Youtube comments of yessum15 (@yessum15).

  1. 2100
  2. RZA ignores that the only reason Napster was able to steal from the music industry was because the industry was a bloated, corrupt monster that had grown fat stealing from their customers and artists. The RIAA was an oligopoly engaging in price fixing and collusion. In 1997 Tower Records was selling 2pac's Hail Mary single for $13 (1997 dollars). Multiple artists (including Wutang) put out double CDs to instantly double their revenue without actually having enough good material to fill the record. Recording contracts were charging artists completely fraudulent fees like "Breakage Clauses" on contracts that were already incredibly predatory and exploitative (eg: Artists were seeing pennies off a CD sold for $20+, but then forced to pay all production costs and bullshit fees from their penny stake.) This is why artists like TLC could go multiple times platinum & multiple globally iconic hits while simultaneously going bankrupt. All of this would have been illegal, but the only thing the RIAA didn't skimp on was investing in lawyers, lobbyists and bribery in order to cement their position of power. Napster would not have made a dent in their business if: 1) Prices were set anywhere near the real fair price for the product. 2) The industry used its massive revenue to invest in improving the customer experience by developing innovative music delivery technology (I mean fuck they should've been the ones to invent Napster) 3) Customers perceived illegal downloads as actually stealing from the artists, rather than from the bloated bureaucracy between them. Honestly, stealing Jeru the Damaja's entire music catalog and sending him $1 in the mail would've been a lot more generous than actually buying all his albums. RZA doesn't care because Wutang started from such humble beginnings and became so wildly successful that he can overlook the fact that 98% of his money early on was stolen by his bosses. But he needs to shut the fuck up about illegal downloads.
    1100
  3. 835
  4. 590
  5. 577
  6. 468
  7. 416
  8. 369
  9. 333
  10. 255
  11. 248
  12. 241
  13. 241
  14. 240
  15. 236
  16. 205
  17. 189
  18. 163
  19. 153
  20. 149
  21. 148
  22. 141
  23. 125
  24. 8:43 Video Correction: "Logan's massive height, weight, and reach advantage allowed him to easily avoid being knocked out by Mayweather." I haven't finished watching your video, but this is objectively, blatantly, and offensively wrong. There is a common misconception amongst laymen that a boxing match is either fixed or fair. This is not the case. Boxing is a highly managed sport. And over the years an intricate system has emerged for controlling outcomes via various techniques that may or may not meet the definition of "fixing." The purpose of all of this, is to protect the long time profitability of potential money making line ups and to avoid snuffing out a potential superstar by prematurely exposing them to excessively harmful matchups. This was an exhibition match. Mayweather was instructed to carry Logan. Meaning to give Logan an active and exciting sparring session, but to leave him unharmed and allow him to finish out the full length of the fight. Throughout the entire fight Mayweather is exhibiting excellent restraint and professionalism. He pulls back his knuckles on impact and hits Logan with the front of his fingers to minimize the weight of impact - turning punches into closed first slaps. He sets Logan up for knockouts and then purposely alters the trajecory of the punch so that it glances off the sides and top of his head. He steps off setting up perfect angles of attack and then either pushes or clinches with Logan. These are all standard techniques. This is Mayweather "play sparring" at 5%. This type of thing usually happens in 3 situations: 1) When a legendary fighter is retiring, a young upstart who can knock him out will sometimes carry the fighter in this way. 2) When a fighter with high future earning potential but low current skill/experience needs either a warm up fight or a marketing boost, an older "can" fighter will be instructed to carry the younger fighter. 