domain:philippelemoine.com
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3m ago
I can buy that cis allies were the majority of participants just due to relative sizes of each population, but if you're telling me that trans people were sitting it out, I'll need something tangible. Like, if I go to some trans subreddits and look up what they were saying about Gina Carrano's bip/bap/bop joke, do you think the prevailing sentiment is going to be "who cares"?
I'll also need a definition of "actual trans person" that is accepted by the trans community itself. If you're angling for limiting them to trans-meds, that is already dismissed as bigotry by the trans community itself.
Folamh3
8m ago
Really? "Fail to support" transition, or "try to block their kid from accessing the relevant medical treatments"?
In the state of California there was a bill governing custody disputes between divorced parents, which would make a parent's decision to affirm the child's stated gender identity (or not) a factor to take into consideration in said disputes. Essentially, if a married couple gets divorced and their child has announced that they are trans, if one parent affirms the child's stated gender identity uncritically and the other parent is more sceptical and prefers a watchful waiting approach - all things being equal, the judge is meant to rule in favour of the former parent.
What do they mean by "affirmation"? "Affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for each child, but in every case must promote the child’s overall health and well-being." - so this isn't as simple as providing a child with medical treatment which has been recommended by a qualified professional.
This bill was voted on and passed in both houses, before being vetoed by Governor Newsom. Elected representatives in the state of California believe that if a child announces that they are trans, the correct position for the child's parents to adopt is to uncritically affirm the child's gender identity without question.
naraburns
nihil supernum
11m ago
This isn't even "making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike", it's just plain making things up.
This is not sufficiently charitable. Specifically,
we ask that responders address what was literally said, on the assumption that this was at least part of the intention. Nothing is more frustrating than making a clear point and having your conversation partner assume you're talking in circles. We don't require that you stop after addressing what was literally said, but try, at least, to start there.
It's fine to raise questions about source veracity, but if you're going to respond to others, you need to actually be responding to the substance of their posts--not ducking into your motte when they raise points you don't care to substantively address. Actually several of your comments in this thread do the "law of merited impossibility" and "Russell conjugation" thing, where you oscillate between "this isn't happening" and "it's good, actually" while rhetorically re-framing specific concerns. This kind of engagement creates frustration and lowers engagement quality, even though it basically keeps to the rules on tone. If done deliberately and repeatedly, it amounts to a kind of trolling. Please engage with what people are actually saying, rather than substituting your rhetoric for their substantive concerns.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
15m ago
In lefty circles in the UK (and I assume the US is similar) the dogpiles were led by clueless cis allies and tumblrgendered headcases, not by actual trans people living as the opposite gender to their birth sex.
JTarrou
16m ago
There's a strong element of "choose your destructor".
Trump should be the cautionary tale. Be careful who you think you want to tangle with politically. Obama probably thought that joke had no chance of backfiring. He mike dropped on national television, and then Trump made him eat it....twice.
Lizzardspawn
19m ago
And I find myself constantly disappointed that they keep finding a way to get in a reddit-y snark along the lines of "Men, Amirite?" I try to be non-argumentative in this context, but I increasingly have the urge to go meta-therapist and say something like "I feel like there's a lot of implicit hostility in that statement.
That is your problem. The correct tactic is to double down/be provocative. The same way if a woman meets your gaze while you look at her deep deep cleavage, you shouldn't turn eyes away but smile.
Lizzardspawn
22m ago
Some ultra liberal women decided to make the korean 4B movement happen after Trump won. A substantial part of them are not lookers and probably not women that the majority of men would put on the top of the fuckability pyramid anyway - hence the orks, also one of the safest assumptions you can make about the people that do this type of grand gesturing is that they are complete narcissists - so refusing to take them seriously is going to drive them nuts.
