As one insider told me (who is not me): ‘imagine an equally sexist name was given to, say, female pundits and journalists’ … what would the reaction be?’

With the amount of misandry omnipresent in mainstream media. I'm starting to question which way is up and which is down.

Ok, here's a source for that. Weird that so few articles are mentioning the specifics.

usatoday source

This is starting to make a whole lot more sense.

I can see how those buoys can actually be effective. But I wonder how expensive it would be to setup full coverage.

Also putting these on a river that serves as an international border without federal approval is some nonsense. It's like, what's next? Texas starts to unilaterally make trade agreements with mexico because they're the ones at the border?

I'm not a big fan of the pulling on the hearstrings. These people are dying with or without the border fences. And presumably if they're willing to take these risks, it's because the situation where they come from is even worse. You can't just simply point at the location where they end up dying and say that's where all the evil is. If they survive the river, they can die in the desert, if they survive the desert, they can die as a vagrant. If they get picked up, they can get sent back to mexico right back where they were in at least as much danger. If they get accepted as a refugee then they become the government's responsibility, which is not a solution that scales to the number of people that need it. That's before you even ask the question of whether the US government should accept responsibility (which I think it should, I suspect that the US's mismanaged war on drug is in large part to blame for the unrest in Mexico).

But the whole thing gets even more complicated because Mexican cartels are responsible for these illegal border crossing attempts. And they're likely lying to the immigrants about the benefits of crossing illegally. People may be risking their lives not knowing that what they're doing could kill them and that what they get in the end may not even be that much better than where they come from.

What you don't want is a situation where people are incentivized to risk their lives in illegal boarder crossings so that they can skip the line to obtain refugee status, taking spots away from people doing it the legal and safe way. That increases the overall misery and death. And if putting evil buoys that stink of death is going to get the job done, then it might be worth it.

Except it's not going to get the job done. And it's on an international river. And it's terrible optics. And they're illegal.

Does someone know WTF is actually going on? Or has a link to an article that actually tries to explain it properly instead of just injecting political bias?

Here's the few facts I was able to get:

There is money earmarked by congress to build a border wall. That money can't be used for anything else.

Biden doesn't want to build the wall. He thinks it's a waste of money and the money would be better spent elsewhere.

Somewhere in Texas a wall has been built, (by who? using what money?)

There's been back and fourth in the courts on the topic. One ruling is that the Federal Border Patrol isn't obligated to build the wall.

The Federal Border Patrol has in the past removed border walls, I think, I'm not clear on that one.

The Federal Border Patrol wants access to the place in Texas where a wall has been built. (So they can tear it down?)

Some texans official (don't know which groups) is physically preventing the Federal Border Patrol from gaining access.

Biden was hoping, that if the money is not spent then it could be repurposed for other things. I assume, this would happen via a congressional spending bill asking the money to be repurposed since Biden can't unilaterally do this.

So, those are facts I know, here are some things that I'd like to know don't know:

Which government entity is on the Texas side. I don't know who built the wall and with what money.

I don't know the official position of the Federal Border Patrol at different points in time on the issue.

I do have some info about Biden's official position (The wall is a waste of money better spent elsewhere). I'd still like to know if that position has been consistent over time. Especially in the context of removing the wall (that's spending more money to undo something that's already been done, unless the concern is that maintenance costs on the wall makes it more cost effective to remove it).

In terms of speculation for "true motives".

I think it's clear that Biden's stated position is as true a motive is you can get from a politician. They just don't think that walls/fences is an effective immigration control mechanism. They're really easy to defeat.

But if they tried to take down fences that have already been built, then I see two possible secondary agendas:

1. The federal border patrol is having a jurisdiction hissy fit. They consider the border wall to be their responsibility and they've been told not to build any, but some other government agency has built one, so they move it to get rid of it to show them who's boss.

2. If a wall gets build, it might support in people's mind that a wall was needed. This goes against Biden's political narrative.

I'm thinking this whole fiasco is 85% the federal border patrol having a hissy fit and 15% Texas having a huge illegal immigrant problem and they "as a whole" know that a fence won't fix anything But they gotta do something. They can't do nothing. And building a fence is the only not nothing thing they can figure out to do. Plus it makes the right wingers in the area happy because it supports their political narrative.

