FaibleEstimeDeSoi
No bio...
User ID: 2072
Or maybe omission of it was meant as a message of no longer delaying the "depose" part.
Again, please write something that strengthens this parallel other than that she is relatively young compared to other politicians. What issues can be her Perestroika, her Glasnost, her liquor ban?
Why write so many questions when you clearly already have intended answers for them? Why make another post for the same discussion?
In the end this is meaningless, taste is subjective and I can't do nothing except to say "actually fifth prison cell is good if you give me more shelf space". Yes, majority of people do agree that classical buildings are better looking than modern pragmatic boxes, but they do not think in architectural styles, they mostly think in terms of what is "cool". And I don't see majority of people disagreeing with this gymnasium building being something cool and novel.
I am not saying that they didn't intend for her to be evil, with the notes of gray but still clearly a villian. I am more poiting out radical political reading on this which is I think clearly wasn't intended. Most likely they just wanted to make a cool scene and make Lilith more sympathetic by putting word about freedom in her mouth and making the opposition be bigoted church which worships another asshole.
I think you misunderstood my point. I am talking about AAA game with fairly standard(and quite good) modern narrative complete with mainstream liberal norms, which in the process of making story more complex and gray most likely unintentionally opens itself to the radical interpretation. Similar thing often happens with villains that do something "to save the planet" or "destroy oppressive society", which are points that far-leftist generally agree with. I am not saying that it is intended or correct reading. And I don't get what you mean by "my philosophy".
What sort of surreal standard of notoriety is this?
5k followers is not much especially on twitter, I have that many on one of the platforms with almost no effort invested and I think most of the people here either can do the same or already done it.
Currently playing Diablo 4 and this cutscene genuinely stunned me in the sense of how it unintentionally conveys perspective of religious reactionaries so well(maybe I wrong here of course, can't read creators' minds). There is plenty of modern mainstream woke stuff in the game. racially diverse cast with good roles for minority characters, angel that was mostly good in lore previously was made into a selfish coward, et cetera. But here we have demonic figure offering freedom from religious obligations and societal constraints, freedom that leads to the brutal killing of a priest who was the one man who resisted the temptation, freedom to be beautiful in sin. That could have been short story told in a tweet by an anon with 5k followers, instead it's a main plot point in AAA game. And normies don't see it, because idk, priest was mean. I am not in any way religious or conservative, but it's interesting to see their views being represented even most likely without them being involved in production.
That one has too many questionable decisions to count.
Idk about radios but you can read the aforementioned book to get all the details about backwardness and ridiculous inefficiency of nazi economy. They had their moments because their opponents weren't much better and for most of the war their main one(USSR) had economical system even more backward and inefficient.
It's funny that you mention Diamond zebras thing because it's one of the greatest examples of WNs not being able to read. Diamond specifically makes a point of distinctioning between taming and domesticating animals. Elephants were tamed many times throught history but they aren't domesticated because it is hard to engage in selection with that animal. Also, he again writes not about abstract possibility of domestication, but of it feasibility and desurebility for Neolithic tribesman on large time scales that are necessary for this. Of course in modern times some Siberian biologists can and did domesticated foxes in half of century but I don't think we should consider native European population more dumb because they didn't do it thousands of years ago.
I picked up Forgotten City on sale some time ago and finally gave it a try. Great game, highly recommend, don't want to say too much to avoid spoilers. Running around the ancient ruins and learning everyone's plotline is quite engaging.
Dunno why everybody liked it. If you already experienced time loop story you can already guess what you would be doing whole game.
I think it's quite obvious that both sides stated positions aren't their actual final positions for the hypothetical peace treaty if it was signed right now. They just have no reason to downgrade their stated goals before any negotiations.
Thank you, it, while not ideally, does work.
Does anybody here knows how to find old reddit posts from a specific subreddit? There is no search for oldest, no option for specific dates and even scrolling down for top of all time will not work because of 1000 listed posts limit. Previously there were a couple of api based solutions but they got bricked recently. It would be very strange if there wasn't a way of doing this considering that all the posts are there and are accessible through links to this day.
Posting this in Friday fun because I need this to autisticly read discussions of the game/book/film from when it released, not for anything useful.
Completely agree with you, but also I don't see how Republicans could conserve their policy positions in popular vote system. There is huge demographic change going on that is realistically irreversible, but also generally US population is very progressive and there is little momentum going on in other direction compared to, for example Europe. I think the only way this changes in the near future is emergence of some great figure that can run on bipartisanship platform leaning left on economic issues and right on social ones either from an established party or even as third party break out like Ross Perrot, Trump could have been such figure but he wasn't.
Wanted to write basically the same thing but you beat me to it. Free speech make sense in prosperous and stable liberal democracy because its enemies are mostly harmless. You can't say the same about Weimar republic.
But this system of laws and punishment clearly does influence outcomes, like a slope guides water downhill. And criminals are to blame in the same way as tsunami is to blame for its victims, I can get angry at both. Also our whole society does stand on the assumption of free will so you just learn to put up with thism
Would an average obese person agree to the deal that goes like this "you lose enough weight to return to healthy bmi but from now on my magic will force you to eat within your calorie maintenance limit". I think answer is an obvious "yes", as we see with Ozempic or stomach reduction surgery. They do want to change their eating habits for benifit of being healthy they just can't force themselves to do it.