3) In freakshow promotional events such as this one. Floyd is a businessman way before he's a fighter. His viability as the "go to" celebrity boxing partner (and to a lesser extent the viability of this entire celebrity boxing charade) is completely dependant on Hollywood agents being absolutely certain that he will stick to the script and refrain from damaging their clients or their clients' reputations. Given the amount of money this trend is generating for the industry as a whole, and the amount of potential new lines of income being opened up by all the fuss, finishing Logan is a petty indulgence with a $100+ million price tag. It proves nothing to anyone, as anyone who knows anything about boxing already knows what's happening here. Case in point: I'm saying all of this, and I have literally never watched the fight. I saw a total of about 40 seconds and immediately understood what was happening. When I see a fighter going out of his way to protect his opponent and actively shutting down openings, the writing on the wall is obvious. And to be honest, if I was in Floyd's corner, I would refuse to work with him unless he promised to carry Logan. So, to be clear: Logan Paul did not "survive" Mayweather. Nor is it remotely possible he ever could. I know this isn't the point of your video but this is an obscene perversion of reality that really can't be overlooked. LP is so outmatched, and was so perpetually exposed to an easy knock out, that had this been a real fight, tying Logan's hands behind his back would not significantly alter his chance of losing. _______________________ Note: What I wrote above does not apply to Jake Paul's fights. Jake can actually box (at the level of a decent amateur). What's happening with Jake is a little more complicated. I may explain it later
    112
  25. 105
  26. 101
  27. 100
  28.  @elijeschke  You did say that the investigation determined the shoe gave no advantage. And I ignored that. Just like the people in your story. Want to know why? Because that is likely nonsense and people intuitively know it. People know that the likelihood the man with this rare physical abnormality and specialized equipment also just happens to be the best kicker ever is too big a coincidence. They also know that such a dramatic change to the major variables present having no effect positive or negative on outcomes is basically 0. This is like if every football player kicks a football but I throw a Frisbee and score dramatically different from the rest. It's gonna take more than a scientist simply declaring "the Frisbee made no difference" to convince people. We're going to need a mountain of high quality evidence here. Now consider the problems with getting any evidence at all. Science is a slow process. It operates best when questions are narrowly defined and variables are limited. When sample sizes are large and research is conducted by disinterested neutral parties ashering to strict protocols. The number of variables present here is insane and the physics is very complicated. Having half a foot dramatically changes the muscle to weight ratio between his power generating hips, and the weight of the foot they have to lift. The swing is totally different. And the shape contacting the football is totally different. The traction on that shape is different. His body mechanics as a whole are different. It would take a great deal of money and time to attempt to get a solid scientific answer to these questions. On top of that their sample size is literally n=1 And the "investigation" is probably as far from scientific as one can imagine and is being organized by a non-scientific organization with a vested interest in a particular outcome. This "investigation" probably has about as much scientific credibility as that ridiculous simulated fight between Rocky Marciano & Muhammad Ali. Which is to say it probably has less credibility than the the scripted fights of Rocky Balboa. So given the extremely obvious nature of the deformity, its hugely intuitive likelihood of influencing outcomes, and the dearth of any real evidence to the contrary some skepticism is totally understandable.
    87
  29. 79
  30. 77
  31. 74
  32. 73
  33. 69
  34. 67
  35. 65
  36. 64
  37. 60
  38. 59
  39. 56
  40. 51
  41. 50
  42. 50
  43. 50
  44. 48
  45. 46
  46. 45
  47. 45
  48. 45
  49. 44
  50. 43
  51. 43
  52. 42
  53. 41
  54. 40
  55. 40
  56. 39
  57. 38
  58. 35
  59. ​ @pianodan10  I avoided this because analysis of JP is more complicated. There are more ambiguities, opinions are more subjective, and therefore the discussion will be unavoidably longwinded. But if you're ready here we go: There are 3 important things to understand about Jake Paul: 1) He can legitimately box. His current ability is somewhere in the range of a decent amateur. 