation more secure?
Acts 5
This narrative line begins at the end of Act 4 (as you know, chapter divisions are not original to the text). At the end of Acts 4 we read:
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus,sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
We learn that the true believers were of one heart and soul, did not believe their surplus was their own, and distributed to the needy from all of their profits. This same narrative continues —
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
The problem of Ananias is brought up as an exception to the Godly conduct which Luke had just relayed (think I accidentally wrote Paul in my last comment). Luke highlights the problem of Ananias and why he is being mentioned at all: “for himself”, “only a part”. It follows:
But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last.
The word “keep back” is important because it has the connotation of a moral crime in itself. This is not neutral terminology: this is the sin being called out.
ἐνοσφίσατο: may merely mean from its derivation, to set apart νόσφι. But both in LXX and N.T. it is used in a bad sense of appropriating for one’s own benefit, purloining
Now Ananias lied in doing this, but the narrative is not written in such a way that the lie is the weighty crime of Ananias. The narrative is about sharing surplus, and the emphasis is on the lack of sharing by Ananias. This section of Acts had just mentioned that none of the Christians believed that their surplus was their own. The section did not previously mention lying, neither did it mention anything about a promise or oath that the Christians made with respect to charity, neither did it mention that Ananias would have obtained some social benefit from the completed charity. You will find no saying among the early Christians that lying about how much you make deserves death. But we do find such sayings against greed among the early Christians. We can look at the Didache, one of the oldest Christian texts:
The way of death is this: […] greed […] loving worthless things […] not having mercy on the poor […] turning away from the needy […] advocates of the rich
If you have gained something through your work, give it away as a ransom for your sins. Do not hesitate to give, nor complain when you give, for you know the good paymaster of your reward. Do not turn away from anyone who is in need, but share everything with your your brother, and do not say that anything is your own. For if you all share in the heavenly things, how much more in earthly things?
Now certainly, people can believe whatever they want about God and religion. But But I think that believers of new age thought, those who believe in “the righteous rich”, should have the honor to not lie about what they believe. Why corrupt the name of Christ? Because the religion of Jesus and his first followers is very beautiful and pristine, and it’s all in plain language. If someone wants to take some aspects of Christ’s teachings and conform them to fit their own base instincts, that’s in their right, but I wish they wouldn’t claim to actually follow Christ, because that’s not accepted in the actual religion. It’s some other thing. We have the primary documents! We know what was taught and what was practiced.
Notably absent from your collection of verses: the many verses in Scripture that celebrate accumulating wealth and offer concrete advice on how to do so
Jesus completed our understanding of things and we now know not to store out treasure on earth.
YoungAchamian
6hr ago
I mean the concept might be foreign to you but you just invoked it. The "Should" is saying you expect me to feel sympathetic. It is prescriptive. You believe I owe sympathy in this situation. You insist that if I don’t sympathize, that reveals a deficiency in me. That means you are treating sympathy as an obligation, just in moral rather than transactional terms. My emotional framework is different than yours, you and I feel sympathy for different things and different causes but you want me to work in your emotional framework, rather than accept my own. It's no different than what my lefty friends do, I reject it here as much as I reject it there.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
6hr ago
"Dark Humor" guys when the joke isn't about women or niggers.
While this wasn't a mass shooting, men are responsible for something like 97-98% of those apparently and they skew really young on average. Even violent crime in general is really male heavy. There's a racial skew but I'm pretty sure per capita white men still commit more crimes than any race of women.
Robinson seems to match this typical viral shooter type of demographic. Young, male, brain poisoned and on seven layers of "irony", amorphous views of society and politics that seem tended towards extremism/anarchy/radical change (the "need for chaos" as I've seen it called) of any kind rather than stable values that slot neatly into anything.
People keep talking about "the left" and "the right" but a single spectrum discussion is simply insufficient for covering how people operate and think. Even the slightly better political compass with the extra auth vs lib is still flattening the world far too much. These are often young men radicalized into chaos itself and we need a a way to find, intervene, and reach out to the boys before they get pulled in.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
6hr ago
I think we had this fight already last summer and no one around here is really interested in relitigating the question.
TeknOShEeP
6hr ago
Yes, in generally virtually none of the managed/hedge funds outperform the S&P 500, but thats not the point of most of them. Their point is to offer returns uncorrelated with how the S&P500 is doing, hence the term "hedge". In the long run, having a portion of your assests sufficiently diversified from the rest will return higher overall yields.
Honestly, it's hard to go wrong with a can of Campbell's chicken noodle soup and some Sprite. It's not the best chicken soup or anything, but it is cozy and comforting.
More options
Context Copy link