domain:felipec.substack.com
SSCReader
20hr ago
They were what? Note some of the non-Catholic Churches burned down were on reservations/native land as well. So how much increased risk Catholic churches have over churches in general still isn't clear.
quiet_NaN
6hr ago
It is bad taste for any group whose primary purpose is not a dating pool to systematically rate the hotness of that pool, no matter the gender.
These lists tend to become common knowledge, and some people will end up on the bottom part of the list or being rated an average of 1.3 out of ten (but people -- especially people going through puberty -- might also be uncomfortable being rated really high). If the victim had actually asked to be rated, this would be different, but in all likelihood, they do not prefer an supposedly objective (it's a number! numbers don't lie!) rating of their hotness to become common knowledge.
The outcome of these lists is not so different from writing "X is an ugly pig" on the blackboard. As that is bullying, I would classify creating such lists as at least likely to lead to bullying.
shakenvac
8hr ago
State criminal courts don't do constitutional debates. He broke NY law. Whether that law is unconstitutional (probably yes) is outside the remit of that court.
2rafa
9hr ago
Tradcaths are extremely overrepresented on the far right which does on occasion advocate for political violence. Seems very cringe for the GOP to spend years being completely fine with the FBI spending billions infiltrating random mosques and then get upset when they target extremist tradcaths who openly advocate for violent revolution online. Obviously it isn’t any substantial percentage of tradcaths, but the same is true for Muslim extremists.
Yes, I consider actual legislation passed to be more relevant than your vibes, simply because I never consider vibes relevant. A poll demonstrating that Republicans think virtual child pornography should be legal would certainly be even better.
Yes, the fact that I'm citing American legislation is off topic to what some@ was talking about, but it's perfectly on topic as a response to your comment, which discussed American audiences, an American film, and generic redditors, but never mentioned Australia.
hydroacetylene
19hr ago
NGO corruption and special interests is not the same thing as what’s implied; at least theoretically the first Baptist church of wherever could get access to the NSGP, it’s just that Jews are better at skimming from the government by, like, a lot. The local government didn’t decide that the ‘Jewish student center’ is more important to protect than the Catholic Church, the ‘Jewish student center’ hired an off duty police officer with grant money that got laundered to it.
It’s politically convenient for both sides to pretend that largely nonexistent antisemitism is a major problem, but that doesn’t mean the government chooses Jews as winners over everyone else.
SSCReader
20hr ago
This situation seems analogous. I guess it's reasonable to ask whether the hatred is toward Catholics in particular, or Christians generally, but it's pretty clearly a wave of hate crimes aimed at a coherent target. It's especially notable since there's zero evidence the inciting incident actually happened.
Sure, that's basically my point is that it may be generally anti-Christian sentiment not anti-Catholic. Not saying either of those things are good, just that, it isn't necessarily what we were talking about.
As to the inciting incident, assuming we are linking it to the residential schools, it depends what you think the inciting incident was. I'd suggest the talk of deaths is only accepted because of the already existing animus about the residential schools. Even if every attributed death was debunked perfectly, I would suggest that not much would change in the feelings about the matter.
Like if the Holocaust was successfully denied, and all the Jewish deaths were just attributed to the horrors of war and a starving populace and not actual gas chambers, would Jews have no animus against Nazis? Seems unlikely.
So I would say the inciting event definitely happened. In that some of the native populace was forced into schools. That animus is WHY they believe that the schools were murdering kids during rugby practice, not the source of it.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
4hr ago
I’m not being dishonest. I’m specifically not abusing the word “literal” or adding scare quotes to characterize policies I don’t like.
I believe Trump was measurably ineffective at his stated policy goals, and that his 2020 regulations don’t tip the balance. While he is obviously more likely to curb Title IX than a Democrat, that’s a low bar. I’ll stand by my statement: pundits who expect Trump to usher in “fresh prince” liberalism are going to be disappointed.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
18hr ago
Looking at actual legal policy passed by politicians, the principle piece of legislation seems to be the PROTECT Act, which, among many other things
Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Okay fine, but that act includes lots of other provisions. Fine, how about the previous Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996? I literally cannot find a record of a vote (if that sounds impossible, please, somebody show me up). I can, however, find the court case that ruled it unconstitutional.
