professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
No bio...
User ID: 1157
other general pain relievers like naproxem sodium and ibuprofen are roughly as therapeutically effective without the massive risk to your liver / accidental OD
For non-pregnant people, yes. But sources not linked to the US culture war suggest NSAIDs are potentially much worse during pregnancy than Tylenol, and can cause fetal defects and maternal hemorrhage risks. US sources suggest NSAIDs increase miscarriage risk early in pregnancy too.
the American right has not presented any credible alternative and instead doubled down on even worse distortions of their own, and burning down the whole thing
Give it a couple decades and the cycle will start again.
Mid-Atlantic here and it's an interesting split, mask-wearers I see are either older black people or (seemingly) younger, especially women, of funny hair color. Not major numbers of either though.
Shouldn’t conservatives, i.e. the party of law and order, be a fan of measures which promote public safety?
This assumes they perceived the COVID restrictions to have promoted public safety, and significantly biased (and capricious) enforcement blew that all to hell.
Biased vaccine distribution schedules also likely harmed public tolerance and public trust for any measures.
Is this actually a thing or is it yet another moral panic
Difficult to get data on afaict. Short version you've probably heard before is admin doesn't want too many suspensions (disparate impact; doesn't matter that the school is 90% black either), teachers eventually stop reporting unless the behavior is a severe threat, so maybe you can muddle it out from surveys of teacher unhappiness/early retirements, but I wouldn't be confident at all if someone said "suspensions are down so behavior can't be that bad."
From local teacher anecdotes, yes, it's a thing, but I don't know for sure how widespread.
the formative event for many right wing posters.
Long 2020 was a fascinating lesson in narrative development, enforcement, and the whole gamut of what well-meaning liberals will find ways to justify or otherwise turn a blind eye on.
And, once they've gotten it out of their system and no longer think it's good, the post-Long 2020 period has been a fascinating lesson in how quickly they forget.
We could, on a good day, probably have a nice and well-thought conversation on police reform, and I get the feeling that we'd agree on more than you might expect, though certainly not everything. Unfortunately for both of us, basically no one out in the real world wanted to have a well-thought and careful conversation; they all wanted to go insane or turn a blind eye to the insanity. So whatever I say here is less about police reform in general, and more about a particular form of racism and insanity that afflicts American culture and had an explosion in 2020.
the fact that we have anti-police riots in the US is a strong signal that there are serious problems with American policing
No, it's a strong signal that there is the perception of serious problems with American policing. The reality of the problems is, afaict, almost entirely disconnected from the perception and reactions to it.
Do you genuinely think that this arose from a singular incident?
Ehh... sort of? I think, clearly, bad police exist, but BLM and in particular the 2020 riots weren't really about bad police. BLM is about pie-in-the-sky pro-criminal advocacy, the about-face on bodycams being my primary evidence for this sentiment, and the 2020 riots were about people looking for a socially-sanctioned excuse to go out and get crazy on a spectrum between "block party" and "looting and revolution."
Video is powerful, everyone had cabin fever, and white-on-black crime makes American media go full stupid. If Chauvin had kneed Floyd in some camera-free back alley, it probably wouldn't have risen above local news. If Alexander Keung had been the primary cop instead of Chauvin, it probably wouldn't have risen above local news.
There'd be a lot less resentment and hostility if brutal or reckless cops were consistently punished for transgressions
I agree that they should be, but most of the resentment and hostility is downstream of other problems (ie, disparate impact and the confrontation clause). I think if cops policed themselves perfectly we'd still see much of the resentment and hostility.
The unarmed aspect doesn't really matter much.
I'm just commenting there on well-meaning liberals that have an aesthetic and moral privileging of certain populations based on race to being orders of magnitude wrong about reality.
Thousand.
I was trying to go with the "safe" answer, but yeah, I think there's a lot of merit to how much the rioting affected the murder rate. But Beej did post a recent update based on a Brookings analysis that the murder rate was already increasing in 2020 before The Happening, starting in early to mid March.
the problem with analysing this kind of thing is it kind of assumes malice on the part of the speaker
Surely with years of evidence it's safe to acknowledge Kimmel openly hates Republicans and the malice isn't so much assumed but a known intention?
This seems remarkably inoffensive to me.
How is, to boil the line down, "those assholes are point-scoring liars" not offensive?
I'm not saying he should've been fired for it, comedians are allowed to be partisan hacks and still get paid. But I don't understand the people who don't notice that it was intended to be offensive. It's obviously insulting, insulting the right (and people dying of covid) is a big part of Kimmel's schtick.
failing to lick the boot hard enough
You know, if you seemed like you were interested in a real conversation I'd be happy to both-sides the indifference problem, but this and your example seem like nice big flags that you're not. Let's try anyways-
Should we be worried that one of the central institutions for public order will mutiny if not granted impunity for their crimes?
I'm considerably more worried that the public order will mutiny if the police across the entire country are not universally perfect, since that's actually what happened. One bad cop treating one possibly-ODing drug addict badly means the necessary response is... billions of dollars in property damage across the country and a couple dozen extra murders? Damn, that's a heck of an exchange rate.
How many unarmed people do the police shoot, and how many do liberals think they shoot?
Anyway, don't many of his supporters acknowledge that he lies a lot, but say his lies are good car salesman style lies, whereas other politicians may not lie but they are selective with what they include and what they omit?
