domain:mattlakeman.org
benmmurphy
16m ago
Photos remind me of the Capitol from the hunger games.
hanikrummihundursvin
22m ago
Having a wife is a job in itself - my coworker every day.
Tree
32m ago
It’s allowed under the good-fun exception. Would the victim really object to the crime? Most weddings would only be improved by a crash from some local notables.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
36m ago
I don't think we are going to get on the same page about this, but as a fact matter - if your friend was psychotic under the influence of a substance at that time he had poor judgement and insight, if they were committed involuntary (the correct response to oh holy shit the walls are talking to me is to you know, get help).
Someone experiencing a psychotic episode is often not aware that they are no longer aligned with reality. They are experiencing not just hallucinations but delusions. Yes, obviously they have "poor judgement and insight" while actually experiencing the psychotic episode; that's not reason to deprive them of fundamental rights forever.
One of the challenges of managing society in general is what to do with people who are "fine" most of the time but dangerous while in a certain state (like decompensated mental illness, tripping balls, or just pissed off).
That's pretty much everyone.
Crowstep
41m ago
I planned to argue that assigning people special hereditary rights is fundamentally incompatible with democratic civilization and the notion that "all men are created equal"
Surely then you would need to assign first world citizenship to the entire planet? Issuing citizenship by blood is hereditary, but issuing citizenship by residence is de facto hereditary, because most of the world can't have children in first world countries, because they can't get to first world countries, because they're not citizens.
Throwaway05
43m ago
It actually doesn't, as in the case I know where someone took a prescribed drug which caused psychotic symptoms. But even if that were so, a lot of things do. Showing some level of poor judgement and insight and lack of responsibility is not per se grounds for revoking a fundamental right.
I don't think we are going to get on the same page about this, but as a fact matter - if your friend was psychotic under the influence of a substance at that time he had poor judgement and insight, if they were committed involuntary (the correct response to oh holy shit the walls are talking to me is to you know, get help).
One of the challenges of managing society in general is what to do with people who are "fine" most of the time but dangerous while in a certain state (like decompensated mental illness, tripping balls, or just pissed off).
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1hr ago
As ever, we won't really know the answer until after the question is irrelevant. But we saw the 2024 elections already.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1hr ago
It takes a lot of attention and fine-toothed combing to separate social citizens from asocial ones who have learned to pretend to be social where necessary. They will obfuscate their asocial activities, limit them to settings in which they aren't observed closely, and always keep a plausible excuse handy. After a few months and years of beatings, only the stupidest will be asocial where they can be caught.
This might be a problem after a while. It's not a problem right now. There's low-hanging fruit.
Tree
1hr ago
Or it’s the other way around, and christianity arose as the spiritual justification for this intrasexual bitching, which no doubt predates it.
FtttG
1hr ago
(Presumedly) white men really not beating the allegations!
It was game over as soon as I watched Mulan.
aceventura
1hr ago
This entire episode solidified in my mind that its the US that has much more leverage over Israel than the other way around. It also undermined the argument that Israel has control over US foreign policy.
self_made_human
C'est la vie
1hr ago
I shared my latest post on the Slate Star Codex subreddit, and Scott showed up in the comments to complain about how I'd characterised him in the article. I dutifully apologised and rephrased the offending passage. In the list of things that made me feel ashamed of myself this year, this was in the top five.
My condolences. If that happened to me, I'd be driven to drink.
Kind of like a less overtly titillating Aella, and, in my view, far more physically attractive.
(Presumedly) white men really not beating the allegations!
(She is pretty, but I found this particular photo profoundly disturbing. To be fair, now that I actually opened it, it's AI generated on purpose)
Crowstep
2hr ago
That's not why Tina Brown is criticising him though, according to Wikipedia she did exactly the same thing. She had an affair with a married man 25 years her senior. Ironically if Bezos had married a younger woman Brown might not have written the blog post, because her readers could criticise her for hypocrisy.
This looks like class hatred to me. Lauren Sanchez looks tacky and low class, with her big fake tits and duck lips. Tina Brown can't criticise her for that, so instead she insists that her sneering is on behalf of womankind, for feminism.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
2hr ago
Anyone else ever catch the eye of their heroes?
Yeah, by walking right up to them and asking them "hey, do you have a few minutes to talk about your writing/fencing/programming"? (Or sending them an email, anyways.)
By accomplishment? Hell no.
iprayiam3
2hr ago
Does he have to marry an old fat lady?
No he has to stay married to his wife and the mother of his children
iprayiam3
2hr ago
I don’t disagree with this and that the just so undermines credibility of the point. On the other hand, I do think Bezos deserves to be criticized whoever he marries. He started an affair and broke up two marriages with children.
I think part of the issue is that modernity has removed the vocabulary to cricicize the object level misbehavior so they displace their ‘something is wrong’ to a secondary element
I'm very chuffed, but I find myself chagrined by the fact that the number of people I know IRL I can boast about this to round up to zero.
I know the feeling all too well.
- My latest post was restacked by this woman who applies data science principles to online dating. Kind of like a less overtly titillating Aella, and, in my view, far more physically attractive. I was flattered.