The only out here is some form of argument against free will, but people who argue the choice to eat the whole pie isn't actually a choice never live the rest of their lives like they don't have free will. It's pure cope.
How not believing in free will should change your day to day life? I don't see it.
Generally it's considered a brave/heroic act that was miscalculated. He bet on regime being close to collapse/reform(in which case he would much rather be prisoner in Russia than influencer in Germany) and lost. Effect was mostly negative for his supporters, the widespread demoralization and despair. He was a great man to whom no replacement has been found still.
Sometimes I wonder why people watch debates. I don't watch them because I want to hear long technical answers about tax rates and regulations.
Actually fact-based arguments are the strongest and most interesting for me both to make and to hear. Idk about American scene but my debate club experience was much better cause of the culture that made personal attacks, lies and thousand year old logical fallacies unacceptable. Why would I want to listen to yelling and arguing not based on any evidence if I can get the same in any random conversation with stranger in the bar?
Other people are superficial, but we focus on the real substance!
Motte being the upspring of rationalist culture does harbor people that care more about whether something is actually true. And this is generally very good metric for politicians. Because they will make important decisions and when they do it doesn't matter how flashy or rethorically potent they are. And it's historically been the case that competent technocratic leaders were better for their populace than loud demagogues.
The difference is people already expect to hear Trump say some dumb shit, Biden supposed to be and generally is more competent and his gaffes stand out much more.
Many non-Russian people do live in Moscow and pass opportunities to immigrate, but it's mostly because of cultural and familial factors than anything else. Moscow before the retarded SMO had basically European level of living for the middle class and while it's still lags behind US like all the rest of Europe, you can choose to live there for the same reasons people chose to live in the latter and not the former.
Yeah it's true and I'm writing this from one of those recently built single-family houses. But I think this development isn't major enough, will be limited because of the lack of infrastructure and can be stopped by various government policies. Like mandating different flat plans and sizes, reinvigorating public transit in smaller cities and making personal houses even more expensive tax wise. I'm not necessarily advocating for this, but that and many other things can be done to keep people in cities(despite the growing uselessness of living close to work when everything can be done distantly).
How can you prevent segregation and why would you do it?
I was spurred to ask this question by this article and especially this paragraph where author builds logical sequence connecting segregation with various social ills:
"These segregated schools ruined children's educational and economic opportunities. They achieved much less academically. Because of this segregation, many more dropped out. Many fewer went to colleges. Those that did were disproportionately likely to enroll in less rigorous institutions, like for-profit community colleges. Because of this segregation, they earned lower incomes as adults. They were more likely to end up in jail. Their health was worse. In the end, these 100,000 are much more likely than their peers to emerge as the most economically disadvantaged members of society — whereupon the cycle will likely repeat with their own children."
Author doesn't spell out what is the main cause here but we can guess. It can't be money related issues, because they could be solved without integration with a different tax scheme. It can't be some institutional racism cause he does provide examples of black charter and views them as failures. No, in my understanding the single most useful benefit that black children lose out here is diversity in itself. Obviously there is a question of white and asian kids faring pretty fine without it and also the counterargument along the lines of DR slogan "you don't have right to a white people", but let's accept their premise as true. There are after all many instrumental benefits to your populace not being concentrated into the ethnic enclaves, assimilation is useful and if Romans could do it with the Gauls why Americans can't. What you can do to integrate schools once and for all?
The solution preferred by author - the repeat of the policies of forced integration doesn't work in the context of liberal democracy with freedom of movement and widespread desire to avoid "bad" schools i.e. schools with poor black people in them. 60s policies just kicked the can down the road and led to the white flight. Modern one that tries to do the same will end up similarly, maybe with much stark division in the end.
Successful desegregation should make resegregation not illegal but not desirable or simple. In the search of the solution, I think it's wise to try to emulate post-soviet conditions, because despite large immigration from much poorer countries generally Russian cities were resistant to segregation, the most ethnic districts in Moscow range from 20 to 50 percent of immigrants and not for the lack of them. What causes this? Multi floor apartments/soviet block housing allows for diverse quality and quantity of housing at the same place. Poor migrants often rent or buy small one bedroom flat to retrofit it into something more fitting for the Hong Kong, working class citizen or a student will live in similar one if alone or slightly bigger when married and/or with kids, middle class can afford to have good amount of square meters per person and each child will always have their own room, upper class will have can easily have double the space of a middle one and has option of uniting several flats into one. And all of them can live in the one building, use the same parking space and their children will go into the same school(private schools that cater to rich people exist but not everybody cares enough to opt for them).
Then we have widespread public transport that by existing devalues personal car infrastructure and makes getting into the city from some suburb much harder even in the smaller towns. And what maybe considered the most important part by people here is the law enforcement that while far from perfect for example both in Poland and in Russia(still much worse in the latter) does work at keeping streets safe, public transit clean and gangs non-existent(apart from the ones that get in with the government but that's a different story). I think democratic politicians can achieve this kind of integration and they have reason to do it, YIMBY i.e. urbanist faction becomes more powerful by the day in the local elections and I can see some of the people affiliated with it succeeding in the desegregation maybe without even make it a goal. But ideological solutions from people who do make it a goal can sink it all again.
- Prev
- Next
I think it's just because people have much more to lose now. Your normal standard of living is big enough so you don't have to diverge from a safe railroded life path to live well. Why would you commit if by doing so you limiting your own options and open up yourself to failure?
More options
Context Copy link