Jiro
4mo ago
Apparently the Finns are much more willing to lock up the homeless.
Jiro
4mo ago
None struck me as fetishists or AGP.
If they were, you wouldn't know. That's another problem with the "highly intelligent people are doing this" idea. Highly intelligent people are better able to hide anything questionable.
Jiro
4mo ago
and they've probably thought it through for themselves quite thoroughly.
That doesn't follow. Highly intelligent people are also able to see gatekeepers as obstacles and can, using their intelligence, lie and manipulate to get around whatever criterion the gatekeeper is using to avoid later regret.
Jiro
4mo ago
I'm left wondering just why Peterson is such a rabid philosemite.
Because your standards for being a philosemite are absurdly low such that everyone seems to be defending the Jews too much.
Jiro
4mo ago
We've been mooting those same ideas since the 80s! When I saw The Capitol Steps when I was 12, they did parody duets between Yassir Arafat and the Israeli PM where the punchline was something like "well your great great grandfather once planned an attack, it's been hundreds of years who could ever keep track, no one can remember anymore!" How's anyone supposed to keep all this straight, let alone a fading old man?
"All sides are equal" is unfair to the better side. And since we have white supremacists here, let me make clear that Israel is the better side. From the Israeli side, the punchline is "the Gazans made an attack yesterday".
If the boss was pocketing some of the employee's paycheck under threat of firing, there would be no question that it's a legal problem. Using his position to take sex instead of cash is just a slight variation. It is not actually legal to rob your employees.
Jiro
4mo ago
Telemarketers being eaten alive is "I fantasize about my outgroup getting hurt".
Jiro
4mo ago
And it was not the first or last time I noticed that Gaiman makes these sorts of choices in his stories, so him turning out to be a little skeevy doesn't surprise me.
Every writer who is trying to be edgy, particularly ones who are trying to be both literary and edgy, is going to put something like that in their work.
(Especially for a writer who learned his trade writing comics, where the medium has traditionally been for kids, so writing like that is subversive and artistic and an especially good signal of literary merit.)
Finally, there is "if I refuse I might have to apply to one of 100s other employers" my boss made me do it, and I really do believe an adult woman should and does have the agency to refuse that last kind of ultimatum.
Even from a libertarian point of view, that should be unacceptable under real world conditions. The "boss" probably isn't the CEO and if he fires someone for not having sex with him, that's a principal/agent problem; the boss's boss doesn't want him to fire people for this reason.
You'd need a situation where either 1) the boss runs the whole company and doesn't answer to anyone or 2) the people who the boss does answer to approve of the boss firing people for refusing to have sex with him. Furthermore, to avoid bait and switch (which is a form of fraud), having sex would have to be part of the job description. And the boss would not be permitted to claim that he fired the person for some reason other than refusal to have sex (though he could stay silent if he wished). This will never happen.
Jiro
4mo ago
I'd give him a pass on that. It's actually demonstrating a problem with birthright citizenship.
Jiro
4mo ago
In 1989, the dictator of Romania, Nicolae Ceaușescu, was giving a public speech. Suddenly a single person started booing. And then another. Within a day, Romania was in revolt and four days later Ceaușescu had been tried and executed.
The context for that was that the rest of Eastern Europe was already in revolt.
Jiro
4mo ago
The crazy reality of Martin (etc) is that it really did treat homelessness as "a class with an immutable status that confers protections". In particular, under that line of cases, the involuntarily homeless could not be punished for anything that was a logical necessity for the homeless.
And the dissent didn't really bother with that. In Powell v. Texas the court ruled that just because the crime was involuntary doesn't mean it couldn't be banned. So the dissent denies that it's about being involuntary:
The Powell Court considered a statute that criminalized voluntary conduct (getting drunk) that could be rendered involuntary by a status (al- coholism); here, the Ordinances criminalize conduct (sleeping outside) that defines a particular status (homelessness). So unlike the debate in Powell, this case does not turn on whether the criminalized actions are “ ‘involuntary’ or ‘occasioned by’ ” a particular status.
