AverageBear
Liberal NPC
No bio...
User ID: 2549
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
Tide of public opinion" was creation of mass media that decided in Feb 2022 to play up this war as much as possible
Alternatively, "major historical enemy catastrophically fails to invade tiny neighbor" doesn't require a conspiracy to be a captivating news story.
Those concessions were systematically undermined and ignored for decades
By other states - not the federal government. As recently as 1859 the year before Lincoln's election, the supreme court ruled in Ableman v Booth that state "personal liberty" laws didn't supercede the Fugitive Slave Act.
The irony is that framing the civil war as a matter of states rights isn't wrong...but it was over northern states asserting their rights to reject constitutional but morally unjust laws.
For an extra dose of irony, South Carolina nearly seceded during the 1830's...because they felt that states should have the right to nullify federal laws they found unconstitutional. And when the federal government capitulated, but reasserted that they could use military force to make states comply, South Carolina symbolically nullified that!
The secessionist states wanted a federal government that would force states to follow laws they found morally abhorrent - yet only for specific laws that would benefit the South.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
the Civil War was more about Federal control over the states than it was about slavery.
I don't buy it. The only reason the southern states feared federal control was because they feared it would be used to end slavery.
basis of this refusal was of course slavery, but it could have been something else.
Could I ask what that something else could possibly be? It would have to be an extreme wedge issue that the seceding states considered an existential risk to their continued way of life.
In an alternate timeline where the southern states remained in the union but abolished slavery, the only thing I could think of would be the enfranchisement of former slaves.
Not sure if this is the correct spot for site feedback.
Can/should we prevent posts that you reported from showing up in your own "The Motte needs your help" queue?
If I report something, I prefer other unbiased users judge if the report makes sense.
There was also that whole opening an impeachment inquiry without a house vote, which he claimed he wouldn't do shortly before doing it.
And when that failed to win him the support he needed, after relying on Democrat votes to pass the CR, said the next day the Dems "tried to do everything they could to not let it pass". The latter was apparently played to Democrats in the meeting where they decided to vote against him.
Still, who knows if this works out for them aside from making the Republicans look chaotic for a bit.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
Do you think in a world where his choice was between a politically unreliable black woman who might run for election, or a non-descript white guy who wouldn't rock the boat, he would still choose the former? I don't.
The pool of "warm reliable bodies" is large enough where he can choose whatever arbitrary conditions he wants to score some political points.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
I like your contributions despite normally disagreeing, but I think you're off-base here and being (perhaps unintentionally) rude to OP.
The OP provided helpful background information, stated and backed up his position, and provides a good jumping off point for further discussion.
Doing this adds length to the post, yes. But adding an engine to a car and adding a steel block is materially different despite them both increasing the weight.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
I like Lee and wouldn't have been upset if she was picked, but the incumbent advantage is real and Newsom not tipping the scales in the next election seems like a prudent move.
I do hope she wins in the next cycle though.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
Doesn't really feel icky to me. The selection criteria for the appointment seems to be a reliable and unelectable Dem to keep the seat warm until the next election.
If you can do that and appoint a diverse candidate that will please part of your base, seems like a win-win.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
Small point, but I wouldn't say New York is going after Trump for "wanting to be president".
Just "wanting to make him suffer" is more accurate. Had he announced he wouldn't be seeking re-election after 2020, I'm fairly confident these cases would have proceeded regardless.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
Can anyone explain the (apparently) imminent government shut down? It looks like it's driven by disagreement about spending cuts between different Republican factions in the house, but I haven't found a good breakdown.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
Actually this is in civil court not criminal which heavily indicates how weak of a case it is.
That's not true. The NY attorney general doesn't have the authority to indite Trump on criminal charges.
Similar to the SEC (whose cases are also civil), they refer their investigations to a separate authority who might be interested in pursuing any criminal charges in addition to the civil case.
I believe the OAG has referred this case to the Manhattan DA, though as they're already prosecuting Trump for a separate case, I'm not sure if they'll decide to file criminal charges.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
It's going to be pretty hard to find cases where there's no egregious harm because they would normally go undetected. And once there is harm, your company is probably insolvent and not worth pursuing by OAG.
