MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
No bio...
User ID: 896
And the numbers on the card are all dubious.
A) Does "gun violence" count suicides or not? Gun suicides are the majority of fatal shootings in America. If suicides count as violent, the number on the card is about a factor of 3 too low.
B) Doctors in Canada (and everyone else) kill far more people through medical errors than they do through MAID, it is just that we don't have a reliable count. So the number on the card is an order of magnitude too low.
C) Most car crashes are not accidents, but result from someone making a deliberate decision to violate a traffic law, or at least culpable negligence. Assuming they used the headline number for fatal car crashes, the number on the card is an order of magnitude too high.
Not many relative to the number of people cancelled, because mentally healthy people in anti-suicide cultures (like the west) don't commit suicide just because something bad happens. A sufficiently awful event can trigger a mental illness like clinical depression or PTSD in a susceptible person, but that leads to a suicide months to years down the line. And being cancelled generally isn't awful enough unless it causes you to lose a home or spouse.
We allow an insanity defence for crimes committed under the influence of certain mental illnesses.
They would say that even if it was obvious suicide. Given the stigma around suicide, SOP is to insist it wasn't suicide up until they find the suicide note. Without a note, obvious suicides get ruled as accidents.
Arday's lying was pathological, in the sense that he told far more lies than was professionally optimal. I suspect the same underlying mental illness/neurodivergence (if this is a meaningful distinction at all) caused both the pathological lying and the suicidality - particularly given Simon Baron Cohen's comments. (Baron Cohen knew Arday well enough to predict this, and was doing the groundwork to place blame long before Arday resigned his position). Given what we know now, it wasn't classic autism, and Simon Baron Cohen has blown up his own credibility far more effectively than his brother Sacha could have done with a Borat interview.
Cambridge undergraduate admissions is still sane (and to the extent that it isn't, class trumps race because British politics). So was hiring in the physics department last time I checked. This was about hiring in the education department, which was insane long before modern wokeness. Departments mostly control hiring in universities, and MIT and Caltech don't have insane departments.
But when the Journal reported on his suicide, the comments were full of people mourning him who apparently believe that he was a nice, well-meaning academic hounded to his death by a racist right-wing misinformation campaign, and that he was innocent of all of the allegations made against him.
This is therapy culture more than modern wokeness - you can the same underlying mechanism in cases with no culture-war salience like mean girls abusing each other on social media. Suicidality is almost always crazy behaviour (I am deliberately using a vague term), and therapy culture tells us that crazy behaviour is normally caused by past trauma. If someone kills themselves, then someone else must have traumatized them, and the person who traumatized them is a killer - even if their behaviour was otherwise unobjectionable but not "kind" like giving a negative performance review or dumping a girlfriend. (The overlap with woke is that there then has to be an unprincipled exception for members of oppressor groups - a man threatening to commit suicide if his girlfriend him is considered an abuser). The English Law Commission is currently running a project to fix technical aspects of English homicide law (which frequently produces perverse results) which is going to be completely derailed by an argument about whether men whose girlfriends commit suicide should be prosecuted for manslaughter.
There people are aware that suicide threats can be and are weaponised. They just don't care when someone drops the emotional nuke of a dead body on the table.
Quibble, but if you have a contractor working for you under a "normal employment contract" then they are a disguised employee and you are committing tax fraud.
Genuine non-employee contractors (i.e. freelance writers) mostly don't sign over copyright, although it is something that can be negotiated.
This doesn't surprise me - it is very obvious that "Evangelical Conservatives" covers and covered a coalition that includes serious committed Christians trying to legislate Christian morality (including Christian sexual morality) and also unchurched Red Tribers for whom "Evangelical Christian" is a tribal label and not a religious one trying to clown on their outgroup. (If I had to point fingers at specific pastors, I would say Billy Graham vs Pat Robertson.) It doesn't surprise me that the actual Christians have to hold their noses to vote for Republicans, or that they do.