ControlsFreak
23m ago
I actually enjoy teaching, but the opportunity cost of displacing research time is too high. I think the way to isolate this question is to hypothesize a literally magical offer: you have an almost entirely-filled research life with your typical 24 hour days, and you can choose to either keep that as it is or get some number of bonus hours that can only be used to teach. I'm sure some people would dislike teaching, itself, enough to just reject the bonus hours. I'd kinda like them.
incognitomaorach
26m ago
I actually think these statistics are relatively difficult to get access to- the 2021 Census a) missed the large numbers of people who arrived 2021-2024 and b) almost certainly vastly undercounted. Roughly 3 million people have arrived in the country Jan 2021-Dec 2023 according to migration observatory, and most of these arrivals won't feature in the Census data, plus whatever the 2024 numbers are. The census estimated 1.9m Indians living in the UK in 2021. Between 2021-2023, the official preliminary numbers estimated 670,000 Indian nationals arrived on long term visas. Adding in people overstaying short term visas, plus the 2024 numbers, and 1 million total Indian arrivals since the Census took place looks reasonable. My 95% confidence interval for Indians in the UK would be 2.75m-3.5m, as I have no idea what the potential undercount might be. This doesn't include Sri Lankans, Nepalese, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis but does include 2nd and 3rd gens ticking the Indian ethnicity box.
Going just off the primary language census data (with the caveats noted above), Telugu, Malayalam, Marathi and Tamil speakers have seen the largest proportional increases since 2011. So mostly South Indians/Dravidians. The established languages have all either plateaued (Punjabi, Urdu) or fallen (Bengali, Gujarati) which probably reflects the maturation of these groups as their 2nd gen offspring use English as a main language. Of course Bengali, Urdu and Punjabi speakers are probably mostly of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origin.
I repeat that, anecdotally, very recent Indian migration in particular seems to heavily skew towards men. This might be a feature of where I live rather than for the whole of the UK. I can't find any stats to back this up, especially as trying to make estimates that don't factor in the 1m post-census arrivals would be redundant.
naraburns
nihil supernum
27m ago
I was thinking, gun to my head, I'd rather my daughter was molested by a catholic priest (unlikely as that is, being a girl and all) than fall in with your ilk.
Your first comment got a lot of reports, which opened a mod conversation about whether to ding you for it. One mod said "not bannable, but warnable," another said "not even warnable." I tended to agree that it was not a great comment, but that it ultimately fell on the permissible side. The meta-moderation system agreed with me on this. However the low-quality responses you've generated certainly lend credence to the inclination toward moderation there.
This comment, though, fails the test of "write like everyone is reading, and you want to include them in the conversation." In particular, "your ilk" is a quintessentially antagonistic framing; we're here to engage with ideas above people, and watch our tone in preservation of content.
It's preposterous and totally insane. But that's what you sound like.
And this, of course, is worth moderating all on its own.
You do your substantive position no favors by cranking the rhetoric to 11. Your occasional AAQCs only get you so much lenience. It has been a while since your last ban, after which you became a quality-content machine for a bit! But recently your warnings have been arriving with increasing frequency. Let's try another week-long ban.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
27m ago
At the time that Ron Desantis was running for president, there was a huge controversy about him banning books. Specifically many of these kids books were pro-LGBT. They also contained very graphic descriptions of sex acts. There was also a series of fantasy books written by Sarah J Maas that contained descriptions of sex acts.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
31m ago
The burst pipe was media confusion, not lies by the county. There had been a burst pipe in the morning in a different part of the building which delayed the opening of postal votes. The delay in the counting was an administrative screw-up. [As far as I can see, staff opening postal votes who had been working since the morning were allowed to go home at 1030pm. Some staff counting who were supposed to work overnight if necessary also left, and the party poll-watchers left with them, but the SecState office ordered them back to work after a short delay.]
DirtyWaterHotDog
32m ago
Much of this racism comes from Indians themselves though. They often don't like Indians from certain parts of India or from certain castes. Many think we're letting in too many or the wrong kinds. There seems to be a lot of conflict between different groups.