2) He's currently performing at or near his max potential. Realistically, he is too old to have a career in boxing or improve much more than where he's currently at. 3) He has had only 1 fight so far that is remotely worth discussing. JP's first three "fights" were against 3 celebrities with zero boxing training who were little more than confused punching bags that showed up to get slapped around on TV. These stunts are barely worth consideration. His fourth fight was against Ben Askren. Askren was a retired out of shape wrestler with no boxing experience who literally just had hip replacement surgery. As such, he was unable to move, unable to train, and consequently unable to be taught anything new at this point. Beyond that, all we can say is that Askren was extremely enthusiastic about a guaranteed pay day that was leagues higher than anything he'd ever earned in his career. This was life changing money and this is how you end up with a fight in which the guy who gets knocked out appears to be happier than the winner. However, Jake's fifth fight is different. This was a legitimately dangerous matchup. Unlike Ben Askren, Woodley is a wrestler who has been known to knock out high level fighters with strikes (in MMA). Sure, he was old, retired, past his prime, and had never had an actual boxing match - but this man is still legitimately dangerous and this was a serious challenge. So what happened? You will hear many opinions as to why Jake Paul won. It's important to separate the facts from speculation. Here are the facts that no one disputes: 1) Going into the fight, the dominant strategy for each fighter was clear: Jake Paul (being the taller lankier fighter) should attempt to pick Tyrone apart from the outside, relying on long range punches and keeping Tyron at the edge of striking range. The dominant strategy for Tyron was to move forward, pressure & crowd Jake and land power shots from the inside. 2) Jake Paul legitimately won this fight. He was more active and landed more strikes than Tyron. The split decision should likely have been a unanimous decision in his favor. 3) Both fighters appeared to be legitimately trying to win. There have been no serious accusations of fight fixing or anything like that. However, the judges and most experts agree that Jake was definitely trying harder. 4) Jake never put Tyron in serious danger at any point. Tyron appeared fully capable of defending against Jake's offense. He was simply outscored on the cards due to Jake's much higher activity level, and Jake's successful imposition of his own game plan. 5) Tyron inflicted more damage on Jake and did put Jake in legitimate danger. He appeared to be faster and stronger than Jake and was able to penetrate Jake's defense and pressure & crowd the fighter at will. 6) In spite of this, Tyron was oddly gun shy. He refused to open up his offense and maintained a very low level of output. He simply refused to throw enough punches even as his corner was desperately calling for them (particularly when he was on the inside). These are the facts. The great mystery is why Tyron didn't punch. From beginning to end, Tyron played an incredibly conservative game, throwing individual punches instead of combinations, letting opportunities pass right by him, and maintaining a low activity level. Legendary Mike Tyson trainer Teddy Atlas described Tyron's actions as: "pressure without punches". He compared Tyron's performance to someone raking up the leaves in his backyard but not bagging them up, rather electing instead to just stop, sit down, and watch the wind redistribute them. On this matter, there is only speculation. Posited theories include: 1) Tyron has lost the "killer instinct" either due to a physical or psychological issue we're not aware of. His last four fights before retirement were all losses and a number of commentators noted that he appeared "gun shy". 2) Tyron was concerned about his physical conditioning and elected to conserve energy to go the distance instead of running the risk of exhausting himself prematurely. 3) Being new to pure boxing, he was a bit scared, overestimated Jake and gave him too much respect. 4) Tyron was looking for a decision victory and not a knockout. Either because he didn't want to take any risk of getting embarassed by exposing himself to a knockout or some other consideration we're unaware of. 5) Various technical explanations that boil down to Jake being the superior technical boxer and shutting down Tyron's offense. 