- It was also restacked by Sarah Haider, whose name I vaguely recalled seeing previously and who has her own Wikipedia page, which is cool.
- "Contra deBoer on transgender issues" was shared by Helen Joyce, I think it was shared by Eliza Mondegreen in a paid subscriber-only links roundup (she definitely liked it), and also liked by TracingWoodgrains and Freya India.
- Freddie deBoer commenced one of his duh-of-course-I-support-trans-rights articles by quoting a comment I'd posted on one of his previous articles and ostentatiously announcing how "profoundly uncompelling" he found said comment, in a tone which to me strongly suggested he doth protest too much.
The only way I could be more pleased is if it caught Scott's eye
I shared my latest post on the Slate Star Codex subreddit, and Scott showed up in the comments to complain about how I'd characterised him in the article. I dutifully apologised and rephrased the offending passage. In the list of things that made me feel ashamed of myself this year, this was in the top five.
yofuckreddit
3hr ago
Prostitution is still considered low class enough it's not really an option for someone so public
This is a fun story, and I apologise for the coming less-fun response. From where I'm standing, this is the story of how you and your friends lied and abused the trust of others in order to get things you knew you weren't entitled to. Like, this is the glitzy high-class counterpart to stories of underclass black guys vaulting the ticket barriers in BART stations.
I'm not saying this just to be a miserable scold (though I probably am that) but because when people talk about rebuilding virtue in society and upholding social trust, this is what they mean. I know that you're an upstanding citizen in many ways and that you work for various nonprofits etc. as well but why are people of a lesser standing going to do the hard, thankless work of keeping up their end when they know that this kind of thing is going on behind their back? Hearing stories like this just makes people feel like suckers for holding to the rules and trying not to trouble others.
I am reminded of a quote from SSC:
On The Road seems to be a picture of a high-trust society. Drivers assume hitchhikers are trustworthy and will take them anywhere. Women assume men are trustworthy and will accept any promise. Employers assume workers are trustworthy and don’t bother with background checks. It’s pretty neat.
But On The Road is, most importantly, a picture of a high-trust society collapsing. And it’s collapsing precisely because the book’s protagonists are going around defecting against everyone they meet at a hundred ten miles an hour.
You're not that, most of the time, but it seems to me that this is a little bit of that. Especially when you’re intentionally putting staff in a difficult spot, where they may well be in for professional consequences, so that you can get what you want:
The fact that six random bozos were even able to get this close and that she briefly considered letting them in [...] meant that someone had loose lips and various heads would surely be rolling down the fairway the following morning.
self_made_human
C'est la vie
3hr ago
Funnily enough, I have a comment saying pretty much the same thing, but that was over a year back. We can only hope that Scott hasn't forgotten his estranged children over here. He's still got his account, though it's been inactive for a while, at the very least he's aware of our existence.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
3hr ago
Why do repeats when the whole trail iirc from 20 years ago in boy scouts is around 12 miles?
The process is somewhat individual and adversarial. In NJ the way it works is more or less this - somebody has to be concerned about the patient (usually a family member, a concerned bystander, cops walking by) the patient is then taking an ED or Crisis Center on a temporary hold, at which point a social worker has to see them and think they need to be committed at which point they are seen by two physicians who have to feel it is appropriate. Individuals involved can be sued, fined, lose their license for abuse and so on. Then afterwards there is an expungement process. If the patient is held for an extended period of time without discharge then they have a formal court hearing that can and will result in release from the psychiatric hospital.
Obviously there is some abuse and laziness in the process, most typically the second physician would be like "eh I wasn't there, I'll assume the first doc was correct."
Ultimately this involves multiple trained professionals with skin in the game to make the determination that someone needs to be committed and they can always go through a court process afterwards.
I think some of the value here is that most people who end up committed don't have the functional status to do much of anything. If you make it opt-in most wouldn't, and wouldn't be able to get expunged. I'm fine with a more robust way of people getting their rights back but it has to be done in away that isn't too egregiously expensive and defaults to no because of how dangerous a small subsection of these people are, which is hard to convey if you've never seen them.
Crisis centers do occasionally catch people who will explicitly say that they are interested in killing people (in a sociopathic way) and loading them down with rights restrictions before they get started in an unalloyed good.
Hope all of that makes sense, typed fast.
Some other stuff: -While most doctors aren't anti-gun they aren't committing people purely to get them away from their guns unless the doc has concerns for threat and its therefore appropriate. This is because these settings are overworked, their aren't enough beds for those who really need them, and the hospital doesn't get paid if the insurance company doesn't think the patient actually needs to be committed and that rolls onto the doctor's head. In the worse case scenario no psychiatric hospital will take the committed patient because they clearly don't need psychiatric care and then the ED comes over and stabs the psychiatrists 80 million times for taking up a bed while someone is bleeding to death in chairs.
-Average disorganized street homeless person is harmless other than the inability to care for themselves even if they are vaguely threatening, so they tend not to get taken in unless they are actively harassing someone or committing some other crime like trespassing.
More options
Context Copy link