If you're pointing out that this only got investigated because it's Trump, I agree. Unfortunately for him, the investigation uncovered a crime.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
Right - and his personal guarantee is based on the valuation of his assets, which he overstated.
I briefly read through the ruling so I might have missed it, but how are you certain the over-valuation of these properties didn't affect the terms or availability of any loan/insurance/financial agreement?
The bank doesn’t care I exaggerated.
The bank absolutely does care about your debt-to-asset ratio for a multitude of reasons, but more importantly they care if you're a liar.
A $10 million loan to someone with $1-2b in assets is likely a low risk for default. A $10 million loan to someone who lies on their financial statements is a reputational and financial risk.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
I read this, felt immense respect for them upholding the ideals of The Motte in a way I probably couldn't, then realized I was also blocked by them
That's a roller coaster of emotion.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
Good read! Speaking of Godot, they capitalized by announcing their new gofundme today. Good bit of PR.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
In the same boat as you. Former amateur game dev, mostly in the traditional roguelike genre. Unity is that perfect mix of "I can do 75% of what I want to do really quickly. But the last 25% is going to be wild."
At the risk of pissing off many other developers, it gives me Python vibes in that respect.
Some of the more successful games use parts of Unity then circumvent it for stuff like the actual game engine. Rimworld for example.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
Fresh controversial gaming news.
If you're not familiar with Unity, it's one of the more popular game engines in use today, especially for Indy developers. It's frequently recommended for it's relative ease of use, and up until now, generous licensing. Even if you're a very casual gamer, you've probably played some games built on this platform like Pokemon Go, Beat Saber, or Monument Valley.
Today, Unity has announced some significant pricing changes. Most controversial seems to be that beyond a certain revenue and install threshold, developers will be paying Unity per install of their game. As in, if you uninstall and reinstall the game, the dev gets charged twice.
This has managed to piss off the usual suspects of game developers, games journalists, and gamers. Many an angry comment written by Dorito stained keyboards are flooding messageboards and twitter about how this is the death of gaming. (Tongue-in-cheek by the way, as a non-game developer I find the pricing model half-baked.)
But what's really interesting is the potential for misuse that I predict will occur for the next controversial game. While Unity has said they'll try to limit malicious behavior, they're providing gamers with the ability to charge developers money by essentially clicking the uninstall/reinstall button.
Any predictions for how quickly we see the first weaponization of this tool?
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
This protest had 15 people between two aligned groups. I'm not convinced you need to be a master statesmen to gather these kinds of numbers.
I did another brief search and found Polhaus fundraising as of 2020.. I'm sure he has been around for awhile.
3/ Alt-right movement
Why nobody heard about these people before?
Because it's convenient? There are two groups, the Goyim Defense League and the Blood Tribe.
The Goyim Defense League has made national news before, most prominently for hanging the "Kanye Was Right About The Jews" banner over an LA Overpass last year.
Polhaus, leader of the Blood Tribe has been an activist for years under various different group names, including the "Hammer" brand since at least early 2021 when his telegram channel had ~6k members. where he apparently also sold white nationalist branded merch.
Why they walk away scot free, no matter how many crimes they do?
They don't. Kent Ryan McLellan who claims he went and fought in Ukraine at the behest of the CIA has been arrested and jailed several times according to FL court records.
Where they get money for their stunts?
Judging from the court documents, selling meth.
Jordan Peterson deserved it.
You may be aware that an Ontario court recently ruled that Jordan Peterson is required to undergo social media training. This was discussed in a previous CWR, and the general vibe from that discussion was that this was a political attempt to silence or punish Peterson for unpopular political opinions, but I disagree. Instead, I think Peterson genuinely crossed the line with regard to the professional conduct required of him.
First, this argument rests on the belief that it's ethical for certain professions to impose limits on practitioners' freedom of speech. We've decided that certain professions require some degree of public trust and accountability. We expect lawyers to provide correct legal advice, auditors and adjustors to provide unbiased reviews of the facts, and physicians to treat any patient equally, regardless of their personal beliefs. However, we establish limits on this, generally agreeing that these professionals are individuals and are free to express their opinions when it does not cause direct harm to their profession, their clients, or the public at large.