6) And like a million other theories. My Opinion I can't answer this question. I don't know what was going through Tyron's head. I think he was clearly fighting for a narrow decision victory instead of a decisive knockout victory, and I think this doomed him. Tyron has been a power striker and a knockout artist his entire career. His greatest asset is his devastating explosive power. He is not a traditional boxer and simply lacks the technical proficiency to put a fighter away through elegant point sparring in the way that Floyd Mayweather can. As such, his failure to engage a fighter whom he could clearly beat senseless, left him exposed to a slow point loss through attrition. However, why he did this remains a mystery. This isn't an obvious "carrying" situation. I'm tempted to believe that Tyron looked at the "automatic rematch option" which Jake retained as part of the contract, and then looked at the ridiculous amount of money he was making for this fight (dwarfing anything he's ever made in his career), and figured that he could easily double or triple his payout if he could get a "rivalry" going. ie: If he could achieve the sort of narrow victory that would provoke Jake to trigger the rematch option. In other words, he wanted to use the Mayweather strategy without having the skill to do so. However, I'm also equally tempted to believe that he simply did not want to take any risk of an embarassing knock out to someone significantly below his level, and ironically hedged his way into an embarassing decision loss instead. In any case, he's now desperately seeking a rematch, and will likely oblige Jake's demand that he get an "I love Jake Paul" tattoo in exchange for Jake triggering the rematch clause. If Jake has half a brain he will do everything he can to avoid this rematch. Jake needs to stick to cherry picking fighters who are either severely compromised in some way, not out for blood, or optimally both. Conclusion As a final note, I will say that Jake deserves respect for this victory. People are under the mistaken impression that Jake's selection of compromised opponents is somehow unfair. No. It would be unfair and stupid if Jake attempted to fight healthy and uncompromised individuals. This really isn't a game. This man could die or emerge with permanent brain damage. If he's going to do this, it better be for million dollar fights with big names. The only way to make that happen without him drinking out of a straw for the rest of his life is if we grease things up a little bit. He's compensated the fighters he worked with very fairly, and he's created a major platform for some great fighters (on the undercard) to perform in front of huge audiences (Serrano!) Tyron Woodley represented an escalated, but still controlled challenge for Jake. And he rose to the occasion, doing something that few others from his background could do. Irrespective of whatever influences there were on Tyron's behavior (there are always influences), this is a legit victory. He's earned a lot of people's respect for this stunning performance, myself included. This is a sport where unqualified children are regularly tricked into sustaining permanent injury in order to be cheap fodder for rising stars. Every part of the game doesn't give a damn about you. Not the coaches, the fans, the managers - nobody. In this context Jake has done things relatively honorably. It's going to take more than some silly rudeboy tv persona to make me forget that.
    35
  60. 34
  61.  @atespeach5672  Lol this is a remarkably stupid thing for you to say. Let me cure your ignorance: 1) Lateral vascular suffocation will result in death within seconds to minutes without necessarily constricting your ability to speak. Brain death occurs when the carotid arteries are blocked from delivering oxygen to the brain while the windpipe remains relatively unobstructed. 2) Suffocation via chest compression may allow a person to speak, while limiting oxygen intake sufficiently as to cause one to experience vomiting, dizziness, and/or nausea. Anaerobic respiration builds lactic acid in the muscles causing them to stop responding resulting in the victim going limp (or occasionally blacking out). This usually results in an increase in chest compression as there is no counterbalancing resistance and now oxygen intake has been reduced sufficiently to cause rapid brain damage and death. 3) Choking via standard tracheal (windpipe) obstruction can also be incomplete. Allowing victims to speak and breathe, but not deeply enough to get adequate oxygen. This results in the same vicious cycle described above, and death is possible. 4) When victims say they can't breathe, they are often indicating that they are insufficiently able to breathe, not that the process has been terminated entirely. Furthermore, in almost every relevant video victims are indeed hindered in their ability to speak. Please stop embarrassing yourself by spreading ignorant (and likely racially motivated) misinformation. 😀
    33
  62. 33
  63. 31
  64. 31
  65. 31
  66. 30
  67. 30
  68. 30
  69. 29
  70. 29
  71. 29
  72. 29
  73. 28
  74. 28
  75. 28
  76. 28
  77. 27
  78. 26
  79. 25
  80. 24
  81. 24
  82. 24
  83. 24
  84. 24
  85. 23
  86. 23
  87. 23
  88. 21
  89. 21
  90. 21
  91. 21