The majority had 3 Republican justices (Kennedy, Stevens, Souter), and 2 Democrat (Ginsburg, Breyer), and one concurrence (Thomas (R)).
I find these examples more convincing than your vibes and lived experience, so I'll reiterate: being against virtual child pornography sees bipartisan support.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
23hr ago
Can I see your source? I’m getting serious mixed signals when I try to search this.
ControlsFreak
53m ago
Because not all slippery slopes logically entail exactly whatever anyone can just throw out there as a possible conclusion? So, perhaps, you're throwing out "death of innovation" as the end of the slope, but that's actually akin to "dog marriage". And someone else might throw out a different possibility as the end of the slope, and that's akin to trans stuff. A reasonable conversation can be had about the connection between gay marriage and those two different possible end points, just like a reasonable conversation can be had here about this regulation and different possible end points. You would simply terminate the conversation immediately and conclude that it must be dog marriage/death of innovation. This seems like a pretty obvious non sequitur, a conversation killer, a mind killer, and the enemy of rational discussion.
NewCharlesInCharge
3hr ago
To clarify a little more than supremacy, trial courts are triers of fact: did the accused do the thing the state says they did, and is that a violation of what the law says. They do not evaluate the validity of the laws.
If your belief is that the law itself is invalid then you have to make that case at the appellate courts.
ControlsFreak
5hr ago
Drone regulation went from zero to some. We could debate the merits of specifics there, as well, but does anyone seriously hold that, after having gone from zero to some drone regulation, all innovation in drones is crushed to zero, that everything is doomed and that nothing can be saved?
In any event, drones have different concerns than manned aircraft. I wholly expect that a detailed discussion about the similarities/differences would be rich and fruitful, but what is not rich and fruitful is observing that drone regulation has gone from zero to some and concluding that it must be impossible that the FAA is opening up to alternative navigation and control systems for manned aircraft, especially since the conclusion is factually false.
ControlsFreak
5hr ago
Understood and agreed. We'd then have to shift to a discussion about the theory of slippery slopes and regulation dynamics. I don't think @The_Nybbler is open to that discussion yet. He thinks that "there's no point" in discussing anything like that; once we've crossed epsilon, all is doomed, and nothing can be saved. If he'd like to walk back that claim and actually have a detailed and reasonable discussion about what happens after we cross epsilon, I am here and waiting, but he has to agree to those terms rather than constantly immediately shifting back to claiming that once you cross epsilon, all is doomed and nothing can be saved.
ControlsFreak
5hr ago
Those were pretty much real-world constraints until automation developed enough to be a reasonable approach. This is very very very much directly in my domain of expertise. The good news is that the FAA has opened up to these sorts of "alternative navigation and control schemes". As an expert in the field, this reads to me very much as you just wishing that we lived in a different world, where this sort of technology was feasible a few decades ago, when it definitely definitely wasn't, regardless of what regulations existed/didn't exist.
ControlsFreak
5hr ago
Let's look at the tape.
You can have protectionism and regulation if you want, but you can't get that and innovation.
You won't change it without breaking it such that it can't produce the new stuff any more.
The former person has at least walked it back to, "The debate is only on the magnitude of the effect.", and we have proceeded to have a more fruitful conversation since then. The latter obstinately refuses to make any more specific claims other than that the only thing you can do is to make it so that the industry "can't produce the new stuff any more". If they would like to walk this back from being in the land of hyperbole and into the land of reasoned argumentation, we'll be making some progress.
2rafa
6hr ago
It wasn’t even close to the same level, though. The FBI has hundreds, possibly a couple thousand people full time on Muslim extremism in the US; meanwhile they made a couple of reports and had a few agents look into the tradcaths. That’s not the same investment at all.