Jiro
4mo ago
I'd assume that most people who use illegal drugs don't care about violating rules if they can get away with it. This would mean they're more likely to violate rules against using performance enhancers as well as rules against recreational drugs. It's not because the pleasure drugs and the performance enhancers are similar, it's because the same kind of people use both.
Jiro
4mo ago
The most obvious reason why more people questioned the Iraq war than oppose Russia is that the Iraq war was more questionable than opposition to Russia.
Jiro
4mo ago
That's true, but if I recall correctly, when I was looking at different causes of death in the United States, swimming pools turned out to kill a similar number of people (mostly young kids) to accidental gun deaths in the United States annually.
That says more about accidental gun deaths than it says about swimming pools.
Jiro
4mo ago
Getting enough sleep and eating right doesn't harm you. Neither does being rich. Using Adderall does, and if you don't prohibit it you get a race to the bottom where everyone takes it, everyone is as bad off as they would otherwise be (because the competitive advantages all cancel out), except they're worse because they also have the negative effects of Adderall.
Jiro
4mo ago
Wolverine wasn't the illegal immigrant standin. The mutant farm was in Mexico and Laura spoke mostly Spanish.
Jiro
4mo ago
because sexual abuse allegations are a superweapon, it's not going to save the LGBT if the culture shifts.
Sexual abuse allegations are a superweapon in the same way that racism accusations are a superweapon. You can't actually use them against anyone; you can use them against people lower on the oppression scale.
Jiro
4mo ago
Did you really think there are producers willing to front $100mm to make a movie about Gaza, inflation, illegal migrants, Trump, covid, BLM, metoo, or climate change?
I'd count Logan as being about illegal immigration.
It sounds like Playboy may have done this, though it's hard to tell. They tried to drop nudity in 2015 (which Hefner admitted was a mistake) and had to walk it back. Then (Wikipedia):
Playboy announced in February 2017, however, that the dropping of nudity had been a mistake and furthermore, for its March/April issue, reestablished some of its franchises, including the Playboy Philosophy and Party Jokes, but dropped the subtitle "Entertainment for Men", inasmuch as gender roles have evolved. The announcement was made by the company's chief creative officer on Twitter with the hashtag #NakedIsNormal.[61]
Following Hefner's death, and his family's financial stake in the company, the magazine changed direction. In 2019, Playboy was relaunched as a quarterly publication without adverts. Topics covered included an interview with Tarana Burke, a profile of Pete Buttigieg, coverage of BDSM and a cover photo representing gender and sexual fluidity.[1]
It went online-only in 2020.
Jiro
4mo ago
The anti-racism movement started well before the gay rights movement, so by this reasoning we should be in the middle of a massive backlash among the youth against any sort of anti-racism movements. It's fair to say that we don't have that.
Jiro
5mo ago
I flat out do not think anyone could make even a half-compelling case for Biden nationalizing Twitter.
Then pick a different example. There has to be some unlikely scenario. Let's go with your original court packing one.
You care about unlikely scenarios that happen at the 5-10% level, yet you don't care about unlikely scenarios that happen at the 3-5% level. Even assuming I fix the numbers so it isn't exactly at 5 (which is covered by both ranges), that's making a really, really, fine distinction. I simply would not be able to estimate such things with enough precision to say "well, maybe it's as high as 3-5%. but it couldn't possibly be as high as 5-10%". And I highly doubt you could really make such estimates either. It's not only subjective, but it can't be anything else; you're pulling numbers out of your hat.
Jiro
5mo ago
I think I'm still allowed to be worried about that 5-10%, because to me, that's well beyond my comfortable threshold for electing a president.
...
I'm mildly afraid that Biden will consider a court-packing plan, but this probability I place at more like 3-5%. Trump gets weighted higher at 6-10%. This is subjective, thus I don't expect people to agree.
Thatt's not just subjective, it's so subjective that your conclusion entirely depends on the subjective part. I mean, I could say "Biden has a 5-10% chance of cutting off aid to Sarael" or "Biden has a 5-10% chance of nationalizing Twitter" based on nothing whatsoever, and the percentage is small enough that it would be hard to argue exact numbers.
The term "white males" is too commonly in use for me to think that demands about "females" are sincere.
More options
Context Copy link