Trump lies all the time. As a result, many people never trust Trump (and yes, some trust him too much).
To quote the wisest of the Scott As, "the media very rarely lies." The problem being that too many people believe them when they do lie, so you end up with riots because people are orders of magnitude wrong about police behavior.
Joe lied about not pardoning Hunter. I suspect, in the long run, that whopper will have been more impactful than the vast majority of Trump's lies. But we'll have to wait a couple more administrations to really decide if it was a one-off massive insult to the office or a particularly dangerous precedent.
I continue to be fascinated by that brand of distraction, that Trump becomes the only standard (anything less is acceptable by default) and also the only person in the world with agency (no one else is blamed for actions he does in reaction, and any action generated reacting to Trump gets blamed on Trump).
destroying a few city blocks total across the entire country
If you're counting entire blocks. If you're counting individual stores, it would be much, much higher, and much more distributed.
Remind me why cities thousands of miles away from Minneapolis needed to have riots, why they needed to have minority-owned shops destroyed, and why the riots are worth it to you to minimize and downplay?
A significant portion of the gap between the 5% and the 50% is the remainder that isn't actively desiring of the riot and murder, but completely indifferent to rioting and murder so long as its happening in ways that don't affect them, primarily affect the outgroup, or are otherwise aesthetically pleasing.
but thinks it's more important for protests to remain untouchable than to stop the riotous excesses".
Indifference is insidious. Indifference to riots or thinking they're worth the tradeoffs is close enough for my tastes. Being unwilling to stop a bad thing or otherwise too high on your ideological supply to realize how easily it could backfire or otherwise go wrong is close enough.
The extra 6000ish black murders were really worth it, to the eyes of those unaffected by them but liked the aesthetics of protests and huffing that tire-burning smell, I'm sure.
Well, no, we don't really know how many because ~every city that had those issues more or less gave up on enforcement.
Some of the murderers got caught, and some of the arsonists, but not all of either. Once you get down to window-smashers and looters I'd be surprised if more than 20% even got recorded via catch and release policing, much less received actual punishment.
Destruction is much easier than creation. It only takes a tiny fraction of 350 million to throw the rest into chaos, if they're determined enough.
that much if it doesn't impact me
That's the big catch. The likelihood of anything in Sudan affecting me is basically zero. The likelihood of, say, inappropriate police behavior caught on video going viral and affecting me for months or years is not high, but significantly non-zero.
We have a culture that prioritizes concern based on identity, and in some ways it's a banal evil (cueing Hannah Arendt?), and in some ways it's an encouragement for people to violate or otherwise ignore their stated principles.
I'm genuinely not sure why the "punch Nazis" stuff would snag so many more would-be-murderers than those.
Maybe because Nazis actually existed, zombies don't, and we firebombed cities to put them down? There's real, actual history of how to react to them, virtually everyone agrees they were evil and there's a lot of guilt-by-association power if you can make it stick?
No, we don't want each other dead.
Callous indifference continues to be an underrated descriptor complicating perception and reality of how much one side hates the other.
Only a small fraction want each other dead. Of those that do, only a tiny fraction would do anything to achieve those deaths. But there's a much larger fraction who are at best indifferent to deaths among The Other. Fine, to some extent that's signaling (of an extremely sick culture), but that still matters!
It's basically all signaling, a person who says "Look at me support super controversial in-group aligned thing" signals how dedicated they are without ever actually having to do shit.
The catch to this attitude being that ignoring how much someone hates you can have, relatively rarely but importantly non-zero times, quite disastrous results. I think there is very little to be lost following the adage "if someone says they hate you, believe them," and potentially a lot to be lost by ignoring clear signals of danger.
no kings march
At least locally this has been an almost entirely boomer thing. Not sure how that generalizes.
Yes, lockdowns provoked most of the violent delights of 2020, but there may be other factors re: age, race, culture, motivation.
if literally writing "catch this fascist" on a bullet intended to kill a prominent public speaker is still not considered "enough" to have political implications by a large majority of people, what is?
If Ken Martin pre-paid for a billboard to be put up that says "I shot Trump because I am a Democrat" after he does indeed go and do that, successfully, I think most people would accept the statement without adding so many epicycles of excuse. If Joe Biden did it they'd just blame the dementia and it wouldn't really count.
Not sure for anyone else. If Ezra Klein snaps somebody would find some one occasion where he said a less than maximally progressive thing and that would be enough to sow confusion and doubt.
I didn’t worry about a mob getting my house, quiet. But I (quite irritatingly for tax reasons) live at the far edge of sprawling city limits, and I hated getting texts from the mayor’s emergency alert regarding ‘citywide’ curfews (aimed at the greater downtown) that the threats were real and while not that close, closer than I’ve ever experienced. Watching enjoyable shops and restaurants be wrecked, likewise. Watching the ones that posted “minority-owned” signs in their windows and on Instagram being laughed at for thinking it made a difference (the mockers were right; it made no difference), likewise.
Minneapolis is 4 or 5 times further away than Washington but had far more direct impact on my life.
A whole world of social strategies waiting to be named! Thank you, this is also an interesting one.
- Prev
- Next
While I will not speak for anyone else, I would much prefer to stop at "take legal colorblindness both seriously and literally."
I won't argue to restrict rights of individuals based on genetic predispositions. Can we agree to not grant people additional privileges based on genetic predispositions in terms of interacting with law and ignoring reality?
More options
Context Copy link