@ToZanarkand's banner p

ToZanarkand

Some day the dream will end

0 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2024 March 15 18:08:08 UTC

				

User ID: 2935

ToZanarkand

Some day the dream will end

0 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2024 March 15 18:08:08 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2935

Pretty much what JulianRota said. Don't worry too much about it.

This is the best advice.

Depends on what you want and what the fame brings you. Having lots of people you don't care about asking for your autograph sounds wearying. On the other hand, your increased SMV (assuming you're something like a famous musician rather a famous chess player) will outweigh most negatives for a lot of people.

It reminds me of people who disparage Hitler as a "failed painter" or whatever. I mean I'm not a fan of his, but his artwork seems alright.

Wasn't the whole purpose of making her VP to appeal to black voters? The Democrats appear to at least believe she's valuable for that reason, and I'm not sure they want to risk that.

but even given that he could get all the "we want a competent adult in office" types and get the base by default.

Does he get the base by default? Are the black and/or female parts of the Democrat coalition going to accept Harris being looked over?

I think people are over-estimating how unified the Democrats will be on this. Pretty much anyone important in the Biden administration relies on him continuing to be president to keep their own position, and will not willingly go along with replacing him. If there was someone waiting and perfectly suited to step into Biden's position that would be one thing, and that's usually the role the VP holds, but it doesn't sound like the Democrats have much confidence in Kamala Harris to lead them to victory. On the other hand, they would be risking alienating many of their voters by passing over the black, female VP to pick someone like like Newsom instead.

There's also the question of how exactly they even could force Biden aside, assuming he wants to stay. Would the party rules allow it? And would he be good-natured enough about it not to cause a significant damage?

Partly why my pet theory about Iraq is that Bush was a good person, maybe even kind of smart,

It's quite funny that the meme of Bush being actively stupid endured for so long. I was just watching a bit of one of the 2000 presidential debates and while not at the same level as Al Gore he was obviously a capable individual. Idiots don't become leaders of major nations.

No, but what you hope for in an ally is that they'll back your side when it comes to such disputes over territory. I'm not taking a position on whether Russia should or shouldn't have gotten more involved in Nagorno-Karabakh; I'm simply pointing out that the whole episode is unlikely to inspire much confidence that Russia is a particularly useful ally to have.

Of course, I was just reacting to the comical juxtaposition of what seems to have actually happened and the attempt to paint the whole event as some sort watershed revelation of levels of homophobia in western society.

But the actual motte is that failing to give trans people everything they want is genociding them by driving them to suicide.

My impression was that the genocide claim is mostly based on the argument that not affirming trans people's gender is supposedly denying their existence, which in some way is equivalent to wanting them dead, or whatever.

What about compared to cis women?

(he'd had sex with one of the men who murdered him).

What a world we live in.

They could if they wanted to, of course - gay guys had no issues keeping trans men out

To be fair I don't think it's a similar category of problem, in the same way trans men trying to get into male prisons doesn't cause the same concern as trans women in female prisons.

is people just don't like freaks.

Even when it comes to this lots of people don't care that much. What shifts a lot of people from "whatever" to "fuck off" is being told they're awful and/or stupid for not agreeing with trans people's conception of "gender", the accompanying entitlement to women's-only spaces, their kids being encouraged to change their identities etc.

I cannot imagine getting so asschapped that I need to signal just how upset some guy on the internet made me

How is blocking someone a signal that someone on the internet upset you? Is there even a way to tell who's been blocked by someone?

ETA: Apparently there is. Huh.

It seems unlikely to me that Russia would honor any such obligation, if the recent situation with Armenia is at all representative of how Putin treats such partnerships.

Rationalists from a core base of White and Asian men who have been systemically excluded from the traditional pathways to the elite (Ivy League) due to affirmative action.

They're also privileged (i.e. have above-average incomes).

and whether the US will be less committed to defending the current Saudi regime.

Presumably they would? My loose understanding is that the Saudis would likely start developing their own nuclear deterrent without the US defending them, and the US is pretty keen on avoiding nuclear proliferation.

It's hard to imagine such an effect, if it exists, could be observed between any but significantly phonologically distinct languages. It sounds like a stretch to imagine it could play a role in why some British-English speakers might look different from American-English speakers.

Not surprising, given they're a Germanic people.

Do they actually have any kind of choice? I don't believe that Israel would be terribly accepting of an official Hamas Military outpost showing up anywhere in Gaza.

Yes, they obviously have a choice. They've got an extremely extensive underground network, there's very little reason they couldn't have most of their military hardware there. While they're at it, they could open up their tunnels for civilians to shelter in rather than say it's not their responsibility to look after them.

It's not like the possibilities end there. They could choose to keep kids away from "schools" jam-packed with weapons and firing facilities. The hit to the kids' education is probably compensated for by their subsequently increased life-expectancy. They could store military hardware in apartment blocks that actual civilians are forbidden from living in. And so on.

Anecdotally, I've never heard anything like this from my older relatives,

Seconded. Of the people over 60 whose personal lives I know anything about (e.g. my parents, their friends, my friends' parents) the majority seem to be in happy relationships.

At the same time, internet comment sections have been around for a while, and if more old people than before are complaining about their love lives then that probably signifies at least something has changed. Maybe relationships between older people are actually getting worse, or old women feel more empowered to complain about men, or something else.

Vote third party? Don't vote? It's a well known problem with FPTP that you don't have a lot of recourse if you don't like one of the two options on offer.

I'm not sure it hasn't been weaponized - I'm pretty sure the right points out Biden's age quite frequently.

The usual consensus is that VP picks don't meaningfully alter the likelihood of a given candidate winning the US general election. There are some widely recognised exceptions, like Sarah Palin hurting John McCain's chances in 2008 (although he was facing an uphill battle anyway), and Biden picking Kamala Harris in 2020 to appeal to black voters. But the accepted wisdom is that they don't matter.

With both candidates being so old this time around, are people likelier this time to take therunning mates into account when voting in November? Do there exist a non-negligible number of voters who would vote for Donald Trump to avoid Kamala Harris? Or e.g. people who might be inclined to vote for Trump but dislike his VP pick so much they don't want to risk being saddled with them after a year or two?