netstack
Texas is freedom land
No bio...
User ID: 647
Well…yeah.
I was pretty tired when I wrote that, but what I really wanted to convey was the simplicity of motive. Especially on forums like this, people love to concoct their elaborate theories, detailed strategic planning over how the outgroup could possibly come to their conclusion—and no, they just think he’s a tool.
It’s like watching a carjacking and writing an essay about the perp’s home life.
Someone once said Republicans like Trump because he hurts the right people. There’s a lot of Democrats who just want the right guy to get hurt. It sucks.
Who gets out of bed in the morning and thinks, “hmm, I need to throw the activists off the trail, time to start a phenomenon”? The Clintons? Pelosi?
On what basis?
Last time this came up, that wasn’t supported by the stats for homosexuality. I really doubt it’s true for transgender kids either.
I feel like I’m having a stroke just reading those transcripts.
I have a similar impression.
The bleeding edge of teenage identity politics was calling people gay. A statement about gender roles, no doubt, but not sex. Er. You know what I mean.
What do you think happened? Was there some technological development in medicine or information? Do we blame tumblr?
Given that I believe they’re two separate clusters of traits? Accuracy.
Most of today’s trans culture warring involves a motte and bailey between the two. It’s the Trojan horse @ChickenOverlord mentioned. You want to be polite and accommodating and not rock the boat, and next thing you know, there’s a spate of pregnancies in the women’s prison.
I think a lot of that goes away if people admit that, hey, some of these traits don’t go away if you ask nicely. Make it clear when a decision (prisons, bathrooms, story hour) is based on the gametes and the BRUTE STRENGTH. That’s the best way to avoid empowering people who do want to ignore biology.
Also, I know it’s wishful thinking, but I want off the euphemism treadmill. “Assigned male at birth” is a mouthful.
I can’t agree with that.
There’s a cluster of traits which I find attractive. That doesn’t give me any interest in expressing those traits.
Well said.
I think there’s room for a stable equilibrium, and it probably involves distinguishing sex from gender. I don’t know if that’s enough to do right by people who experience the world so differently from me. But it would be better than the strategic ambiguity of the current discourse.
Man.
Sometimes people just don't like things because the things are bad. Or, given the insane adaptability of human aesthetics, because they haven't yet found a reason to cultivate the liking. In a world of impossible luxury, is it really surprising that people's preferences don't overlap?
More importantly, does it really say anything about a more fundamental hatred? Disdain for Americana is a heuristic, a shorthand for a bunch of material and cultural luxuries. Disdain for America, or for one's family, is something else.
Thank you for putting this sentiment to words. I've been struggling with it for the last week as I try to assemble a last-minute appeal to voters.
Every time I see a "they must just hate freedom" or "they're taking off the mask" or especially "anything is justified if they think they're stopping Hitler!" I want to scream. God damn it, you're missing the point! Most people aren't making a utilitarian calculation. They aren't even reasoning from a coherent philosophy. No, they see good things and bad things, you imbecile, you fucking moron, and they vote for the ones that feel right. Two centuries of civics have sculpted their feelings about all these pretty words like "democracy," "freedom," "rights." But millennia of history etched something deeper.
"He can't keep getting away with it."
The modal Trump hater thinks that he is coarse, unstable, and especially untrustworthy. Seeing him avoid consequences is disappointing. Seeing him get rewarded is frustrating. And seeing his supporters construct an elaborate alternate universe where he actually deserves even more rewards is fucking infuriating. That's all there is to it.
Curtis Yarvin talks about a lot of things. Most of them don't hold up if one doesn't share his beliefs about philosopher-kings.
The President hasn't controlled the government since John Adams.
I had this strange deja vu, and what do you know.
Have you gotten any new evidence since then, or are you just going to keep demanding we roll the dice again? Maybe it'll come up in your guy's favor this time.
The comparison, elsewhere in this thread, to his Home Alone cameo is relevant.
You know, I’m really not sure. Mississippi isn’t exactly the poster child for income inequality, so it’s not like the per capita numbers are all skewed by one city.
Elsewhere I was seeing some evidence that title I funds were less than 10% of Mississippi’s education funding. If so, maybe all our states really can afford to take up more slack.
On the other hand, there’s got to be some sort of logistic curve. At some point you have to close sites and drop some people from the system entirely. If federal funding covers that cliff, I think removing it would be pretty serious.
It’s an interesting question. This suggests a 6.2% illiteracy rate in Alabama in 1950. Even assuming that was completely segregated, which was certainly not true, that would get us 132 out of 979 thousand, or 13.5%.
