I used to donate plasma, and they would refuse to do it if my blood pressure was too high (I was of average fitness but I had to walk a decent distance to get to the donation place so the often made me wait for ten minutes). Maybe I should do some blood letting at home for my hypertension, since i doubt they would let me donate.
Maybe I am missing something, but don't Airports already solve this problem? I feel like you could trade the 500 car parking structure for something like an arrivals/departures lane that could quickly and easily see 500 people into their cars and on their way. Apparently 60,000 people go through Dulles every day, and their arrivals area is four lanes for about a quarter of a mile (from eye-balling it).
If I came up to you and said 'your money, mine now' you would not assume that I meant if you broke a particular clause in a contract that you would be subject to financial penalties. I think the overwhelming interpretation would be 'i control your money in every way'.
If a libertarian, taxation is theft, guy just lost the presidential race after running on the slogan 'Your money, is yours' and then somebody tweeted 'your money, mine now', I think the overwhelming interpretation of the tweet would be that it is a joke about taxation being theft.
you instantly identify people with different politics than you as enemies
is very different from,
your policy is a threat to me, and so, I see you as an enemy
Failing to see this seems to be the core area of confusion. The assumption in your post, which is 'ridiculous', is that any political difference is threating. The idea that someone who is threatening you politically, could be viewed as an enemy, is far from ridiculous.
The idea that he might generalized the principle from the specific instance, is totally anodyne. It's just his conflict theory origin story.
people with different politics than you as enemies, and see their policies as threats?
SteveKirk is clearly talking about a specific policy, right?
every member of our society learns when they grow up that their mother once had the fully legitimized option to have them slaughtered
telling Mum "thanks for not aborting me", and her not being super-reassuring about it (I don't think she seriously considered it, but I'm damned sure that during my adolescence she often wished she had). It's a bit creepy.
I actually remember learning what abortion was in 5th grade and being so repulsed ... just an instant angry threat response: "this is an attack on us kids"
The policy in question, is abortion. The 'threat', is the 'threat' of being aborted.
The angry threat response and instant friend/enemy distinction
The directionality is clearly, your policy is a threat to me, and so, I see you as an enemy. Not, your policy is different from mine, so I see you as an enemy, and as such, your policies are threats.
I am honestly flabbergasted, can you include quotes from the rest of SteveKirk's comment and the rest of the comment chain, to help show how you arrived at the interpretation that you arrived at, I can't even imagine how you are parsing these comments to end up where you did.
I remember not too long ago, a bunch of conservatives got excited because the audience for whatever show Colbert hosts now, booed when the CNN affiliated host said something about them being impartial. It was amusing to me, because the conservatives took it to mean, even this progressive audience knows how biased (against Trump) CNN is. Of course, the reality was that they were booing CNN for being biased in favor of Trump, because this was within about a month of the debate and that was the normie progressive take, that CNN was basically in league with Trump.
Guam catching strays. Guam is way more American than Puerto Rico, hell, at least on Guam English is actually the primary language. I think Guam is at least as American as any Hawaiian island (except in a complicated pollical sense).
I thought the archetypal male fantasy was a femboy with an AK.
Some artifact of leaving the page up all night, a refresh solved it.
Totally off topic, but I am seeing this comment as 1d old and the comment it is replying to as 12h old, some sort of bug?
Can't they also criminalize it? I could have sworn it used to be a crime in a bunch of places.
As an armature artist, or hobbyist might be more accurate. AI art is vaguely depressing, I feel like my life is worse because it exists. That said, it is hard for me to call it 'evil' and I don't get overly upset about it. I used to have fun drawing everyone's characters in my D&D group. Now somebody produces AI art of all the characters and major events, within an hour of session wrap, so I don't bother to draw them anymore. I am sure the group enjoys them, they look nice, and it is not like random D&D art ever had a lot of meaning or artistic value in the first place. The group is almost certainly better off, even if I feel kinda shitty about it. Ultimately I never felt comfortable calling myself an 'artist', I have some technical ability but I never put much thought or 'soul' into my work, I thought of it more like illustration, viewed myself as more of a craftsman. Like so many craftsman before me, my craft has been automated and I have been made redundant. Life is suffering.
I guess this needs clarification, but when I said 'at the population level, at the national level' I was trying to preclude the 'literally zero' type objection. I did not assume that a 'most' was all the OP needed to fix their post, since you called it a 'zombie idiot' idea, which suggested a fair deal of distance from a directionally or mostly correct idea (which it seems to be, to me).
I would also really love an answer the question in my post. At the population level, what other cause, that does not reduce down to oppression, is an acceptable progressive explanation for why minorities do bad things? Full disclosure, I honestly don't even know what your answer could be. I literally can't think of one. My understanding is that, 'oppressive society' and 'genetics' covers 100% of the total possible causal factors for the question "why minorities do bad things", with 'oppressive society' containing all of the factors that a progressive would view as acceptable. Again, to me, the view expressed in the OP is stock standard progressive ideation presented in an unfavorable way.
