domain:philippelemoine.com
Rov_Scam
just now
Is this legal? At this point it's not an "auction" anymore but a free handing over of the property to whatever grift the trustee desires.
The trustee has an obligation to protect the interests of the debtor and the creditors. Usually this means accepting the highest bid, but that's not always the case. Since some of the plaintiffs were willing to share the proceeds of the sale with other creditors, who would have otherwise gotten less, this is the deal that provides the most benefit to the creditors. The debtor's interest isn't really in play here, since there's no chance the money raised in the asset sale will exceed the total debt. The trustee has discretion in the matter, and the only way a court would force the sale to another bidder is if there was clear abuse of this discretion.
Botond173
1m ago
I'd argue the situation of the white precariat class started eroding many years before 2008 but their problems were papered over by cheap credit and these trends remained unseen under the surface while public attention focused on the Bush Admin's wars and the usual culture war issues. I recall that Steve Sailer observed the data and concluded that negative trends in white life expectancy started around 2002.
WhateverHappenedToNorman
5m ago
FWIW, the last 1-2 years has been a nightmare of overtourism. I've been living and traveling here for over a decade and it's never been this bad in Tokyo.
My siblings have been insisting on a Japan trip and I've been reluctant because of this
Don't worry, the yen is probably permanently ruined so it'll stay cheap.
I think the risk/concern here is that it eventually enters an inflationary spiral like Argentina/Turkey. It doesn't seem likely, but if people on the inside don't trust the currency...
incognitomaorach
20m ago
Yeah somewhere in-between one of the first and second groups of places you mentioned. I've just checked the data and it's actually around the 70th percentile for income for inner London, 90th percentile for London as a whole.
Different parts of London can be a bubble of course but I feel relatively confident talking about the demographics of the arrivals- I suspect many of them are living in zones 2-5 in North West as I see them on the tube and around baker street.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
21m ago
People smarter and better paid than I have speculated on the global, secular decrease in TFR and there's no single conclusive answer I'm aware of.
That being said, I personally lean towards a decrease in community and family support being major issues. Having siblings and parents nearby to help with looking after kids is a big help. Add in delayed child rearing (often due to lengthy higher education eating up potential fertile years) and people, like me, being concerned about how they're going to handle the time costs (or make enough money that they can trade it for other people's time). And to a degree, the heightened expectations and demand to micromanage worsen things as you contemplate, you can't just kick kids out till sundown to make their own entertainment these days in many places.
I'm confident I can bite the bullet if need be and have kids despite how daunting a prospect it seems, but it's looking like a damn hard thing to pull off.
Ioper
25m ago
The site ate my post but I don't agree with your last paragraph. I don't think was a canary for anything, the period 90-08 was a great time for white boys. The bottom only fell out for the white precariat in the GFC and things didn't start shifting culturally until like 2010-2012.
Was Nu-metal worse than other comparable music scenes? I have no idea but it seems to me that it's a good target to shit on (and disregard base rates) because it was so dorky, kind of like Juggalos.
Folamh3
25m ago
I bet the word mutilation isn't in there even once.
What on earth is this meant to prove? "In their official communications, the IDF have never referred to their military operation in Gaza as a 'genocide': ergo, it can't possibly be one". Would you expect anyone in the world to be persuaded by such a facile argument?
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '21
34m ago
FWIW, the last 1-2 years has been a nightmare of overtourism. I've been living and traveling here for over a decade and it's never been this bad in Tokyo. So maybe visit somewhere else and come back after the boom is over. Don't worry, the yen is probably permanently ruined so it'll stay cheap.
erwgv3g34
38m ago
The trans youth issue bothers me. Girls sports, underage irreversible surgeries, and marketing to kids all get under my skin. Adults don’t really bother me
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
43m ago
I think it’s relevant in the same sense most Cathedral media is important — it’s to inform you of what the establishment wants you to believe. And thus if you’re trying to outwardly fit in so you can stay out of the Eye of Sauron, knowing what the establishment thinks and wants outward compliance with is useful.
I think the lack of big “everyone must watch this” stuff is not the sign of a dying twitch. It’s the complete domination of the thought life. Keep in mind that the modern HR departments and trust/safety systems are enforcement mechanisms and because of the way that most of us are locked into a single career path dependent on other people for employment we have an informal Social Credit system. If you run afoul of the stuff HR enforces, you can get black listed essentially. So you no longer need to create great, compelling propaganda about stuff you’re supposed to think because those who question will be unjobbed as a cautionary tale for others. I suspect there are a lot of dissidents in offices who are secretly heretics but know better than to say so publicly.
It’s been a truism for decades that coming out as a conservative is more of a risk than coming out as gay. No one gets fired for being too gay. You can be too conservative.