There are plenty of leftwing shifts on social issues where "regular grandmas" as @georgioz put it, did fight for traditional values, most obviously abortion. But preserving the traditional understanding of marriage, at least in the US, wasn't one of them. (The British Christian right, despite being much weaker than its American equivalent, did fight the issue, and as a result we didn't get de facto no fault divorce until 1986 and de jure no fault divorce until 2022, despite a blue-ribbon commission calling for no-fault divorce as early as 1967)
Correct. Citizen Corvos is awarded a bonus of 4500 plasticreds.
I would say this is "woke 2" with the 1990's PC wave being "woke 1".
I agree that the various ideas that make up wokeness are older, but 1990's PC was the first time they were combined in something resembling the modern format - in particular the idea that Newspeak is a useful tool for addressing group-based social inequality.
Communist propaganda detected. Report for termination, traitor.
All citizens listening to communist propaganda are demoted to Infra-Red clearance and reassigned to the food vats until further notice.
The point of the OT prohibition on cross-dressing is that the two sexes should be visually distinctive so you can tell from a distance whether you are dealing with a man or a woman. The practical application of this rule is easy in almost all cases.
For example, male and female Highland dress are completely different, despite both involving a skirted bottom.
Similarly, although some women wearing trousers are doing so to be deliberately androgynous, nobody could think a Hilary Clinton pantsuit was anything other than ladieswear and a man wearing one would be cross-dressing.
In the context of western culture, "men only wear a skirted garment as part of full traditional Highland dress, and women only wear a garment with divided legs when doing work or sports for which a skirt is unsuitable" is a good fence around the rule against cross-dressing which I find broadly reasonable if you accept the rule.
we insist on...
What you mean "we", kemosabe? The people who think that transwomen get real periods are laughed at in public by normies and in private by other transactivists.
Part of the problem at the top end of the US prestige pyramid is that the Ivy+ schools always knew they were finishing schools, but at some point (I think the 1990s) they decided that "finishing" the next generation of elites meant indoctrinating them in a particularly stupid form of left-wing "anti-oppression" politics, and not only (or even mostly) in the classroom.
What that got us was an elite that lie about their privilege and claim to be oppressed victims, and take it seriously when other elites do the same thing. Increasingly including conservative/Republican/red tribe elites.
Naftali Bennett is already trying to take advantage of the collapse of the Israeli left to realign Israeli politics based on an alliance between right-wing patriotic secular Jews and Modern Orthodox patriotic religious Zionists, as opposed to Netanyahu's coalition which is increasingly based on an alliance between MO and the Haredi parasites.
Given the widespread view in Israel that Netanyahu should have been able to prevent October 7th, he is likely to succeed.
Also extending the lifespan of the British monarchy by 1000 years by trying to ban secular Christmas celebrations.
Your regular grandma did not read Augustine, she probably could not formulate elaborate theological arguments, but she knew what is a man a woman or what is marriage based on age old culture influenced by specific ethos.
Most Motteposters grandmothers will be of the Silent Generation, which is the generation that effectively invented modern divorce. Your regular grandma grew up in a society where marriage was for life, but participated in the process (1/4-1/3 of the time by frivorcing her husband herself, but in almost every case by treating her contemporaries who did so as respectable women making a praiseworthy life choice) of making it for as long as both members of the couple still feel like it. Almost nobody complained - and in particular the social conservatives who should have done mostly didn't. (Reagan signed no-fault divorce into law as governor of California).
If your grandma actually did something to preserve the age-old view of marriage, then she was an outlier, not a regular grandma.
there are both red and blue tribe conservatives
Per Albion's Seed (see also multiple SlateStarCodex posts explaining the theory with explicit application to the US culture war) the Red and Blue tribes (as tribes - the political coalitions are broader) originated with different Protestant denominations. If you are a believing Catholic who takes the unProtestant bits (particularly Papal primacy, but arguably also the Catholic view of the sacraments) seriously then in my view you are not Red or Blue. Certainly you are a profoundly non-central example of Red or Blue. (The same applies to serious believers in any other non-Protestant religion, but not to secular/Conservative/Reform Jews or cafeteria Catholics who are assimilated into the surrounding post-Protestant secular culture).