Maybe this has to do with the fact that people aren't paying their rent & are scared to pay their rent & so they go out & they need to feed their child & they don't have money so... they feel like they either need to shoplift some bread or go hungry - AOC
The idea that crime is fake and that societal factors explain all observable group differences is stock standard progressive thought, actively taught in sociology departments all around the country. I was personally taught this in a university sociology class, and in a criminology class(at the same university).
I am curious, what, other than oppression, would a progressive accept as an explanation for why minorities do bad things? At the population level, at the national level, what other explanation is even compatible with progressive ideas? You could argue culture, but of course a criminal culture is a natural response to an oppressive society. You could argue socio economic factors, but again you are going to very quickly run into the root cause for those difference, oppression. When I brought up the crime-lead theory in my sociology class, my professor countered with, 'and why did certain groups have to live in the areas of high lead concentration?? tut tut tut'. It's oppression all the way down.
Sure, they might not be as frank as the original poster, but the underlying belief structure obviously leads to the same conclusion.
I feel like one of us must be WILDLY failing the ideological Turing test, for you to call this a 'zombie idiot' view.
FWIW, Gas stations suck. The ability to home charge an EV daily driver is literally the only reason I would consider getting a near term EV.
I just google Denver, CO homeless camps and got tons of articles, videos and photos of them(I suspect Denver was not always like this, my city wasn't). I then googled Denver homeless crime, and while I will admit it is very narrow in its focus, the article titled
Crime calls up 2,900% at hotel converted to homeless shelter in Denver
stood out.
The OP mentioned a car break in, so I tried to google that,
DENVER — After leading the nation in stolen vehicles, including a staggering 98 percent increase over a 5-year period the latest data show Colorado vehicle thefts dropped in 2023, a trend that has continued into the current year.
I tried to find stats on just breaking into cars to steal stuff, but all my google searches were swamped with, leading the nation in auto theft, articles (I even checked page 2)
Which is all to say, for all I know OP lives in Denver.
I think these “tribes” will turn out to be even stronger categories than politics. Harvard might skew 80-20 in terms of Democrats vs. Republicans, 90-10 in terms of liberals vs. conservatives, but maybe 99-1 in terms of Blues vs. Reds.
I have quoted the deep lore.
I think Harvard culture is basically interchangeable with Oxford culture, such that the college elite of both countries are culturally very similar. Which is why I called the political elite of the UK, blue-tribe. I see globalists multiculturalism as a pretty ubiquitous cultural affectation of western college elites.
I can admit that I might be stretching the meaning of Blue and Red too far, but I like to think that I am actually getting to the heart of the division. I think it is mostly a college/political elite vs prole/working class divide, and that this divide is very similar across all countries under US cultural hegemony and has become increasingly similar over the last fifty years or so, such that it is coherent to talk about the working class proles of the UK as being 'red tribe', and the political elite as being 'blue tribe'.
In this particular instance my position is that the blue tribe or college/political elite are generally multicultural. My read is that globalism was in full swing across basically all of the west by the 90s, such that the political elite across the west were broadly in favor of increased immigration and multiculturalism. I think if you went to the best universities in Germany, France, the UK the US in 1995 and grabbed a hundred random students from each graduating class, and asked them how they felt about multiculturalism, you would get back 80%+ favorability with little between country variation. Maybe I am wildly off base, I do not actually have a survey to back this up, it is just how I feel, having spent time in all these counties during this time period. As well as my general read on the cultural output of these counties during this time period.
Blue tribe does not cleave easily along political parties. It is the culture of the college educated elite, and generally holds across western nations. The soccer hooligan and the NASCAR redneck have more in common with each other than either does with the Yale Conservative or the Oxford Liberal, and vice versa. The college educated elite like diversity and want to live in a multicultural world, they want to go to the sushi restaurant with their black friend and watch the India vs Pakistan cricket match while drinking a microbrew. It's their culture.
Which is exactly why it does not change much with lost elections.
When it comes to women being able to open a bank account on their own, 1974 is 'shockingly recent'.
Recency is contingent on the subject.
I don't buy it.
Immigration is something the blue tribe just wants.
The blue tribe didn't start from the position of, how do we improve the economy, and then searched around and found immigration as a good policy for promoting economic growth. The blue wanted immigration and looked around for ways to justify it. Sure, they also believe the justification(trust the science), but the justifications are not to convince themselves, they are to convince those damn red-tribers.
They really want to live in a 'diverse' world, with ethnic restaurants, and friends who speak English with an accent, who have weird fun customs, different clothing, and different skin tones.
They are absolutely attached to it.
Nice hat... strikes again (the 'first graph result' link is borked)
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what physically happened. This video seems fairly clear to me, I have attempted to write out what I am seeing in this video with as little editorializing as possible.
The Pivotal Action: Watch 0.25 speed starting at 10:35
She is told to "drop the fucking pot" a couple of times, at gun point.
She puts the pot down (the things in her hands are pot holders).
She crouches on the ground.
The cops approach.
She rises suddenly, re-grabbing the pot and holding it over her head with her right arm.
The officer gets out the word 'drop' before shots are fired.
Faker for sure.
- Prev
- Next
Is the average lifespan in 1935 one of those situations where its mostly just a higher rate of infant mortality?
More options
Context Copy link