I don't live anywhere near Texas. But I watched this youtuber who's trying to make a forest in the middle of the desert. And this episode made it clear to me how bad the problem is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rVQlWoO3fA

Overall I'm just not convinced that it's just a matter of populist posturing. The immigration issue affects Texas so much to the point that they're willing to try things that are unlikely to work. But the people in charge of the border aren't similarly motivated.

Now, do the calculation again, but by gender.

And then do it again, and this time use race AND gender.

Deflation is bad because you can "invest" by just keeping cash around. Which means investors aren't contributing to economic activity.

A small amount of inflation helps, because investors understand that if they're not investing the cash they have, then they're essentially losing money.

High levels of inflation is bad, because prices can change so fast that it makes commerce too difficult with prices changing too frequently.

But that's for stable levels. Salaries tend to be very vulnerable to unexpected changes in inflation/deflation because they don't change that often and they're not pegged to inflation. Which means if the money unexpectedly devalues by 20%, then you effectively get a 20% pay cut and it might not be easy to negation a rectification with your employer and meanwhile you're still underpaid.

The reverse is true with unexpected deflation, you get an effective 20% pay raise and your employer can't do anything about it except fire you or go bankrupt. This is how deflation can lead to unemployment.

So deflation might help make a bit of wealth transfer from the capitalist class to the working class. But it's very temporary and would likely come at a great cost to the overall economy.

If you want to fix wealth inequality it's really simple: tax the rich, regulate monopolies and oligopolies.

And he's a fucking genius. Because, as far as I can tell, all of his trans jokes are really funny or nuanced. But his handicap jokes, some of them are just downright lame and insulting.

And everyone's coming after him for his trans jokes, not his handicap jokes.

You can't punch down on transpeople, their propaganda reach is massive. People are AFRAID to say the littlest bit negative about them.

That's why the handicap jokes. He wanted to show what actually happens when you punch down: nothing. No one gives a shit.

Anyway, that's my headcanon. Otherwise, some of these handicap jokes are completely inexcusable and don't live up to the standard set by his trans jokes.

From most perspectives, freedom is power. And one person's freedom is another person's slavery.

If you bring it back to the roots of life's purpose: to procreate exponentially. It always comes down to doing better than your neighbor.

You can come up with all the moral rules of thumbs you like, like "your rights stops where my nose begin". At the end of the day, if what John is doing enables him to procreate exponentially faster than Jack. Then Jack (on an evolutionary level) will perceive John as evil.

But "on an evolutionary level" isn't really a real thing. It manifests itself in our dreams and feelings. Like how we get envious of people who do better than us or how we feel pride when we do better than others.

It gets complicated because of the effectiveness of cooperation. Which is where things like altruism, compassion and empathy come from.

But even here, evolution tries to pierce through it with things like hypocrisy, subconscious bias and tribal allegiance.

From this context, I believe that for most people freedom is a feeling they get when they do better than the people around them, when they are more powerful than them. It makes for a good slogan, because everyone wants to feel free, the theory says that everyone can be free, but the practice is that not everyone can feel free.

When you use freedom as your theoretical basis of government, it sounds good. But in practice, people will have slightly different interpretation of what freedom means to them, one where they'll feel free but others won't.

You might think now, that we should simply work on a clear and objective definition for freedom, but that definition you're looking for is one where you'll feel free, but many others will feel oppressed.

The best way to resolve the the corruption issue is to not allow any individual to hold power [...[.

That's part of it, probably the biggest part of it. You also want a system that can come to a consensus through compromise when resolving social issues. You also want a system that is efficient and powerful (to compete against other societies).

But going back to the corruption thing. It's not enough, people can organise around an ideal to oppress entire groups. You can have a system where not individual or small group of individual hold power, but one where the whites can oppress the blacks, or the Christians can oppress the Atheists, etc....

Creating a system that substantially reduces corruption is insanely difficult. Corruption is the lynchpin of all the alternate systems being proposed, none are as good as the current system of capitalism + regulation + democracy.

What that system does, is it pretty much gives up on trying to eliminate corruption. Instead it tries to redirect its energies and minimize the damage it causes.

Basically, someone trying to become powerful in a capitalist system, is sort of cajoled into working hard to improve society.

The democracy + regulation aspect is what minimizes the damages caused.

Eventually, the "democracy + regulation" does get captured, and while it's pretty bad compared to how these systems should work, they still tend to perform their function to some extent.

If you contrast this with something like communism or socialism. Those seeking power immediately start by dismantling the systems that prevent corruption. The pressure is so strong, the system will collapse almost instantly, and I think history shows this to be the case.