Accepting this, the College of Psychologists of Ontario, of which Peterson is a member, is responsible and obligated to investigate and act on complaints against its members when acting as a clinical psychologist. Now the question is whether or not Peterson made these statements as a clinical psychologist, and whether or not his statements violated professional standards. Specifically:
The Complaints
From the court's decision, which I highly recommend you read yourself, these are the complaints against Peterson:
a. A tweet on January 2, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson responded to an individual who expressed concern about overpopulation by stating: “You’re free to leave at any point.”
b. Various comments Dr. Peterson made on January 25, 2022, appearance on the podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience”. Dr. Peterson is identified as a clinical psychologist and spoke about a “vindictive” client whose complaint about him was a “pack of lies.”
c. Speaking about air pollution and child deaths, Dr. Peterson said: “It’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways.”
d. A tweet on February 7, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson referred to Gerald Butts as a “prik”.
e. A tweet on February 19, 2022, in which Dr. Peterson commented that Catherine McKenney, an Ottawa City Councillor who uses they/them pronouns, was an “appalling self-righteous moralizing thing”.
f. In response to a tweet about actor Elliot Page being “proud” to introduce a trans character on a TV show, Dr. Peterson tweeted on June 22, 2022: “Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.” A further complaint about Dr. Peterson’s January 2, 2022 tweet, in which Dr. Peterson responded to an individual who expressed concern about overpopulation by stating: “You’re free to leave at any point.” The further complaint provided a link to a 2018 GQ interview in which Dr. Peterson made a similar comment about suicide.
g. Peterson’s tweet posted in May 2022, in which he commented on a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover with a plus-sized model, tweeting: “Sorry. Not Beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.”
The Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee ("ICRC"), in their investigation, determined that some of these complaints were valid, and others were not. Specifically, they determined that statements a and c, while provocative and inflammatory, could be interpreted as innuendo, a joke, or parody, and did not rise to the level of "disgraceful, dishonorable or unprofessional" conduct.
They argue that the remaining statements do, but this is where I disagree.
The most relevant complaints are b. and f, and including the other statements in their decision cheapens their reasoning. By focusing on the more subjective criteria of "disgraceful" and "dishonorable", they miss the low-hanging fruit of "unprofessional".
Between statement B and F, Peterson disparages a former client as "vindictive", dismisses their complaints as a "pack of lies", and refers to a fellow practicing physician as "criminal" for performing an otherwise legal surgery.
Regardless of his political opinions, these statements seem to easily pass the standard of "unprofessional" conduct you would expect of a psychologist.
Past Complaints, and Aggravating Factors.
Peterson has been registered with the college since 1999, and he's no stranger to complaints. To date, this coaching is the first action taken by the ICRC against Peterson with the most recent investigation closing in 2020 with no action taken. 2020 was arguably a "hotter" year for the culture war and the college likely would have had more political cover for any sanctions. So what materially changed?
Peterson's counsel describes him as "a prolific author, podcaster, and YouTube content producer who maintains an active social media presence. In his social and political commentary, Dr. Peterson is often colorful and controversial.” Arguing in effect, that Peterson the social and political commentator is not Peterson the clinical psychologist. And I think this is a fair point because in the conclusion from the 2020 investigation that resulted in no action, the ICRC noted:
"[the] importance for a psychologist to conduct themself in a respectful manner”, whether Dr. Peterson identifies himself as a psychologist or not.
In 2020, Peterson's Twitter bio made no mention of his being a clinical psychologist. Peterson, in addressing this at the time, stated he "opted not to advertise this title on his Twitter". However, in 2022, this changed, he added "Clinical psychologist" to his Twitter bio.
Since Peterson effectively stopped practicing in 2016, this was a position of contention by the ICRC. Peterson, in responding to concerns that he continued to publicly identify as a clinical psychologist stated:
"I remain a clinical psychologist and am functioning in the broad public space as both. Given that I am still licensed, and still practicing in that more diffuse and broader manner, I think it is appropriate for me to identify myself as a psychologist".
