domain:npr.org
jkf
20m ago
Your stance is that spitting on the ground in front of another man is inherently aggressive and instigatory?
I mean, kind of? Not sure if it's obsolete or some regional deal, but I thought it was pretty universal & ancient that looking a guy in the eye (esp. when trash talk is going on), then spitting off to the side is a gesture of contempt at best, and essentially fighting 'words' in most cases?
See, um -- Darwin (!?), apparently: (thanks Google!)
Spitting seems an almost universal sign of contempt or disgust; and spitting obviously represents the rejection of anything offensive from the mouth. Shakspeare makes the Duke of Norfolk say, “I spit at him—call him a slanderous coward and a villain.” So, again, Falstaff says, “Tell thee what, Hal,—if I tell thee a lie, spit in my face.” Leichhardt remarks that the Australians “interrupted their speeches by spitting, and uttering a noise like pooh! pooh! apparently expressive of their disgust.” And Captain Burton speaks of certain negroes “spitting with disgust upon the ground.” Captain Speedy informs me that this is likewise the case with the Abyssinians. Mr. Geach says that with the Malays of Malacca the expression of disgust “answers to spitting from the mouth;” and with the Fuegians, according to Mr. Bridges “to spit at one is the highest mark of contempt.”
Granted most of his quotes do involve people spitting at others -- which is clearly even more aggressive -- but I personally would not spit to the side while talking to somebody unless I were looking for a fight.
Tenaz
22m ago
That absolutely is a controversial statement. Saying it would get you fired from virtually any top-tier job.
Rov_Scam
27m ago
Not really. Most medical records I look at have too much information, not too little, and that appears to be a consequence of computer programs that make it really easy to generate a ton of data ever yfive minutes. Office notes are usually pretty good, but if the guy was in the hospital it seems like they provide daily updated medication lists and ongoing reports of vital signs. Plus the complete record includes all the discharge instruction for how to care for your wound, etc.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
33m ago
TitaniumButterfly
34m ago
I have literally hundreds.
Question on my mind a lot is whether my children can, and will care to, inherit.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
36m ago
He, like many others, lacks the necessary coldness of heart to effectively prosecute the culture war.
Or in other words, he's too busy thinking with his dick.
The feminists are correct when they point this out, especially when discussing those sorts of people who can't really handle modernity; it's just that instead of fixing the problem, they simply replaced one set of destructive fetishes with a different set of destructive fetishes (they get off on the oppression narratives just as men get off on the possession ones).
Humanity in general has a hard time dealing with that, given the destructiveness of those fetishes never had to be dealt with before (as it evolved alongside the state of nature) by either gender. Hence we see a lot more DreadJilling (eliminating political power for the vast majority of "normies" and all men, executing straight people, conscripting wallets).
I hesitate to even call DreadJim right-wing, for he is not. That label belongs to whatever the "entrench corruption harder/50 Stalins" faction is in society, and that faction is the feminist one. His faction has simply fallen completely off of the reform -> conserve -> ossify/tradition political treadmill.
NYTReader
42m ago
I am on record that large-scale, open-ended political violence is a preferable outcome to the political outcomes Blue Tribe appears to me to be aiming for
Depends on what outcomes you're referring to.
I have argued at length that the Constitution and rule of law are dead
Too broad of a statement to analyze, need specifics. Aren't these things that Blue Tribe blame the Red Tribe for as well?
I have argued at length, and continue to argue, that reconciliation between Reds and Blues is probably impossible in the foreseeable future, and that the culture war is terminal for our society as presently constituted.
I don't see why this statement makes you an extremist. Maybe just a political realist?
If I am not mistaken, Jim himself, and certainly many others like him, argued that we were already past the point of no return, that political solutions were impossible, and that in fact we had already compromised our ability win an outright fight, leaving fighting immediately as a desperate last resort.
I think you misunderstand the far-right position. Jim thinks we're past the point of no return because 50% of newborns are non-white. What's your political solution to that?
