domain:amphobian.info
SSCReader
13m ago
Sure I agree with you there, 100%. People let a lot of things stop them having kids (finances being a big one) but in my experience you really don't need as much as people think.
Ioper
16m ago
Having 4 kids in a 5 year time span is pretty hardcore though, you don't have to do it like that.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
26m ago
They are "victims" in the same sense as a boy who a girl spreads rumors about how he's "creepy" or, more on the nose, that he has a small or deformed penis. Which is to say, not in a way which should be actionable.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
29m ago
And remember, the starting point was that Black schools were deliberately designed, funded, and often forcibly maintained as worse quality.
Brown v. Board of Ed SPECIFICALLY said otherwise about the case in question
Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors
grognard
Intel Pentium III 450 / Nvidia Riva TNT2 Ultra / Corsair 128MB PC133 / ABIT BH6
33m ago
Can mods make it possible for us to request our permanent records? Like a FOIA request.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
38m ago
The US Supreme Court struck down laws against virtual child pornography some time ago, but Congress went right ahead and re-passed them and has been steadily obtaining convictions in circumstances where the case will not be reviewed. I think there is a contested case headed up the chain right now, and I would expect SCOTUS to decide differently this time.
Stellula
42m ago
Maybe I’m just in a different phase of it then. I said above but I have 4 kids under the age of 5.
One of them is teething and having a sleep regression, and she wakes up at night quite a bit.
We recently all got norovirus from an indoor playground we went to.
We also recently took a trip to Oregon. Travel is’harder with that many kids.
Finding a babysitter for that many kids at that age is difficult.
I don’t know I guess if somebody tells me that having kids wasn’t difficult, I wonder if we just mean different things. Most meaningful things are difficult.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
44m ago
The problem is, I'm not fond in the least of running, especially in the tropical heat, and believe me I've given it a very good go in the past.
For me, in shape means having a significantly more defined upper body, with particular emphasis on the shoulders, biceps and forearms, though the last seem to be hard to build from calisthenics alone, not that I'd say it's impossible. My legs are fine, running about in the hospital is good for that much at least.
Stellula
48m ago
I have four kids under the age of 5. Maybe I phrased what I meant wrong.
My general point is that the things people who are afraid of having kids worry about end up being irrelevant once the kids are here.
TowardsPanna
48m ago
Why don't we have a real competitor to YouTube yet? It has turned to utter shit. Google can eat my ass.
pigeonburger
54m ago
For example, it doesn’t explain libertarians, who tend to be Republican but are fiercely anti-police.
I think it can; libertarians are pro hierarchies, but natural hierarchies. They consider police to be an intrusion on natural hierarchies of force. Those who are stronger or better armed, or can afford the loyalty of stronger or better armed people to defend them deserve the better protection/law enforcement. To them, the police is like a communist state trying to make the protection/law enforcement market egalitarian.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
54m ago
Let's talk the French Revolution.
There's been much hay made in the more intellectual online right talking about how young, pretty women make culture. Funnily enough I found a reference to this in a book about the French Revolution, Revolutionary Ideas: An Intellectual History of the French Revolution from The Rights of Man to Robespierre by Jonathan Israel.
Among the best-known antiphilosophes, the ex-Jesuit Luxembourgois, François-Xavier de Feller (1735–1802), dubbed this world conspiracy, as he saw it, “l’empire du philosophisme.” Philosophisme, he explained, was a mighty construct begun in the 1740s by a group of extraordinary writers who managed to impress sections of all classes with their wit and sarcasm, devising a whole new language and way of thinking, and by cunning dexterity and obscure use of terms made their ruinous ideas seem “sublime” to many. The “conspiracy” commenced with Diderot, who turned the Encyclopédie into an engine of subversion and impiety.
All the chief conspirators were, like Diderot and d’Alembert, atheistic “parasites” who lounged in cafés, insinuating, flattering, and mocking their way to domination of the salons and academies, and who eventually conquered positions of great power. Among their chief weapons, suggested Feller, was their appeal to women, especially young, pretty women susceptible to fine phrases, elegant turns of speech, witticisms, and subtle and less-than-subtle erotic suggestion. p. 45-46
It seems that even almost three centuries ago, the trope of 'witty and verbally savvy atheist convinces hot young ladies' was already in full force. And indeed, at least according to Israel, this capturing of culture by Enlightenment thinkers was the primary cause of all the revolutions, including the French Revolution. While it's stylish nowadays to argue for economic or social causes, like the infamous Boston Tea Party in the American Revolution, Israel argues that instead it really was the philosophically abstract notions of Enlightenment ideals that were the 'motor and sustaining force' of these revolutions.