Carful training ensures plane speech and prevents carlessness. Carless speech can get you boaten up.
Fixed.
I can't go into a supermarket novel aisle without seeing three full shelves of romantasy novels about plucky young women with magical powers drawing the obsessive affections of foreboding but ultimately caring men. So where are the novels about clueless but good-hearted losers reincarnating into rpg worlds with a special skill that makes them irresistable to a harem of ninja babes?
May I recommend Yudkowsky and lintamande's Planecrash for over a million words of mostly-accurate maths, crank decision theory, explosions, and BDSM isekai geek harem fantasy, including about three quarters of a million words of damn good writing.
planely
In this case, it is especially important to speak planely, and not carly.
And other disgusting traditional Pushtun practices. I'm not sure whether Bacha Bazi was the most important, or just the one which made most sense to western audiences seeking an explanation for Taliban popularity.
The modern argument about how Abrahamic religion handles male homosexuality is odd because both sides' core claims are correct.
- The trads are correct that the holy books of all the Abrahamic religions condemn all forms of male-male sex, that if you give the key passages (the so-called "clobber passages" in the OT and NT and equivalents in the Talmud and hadith) their simple, obvious meaning the condemnation is unequivocal, and there is nothing else in the holy books that would suggest not giving the clobber passages their simple, obvious meaning.
- The LGBT lobby is correct that the actual historical practice being condemned by these passages at the time they were written (i.e. the machismo-based homosexuality of which Bacha Bazi is the Pushtun manifestation, and which while not universal was a cross-cultural default before Abrahamic religion) looks nothing like 21st century gayness-based male homosexuality, creating a colourable "originalist" argument that the original intent of the clobber passages doesn't extend that far.
Given the long-standing theological argument about higher criticism, the Christian trads (definitely) and the LGBT crowd (probably) are interpreting the Bible correctly according to their own standard interpretive methodologies.
- Prev
- Next

Crain is a case where a combination of clinical incompetence and what were in effect paperwork requirements (even if they required an additional scan to meet under the circumstances) for a medically necessary abortion permitted under Texas law led to lifesaving treatment being delayed with, as it turned out, fatal results. Ngumezi was straightforward malpractice - giving a pregnant woman who doesn't qualify for a medically necessary abortion abortion pills is just as illegal as doing a D&C, and more likely to have bad clinical outcomes.
In both cases, the doctors involved were subject to professional discipline. I think disciplining the Crain doctors is a bad idea, but I understand why the Texan authorities think it is a valuable face-saving measure. The message of Crain is now that if you are a doctor or hospital administrator in Texas, you should do anything you can to stop miscarrying women going anywhere near your hospital, as there is no medico-legally way of treating them. And hospitals trying to keep hard cases off the premises will lead to more Crain-type deaths.
Barnica was an entirely correct application of Texas law as it existed at the time. At the time she would have had the moribund fetus removed under non-Texan standards of care, there wasn't a life-threatening emergency - she became septic after the heartbeat stopped. Texas has since changed their law so this shouldn't happen again, although other red states have not.
Cox is something different - it was a case involving a non-viable fetus and there was never a real risk to the mother beyond the inherent risk of pregnancy. The Texas abortion law doesn't have an exception for non-viable fetuses and this is intentional on the part of the Christian pro-life movement that wrote it. Paxton's grandstanding over the case, while ghoulish, was entirely correct as a matter of Texas law, was popular with the pro-life conservative base, and probably contributed to him winning his recent Senate primary. I don't think it will be a major contributor to his losing the general to Talarico, although it should be.
More options
Context Copy link