Rosencrantz2
51m ago
But maybe what's actually funny is your troll act?
cartman
52m ago
Okay fair enough. I will say for the record that I am a new poster (jumped in for the discussion after election day as you noted) but have lurked reading every so often for at least a few months so I'm not unfamiliar with the forum as a whole.
I somewhat disagree with the characterization of my behaviour as 'just asking questions', but I understand how it appears that way. I do have a habit of questioning people to poke at underlying disagreements, and I can acknowledge that sometimes I do this too much or with somewhat inflammatory rhetoric, but it is usually with a goal relevant to the discussion in mind.
In this particular case, the questions regarding moderation were genuine. If there's something in the forum's history thats relevant to my moderation I wanted to know it. I did receive a message from another poster yesterday, that in hindsight, makes me think they also suspected me of being a specific different user evading a ban.
I want to stress again at the end here that my picking apart of this moderation may come across as being in bad faith, but I am genuinely attempting to understand the rules of engagement and how I would have to change my rhetoric in order to consistently participate. If I engaged less now, I might misunderstand something else down the road. The impression I get is that my familiarity with the forum is suspicious and also my asking questions is suspicious, but I felt that not asking questions would make it more likely that I was banned in the future for a reason I did not fully understand.
In any case, I will endeavour to make future posts acceptable.
Botond173
55m ago
Point taken, but that's not really what I had in mind. Can we say with certainty that Taylor's endorsement was an important net gain for the Dems? Did it actually matter that much?
Botond173
56m ago
Roughly half a year ago there was a discussion here on the cultural legacy and (then) recent renewed interest and negative portrayal of the Woodstock ’99 music festival in the mainstream media. I haven’t seen the two documentaries in question but I’ve heard commentaries on them, and they agreed that much of the sneering and hostility present in their narratives is actually directed at the nu-metal genre in general, and the antics of Fred Durst in particular. I was sort of surprised that nobody mentioned this in the discussion. Anyway, it certainly doesn’t surprise me that much that they’d contextualize the whole incident in that way, as nu-metal is generally seen as an embarrassing and pathetic cringefest which was a plague upon pop music at the turn of the Millennium, thankfully one that largely disappeared after a few years as quickly as it appeared. And it was roughly at the zenith of its popularity when this festival took place, which was dominated by nu-metal bands.
When I’ve heard these commentaries I started looking for more on Youtube as my interest was piqued. Back when the BBC Learning TV channel existed it ran a rather good one-hour documentary on the incident but unfortunately I wasn’t able to find it. (I saw one or two other short documentaries from the same period i.e. 2000/2001.) I do recall, however, finding some news report which featured a segment from an interview with Sheryl Crow, who also performed at the festival and had a rather bad experience. I saw this YT clip about two years ago and can’t find it again unfortunately. To paraphrase from memory, she argued that the reason she found the whole scandal repulsive was that the white male nu-metal fans who committed numerous acts of arson, vandalism, rape, harassment etc. were mostly from functioning middle-class homes in the suburbs, objectively privileged by global standards, yet were constantly angry and destructive and couldn’t even put it in words why. She basically accused them of toxic masculinity even though I don’t recall her using that exact expression, but I wasn’t surprised anyway because she came across as the average lipstick feminist.
Leaving the subject of the festival aside, I wonder how nu-metal will be viewed in the context of the culture war. It appears to me that as a phenomenon it was a canary in a coalmine, providing an outlet for the angst of the young white (mostly) male members of a social class that was turning into the precariat under a system of late-stage capitalism, whose average quality of life was about to start collapsing. (Rising rates of mortality, alcoholism, illegitimacy, fatherlessness, unemployment, opioid addiction, prescription pill abuse etc.)
naraburns
nihil supernum
1hr ago
I mean, if guys had a Shaving Club, I'd imagine some women with PCOS might benefit from showing up. If the club is really about shaving, that shouldn't be a problem, should it?
This is a remarkably terrible analogy. Consider instead a support group for sufferers and survivors of prostate cancer. Having a bunch of women show up to talk about their experiences with cervical cancer would not really fit the discussion prompt, even though there would be some obvious overlap in experience of, say, chemotherapy or medical malpractice or whatever.
The article didn't say anything about language policing or otherwise acting rudely. It's just upset that there's women at the shaving club.
No, it's upset that there are Men at the Women's club. It's upset that an organization dedicated to the advancement of women's health is being co-opted for the advancement of men's preferences and desires.
Presumably learning more about male lactation would help the mission of infant health and breastfeeding: either it turns out to work and we have a cool new option, or it turns out to be a bad idea and now we can articulate specific concerns and help people understand why it's a bad idea.
I am doubtful that you will ever find anyone who is able to do the actual science without their political biases fucking it up. But if you could, like, okay? That has nothing to do with this case; if you want to make this argument, do the actual science first, instead of doing the activism first by filling women's spaces with men.