Lots of modern right wingers seem to bemoan the fact that women having the right to vote or divorce or whatever has led to the downfall of society, yet it seems that even before all that young women tended to drive culture.
I wonder how much of our political and social history really just boils down to whoever wins the opinions of young, attractive women wins the Culture War?
non_radical_centrist
58m ago
My theory does not apply to parties positions on policies, identities, or individual's positions on policies. You'd need another theory to describe all that. My theory is solely about how parties actually behave relative to each other, and what to label parties as a whole.
Political coalitions shift, maybe one day the socialists prefer working with the liberals, and the next they prefer the communists. But the core of my theory is that no matter have much coalitions shift, you'll never see a discontinuous coalition that excludes centrists while including both the right and left. At least not a coalition that ever actually ever passes anything.
It's not an unified theory of everything political. But I think it is useful. It solves whether a party should be called far left, center left, centrist, center right, or far right. That's an argument people often have, and I don't think anyone needs to argue about it anymore. And it makes the observation that parties across the political spectrum will be very reluctant to actually cooperate no matter how much they might agree on specific issues like gun control, which is something useful to keep in mind if you're an activist trying to work to transform public support for a policy to actually passing that policy.
sun_the_second
1hr ago
Yes. That doesn't mean he'll pick that answer if he doesn't have something to get out of it (like a passed test).
dr_analog
razorboy
1hr ago
The guy on the right who looks like a monk knows what the intended expected midwit answer is though.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1hr ago
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1hr ago
By itself it wouldn't have been, but as we've pointed out before, when you have a long (and recent) string of comments like this and you won't stop, you start getting less slack.
hanikrummihundursvin
1hr ago
There is no 'we' here. There are vile people bargaining with the lives of innocent children and there are parents trying to protect them. Most people do not accept marginal risk for their children for no benefit if they can help it. Yes, people make these choices all the time and they are telling you in this case: No. You do not respect their autonomy or value the wellbeing of their children so you refuse the answer.
I'd trade a .1 decrease in GPA for my child any day of the week if it means they turn out to be a better-quality, more tolerant, open-minded person.
And the point I'm making is that this isn't in your control. Every single example and assumption you make is not based on the factor parents are using to decide where to send their children: Risk. You don't get to decide if its .1 decrease in GPA or bullying that scars them for life.
You create hypotheticals and make generalized assumptions based on irrelevant research to draw up a concrete picture when the reality is that you don't know. You just hold to an ideological firmament like a zealous crusader. Parents do not have this luxury as they have to accurately assess real world risk to the best of their ability. Since their primary focus is not ideology but the welfare of their children.
I also believe that some vague sense of diversity exposure (beyond simple racial categories too, as mentioned) is long-term beneficial.
More diverse schools have increased rates of bullying. Whatever benefit you think you are getting, you are not counting the negatives.
Plus, though I don't buy into it to the extent some people do (the whole performative white guilt thing is bullshit), there IS certainly a moral evil in saying "oh my particular in-group is happy and prosperous" and thus let's not do anything to help other, suffering groups. Especially when, you know, broadly speaking your in-group was directly responsible for those poor outcomes of other groups. That's literally dystopian.
White people do more to help brown people than any people on the planet have ever done. They are drawing the line at sacrificing their own children for an effort that defies any logic and reason.
The assumption of your argument is that the problems browns face can be fixed by whites. You also hold to a moral and ideological imperative that white people owe brown people. Neither of these things are true. It's just a classic example of a rape and revenge narrative. Regardless of anything else, no white person should ever listen to a person like you on anything relating to the welfare of their children, given how racially charged your ahistorical ideological viewpoint is.
There are plenty of mechanisms for which Black kids can have better outcomes other than some vague notion of proximity or magic, you are correct. I haven't listed them explicitly, but I could if you doubt they exist. Put briefly, part of the problem with US primary and secondary education has to do with the funding and geographical schemes used.