Yes, but it has to do with 'class' more than 'caste' or 'regionalism'. You've correctly observed that there are 2 different clusters of Indian immigrants.
The upper-middle class of India slogs their ass off to get into real Canadian universities and qualify for real jobs. These people come from around the country. This is your standard meritocratic group, a high HDI cluster. Then, a sub-section of no-skilled youths are practically trafficked into Canada by exploiting every loop hole imaginable. These people can't speak English, don't have jobs when they arrive here and live in squalor. This subsection primarily hails from Punjab. This is low HDI cluster.
The high HDI cluster hates the low HDI cluster.
Canadian visa abuse is an open-secret in India. It's not just the high HDI immigrant cluster who shit on these people. The whole country does.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
37m ago
The relevant case is State Farm. SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that punitive damages are fines regulated by the 8th amendment, with Thomas and Scalia dissenting on textualist grounds, and Ginsberg dissenting because she doesn't like insurance companies who deny claims. With the current batch of conservative justices, it could go the other way if relitigated.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
45m ago
Child killers don't normally end up in civil court, because suing someone serving a life sentence isn't lucrative. But I assume that juries would be even more likely to award a telephone number against a child killer than they are against someone who runs around defaming grieving mothers.
My impression is that Last Week Tonight is relevant because it is the Schelling point for a certain type of pro-establishment left person to know what the current thing is.
I agree with that, I'm just not sure if I'd grant that it's satire or comedy.
Edit: Hold on, I'd like to amend that. I don't know if you can be "relevant" and "preaching to the choir". Sure, the choir in this case is pretty massive, but it's still people who have 100% bought into the narrative you're putting forward. To put it another way John Oliver, feels about as relevant as Matt Walsh.
Every once in a while the Cathedral still manages to concoct something that feels like everyone has to keep up with - "Don't Look Up", "Get Out"..., ok I'm already coming up short, and the latter is already quite dated, and indeed my point is that these instances seem to come up a lot less frequently. More like dying twitches of something, than a real cultural force.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
53m ago
Private Eye still matters in the UK. It's relationship with the cathedral is somewhat ambiguous, but is more friendly than hostile.
My impression is that Last Week Tonight is relevant because it is the Schelling point for a certain type of pro-establishment left person to know what the current thing is.
Mantergeistmann
55m ago
I know Vanderbilt took that stance, and was probably helped out by a bunch of very unsympathetic protestors caught on security camera violating school rules (you can't force your way into a closed building, and you especially can't physically shove the security guard at the door), which let them crack down and send a message in a targeted, noncontroversial way--or at least, as noncontroversial as anything is these days.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
1hr ago
The justification for this ruling was that unstable people listened to Jones, right? So Jones is culpable. I don't even agree with prosecution under "incitement of imminent lawless action," it goes against our entire philosophy of law.
It wasn't a prosecution, it was a civil case. Jones isn't going to prison, he is just being bankrupted. (This wouldn't matter if lying was a fundamental right, but there are centuries of SCOTUS precedent that lying is only partially protected by the 1st amendment). Jones never denied defamation (unreasonably making a false negative statement about an identifiable person who is not a public figure, or "maliciously" making a false negative statement about an identifiable person who is a public figure), which has been a well-known limited exclusion from the 1st amendment right to free speech since the founding*, and damages are set to compensate the people he lied about. The only problem here is the general one that America lets civil juries set damages (vs. the criminal approach where the jury decides guilt or innocence and the judge determines the sentences) and if you irritate a jury enough they will award a telephone number even if the actual damage is an order of magnitude less. (There were 20 victim families, and reasonable compensation for the amount of shit Jones put them through would be low-to-mid six figures per family). But the principle that there are some kinds of false speech where the need to protect real individuals from being lied about has to be balanced against the free speech of liars is not particularly controversial.