  92. 20
  93. 20
  94. 19
  95. 19
  96. 19
  97. 18
  98. 18
  99. 18
  100. 18
  101. 18
  102. 17
  103. 17
  104. 17
  105. 17
  106. 16
  107. "Disallow training because that can give you an unfair advantage." Training is the definition of a fair advantage because you can decide how & when to train. You don't get to decide whether you are born biological female or not. You're trying to be clever and chose literally the worse possible example to make your point. Why didn't you say height or something like that? " You have to decide what you're trying to measure" Performance on a reasonably level playing field. No one is trying to measure improvement past the grade school level. This is a red herring. "If sports were not broadcast would they still be considered important?" You've reversed causality here. Sports are not important because they're broadcast, rather they are broadcast because they're important. Watching sports is near the top of the list of what humans enjoy doing and comprises a fundamental part of the human experience. We have done this in all cultures across all history. We broadcast them to assist us in continuing to do so. "The winner is defined by whatever method we consider is most entertaining" Not really. It's usually a balancing act between what's most entertaining, what is most fair, what's safest, what has value, and what is practical. For example, boxing might be a lot funner if we get rid of the ring doctors, but it would compromise the safety. Basketball might be a lot funner if we introduced "wild cards" that randomly multiplied the value of some shots. But it would be perceived as undermining the legitimacy of the sport by shifting the criteria for victory away from factors within our control to factors outside of it. Judo might be funner if we removed the need to pass the guard during a throw to score ippon. But it would reduce the sport's accuracy in simulating a real fight, and thus undermine its value as a combat sport. And so on. Conclusion: You need to get better at thinking. You're taking a rather flippant view on his sports have evolved in order to justify a cavalier approach to inclusion. There are good reasons to be very careful about inclusion as pertained to transitioned athletes.
    16
  108. 16
  109. 16
  110. 16
  111. 16
  112. 15
  113. 15
  114. 15
  115. 15
  116. 15
  117.  @joshualovelace3375  Ryan Chapman actually comes off as extremely biased and a little racist in this video. This was a deeply misleading and deceptive "explanation" of CRT. He used primary sources, but he misquoted them or misinterpreted them throughout the video. His technique is to take a passage, then highlight a sentence fragment, then misinterpret it as saying something different than what it actually says. Worse still, this doesn't seem to be due to stupidity, but rather to willful malice. Here are 2 obvious examples: 1) 7:27 Chapman claims that critical race theorists reject "objectivity, balance and detached neutrality" in academia as "white values." However, this is not what the highlighted text states. The highlighted text does not refer to "objectivity", but rather to "purported objectivity". Which means when one attempts to convey they appearance of objectivity without actually being so. That's a big difference. CRT theorists are saying that white academics have historically laundered their bias through a thin veneer of false objectivity. They reject trying to pretend you are unbiased when you are actually very biased. Thus, they recommend that it's better you don't try to pretend to be unbiased, and instead, announce your biases ahead of time so that the readers of your work can be cautious. Chapman totally misrepresented this point by selectively highlighting only a fragment of the sentence and not the whole thing. 2) 2:07 Chapman claims that CRT rejects "color blindness" because CRT theorists believe that we're too racist to be color blind, but again, that's not what the quoted text says. The text doesn't say that we're too racist to do it. It says that the result of previous years of racism have created major inequities that color blind policies tend to reinforce. Chapman totally lied about what the text. He said one thing while the text onscreen said something entirely different. The text also explains that because color blind policymaking tends to reinforce previous inequities it can actually be exploited by contemporary racist people to make the problem worse. They illustrate this by pointing out that the Reagan campaign embraced color blind policymaking as a way to beat back the civil rights movement, rather than as a way to support it. Chapman of course, ignores this.