2rafa
1hr ago
Quite possible, I live in one of the nice but not elite areas of zone 2.
Are we talking like Islington / Maida Vale / Clapham tier, here?
Yeah, it’s interesting, natives are highly concentrated in the outer suburbs, the richest are strongly concentrated in Chelsea / Fulham / the immediate vicinity of The Surprise, with another large group slightly north around Holland Park / Notting Hill, and to some extent in Hampstead and leafier parts of North London (along with Jews and Indians).
Here in Mayfair there are almost no natives, it is predominantly Arabs, some Russians, Africans and Chinese (although the latter prefer Nine Elms / Battersea Power Station / South Bank Apartment buildings), and moderately large contingents of wealthy Americans, Italians and French (although in general French and Scandinavians prefer Marylebone), mostly young (men) who work in hedge funds or PE nearby. Marylebone also seems to have a lot of rich Aussies along with many Americans and a few Brits here and there, mostly older.
MaximumCuddles
1hr ago
I generally find Babylon bee funny but that one’s a bit of a stinker fr
5434a
1hr ago
Seemed to me that there were many more significant sections written almost entirely in dialogue. Easily one of the most dialogue heavy books I've read.
It was a welcome relief toward the second half to read something like "he continued explaining the reason for his frustration until they arrived at the house". Felt like Austen herself was starting to show signs of getting tired of listening to her characters by that point.
Forty-Bot
1hr ago
https://old.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/1gogaq0/fair_and_balanced/
who said the left couldn't meme
To the extent that there are breastfeeding trans women willing to participate in a study, then yes, someone should do the study. Not necessarily LLL.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
If you can only provide one example, that's hardly supporting your case. If anything, that suggests the opposite: this is so incredibly rare that it made the news.
Originally you said it doesn't happen, and the reason why authorities do it, is because the child is denied medical care. At the very least I'd expect you acknowledge that it happens sometimes given the evidence. The reason this was such a big story was it's particularly egregious nature (the double sex-trafficking part), but there were other stories of custody disputes based on nothing more than pronouns / identity affirmation. It was almost enshrined in law in California but for a veto.
The medical community, the scientific community, and the community of people who have actually undergone the process all recommend it, so I'm not sure on what grounds you would claim that it's not a valid medical treatment.
This is false. Anybody that made a comprehensive review of evidence came to the conclusion that the evidence is of poor quality. This includes WPATH, which commissioned several systematic reviews, and refused to publish them when the evidence didn't say what they wanted to say it.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
1hr ago
If a kid is in horrible pain, and their parent refuses to do anything about it, and the kid is actively looking to escape? Yeah, I think it's pretty reasonable to remove the kid.
Here's the problem - it's very much debatable whether this "horrible pain" is actually something requiring medical treatment. I know you think it does. We are all familiar with the rhetoric that gender dysphoria is so real and urgent and painful that not allowing the child to transition is likely to lead to suicide, and akin to refusing to let a child receive treatment for schizophrenia. So you frame it as, essentially, parents letting their children die because of their bigoted religious beliefs. But this is almost never the case. Parents almost always treat a child being "trans" as a psychological issue, a child in distress who needs help - but you will not accept that "help" could be anything other than affirming their entity and even allowing them to begin medically transitioning, when there is good reason to think help should actually be helping them work through their gender dysphoria (if it is really gender dysphoria), becoming comfortable in their bodies, and perhaps choose to transition when they are an adult if they still feel that's what they need. Can you at least acknowledge that this is a reasonable, loving, and non-abusive response, even if you think it's not the correct one?
If a kid is terrified their parents will find out about them getting a tooth fixed, wouldn't you be a bit concerned about how the parents are treating that kid? Would you really feel guilty for sneaking your son's best friend to the dentist to help him deal with a cavity that's been getting worse for years?
Again with the "terrified." I'm sure there are children in abusive households who still face abuse, or being thrown out on the streets, if they are revealed to be gay or trans. This happens and those are extreme cases that may require state intervention, as with any other abuse. But almost all the cases I have seen are not of trans kids with parents who will reject and abandon them for being trans, but parents who simply don't agree with putting their kids on hormones, wearing binders, planning to get surgery, etc. Refusing to change the pronouns they use for their son or daughter might upset the child, but it's not abuse!
If you can point me to an epidemic of kids getting abducted against their will, I'd probably change my tune.
I don't agree with @WhiningCoil's framing of hordes of children being abducted by the state, but I would ask you in return, do you have any numbers regarding parents who are actually abusive and neglectful of their trans children, such that state intervention is required? Do you think schools should socially transition children secretly if the child says their parents won't go along?
But I get the sense that most of the kids in question are quite happy with the decision. I haven't seen anything that suggests they're particularly prone to regretting it later, either.