As for Libertarian, I don't know. You always got someone who will show up telling you that you don't know what "True" libertarian is. When there's actually 200 different true libertarian and each requires 10,000 hours of study to fully understand.

But the few discussions I've had has been enough to convince me that the vast majority are either some kind of survivalist or people who see themselves as effective local business leaders. They just think that's a system that will shift the balance of power in their favor and many of them won't even deny it if you straight up ask them. They're sick of feeling oppressed and they want to become the oppressor.

But generally, it seems to me that most Libertarian systems fail to account for bad state actors. These libertarian systems tends to favor a system that shifts the balance of power to local groups. But has no system in place to keep that power local. There's no way this won't immediately lead to civil war, with the winner setting up a dictatorship.

From most perspectives, freedom is power. And one person's freedom is another person's slavery.

If you bring it back to the roots of life's purpose: to procreate exponentially. It always comes down to doing better than your neighbor.

You can come up with all the moral rules of thumbs you like, like "your rights stops where my nose begin". At the end of the day, if what John is doing enables him to procreate exponentially faster than Jack. Then Jack (on an evolutionary level) will perceive John as evil.

But "on an evolutionary level" isn't really a real thing. It manifests itself in our dreams and feelings. Like how we get envious of people who do better than us or how we feel pride when we do better than others.

It gets complicated because of the effectiveness of cooperation. Which is where things like altruism, compassion and empathy come from.

But even here, evolution tries to pierce through it with things like hypocrisy, subconscious bias and tribal allegiance.

From this context, I believe that for most people freedom is a feeling they get when they do better than the people around them, when they are more powerful than them. It makes for a good slogan, because everyone wants to feel free, the theory says that everyone can be free, but the practice is that not everyone can feel free.

When you use freedom as your theoretical basis of government, it sounds good. But in practice, people will have slightly different interpretation of what freedom means to them, one where they'll feel free but others won't.

You might think now, that we should simply work on a clear and objective definition for freedom, but that definition you're looking for is one where you'll feel free, but many others will feel oppressed.

The best way to resolve the the corruption issue is to not allow any individual to hold power [...[.

That's part of it, probably the biggest part of it. You also want a system that can come to a consensus through compromise when resolving social issues. You also want a system that is efficient and powerful (to compete against other societies).

But going back to the corruption thing. It's not enough, people can organise around an ideal to oppress entire groups. You can have a system where not individual or small group of individual hold power, but one where the whites can oppress the blacks, or the Christians can oppress the Atheists, etc....

Creating a system that substantially reduces corruption is insanely difficult. Corruption is the lynchpin of all the alternate systems being proposed, none are as good as the current system of capitalism + regulation + democracy.

What that system does, is it pretty much gives up on trying to eliminate corruption. Instead it tries to redirect its energies and minimize the damage it causes.

Basically, someone trying to become powerful in a capitalist system, is sort of cajoled into working hard to improve society.

The democracy + regulation aspect is what minimizes the damages caused.

Eventually, the "democracy + regulation" does get captured, and while it's pretty bad compared to how these systems should work, they still tend to perform their function to some extent.

If you contrast this with something like communism or socialism. Those seeking power immediately start by dismantling the systems that prevent corruption. The pressure is so strong, the system will collapse almost instantly, and I think history shows this to be the case.

As for Libertarian, I don't know. You always got someone who will show up telling you that you don't know what "True" libertarian is. When there's actually 200 different true libertarian and each requires 10,000 hours of study to fully understand.

But the few discussions I've had has been enough to convince me that the vast majority are either some kind of survivalist or people who see themselves as effective local business leaders. They just think that's a system that will shift the balance of power in their favor and many of them won't even deny it if you straight up ask them. They're sick of feeling oppressed and they want to become the oppressor.

But generally, it seems to me that most Libertarian systems fail to account for bad state actors. These libertarian systems tends to favor a system that shifts the balance of power to local groups. But has no system in place to keep that power local. There's no way this won't immediately lead to civil war, with the winner setting up a dictatorship.

I just don't understand the logic here. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of abolishing the Duluth Model and the requirement to incarcerate someone on a domestic violence call.

But neither this situation, nor the story you linked to seems to have much to do with that policy.

In both situations, the police acted completely out of bounds. It is a completely different problem.