ControlsFreak
7hr ago
"Artists" aren't real artists. They're just programmers and engineers at tech companies who developed a culture of believing that if they just imagined really hard that they were artists, it would be a good excuse for not being regulated. This culture grew out of the 90s and just happens to be a useful rationalization for them to refuse to do anything that seems "boring" to them. Sure, every other industry has boring parts of the job that need to be done in a proper fashion, but this cultural imagination gives them an excuse to object and only ever chase the "cool" stuff, no matter how much damage it does to the world. How long did they put off doing any sort of vulnerability work (except the "cool" red-teaming stuff) before it became such an incredible thorn in the side of the industry (and the world that uses their tools) that they were existentially forced to figure out some cultural modifications to actually manage a vulnerability disclosure and response cycle, pulling bodies away from the "cool" stuff and assigning them to "boring" patching work?
Glassnoser
13hr ago
Don't all countries with legal systems based on the English common law have freedom of speech?
SSCReader
20hr ago
https://tnc.news/2024/02/12/a-map-of-every-church-burnt-or-vandalized-since-the-residential-school-announcements4/
Note that "100 Christian churches in Canada have been vandalized, burned down or desecrated" is a different measure than number of churches burned down. Your source lists around 50 churches that with a fire or arson attack. Of those it lists around 27 as destroyed or razed, with another few have no description of the severity.
My count only covered those burned down. 33 looks to actually be consistent with your source as well using that metric.
So perhaps adjust your trust in the AI counting somewhat?
quiet_NaN
21hr ago
I think there is a world of a difference between camping illegally and detaining others.
Believing in the rule of the law does not imply believing that every law should be rigorously enforced all the time. Just like I don't think you should go after every kid's lemonade stand for lack of a business licence, I also think that universities should have some leeway in deciding which of their student groups they tolerate having protest camps on campus.
I think as long as it is not the government deciding that would not be unconstitutional.
For example, a university might tolerate a protest camp to Save The Whales (as long as they do not single out Japanese students or something) but might decide not to tolerate a protest camp about God Hates Fags.
So the amount of antisemitism and especially the attitude towards Jewish students might matter a lot to the universities -- who I imagine are doing damage control. The question for them is if it is worse PR to call the police to dissolve the camp or to continue to tolerate it and thus to some degree be endorsing the messages they spread.
ControlsFreak
22hr ago
You won't change it without breaking it such that it can't produce the new stuff any more.
This is just hyperbolic catastrophism. Hilarious, really. I mean, honestly. You can't possibly have a real argument for this. Did you really think that this was an actual argument? Or do you have some weird twisted argument that literally any epsilon>0 of regulation instantly grinds innovation to a halt? I hate to break it to you, but no one else believes this, because it's just not true. Not even remotely true. Tons of industries that are infinitely more regulated than tech still have plenty of innovation. There may be a tradeoff on some margins, yes, but your step function model is not remotely serious.
"Technokings" is not a reasonable description of the people building them. The people building them exist, and are not people with the regulated-industry mindset, where there are a ton of boxes to be checked and rechecked every time something is built or a change is made.
What shall we call them, then? "Bored Pandas", the culture of folks too bored by things like making sure there's no default password on their devices?
drmanhattan16
30m ago
I think you're getting at an important point. People don't like to think that others are doing things to them mentally. We make a compromise - don't make your thoughts other people's problems. If you want to masturbate to a classmate, you can't be stopped, just don't tell them you did that.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
Ok, so once we're epsilon onto a slippery slope, you're "not going to argue about the specifics". Got it. So, you could just respond to those comments by explicitly stating this, yes?
Do you hold this position for all possible claims of slippery slopes? Do you agree that gay marriage is just one more spot on the slippery slope to marrying dogs, and any argumentation about specifics is somewhere between fruitless and an entirely misguided endeavor? Or do you think there is room to discuss some sort of framework for claims of slippery slopes, that perhaps all slopes might not be equally slippery, or something along these lines? Or just nah to all that. "Gay marriage, slippery slope, dog marriage, QED." ?
Well there are other words in the amendment. Words like 'bear arms', the meaning of which is pretty clearly up for debate even if you come down on the side of a broad interpretation.
More options
Context Copy link