You "get the sense" that most of the kids are quite happy with the decision, but this seems to be vibes and personal bias. I think the actual level of regret is very hard to evaluate. I'm sure you hate Jesse Singhal, but I have yet to see a trans activist who can actually dispute his numbers and his deep dives into studies on the subject.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1hr ago
First of all, am I being moderated for the tone/content of my posts or for ban evasion as a suspected alt?
We moderate on tone, not content. Your post was uncharitable and antagonistic.
I'm assuming from your comment that there was a previous user on this forum who used to engage similarly to me
More like "a never ending stream of users," actually. Bad faith posters who use "just asking questions" rhetoric to troll the forum are a dime a dozen; in the parlance of the age, "ya basic," sorry. "New" users who jump in on election day and seem immediately comfortable navigating various community norms are suspicious enough. Following up by "just asking questions" rules lawyering in response to moderation dramatically increases my suspicion that you are a repeat customer. We've had hundreds of new users over the years, and to put it mildly--you do not fit the profile.
But it's not impossible, so... here we are.
Until this comment I had not received any mod feedback.
We can't moderate every comment, and queue approval should not be taken as a sign of endorsement, beyond perhaps "this isn't obviously spam." Moderation is qualitative and adaptive; we usually mod comments directly, but sometimes we have to take into account a pattern of commenting instead. This is a reputation economy; post lots of good stuff that isn't rage bait, then occasional rage bait will get a shrug.
If not, does this comment act as a warning that all of my previous posts were unacceptable?
Many of your previous posts are bad. But the goal is not to try to get away with being just enough of an asshole that you are allowed to continue being an asshole. Rhetorical brinkmanship is bad. At a glance, your comments with negative karma scores should probably be taken as a sign, to you, that you did something wrong. (This isn't always the case--some substantive positions just get downvoted, which is annoying--but if you can't spot the difference, I don't know what to tell you.)
For some examples, this comment, if I had seen it when you posted it, would probably have gotten you a short ban. This comment's "citation needed" snark honestly tempts me to ban you now.
Be charitable. Be kind. If someone else is breaking the rules, report that instead of breaking the rules in response. The more closely I look at your profile, the more I am inclined to permaban you rather than go through the motions with what appears to be a (so far) consistently garbage level of engagement. If you really would like to continue posting under this account, knock it off.
Removing obstacles from a path is not "putting them on a path". Do you object to roads, because they put criminals on the path towards bank robbery?
It sounds like arguing semantics to me. If one hand the public health administration is removing obstacles, and on the other the education system is telling kids they might be "born in the wrong body" if they don't fit into a given mold, and than hide the information about the child's transition from parents, that sounds like it all adds up to putting children on a path to transition.
Which "mutilations" had the minimum age requirements changed? What are the new requirements?
The following recommendations are made regarding the requirements for gender affirming medical and surgical treatment:
(...)
F. The adolescent has reached Tanner 2 stage of puberty for pubertal suppression. G. The adolescent is the following age for each treatment:
- 14 years and above for hormone treatment (estrogens or androgens), unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame.
- 15 years and above for chest masculinization; unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame.
- 16 years and above for breast augmentation, facial surgery (including rhinoplasty, tracheal shave, and genioplasty) as part of gender affirming treatment; unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame.
- 17 and above for metoidioplasty, orchidectomy, vaginoplasty, and hysterectomy and fronto-orbital remodeling as part of gender affirming treatment unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame.
- 18 years or above for phalloplasty, unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame"
H. The adolescent had at least 12 months of gender affirming hormone therapy, or longer if required to achieve the desired surgical result for gender-affirming procedures including, Breast augmentation, Orchiectomy, Vaginoplasty, Hysterectomy, Phalloplasty metoidioplasty and facial surgery as part of gender affirming treatment unless hormone therapy is either not desired or is medically contraindicated.
6.12.f- The adolescent has reached Tanner stage 2 of puberty for pubertal suppression to be initiated.
6.12.g- The adolescent had at least 12 months of gender-affirming hormone therapy or longer, if required, to achieve the desired surgical result for gender-affirming procedures, including breast augmentation, orchiectomy, vaginoplasty, hysterectomy, phalloplasty, metoidioplasty, and facial surgery as part of gender-affirming treatment unless hormone therapy is either not desired or is medically contraindicated.
There's also points A-E, but everything about minimum ages has been removed.
Edit: I think they mention the 18 years for phalloplasty when they elaborate on the chapter.
Do you think Jones would have escaped the huge damages if he claimed that, I suppose, his bipolar disorder made him do it? I don't know if he's ever been diagnosed with anything like that, but there also seems to be to be at least a vibe that those sorts of protections don't apply to red tribers like Jones, but do to the in-group sometimes.
More options
Context Copy link