If we accept Peterson's reasoning that he continues to practice in a broad and diffuse manner in public - it stands to reason that his primary interactions with the public via his Twitter and podcast appearances should be examined under the lens of the standards expected of a clinical psychologist. And even if you don't agree with this argument, Peterson himself seems to agree based on his rejection of the board's recommendation
Peterson's Counter Proposal
In rejecting the board's recommendation for social media training due to the recurrence risk of unprofessional tone and language, Peterson argues that any social media coaching would be redundant - as he had already taken steps to address these concerns.
I'll quote the relevant section from the decision:
In a lengthy letter to the College, Dr. Peterson acknowledged that the various social media platforms he utilizes “requires careful attention and care to be used appropriately” and that he had “already implemented a solution” to respond to the College’s concerns, which included “modification of the tone of my approach.” Dr. Peterson stated that he had “surrounded” himself with people to help him monitor his public communications and to provide him with “continual feedback as to the appropriateness of the tone and content of what I am purveying.” These people included, Dr. Peterson said, his “expert editorial teams at Penguin Random House” which publishes his books, members of his immediate family “who work professionally with me” and “a very wide network of expert thinkers from the world of theology, psychology, politics and business.” He concluded: I would say, then, in my defense, that I have already undertaken the remediation of my actions in a manner very much akin to what has been suggested by the ICRC and have done so in an exceptionally thorough and equally exceptionally public and transparent manner
The ICRC, to little surprise, found that his business associates, close family members, and "various professionals", many of whom would have a financial incentive not to restrict Peterson's brand of controversy, were not capable of being independent, and would not examine his behavior through the lens of his obligations as a member of the College.
The Conclusion, and Why You Should Care.
At this point, I've laid out why I think Peterson's statements crossed the line of professional behavior, and why the board was fully justified in taking action against him. Along with outlining his counter-proposal which feels particularly poor.
I'm under no illusion that "social media coaching" is anything but laughably ineffective. Peterson's brand is controversy, and he's unlikely to take any serious advice to heart. In my opinion, the College is already providing Peterson with incredible leeway that would not be granted to less inflammatory members, and his framing of this dispute as a suppression of free speech instead of a professional dispute is incredibly hypocritical for someone who spends so much time pointing this out in others.
But the true nefarious reason I spent time on this write-up, whether you agree with my conclusion or not, is because I didn't see -any- of this discussed previously. As someone whose opinion differs strongly from the average expressed here, I've grown spoiled by the high-effort discussion this community normally generates. It was disheartening to see a culture war topic engaged with so heavily without a cursory discussion of the opposing view.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
Yeah, the critique felt a little weak. Specifically because the primary critique is noted in the study itself:
These findings are based on exploratory analyses in a modestly sized sample that represents a high-functioning subset (e.g., 31% screen-in rate) of the total homeless population in Vancouver. Thus, our results may not extend to people who are chronically homeless or experience higher severity of substance use, alcohol use, or psychiatric symptoms.
What would have been a more convincing approach would be instead focusing on this statement found in both the news story and press release, but missing from the study itself:
The study did not include participants with severe levels of substance use, alcohol use or mental health symptoms, but Dr. Zhao pointed out that most homeless people do not fit these common stereotypes. Rather, they are largely invisible. They sleep in cars or on friends’ couches, and do not abuse substances or alcohol.
This statement does a lot of work in justifying the policy implications of cash infusions because if 31% of the homeless passed their entrance requirements, and it's a representative sample, then 31% or more of the homeless at-large could be conceivably impacted.
I have no idea if his assertion is true or not, but that seems the most potentially dubious framing.
AverageBear
Liberal NPC
1yr ago
The point of war isn’t to win quickly. The point of war is to achieve a political objective, and speed is just one factor to consider.
Would bombing civilian infrastructure, looting and raping the populace, and obliterating their people speed up a war? Possibly.
Would this also alienate your allies, impact your own people’s perception of your armed forces, leave you with psychologically damaged soldiers, and ultimately risk other countries deciding that if you’re willing to do that, you’re willing to do that to them and they should get involved more actively? Possibly.
There’s also that most people generally don’t like to think of themselves as monsters, even towards their enemies. It would be a lot faster to put death-row inmates in a pit and shoot them - the end result is the same - but we don’t do that because of how it makes us as the killers feel.
I'm skeptical about this. I did some brief searching and most research seems to have pretty clear definitions for what constitutes political violence.
More options
Context Copy link