The story on the website was written in 2014 about an incident that happened in 1999, that's almost 25 years ago. It can't be considered relevant today. If there's a real systemic problem of this kind, you should have at least a dozen cases like this every single year.

Hopefully, in this most recent case we'll get some body cam footage released so we find out what really happened.

And also hopefully, the body cams is what will put this guy off the force forever. It's the second time he seems to have done something like this, but I'd bet that the first time, body cams were not standard practice yet.

Seems to me that the solution to stop this kind of thing from being a common problem is body cams, and that's what we have.

I look at it as the AI we build is humanity's child. It will outgrow us. And we will age out and die.

On a cosmic scale, an AI can operate in ways humans never could.

Even if you use the augmented humans path, eventually, all the human will be augmented out of existence until only the AI is left.

Wtf is this unhinged gaslighting that wouldn't even trick a two year old? You literally said:

All Republicans are Nazis.

All Nazis must hang.

Therefore, should all Republicans be hanged?

I get this is hyperbolae. But this hyperbolae is advocating for mass murder.

You do understand that you're one of the badies right?

If executive unions could enforced a max amount of hours worked for executives and other similar quality of life requirements. Maybe there would be fewer sociopaths and more humans in executive positions.

If you're in a swing state. You vote for Biden.

If you're not in a swing state, you vote third party.

Don't not vote, by voting you make your intention and commitment very clear. Even if your third party candidate never has a chance, mainstream politicians may notice the interest in that third party candidates platform and adopt some of his/her policies.

Participate in your state's primary elections. There's a lot more diversity of policies there and you can make your voice heard there as well.

Participate in your city and state elections, the amount of money effort and attention placed on federal elections (especially presidential) is completely outsized compared to local elections. Which means the amount of influence that you can have as an individual relative to amount of power the offices that you have influence over is huge compared to the same calculation at the federal level.

Many politicians start at the state and municipal level. So your influence there can be very helpful. Also if Trumps gets some success at creating a authoritarian dystopia at the federal level, it can be mitigated at the state and municipal level. Just like how each state can make sure to protect the right of abortion despite the supreme court flip on the subject.

Right, but telling Republicans that their representative wants to make America great again while thinking it's an insult. That's dialing the stupid up to 1000.

If what you're looking for is a decentralized pseudonymous system. Then this is absolutely possible with today's cryptography.

It's called public-private keys. You create a private key that you can use to "sign" your messages. And people can verify that is was you that wrote the message by using the public key.

No one can pretend to be you because only you have access to your private key and the public key can't be used to find out what the private key is.

It's still anonymous because you don't have to say who you are when you create the private key.

It's not perfect because the same person can create as many different keys as they want. So you can't really "ban" someone. They'll just create a new key and pretend to be someone new.

Fully decentralized, no censorship at the core of the system.

You pay a moderator to send you a filtered feed that filters out illegal content.

Then you upvote/downvote what you like and don't like. A local system looks at what other people upvoted and downvoted. People who upvoted/downvoted like you gain credibility people who upvoted/downvoted opposite you gain negative credibility. Then you get shown the content with the most credibility. And a little like pagerank, the credibility propagates, so people upvoted by others with high credibility will also have high credibility.

So, anyone can post anything to any subforum.

But in principle if you upvote/downvote posts based on whether they are appropriate to that subforum, then you'll only see posts that are appropriate for every subforum, because other users who upvote/downvote like you will also downvote off topic posts.

So you end up with the internet you vote for. If you downvote everyone that disagrees with you, you'll be in an echochamber. If you upvote does who disagree with you while making a good faith effort to bring up solid points, and you'll find yourself in an internet full of interesting and varied viewpoints.

You could also create different profile depending on what mood you're in.

Maybe you feel like reading meme so you use your memes profile where you only upvote funny memes and downvote everything else.

Or you're more feeling like serious discussions and you don't want to see meme so you use your serious discussions profile.

Isn't the Gaza hospital at the very least confirmed to have been a relatively minor explosion in the parking lot?

Why take sides at all.

Because they've wandered into an echo chamber and are now hyper aware of all the real bad things on side did plus a few false bad things. While all of the bad things the other side did have been downplayed or justified.

I sadly don't know enough on the topic to say more on this. And the amount of research needed to get even an idea of "who is worse" is massive due to all the misinformation (or misleading information) on the topic everywhere.

I do know that neither side is taking a sensible approach to the problem because right wing nutbags are in charge of both sides.