No, you're just operating from totally different first principles.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
48m ago
I think there's less foolishness there and more evil; the pursuit of a good end by bad means has long since given way to a pursuit of a bad end by bad means.
"Evil" and "bad" are meaningless unless one shares values-coherence with the people with one communicates, which is not true for Jim or people who think he's correct, and cannot in general be assumed here. I certainly do consider him evil and agree with the rest of your analysis as to why, but I try not to assume that others share my moral values.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
54m ago
With respect, I think you're trying to have it both ways; you call yourself as an "extremist", but your suggested proposals and the congeniality with which you express them are not really outside the mainstream in 2025.
I am on record that large-scale, open-ended political violence is a preferable outcome to the political outcomes Blue Tribe appears to me to be aiming for, and further that I believe Red Tribe can and will decisively win such a fight. I have argued at length that the Constitution and rule of law are dead, and that their corpses provide little advantage to our present situation. I have argued at length, and continue to argue, that reconciliation between Reds and Blues is probably impossible in the foreseeable future, and that the culture war is terminal for our society as presently constituted. If you think that these positions do not qualify me for the label of extremism, I'd be interested in hearing your arguments as to why.
What separates me from Jim and his ilk is that I have a better understanding both of why that violence should be delayed as long as possible, and why we have advantages in executing it that are not necessarily compromised by such delays. If I am not mistaken, Jim himself, and certainly many others like him, argued that we were already past the point of no return, that political solutions were impossible, and that in fact we had already compromised our ability win an outright fight, leaving fighting immediately as a desperate last resort. And then the 2024 election happened, and suddenly our position is considerably better.
JarJarJedi
58m ago
Note to self: if you are using your phone to deal drugs, set up privacy settings so that messages do not show up when the phone is locked. Which actually is the setting on all my phones anyway even though I don't deal drugs.
Responding to the edits:
"Where did things go wrong" is an important element of social critique. My answer is that things went wrong with the Enlightenment, which was not the triumph of rationality over superstition, but rather the opposite. That's a long and involved conversation, though.
I do not think my model is accurately summarized as "go back to the 1600s", more along the lines of "stop making a simple (but for some highly lucrative) mistake we made in the 1600s and have been continuously making ever since." This would be a better summary:
Skepticism, rationality and empiricism, and even instrumental materialism, do not mean believing that studies show.
In any case, I do not wish to "go back to the 90s". Free speech and human rights are a spook, "rule of law" is doomed because no set of rules can ever constrain human will. Values-coherence is a prerequisite for the formation and maintenance of a functional society; the aim is to achieve values-coherence with others, band together for mutual benefit and defense, and prevent rule by those who hate you.
That is certainly one point of contention. Jim and similar "right wingers" believe that the problem is blacks and browns, and wish that Reds and Blues could coordinate against them. I believe that the problem is Blues; if it were possible to coordinate with Blacks and Browns against them, that would be an entirely acceptable outcome. Browns and Blacks are a problem to the degree they empower Blues; if blue power is broken, disputes with blacks and browns are solvable in any number of ways.
Blue Tribe's goal is sociopolitical closure, to shut anyone who disagrees with them out of the economy, the political arena, and to the greatest extent possible society itself. In the classic formulation, they aim to make peaceful revolution impossible, and to the extent that they succeed they make violent revolution inevitable. The part people have missed, though, is the degree to which they have not succeeded in making peaceful revolution impossible.
Sure, and they're occasionally correct, after a fashion. But let's put it bluntly: the first amendment does not protect my speech, and the second amendment does not protect my right to keep and bear arms. What protects my rights is my ability to coordinate action among those who share sufficient values with me to be allies. There is no way to share power long-term with those who do not meet this basic criterion.
Creating a polity where Blues hold no sway, and hence browns and blacks are not an appreciable problem. encouraging blacks and browns committed to blueness to leave for blue areas seems like a pretty easy and bloodless solution. to the extent that this is not possible, it is because Blues still have too much power, which is again a problem I think we are in the process of solving.
Indeed we are. His are wrong and foolishly so.
More options
Context Copy link