    15
  118. 15
  119. 15
  120. 15
  121. 15
  122. 15
  123. 14
  124. 14
  125. 14
  126. 14
  127. 14
  128. 14
  129. 14
  130. 13
  131. 13
  132. 13
  133. 13
  134. 13
  135. 13
  136. 13
  137. Nonsense. Regulatory capture is always a risk but it is far less a risk than judiciary capture. Any institution working for the public interest always runs the risk of capture by private interests. Private capture happens in one of 3 ways: 1) Money: Private organizations sway public servants by offers of gifts. 2) People: Private interests use their resources to influence public sentiment in order to get public officials voted in or out. 3) Conveyance of Information: Private interests use their expertise in a particular field to feed inaccurate information to public officials in order to sway their decisionmaking. Traditionally, different government institutions have been arranged to avoid working in the areas where their particular vulnerability is most likely to be a liability. For example, monetary policy is moved away from elected positions and moved into a regulatory agency that is insulated from public sentiment. The issue here is that decisionmaking as to the finer points of regulatory enforcement is a process that is most vulnerable to strategy 3 above all other strategies. At the same time, strategy 3 is the strategy that the judiciary is least equipped to defend against and the strategy that the regulatory agencies are most well equipped to defend against. It is much easier to flood the judiciary with extremely esoteric inaccurate information than the regulatory agencies. Because the judiciary does not have direct access to expertise, has a much smaller staff, and has a much higher cost of labor. In contrast, the regulatory agencies are designed precisely to deal with this problem by staffing experts in the relevant fields, having a large staff dedicated to particular subspecialties, and costing much less to operate. Chevron understood this and allowed the appendage most suited to this particular challenge to take the lead, while still accommodating judiciary involvement as a backstop to review the regulatory agencies decisions in heavily disputed matters.
    13
  138. 13
  139. 13
  140. 13
  141. 13
  142. 12
  143. 12
  144. 12
  145. 12
  146. 12
  147. 12
  148. 12
  149. 12
  150. 12
  151. 12
  152.  @tyranttitanium5721  You are generally correct. Don't listen to people telling you otherwise. "Con man" is short for "confidence man". Scammers make their livelihood by exploiting the flaw you identified. The issue is that this generally doesn't apply to Shark Tank because: 1) The Sharks are the con men here. These are billionaires who don't really need any of these investments. The product they are selling is the manufactured drama of the TV show, so part of their goal is just looking to publicly embarrass the contestants. 2) When the Sharks actually want to invest with a company they have a team of analysts and accountants who can cut through the bs regardless of how slick the presenter is. At this level I would actually say slick confidence probably hurts you. Large investors will praise you up and down for your confidence while simultaneously quietly rejecting you. They only care about the underlying numbers. If you have that, no one gives a damn about anything else. Confidence is nice, but a lot of these self help channels exploit young people by overselling the importance. At best, confidence is just a byproduct of comfort. It's better to focus on making yourself comfortable than trying to make yourself confident. It's self-esteem that teaches us to prioritize our own comfort. Self esteem comes from recognizing your own worth and value as a human being irrespective of what you can do for others. Learning to love & appreciate yourself is more important than trying to project a veneer of confidence. Also if you don't have a guaranteed killer product, get an advanced degree in a high demand field. No amount of bravado trumps that.
    12
  153. 12
  154. 12
  155. 12
  156. 12
  157. 12
  158. 12
  159. 12
  160. 11
  161.  @NeilLewis77  It would take too long to go through all the lies and omissions. However, I will leave you with these 3 points as a sample: 1) It is impossible to discuss the Vietnam war without first discussing the concept of white supremacy. The French's entire claim to Vietnam is based on the racial superiority of white Europeans and the idea that the non-white nations should be organized into slave states for the service of the White race. At the time, the United States was a white supremacist nation, and supported this view as well. The United States' entire objective in Vietnam, was the re-establishment of Vietnam as a French slave state. This is what a colony and colonialism is. Literally no one, including the United States, disputes this. 2) The United States did not establish a "free" Vietnam in the South. It was a monarchy from the very start. Elections were never held. The United States spoke quite openly (in the Pentagon Papers) that South Vietnam was essentially a fictitious invention of the US and that if Democratic elections were allowed to take place, Ho Chi Minh and the Southern communists would win. 3) People did not "flee" Northern Vietnam spontaneously upon establishment of the partition. The CIA launched a covert operation to force people out of their homes by publishing fake laws supposedly from Ho Chi Minh, and fake reports that China was invading the region and killing and raping captors. They supported this with forged documents. They then sent undercover agents to convince the local populace that the area they lived in was marked for nuclear annihilation by the United States and it was imperative to flee North Vietnam. They lied about the nature of South Vietnam claiming it was a democratic paradise and that refugees would be given wealth and property upon their arrival. All of this is openly admitted to by the CIA and is now a matter of public record. --------- There are plenty of other lies. This video is not an appropriate source to learn about the Vietnam war. Read the description of the video. The uploader admits that all information for this video was taken from a Ken Burns documentary about the war. That documentary has been criticized by Vietnam war scholars specifically due to its focus on healing and reconciliation instead of the truth. The Burns documentary perpetuates the myth of "two Vietnams" that the US invented in order to justify invasion. It omits any reference to racism and American imperialism. It overly relies on the testimony of US architects of the war, military personnel and intelligence agents, who are presented by their names but not their military titles and ranks. It is propaganda.