If the problem is money, which its not, you could just argue to give these schools more money without punishing white children. Yet that is not your argued course of action.
Overall, though, it's still so bizarre to me that you outright accuse me of racism. You blocked out a quote of mine and I fail to see anything racist there.
The assumption that white children turn out intolerant, ignorant or sheltered if not raised in proximity to browns is racist. I explained this to you in the reply to that paragraph of yours. As I said then, white people raised in their homogenous societies produce the best people the world knows who drive the best societies. The only reason you would assume that they are somehow turning out evil is if you were making a baseless racist assumption. Which is exactly what you were doing.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1hr ago
@Quantumfreakonomics excerpted the main page, but not some of the linked definitions, such as:
(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
So yeah, technically cartoon pornography would not be considered illegal, even if it's child porn. But I would sure not want to be in the position of arguing about whether a given image was "indistinguishable" from the real thing.
2rafa
1hr ago
I don’t think this is banworthy (and to anyone reading I didn’t report it), it was just a little weird.
SSCReader
1hr ago
I agree with the have kids part, but I think you might be exaggerating how necessary the negative parts are.
You can keep your house tidy and you can go to parties and to dinner. Travel is trickier of course but manageable. Sleep is very variable between kids. My first made it tricky, but the rest have been good sleepers since early on and part of that is from lessons learned. Set a feeding schedule and stick to it. Don't always go and immediately respond to a crying baby. Teach them basic signs early on so they can tell you "food, hurts, or nappy". Make them tidy up with you when they are done playing with toys.
Raising babies is work, but it can be organized and minimized.
Ethan
Quality assurance
1hr ago
What resources have y'all used to teach yourselves how to sing? Specifically contemporary style -- or whatever you call what Sinatra was doing. If anybody happens to know any good teachers around the Cambridge, UK area, that would be fantastic too.
My fear with doing much beyond simple vocal exercises is unintentionally accruing bad habits. It just seems smart to learn the basics of breathing and vocal technique myself, and then to enlist the help of a vocal coach. That will make things a lot faster and less hazardous. Also, I live in a dorm, so practicing at home isn't much of an option. I do plenty of singing in my car though. What's been helpful to you guys?
I wonder how they square their purview with the most successful, the most attractive, and the most effective people being so uniformly leftist.
Since when? I searched "left wing people more attractive" and instead the top three results were this:
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29355104/
Controlling for socioeconomic status, we find that more attractive individuals are more likely to report higher levels of political efficacy, identify as conservative, and identify as Republican.
And you know it has to be a significant effect if even the more left-wing academic establishment can't help but acknowledge it so strongly.
As for the more/most effective and successful people being leftists... Wouldn't society in that case be, you know, actually genuinely more leftist? Instead of only superficially "leftist" (that is, woke) in the exact ways that serve to attack the White middle class that is the hardest to control and could be the biggest threat to the elite, while absolutely preserving the power of that same highly conservative (in the sense of how they've increasingly become more and more paranoid and reactionary about any protests against their power, no matter how mild, for example J6) military-intelligence-corporate-media elite?
While I do disagree with leftists strongly and think they're basically wrong about everything, I will still give them enough to credit to acknowledge that they are completely correct when they say that true leftism is not woke capitalism wearing its skinsuit, a rainbow-colored Raytheon logo and a few black women put in sinecure positions at Wells Fargo.
That the proponents of [useful idiotism of the decade] (not just wokeism, but in general) got played into providing the most convenient ideology at the time for their masters to maintain a narrative of control does not mean that [useful idiotism of the decade] is the inherent ideology of masters, even for the moment. True masters are flexible and adopt any ideology that suits their advantage at a particular moment, which is why governance design is so important. If it suddenly became more advantageous/unavoidable for the most influential supporters of woke these days to become literal national socialists, at least 90% of them (probably way more) would convert overnight. (This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they're "true believers" too. They can be that and still be willing to betray their truly believed ideology pretty quickly too, because humans are good at rationalization.)
You can ask. We don't have a policy about it one way or the other, but we're certainly not going to indulge people who want to relitigate past offenses or complain about what's in their record.
You have quite a few warnings and two tempbans, if that's what you want to know.
More options
Context Copy link