Wth are you talking about. The argument is on whether or not it is ok (aka, we should tolerate) to belittle / argue against religion as a whole. You're taking the position that it is not ok to do so. The supporting argument you gave is that it is functionally equivalent to racism. I explained that it was not functionally equivalent to racism.

Now you have no supporting argument but you tell me it doesn't matter because your position hasn't changed.

Also, I keep seing this paradox of tolerance bullshit on the fediverse. People need to understand: you must tolerate people, but you doesn't have to tolerate their ideas or their actions. It's not that complicated.

This whole not tolerating people who are intolerant is just another way of being intolerant. Pick any person in the world and I'll find a reason to claim that they're intolerant. At the end of the day, it's just an excuse to otherize people who aren't on your team.

You're comparing someone talking about some ideas or ways of thinking being harmful versus someone talking about how certain people are harmful based on innate characteristic. It's not a reasonable comparison.

This is just completely wrong. If you read past the misleading headline here:

https://nypost.com/2021/09/07/facebook-reads-and-shares-whatsapp-private-messages-report/

You'll see that Facebook cannot, in fact, give logs to law enforcement. If you choose to report a message you've received and send it to Facebook, then obviously then they can read it.

Also, your claim in another comment that Facebook does not have private keys to decrypt your encrypted messages is just fantasy.

That's only because you listen to OP's nonsense. Meanwhile the trump supporters are in their own echo chambers and thing you're either a pedo or a pedo defender so you deserve to get punched too.

The right, especially Trump supporters are dangerous, not because of their "weird sexuality" or misogyny. But because they're trying to dismantle democracy. Free speech is an essential component of democracy and they'll go after it the second they get an ounce of power.

You talk about not wanting to allow hate speech, yet the speech you just read is making you want to punch people. That's what hate speech looks like.

I'm confused as to which shit you're referring to. OP's rant or Trump's speeches? Either way, if you let someone start controlling which speech is allowed and which is not based on the ideas it contains at a society-wide level, you'll have created a tyrant. It's not a good plan.

You're describing profit, not money supply.

Bank profits don't cause inflation in the way you seem to say and bank profits are no different than any other company's profits in terms of how they affect inflation.

Honestly, 2024 seems more like an attempt to return to sanity while the elites are trying to learn how to use their new toys. 2026 midterms will be the beta test and 2028 is going to be the real shit show.

So, it's his usual strategy then. Make all sorts of conflicting statements with conflicting messages so that each supporter can believe that he's genuinely speaking for their interests but that trump is simply lying to all the other supporters that have conflicting interests.

There a ton of different ways to get laid. And depending on what your looking for, there are different requirements.

Most commonly people who don't get laid are looking for some level of intimacy with someone that actually finds them attractive. Which means that hookers are not an option.

Commonly people in this category have two issues (I'm probably projecting :P, but I don't have much to work on):

1. Standards too high. Just like poor people try to become billionaires. Sexless people wish for a harem of super models. Practice flirting with less attractive women until you learn to connect with women on a deeper level which will make lowering your standards to reasonable levels easier.

2. You're unattractive. A bit similarly to #1, influencers and your own expectations for a partner are warping your perception of how attractive you need to be. Seeing as the level of attractiveness you wish you had is completely unattainable, you give up or you look for ineffective shortcuts.
   Don't worry so much, work on the basics: good hygiene, not terrible clothes, some level of social competence, a minimal amount of confidence. The minimum requirements are far lower than what you'd expect or what most people would think.

(Note being financially stable also helps in terms of minimum requirements for attractiveness, but it's not like you need the incentive of getting laid to want to be financially stable).

Keep working on both #1 and #2 and eventually they meet and you get laid and have a good time!

1. I'll sneak in a third point here. If you're a man, your relative attractiveness automatically goes up until your 40s vs women of the same age. But the change is most noticeable when you hit your early 30s. So, worst case scenario, after a few years, the odds shift in your favor.

Make it do they have to have it, to be able to loan it

The banks do have to have it to be able to loan it.

Fractional reserve says that they're not allowed to loan all of it.

So if you deposit 100k at the bank and there's a 10% fractional reserve. Then they're only allowed to loan 90k.

Now you might ask, so if the bank can only loan 90% of the money they have where does the money multiplier come from?

If person A comes and deposits 100k, and the bank loans 90k to person B. Then there's still only 100k in cash, but now there's 190k in bank accounts.

