> It's almost as though there's another force at work, silently undermining reason, relentlessly overwhelming rational discourse. Like some nefarious hidden incentive structures which reward attention getting over honest discourse. But every time I've broached the topic, I get ridiculed. (One actual quote is "sweaty, paranoid kook". True story.)
The term you're looking for is "manufacturing consent". I highly recommend Herman and Chomsky's book by the same name.
It's not my fault my kids don't like me; their mom keeps poisoning them against me with lies and my visitation schedule makes it impossible for me to be in their lives.
No one ever believes me, they all just want to think I'm the bad guy.
You don't need to construct hypotheticals here because we're talking about a specific person. He pretty much sounded like what I just wrote. How many years can you listen to someone give the same excuses over and over - it's never their fault, it's because X, Y or Z - before you figure out that they're not the unluckiest person in the world but just an asshole?
Sometimes participants in a discussion can't get a particular scenario out of their head to the point they literally can't accept even a hypothetical scenario that differs.
You seem stuck on the scenario where, by construction, an actually guilty person is accused, and then claims the allegations are false.
But you haven't really engaged, it seems to me, with another scenario where, by construction, an actually innocent person is falsely accused, and then claims the allegations are false. Is your position that this just never happens, and never could happen? Or it happens so infrequently it can be ignored?
My dad says all of those things, but he never abused anyone. My mother told people a lot of lies about him, said he abused us etc. He was just naive, socially unaware and had money, and that somehow attracts horrible women like a lantern attracts flies.
Now I wouldn't say that my dad was a good dad, but he wasn't an abuser.
> It's not my fault my kids don't like me; their mom keeps poisoning them against me with lies and my visitation schedule makes it impossible for me to be in their lives.
I wouldn't doubt that. This is called parental alienation and it happens extremely often if my lawyer friends are to be believed.
Happened in my extended family as well. The woman and her mother took the kid away and I never saw them again. I was told it took court officials and police for the father to be able to see his son.
At work, a female colleague described similar situation. A family member had a child with her husband, divorced him and took the child to the United States so they'd be out of his reach. Apparently it's easier to illegally enter the country if you have a child with you. Now she sends my colleague and her family threatening messages using fake instagram accounts, taunting them with the fact they will never be able to "ruin her life" now that she's in the USA. She's supposed to be arrested for kidnapping and lose custody of the child if she ever steps foot in my country again.
What the hell are you talking about? It was multiple women, independently, over decades, that all gave similar allegations of abuse. At one point, one of the unpaid site administrators flew across the country so she could take one of these women to a shelter. How far would you have had the people who used his site and paid for his lifestyle go to cover their eyes and ignore his behavior?
Also buried in that massive thread is a post by one of the women he abused. An actual court of law, not just a web 1.0 forum, found him guilty of squandering marital assets and domestic abuse. By all accounts, he killed himself to avoid taking responsibility.
Lowtax's was a relentless downward story, where he squandered everything he had with no redemption arc. It's very sad, but it's not the bizarre strawman scenario you've concocted.
Inverted by whose standards? You could just as convincingly argue that capitalist enterprises are the ones with inverted incentives: to extract as much value from workers as possible while paying them as little as possible.
That doesn't actually change in a traditional capitalist system. The only difference is that owners and upper classes have more power than the individual to make their interest of getting the whole pot for little work happen
In capitalist system owner can enforce cooperation so the pot itself grows.
The proportion that workers capture here is of course dependant on external factors, like labour market and laws.
The left (both modern and not) is much less self-defense averse than you think. There's plenty of leftist gun clubs; the Socialist Rifle Association and Redneck Revolt, formerly John Brown Gun Club, come to mind immediately.
There's also the long history of unions literally going to war against capitalists, like in the Battle of Matewan.
Also worth remembering that leftist groups like the BPP encouraging its members to legally own firearms led to significant gun control expansion in California.
Depends on your definitions, right? What you describe sounds an awful lot like the Democratic party, but they're liberals, not leftists. I'd argue they're center-right.
From what I've seen at least, when more leftist parties like Green, DSA, the various communist parties, etc, talk about reducing gun violence it's in the context of eliminating poverty and other environmental contributors to the problem.
In 1989, those under 40 had 13.1% of total household wealth. In Q1 2021 that number was 6.0%. It seems 2009-2011 saw the lowest levels where it didn't crack 5%
Is that normalized by the number of people under 40 in 1989 versus the number of people under 40 in 2021? There are a lot of baby boomers (first group).
More: Is it normalized by change in life expectancy? If you were under 40 in 1989, what was the probability that your parents had died and left you the money? What is the probability in 2021?
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire happened on March 25, 1911. The owner kept the factory doors locked and as a result 146 people either died in the fire or jumped to their deaths. The owners were acquitted of manslaughter, but did have to pay $75 per person they killed. The owners made $60,000 profit due to the insurance payout.
Two years later in 1913, the one of the owners was arrested for locking his factory doors, again, and fined $20.
That's true, it's a while since I did only a little bit of Haskell, but yes. I suppose I didn't think of it because it feels less like 'having to handle' it in Haskell, since that's the norm anyway.
Whereas if you compare Rust to Python, C(++), or Go as I was - having to consume a returned 'result' is more notable.
Does your hot take genocide-based solution include "tactical nuking" of Pakistan as well? Because the Afghan Taliban gets plenty of support from them as well.
U.S. foreign policy stated from the outset in 2001 that we would follow terrorists where ever they are, no matter the country. Hunt them down and kill them. That's what we said about terrorists generally and Taliban specifically.
We departed from U.N. Charter article 51 twice, and also disregarded the determination of Nuremberg. The nation is complicit, Bush was reelected subsequent to his foreign policy assertions and actions. There's been no serious consideration to hold him or the U.S. accountable. That makes it tacitly permitted.
Killing all Taliban would not be genocide. It would be consistent with long standing U.S. foreign policy. It's a religious sect, not a group of ethnic or nationals.
Really nice explanations and visualizations. The discussion about ship stability and the moment arm between center of gravity and center of buoyancy gave me flashbacks of my undergrad aircraft stability and control classes (where the moment arms between CG and center of lift on the wings determines static stability).
The discussion about propeller design is also very similar to aircraft as well - not just aircraft propellers but also compressors in turbofan engines.
The fact that there's a ton of similarity between the disciplines isn't too surprising, but the great visuals in this blog post made that connection seem particularly satisfying.
The term you're looking for is "manufacturing consent". I highly recommend Herman and Chomsky's book by the same name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent