The logic is:
Some stances are based on data, some on principles. Meghan does change her mind based on data (your first quote). Is the question of pornography/sex work one of data or principles? Meghan argues for her side using data (your second quote), so clearly she thinks it's one based on data (bailey) but when the data is challenged she says it's a matter of principles (motte). As Yassine says in the full piece:
There’s nothing wrong with either approach done separately, but Meghan appears to want to have it both ways to maintain an acrobatic ability to backflip away from ever having to defend her positions.
This just seems like a way to shut down conversation in a space that is explicitly for discussion.
I was a math major, and I am very glad my university required a liberal arts education. I had a couple philosophy courses that really stretched my intellect, an anthropology class, a sociology class (we read Fussel's "Class" and it's stuck with me since) and a Brit Lit class that left me with a sincere appreciation of boring dead peoples' writing. I also enjoyed poetry for the first time in my life.
All that said, I have no problem with the decline of the humanities, as long as there is still some significant chunk people who get to dedicate their lives to it. English major became, IMO, a standard choice for middle-intelligence people who wouldn't have been in college a generation before. The development of the humanities doesn't depend on them.
The proposed measure certainly codes as dystopian
Ssome questions (not a gotchas) to try to probe your sense of dystopian:
If they had just removed a central road and made it ped/bike only, would that be comfortable to you?
How do you feel about toll roads generally? What about modern highly automated toll systems?
I really liked Knives Out, even though I do have a mild allergic reaction to overt woke messaging. There were several "good guy" white characters, including the old dead rich white man. Yes, the 1st-generation Latina is the one winning out in the end, it's obviously a movie of its time, but I think it did a pretty good job of being detective-movie-for-the-Trump-era. The family of humorously horrible people is very much a mix of clueless conservatives and out of touch liberal elites, and I think both sides are getting poked fun at. Also, it's just good in its own right. The clever inversion of the traditional detective story arc, while leaning into classic mystery tropes, was very well-done.
Curious to see how I feel about the sequel.
Oh my gosh... my son uses ChatGPT to generate Minecraft commands for him, and he asked how to fill the woodland mansion with TNT. ChatGPT said that it was not right to fill servers with TNT because it could affect other players' experiences. He explained that he was playing single-player and ChatGPT still said it wasn't right to blow up a bunch of stuff with TNT.
Well, it would be nice for a consumer to be able to distinguish between delicious-food-and-excellent-service and oh-my-god-this-place-is-on-par-with-the-French-Laundry by seeing if people rate it 4/5 or 5/5. For many people, 4/5 means "excellent service".
I think giving a place a less-than-5-star rating for adequate service does not mean we expect more than we paid for. Maybe what we're paying for is a 4-star restaurant!
- Prev
- Next
Natural monopoly. If everyone around them lowered their prices, they increase their market share. If you're one landlord out of 100 in the middle of a city and there are 100 families in need of housing, it doesn't matter if 99 of them cut their prices... that 100th family is still going to pay you.
More options
Context Copy link