So every time someone comes in to deposit 100k, they loan out 90k. Once they've got 1,000k, they've loaned out 900k and keep 100k cash in reserve.

The important difference here is that loan only happen when there's a borrow. And there are strict regulations about how reliable those loans can be. Which is why they tend to require collateral.

So, really when a bank has 1,000k in people's account, it only has 100k in cash. But it also has 900k in houses, cars and furniture.

The whole system ends up stabilizing the value of money because it is backed by real tangible things through the loaning and collateral system.

I also think it helps to keep money at a stable but small rate of inflation (1-2%). Otherwise people will just hoard the cash instead of growing the economy in the form of investments. But I don't know what the literature says on that topic, or how reliable that literature is, in practice.

My point is, getting rid of the whole system just because it looks complicated to you seems like a terrible idea.

Like our focus should be on breaking up monopolies, progressive taxation and a solid well funded social support system. I think it's safe to leave the management of the money supply to the bean counters for now. It's clearly not perfect but it's not bad either.

If banks hold 100% of the money and lend it all out x10 (fractional reserve) and earn 1% interest, the money supply is growing by 10% per year.

You've got it backwards.

Banks hold other people's money and use it to issue loan. It's the issuance of loans that creates money. The fractional reserve doesn't magically multiply the money. It just (in a roundabout way) allows banks to loan up to that multiplier of money to people. But that only works if there's people who want to borrow that money.

If a bank earns 1% interest, that doesn't grow the money supply. It transfers money from the people that borrowed the money to the bank which then uses it to pay executives, shareholders and employees (in that order of priority).

The higher the interest rates, the less money people can afford the borrow, the more the money supply shrinks.

Banks HATE high federal reserve rates, because that means people don't borrow as much which means they don't make as much money.

When business and the wealthy class get richer, they want to get even RICHER. Prices rise. Which drives record profit, which makes rich people wealthier, which causes the cycle to repeat.

This can only happen in a poorly regulated environment where the rich setup monopolies or oligopolies. Otherwise they'd lose all their customers if they raise prices.

We just need proper incentive structures and regulation. But seeing as nobody has the guts to start figuring that out, the only lever we have is interest rates.

I think you're just speaking for yourself here. Before you start spreading misinformation on the internet, maybe you should find the guts to actually figure out what you're talking about.

High federal reserve rates can make things difficult for banks and that might be why the CEO of JP Morgan is butt hurt right now.

Want to deal with inflation? Raise interest rates.

Want to really improve the population's purchasing power? Break up the monopolies and oligopolies.

America is the most democratic of all the super powers.

I'm also pretty sure that all countries with better equality and democracy rely on American military / NATO for their national security.

America looks pretty good to me.

If by "debts and obligations" you mean nukes. That makes total sense.

I'm not well connected to law culture to know for sure. But it does seem like there is a fair amount of politics involved as well as guilt related.

If you're a man accused of raping a woman, whether you're guilty or not. You're not going to pick a lawyer with a track record of ending her tweets with hashtag KAM.

If you've looked at the Johny Depp trial. Even expert witnesses will differ along an ideological divide (typically gender oriented ideological divide).

So if you're representing a man, you'll want to use one set of expert witnesses. Whereas a if you're representing a woman you'll want to use a completely different set of expert witnesses. It might stand to reason that a lawyer will just pick one side of the ideological aisle and become an expert at it (and likely acquire the corresponding professional deformation and echo chamber ideology of that particular side of the ideological debate).

So there's plenty of reason to pick a lawyer based on their ideological association in this kind of case. Regardless of your own level of guilt.

But at the same time, maybe there are lawyers who specialize in defending guilty people whereas others specialize in defending innocent people.

I wouldn't read to much into the choice of lawyers, but it can certainly be a red-ish flag.

I'm not claiming this is right or wrong. But here's the justification.

The criminal justice system is there to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime occurred. When it comes to distinguishing consensual sex from rape, it's nearly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt, because it ends up being just she said, he said. One tactic is to show a pattern of multiple victims. So if multiple victims independently come forward with a similar story of sexually predatory behavior, then you have compelling evidence that might be enough for "beyond reasonable doubt".

What this means is that, in principle, rapists can just start raping left and right and keep getting away with it. At least for a while. I don't claim here anything about how frequent or rare these rapists may be.

This can make life untenable for rape victims on university campus, in that they will not be able to keep going to class in the same room as the person that raped them. This creates even more injustice beyond just that of being victim of a crime that you can't prove, because they'll be forced to forego their studies.

