@thrownaway24e89172's banner p

thrownaway24e89172

wrong about everything

3 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 09 17:41:34 UTC

				

User ID: 1081

thrownaway24e89172

wrong about everything

3 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 09 17:41:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1081

Sure. Being a celebrity doesn't guarantee it draws attention, it merely increases the likelihood that it will be, all else equal.

Yes, by definition (emphasis mine):

The state or fact of being well known, widely discussed, or publicly esteemed.

Being an elite institution is merely a way to become a celebrity, and likely in my mind the reason Duke University is.

Duke University is a celebrity because it is an elite university. Representatives of Duke University become celebrities by proxy in their representative role, which is why they are always referred to as "member of the Duke lacrosse team" rather than individually named.

How are "people who push back against those who view women as instrumental goods/property" and never push back against those who view men as instrumental goods/property while smearing any who do as "women-hater" not deserving of the title "Women Are Wonderful" simps?

I weary of the women-haters (I don't mean you, though you seem to be giving them too much credit) who argue that the natural (and implied: correct) state of man is to treat women as property and before our modern age, no man in any civilization ever gave a shit how females felt about their treatment.

There are precious few (though admittedly not zero) women-haters here who "argue that the natural (and implied: correct) state of man is to treat women as property". Most restrain themselves to recognizing that humans tend to view each other instrumentally by default, and that includes men viewing women instrumentally, women viewing men instrumentally, and society viewing both instrumentally. That the non-women-haters seem to only be concerned about the former and sometimes the latter--when women are being viewed instrumentally by society--demonstrates they don't view men as humans deserving rights and view women as inherently superior to men.

Yes, the "Duke lacrosse bros" weren't themselves celebrities, but also nobody knows or refers to them as individuals merely as pseudo-anonymous representatives of an elite University.

At this point anyone not using them is resisting out of inertia. Or fear. Well placed fear, perhaps.

Or just slow at learning how to use them...

Rather, they want it to be a buffet where they can pick and choose which gender roles apply to everyone to ensure that they are always the beneficiaries and lack corresponding obligations to others in society.

Beware of mistaking a loose consensus for no consensus. There is still a sufficient moral majority to hinder the sales potential of appealing to many sexual niches.

Not to mention men's attempts prior to "success" are significantly less likely to be recorded as such for much the same reason.

Yes, it has high tail risks (and rewards). I think the average expected value of blackmail is usually still positive though, particularly when supported by the legal system rather than opposed by it.

In this way, the AoC protects the sociofinancial interests of all women over it, at the expense of ... women under it (typically rationalized as "too immature", but importantly the AoC doesn't actually prohibit these women from having sex, it just makes it so that the only men they can sell sex to can't afford to buy it).

It actually also protects the interests of women under it: selective enforcement empowers women to "sell sex" at its peak and then exploit the illegality of the men's action as leverage over the those they "sell" it to.

All else equal, buying feels worse to me because the results are the same--falsified credentials--but buying involves a conspiracy whereas lying doesn't. Of course, all else is not equal when the lying involves one of the most prestigious universities in the world and the buying involves a known "diploma mill".

Local cops are still "government goons". OP's principle generalizes to "the government shouldn't be permitted to enforce laws because doing so could be intimidating".

You would need to divest a lot more than just "schools and child-care facilities" to avoid the problem I mentioned. Further, if I agreed with that principle, I'd apply it to all government "goons", not just ICE. These provision proposals are clearly not being made in good faith.

The fact that it says "near" rather than "in" implies a different motive not too dissimilar from restrictions we place on where sex offenders can live--if everywhere in town is "near" a sensitive location, then you've just made the entire city a sanctuary.

So you are saying Alice has a financial obligation to Bob then? That is, she has an obligation to subsidize the cost of him having a child via surrogacy, while he doesn't have an obligation to subsidize the cost of her having a child via surrogacy since she is able to gestate a child on her own?

You never said anything about the cost, merely that "the more able ought to help the less able". Now you are putting up guardrails. Fine. Define them. Exactly how "costly" must an action be to make it no longer required for the more able to help the less able?

I think the primary reason you notice this "aversion" is the desire to create a dependent underclass similar to the idea described by @SteveKirk in this comment:

Yep. You see this in all the sexology pedophilia discussion: the goal of "destigmatization" is to make pedophiles into a dependent ally accomplice class.

"Come out of the closet, it's fine! Oh, but if you ever stop supporting us you'll be thrown in a woodchipper by the other side, so you'd better stay a valuable party member ;)"
It's possibly the ultimate form of bioleninism.

This is why you so often see leftist "activists" pushing much more radical policies than those they claim to be advocating for--they want to alienate opponents in order to better corner and thereby control the groups they nominally "support".

The government rounding up people and IDing them, effectively forcing their focus groups to carry proof of citizenship on pain of being hassled for a few hours feels very Unamerican.

Did you happen to live through the initial drama surrounding the passage of the REALID Act and the inexorable change to support of even the most adamant critics? There is perhaps nothing more American at this point than performatively complaining about the growth of "Papers Please" to participate in society while opponents are in power then conveniently contributing to that very growth when the political winds change.

Alice has a womb and Bob does not, but Bob wants to have a genetically-related child. Since Alice is "more able" than Bob, does she therefore have an obligation to provide Bob with a genetically-related child?

There's no evidence that the protestors specifically entered the church because they wanted to prevent the congregation from being able to practice their religion.

In Don Lemon's own video, in a parking lot gathering prior to going to the church he interviews one of the organizers, Nekima Levy Armstrong, who explicitly says:

Operation <garbled name>, more of a clandestine operation. We show up somewhere that is a key location, they don't expect us to come there and then we disrupt business as usual.

Another protester allegedly posted a video of himself saying (censorship from the youtube clip, I don't know what the actual censored words are but from context probably some variant of "fucking"):

How can they live so comfortably while the <censored> people from Somalia that are in this country legally--they have <censored> citizenship--can't even go to their Mosque and pray? How do they deserve any <censored> different?

I think these quotes from the protesters themselves are significantly more than "no evidence". Maybe not decisive evidence, but surely more than enough to make the charges (EDIT:) alleged intent to prevent religious practice plausible.

If I beat a guy up and he can't vote the next day because he's in the hospital, it certainly interferes with a civil right, but it's a lot different than if I beat him up specifically to prevent him from voting.

This situation is materially different than that hypothetical, as in this case they were intentionally and explicitly disrupting the religious service to coerce members. They wanted to make it clear to the congregation that their religious observances would not be permitted unobstructed while they associated with a member of ICE. That is not an incidental violation, as they were attempting to hold the congregation members' rights hostage.

Why would he get egg on his face for settling low? It seems to line up with everything he does--make an outrageous demand and settle for peanuts if anything.

It feels to me more similar to the alleged sniper safaris in Bosnia (the motivation that is, not the situation)--a well-off tourist wanting in on the "excitement". Not so much demonstrative as treating the situation as a form of personal entertainment.

No, it's being treated seriously by people who are being intentionally riled up and misled by those seeking to gain from the chaos. They don't "get" that federal law enforcement is actual law enforcement because they are being explicitly told by people they trust that ICE has no power over them. This chaos is being deliberately orchestrated. Don't let those doing the orchestration off the hook.