If people committed crimes based on Jones's lies, the criminals bear full and exclusive criminal responsibility for their own behaviour, as is right and proper. But civil liability for what other people do on your behalf is the default, not the exception.
It's also why, and you can call it wasted rebelliousness, I consider this as absolute moral mandate to call Sandy Hook a hoax.
Though shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Not a morally complicated question given that these lies cause real damage to real people who didn't ask to have their kids shot by a madman.
* I notice that Trump and Musk have both suggested that Sullivan should be reversed, making it easier to sue for defamation. This doesn't stop their supporters considering them champions of free speech. Everyone on both sides of the aisle understands that malicious lies are a special case.
Corvos
1hr ago
When you say she was key, do you mean she was significantly involved in the leadership or funding of Amazon, or do you mean in terms of general love and support?
The latter is generally underrated, but I doubt it was necessary or sufficient for Bezos to found Amazon.
Not knowing more, I would be fine with the wife getting ‘live in reasonable comfort for the rest of your life’ money and I would be fine stoning Bezos for adultery, but I don’t see that divorce qualifies her for ownership of his fortune.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
Ya know, I had that in my mind at one point, and I know I had gotten busy and distracted last night, and I partially forgot it. And yet, I think I still had a point. We've talked here recently about how generally hyperbolic and castastrophizing many left-wing online spaces are (which is why I called that out in my comment). Like, just look at reddit. And then, if a potential normie waltzes into the space (think what's happening with young voters), they see that all this hyperbole is Obvious Nonsense if you've ever touched grass (or, ya know, watched a Pens game with a Republican). But they also learn that if you even think about disagreeing with the hyperbole, it's the banhammer for you. It's radicalizing, one way or the other; either you're radicalized to join the herd and spout hyperbole... or you're radicalized to hate those folks. In captured spaces, the hyperbole just ratchets one way, up ever further. They're not just wrong; they're dehumanizing or threatening your existence.
Honestly, the last thing folks like AOC need to do is quadruple down again with the catastrophic rhetoric. Especially because you're saying this in the process of moving your own position closer to theirs! Simply say what they're actually wrong about and why and how you'd do something better. Tarring everyone who has ever supported anything like what you're moving your own policy position closer to as having dehumanized entire groups of people is just gross and insulting.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
1hr ago
His big selling points (to Trump) are that Trump worked with him on Latin America policy in Trump's first term.
The more I think about it, the more I think something like this is key. If Trump is self-aware, he knows that making nice to Mexico is a key part of a southern border policy that actually works. (Mexico doesn't want non-Mexican illegal migrants to the US to be stuck in Mexico, but they have a choice as to whether they keep them out of Mexico in the first place, or try to hurry them into the US.) And he knows that the person who is hands-on responsible for that needs to be not-him.
If the main job of the SecState in a Trump admin is to keep Mexico onside so they support rather than sabotaging US immigration policy, Rubio would be a good choice.
justmotteingaround
1hr ago
The election doesn't effect the argument not to agitate against Swift. If it was a bad idea prior, its a bad idea now.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
1hr ago
sexual jealousy towards especially black men. It's a pretty constant genre of pornography, and a common cultural watchword
It's not about dating and forming relationships, though. Pure animalistic sexual attraction.
Hello, and welcome to the Motte!
This response is not sufficiently charitable. You may note that I have banned the user to whom you were responding; one big problem with rule-breaking comments is that they tend to proliferate by encouraging further rule-breaking responses. But responding to a rule-breaking comment in a rule-breaking way does not excuse you!
...actually, looking through your rather fresh comment history, you seem to have a remarkable knack for sussing out problematic posts and making the discussion even worse by responding, not to the substance of the post, but to its rhetoric. Somehow that is, actually, most of your posts! The odds of this are so low as to not be worth contemplating.
Still, in the interest of charity, I will hold off perma-banning you as a suspected alt until the next time I notice this peculiar pattern. Once, after all, may be happenstance.
More options
Context Copy link