@sarker's banner p

sarker

It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:50:08 UTC

				

User ID: 636

sarker

It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:50:08 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 636

Nazis? Allegories? What are you talking about?

I'm talking about his actual, literal policy positions that are considerably to the right of the median voter.

  • -13

Lebanon and Afghanistan are pretty homogenous as well.

  • -12

This photo continues to exist, so it seems that in this particular example the tactic is not working.

I don't know if it's actually better that she apparently did all this due diligence and still fell for it.

As far as I can tell, the primary beneficiaries of "disproportionate impact" policies and hiring of "marginalized people" are black people. The people advocating and voting for these policies are white people.

How and when did this come about? Well, affirmative action dates back to the sixties, and was well underway in the nineties. As for where all these black people came from, if I remember your family history correctly, I am afraid you will have to blame your ancestors.

"Those", being the same government that just banned it?

This is only true in the sense that groups pushing gun rights are already talking about establishing a white ethnostate.

Wild animal suffering is completely irrelevant to this question.

Imagine there's a planet in the Andromeda galaxy where ten trillion humans are being flayed alive.

Does that affect whether or not you should mug the next person you see? Clearly not - it's wrong to do that even if there's a lot of bad stuff going on elsewhere. You're not responsible for the torture planet. You are responsible for the mugging.

Even if you were totally right on animals being worthy of moral consideration on the level of humans, you would additionally have to prove that domesticated animals would be better off not existing at all, and that by ending animal domestication you have managed to somehow lower the amount of animal suffering occurring in the world, while simultaneously outweighing the positive utility animal consumption has for humanity.

If you insist on taking for granted the claim that animals are worthy of moral consideration on the level of humans (you brought this up, not me), then the rest of the argument is a cakewalk. What kind of monster would breed humans in the conditions of factory farming just to eat their flesh? Even if humans tasted really good?

You yourself said that many domesticated animals lead short and sad lives. Do you really think that existence is a benefit for them?

This image has an extensive licensing section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_mug_shot.jpg

It's not "working" because the trump photo deletion attempt is for "invalid fair use" rather than a lack of a license. That's a totally different argument, and sure, I can believe that it's not always applied in good faith. A license being totally absent is pretty black and white.

Okay, let's see the clustering.

I hope it considers that all Mexicans are white (as a federal court did in in re Rodriguez), that people who are half white and a quarter Japanese and a quarter chinese are not white (in re Knight), Syrians are white (in re Najour), Afghans are white (in re Dolla), Armenians are white (in re Halladjian), Indians are white (United States v. Balsara), Syrians are not white (Ex parte Shahid), Indians are not white (In re Sadar Bhagwab Singh), Afghans are not white (In re Feroz Din), Arabs are white (In re Ahmed Hassan) and that arabs are not white (In re Ahmed Hassan).

If it conflicts with the above in some way, it would seem that the term "white" used in ordinary language and society doesn't always conform to what you might see on a multidimensional genetic chart. That you can define "white" in a way to be defensible via the chart doesn't mean that's how it's always or even typically used. Hence, "socially constructed".

Sure. If you're just publishing everything you get, and you publish some nonsense, that's one thing - you're publishing everything, you're not trying or pretending to actually evaluate it.

If you actually do due diligence, and you end up eating the onion, that's worse. You can't even (as people in this thread claim) act like a helpless normie, because helpless normies don't give a shit about due diligence. Instead, you do due diligence if you have a sense that you have a platform and a reputation you need to guard.

So perhaps I can see the argument for "she's a savvy operator and we should blame her for fucking this up" or "she's a rube, of course she ate the bait" but going for "she's savvy and it's not her fault" is incoherent.

Ten million more illegal immigrants since 2019? What's the methodology for that estimate?

The total illegal immigrant population in 2021 (the latest I could find estimates for) was 10.5M, down from 12.2M around 2009.

Wild animal suffering is relevant because when you say animal domestication is morally wrong, the obvious next question is “compared to what?”... the end of animal domestication means the subject of moral questioning is overwhelming subjected to that mode of living, which is basically the IRL version of lovecraftian horror.

You are verging on intentionally being obtuse. If I proposed turning loose the 130 million pigs slaughtered every year to fend for themselves, you would have an argument. Instead I am proposing not having those 130 million pigs at all. The comparison is not between factory farming or wild life, it's between factory farming and non-existence. The state of nature is totally irrelevant to the question of factory farming. It's not an option on the table for these animals.

The torture planet doesn't have to exist. It would be better if it did not exist, no matter how people live on Earth. To say otherwise is to engage in utilitarian sophistry that you were condemning a few posts above.

As for the question as to wether a short and sad life is worth it, that remains an open question.

Certainly Life seems to think so, seeing how abundant those types of lives are in nature, red in tooth and claw.

You cannot derive an ought from an is.

I didn't read all that, but if your claim is that it doesn't matter what the actual meaning is and just vibes are enough, good news - there is no ability to understand Shakespeare that we can lose, because we don't actually care about understanding him.

The classics are perfectly safe. Any classic movie can be streamed for a small fee on numerous platforms. If it's old enough, you can even find it for free on IA or YouTube since they're out of copyright.

Copyright is obviously a license.

If this fulfills the requirements, they could just write "fair use" under the mugshot.

Yes, that's one way to add a license to a photo. However, as I mentioned, nobody actually did this.

I don't understand why you find this hard to believe considering that's plainly the justification written for the deletion. This is not one of the (many) rules that can be bent for fun and profit, this one really is just that simple.

will note that there is not a picture of him in the Wikipedia article,

Edit history suggests that it's a licensing issue. If you can find a photo with an appropriate license you should add it.

I'm not sure I see the relevance. Obviously Trump isn't an immortal. Winning the election was not guaranteed, and neither is taking office, and neither is achieving any policy goals or staying in office very long. I only mean that I have seen a lot of introspection from the people who thought Kamala would win on the merits and zero introspection from people who thought that Kamala would win via subterfuge. They have simply moved to bailey.

Meanwhile, on reddit, a conversation like this is happening:

is it really extrapolating much to assume that the party that requires healthcare providers to report any miscarriage so you can be investigated and prosecuted and mandates that you be raped with an ultrasound probe before you can get life saving medical care could also require you to have children by a certain age or other things that are not part of current legislation? Are slopes ever slippery?

Moreover, when your own refutations are called into question or proven incorrect, you simply ignore and move on instead of defending your position.

This couldn't be more incorrect. If anything, I probably respond way past the point of zero marginal returns (example: this very comment).

Stop being the critic, and be the man in the arena. Tell us something good.

I made a poast about psychopaths a few months ago, but nothing good has come to mind recently. Writer's block, what are you going to do?

Then there are people who just learn and use language incorrectly. "Let me axe you a question", "supposably", "could care less". There's a thing they're trying to say, it's language that already exists, they just heard it wrong or remembered it wrong or pronounced it wrong.

What makes more wrong to "axe" a question than to say "it's"? Contractions did not always exist and most languages I'm familiar with don't have them, certainly not to the extent English does. It's clearly the legacy of people hearing, remembering, and pronouncing "it is" wrong.

The safetyists say that you should wear a seatbelt, you agree, and yet claim.they are wrong about everything.

It's crazy to blame inflation on Biden when the deficit and money printing happened under Trump, and justify it with a Biden policy that never happened.