Meanwhile, searching Chicago gets breathless results about 25% “functional” illiteracy…and 20% for the whole state! That’s ridiculous unless the standard of illiteracy in 1950 was much lower. But exceeding Alabama’s 6% or even 13% seems completely plausible.
As for the floor—it’s not actually the cities I was thinking of. It’s the small rural districts across the South and Midwest. I think taking the federal funding from, say, Mississippi shutters a lot of schools. I’m not sure if the budgets back this up, though. If cutting all of the DoEd only cuts marginal state budgets by 10 or 20%, it might be worth it.
Britain and their restrictive culture around weapons. Next thing you know, they’ll require a license for operating a car.
Something I find interesting is how coverage emphasizes the “outrage” amongst firearms officers. This is the first I’ve heard of it, so I figured it was as manufactured as the charges, but apparently several hundred opted out of carrying their weapons in protest. Not very reassuring. It’s obviously in their interest to secure as many protections against misconduct as they can, and it’s obviously in the public interest to keep them on a tight leash…so long as they offer them respect. At a certain point such an adversarial relationship results in no one wanting the job. I don’t know how to design a process that doesn’t incentive both to claw for more power.
I really don’t think I can defend the DoEd as a cost-effective educator. I do think it has value as a floor on provided education.
Most of its expenditures date back to 1965 Great Society programs. However, they’ve been consistently refreshed and revisited by both parties, because no one wants to turn off the firehose assume the burden themselves. Poor states don’t have a better plan waiting; slashing their only source of funding makes their options strictly worse. That may or may not be worth the tiny percentage of federal budget you’d save.
Instinct: no way! Most people don’t care about the election any more than they care about the Super Bowl. Internet political forums are a hell of a selection bias.
On second thought: I need to get back to work instead of moderating said forums.
But how could this be measured? Stock market? Number of malpractice lawsuits? Firings? Place your bets.
If he was writing today, he’d probably be publishing on RoyalRoad.
If you don’t mind me asking, what do you do with your degree?
I know one guy who studied PoliSci, presumably because he grew up in a State Department household on the other side of the planet. We met because he was switching to engineering. As far as I know he’s at a major defense contractor now.
Did you read the contest review for The Complete Rhyming Dictionary and Poet’s Craft Book? It was my favorite of the entries.
You might start by looking up some examples of poetry from each century, going back until you can’t easily understand the English anymore, and find in the 16th century such poems as John Skelton’s “Speke, Parott” [sic]:
My name is Parrot, a byrd of Paradyse,
By Nature devised of a wonderowus kynde,
Deyntely dyeted with dyvers dylycate spyce,
Tyl Euphrates, that flode, dryveth me into Inde;
Where men of that countrey by fortune me fynde,
And send me to greate ladyes of estate;
Then Parot must have an almon or a date.
Moving forward into the 17th century in search of poems that spell their subject matter consistently, you might come across John Donne’s “A Hymn to God the Father”:
I have a sin of fear, that when I have spun
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore;
But swear by thyself, that at my death thy Son
Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore;
And, having done that, thou hast done; I fear no more.
Moving forward with a bit more confidence, now that English has had a bit more time to settle on its modern form, you find in the 18th century Thomas Gray’s “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard”;
The curfew tolls the knell of parting day,
The lowing herd wind slowly o'er the lea,
The plowman homeward plods his weary way,
And leaves the world to darkness and to me.
By now, the patterns to this ‘poetry’ thing are becoming pretty clear, but a little stale; there’s only so many one- and two-syllable rhymes available, and only so many times you can hear the word ‘yearn’ rhymed with ‘burn’ before you’re wishing for something a little more exciting…
Poetry makes it into the Western canon through some combination of novelty and technical prowess. We study things for the latter, but we read them for the former. Worse, the more technically impressive something gets, the easier it is to copy and to inform newer, more capable successors. I suspect the works you find most cloying are ones which were considered technical successes at the time.
I guarantee this has been well-studied somewhere, if only by the police. There’s a lot of papers on determining homicide vs. suicide via location and angle. That implies some sort of literature on homicide pathology. My searches weren’t very fruitful, though.
My small-child self always read that as laser beams…
I’d take it if you had one.
But I’d settle for an interview, or even rumors like we had for Obama and Biden.
Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck it up.
I’m afraid the ship had sailed by 1881 at the absolute latest.
More options
Context Copy link