So that's the justification given for why, morally, we need something that's a bit easier than "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that will make it possible for the victim to continue their studies. Legally, Title IX, along with a lot of acrobatics, provides the legal framework to force universities to do something about it.

In practice, it seems that at least in some universities you end up with a complete joke of a system. Universities are completely ill equipped to adjudicate such a complex situations. The whole thing is extremely politicized. The outcome of the investigation seems to be heavily based on the gender of the accuser and accused as well as political connections to the people involved in the process.

Regardless of if the previous is true or not. Not being allowed to cross-examine the accuser in a she-said he-said situation seems completely insane.

Personally, I think one party consent for legal recordings (recordings that can only be used for legal purposes in criminal proceedings) should become the norm world-wide. Then catching these rapists is going to be so easy that there won't be any need to even think about these kinds of kangaroo courts.

It's a monday. So that's already more like 1 in 52. There's been like 5-20 news worthy "return to work" announcements in the past year, I'm guessing half othem have mandatory 2 days, the other half have mandatory 3 days.

Multiply that by the number of things that happen in your life where a coincidence of this level could happen and you should be seeing this kind of coincidence a many times each year.

It's when you're dealing in an official capacity or speaking to a broad audience or when you don't know the person's culture.

The CEO saying Merry Christmas to his 140 employees, when 5 of them are Jewish is going to be not feel so great for those 5 Jewish people. Happy Holidays should be fine for everyone.

But if you know the person is Christian (or celebrates Christmas) it should be perfectly fine to tell them Merry Christmas.

Of course in some places that may be considered insensitive because a Jewish person might be hearing it. Which is absurd and that level of sensitivity is not acceptable IMO.

I don't know how to reach these people or whether they're reachable at all. Yes, my main motivation by a very long shot was to correct absurd levels of misinformation in a community where I believe most members care about not spreading misinformation.

What worries me is that so many people seem to be living in an echo bubble that's radicalizing them to hate people they shouldn't be hating.

So yes, there's a lot of not so great things about Jordan Peterson. But all things considered he's not that bad. And I haven't paid attention closely for the last few years, but I wouldn't be characterizing him as a piece of shit.

The author of the article is a worse piece of shit than Jordan Peterson. People who seem to take pleasure out of Jordan's suffering due to his Benzodiazepine addiction are even worse.

But, looking at some of Jordan's twitter comment, he's definitely a bit of an asshole. But 95% of people seem to be assholes when they go on twitter.

The only really bad thing about him is his political views. But even there, there seems to be less malice and less self serving talk than most right wingers (other than the apparent or effective grifting). But even the grifting, in my opinion, is not as bad as most people (both on the left and on the right). Still, right wing ideology is a very problematic from a liberal perspective (which is my perspective). But at the same time today's mainstream and increasingly radical left ideology is also problematic from a liberal perspective. Regardless, I still don't think that someone's anti-liberal social views necessarily makes them a piece of shit regardless of if they're on the left or on the right. But it does make it easy to become one.

Maybe, I don't know. How do you know? You seem so eager to believe lies. How do you know that everything you think you know about Jordan Peterson isn't all lies?

Good article?

The comments that formed the basis of the complaints against Dr. Peterson included comments on a podcast in which he commented on air pollution and child deaths by saying “it’s just poor children…”

This quote is the most disgusting out of context character assassination I've seen in a long time.

I got suspicious because while Jordan does say things that women and/or trans people often find deplorable. I know that he's a strong supporter of the poor (at least in rhetoric) and as a family man I assume of children as well.

The full context can be found on Spotify. Episode #1769 of "The Joe Rogan Experience" start from about 15:30. He's the one that brings up how 7 million poor children die from indoor particulate pollution. Joe doesn't believe him and gets a fact check, which eventually leads to Jordan sarcastically saying "Well, it's just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyway..."

It's such an insane mischaracterization of what he said, you can't take the article seriously. Probably would have to write off the entire website that article is from, honestly.

The person I'm talking to is allowed to know who I am so I'm not anonymous. Signal doesn't need to know who I am. It doesn't matter what you call it, that's the feature I'm waiting for to motivate a switch.

That said, I looked up sealed senders. They really do go above and beyond to end2end encrypt as much as they possibly can.

It's just a shame that they insist so hard to tie user accounts to phone numbers.