    11
  162. 11
  163. 11
  164. 11
  165. 11
  166. 11
  167. 11
  168. 11
  169. 11
  170. 11
  171. 11
  172. 11
  173. 11
  174. 11
  175. 11
  176. 11
  177. 11
  178. 11
  179. 11
  180. 11
  181. 11
  182. 11
  183. 11
  184. 10
  185. 10
  186. 10
  187. 10
  188. 10
  189. 10
  190. 10
  191. 10
  192. 10
  193. 10
  194. 10
  195. 10
  196. 10
  197. 10
  198. 10
  199. 10
  200. 10
  201. 10
  202. 10
  203. 10
  204. 10
  205. 10
  206. 10
  207. 10
  208. 9
  209. 9
  210. 9
  211. 9
  212. 9
  213. 9
  214. 9
  215. 9
  216. 9
  217. 9
  218. 9
  219. 9
  220. 9
  221. 9
  222. 9
  223. 9
  224. 9
  225. 9
  226. 9
  227. 9
  228. 9
  229. 9
  230.  @RyanMcBethProgramming  No it isn't & we both know it. Stop misleading your viewers: 1) High GDP can be used to conceal excessive military spending. US military spending exceeds the spending of all its competitors combined. However, US GDP does not exceed the GDP of all its competitors combined. 2) The statistic ignores discretionary spending. A significant part of US military spending is discretionary allocations. The statistic you are using ignores this entirely and only includes non-discretionary spending. This is a big deal because unlike most other countries US discretionary military spending is always large 3) The statistic ignores the difference between GNP & GDP Is it fair to compare (for example) US military expenditure as a percentage of GDP to Russian military expenditure as a percentage of GDP, when GDP is an accurate measure of US wealth but GNP is a more accurate measure of Russian wealth? CONCLUSION Ryan you are using a nonsensical measurement that is being promoted by deeply biased pro military think tanks in order to avoid many obvious and more clear ways to compare military expenditure across countries: 1) Spending per capita Does the US need to be spending so much more per citizen on defense than every other competitor country in the world combined? 2) Total Spending Does the US need to spending more than every other competitor country combined? 3) Spending as a percentage of tax revenue This is what really pays for the spending, not GDP. Do we need to be allocating so much more of our revenue to military spending than every other country in the world?
    9
  231. 9
  232. 9
  233. 9
  234. 9
  235. 9
  236. 8
  237. 8
  238. 8
  239. 8
  240. 8
  241. 8
  242. 8
  243. 8
  244. 8
  245. 8
  246. 8
  247. 8
  248. 8
  249. 8
  250. 8
  251. 8
  252. 8
  253. 8
  254. 8
  255. 8
  256. 8
  257. 7
  258. 7
  259. 7
  260.  @NeilLewis77  It's conciliatory propaganda. But propaganda no less. The US position at the time was that the establishment of slave states on the basis of racial supremacy was a legitimate foreign policy position. This is racist. The film takes for granted that "domino theory" was both: a) race neutral b) the dominant political idea at the time It was neither. "Domino Theory" was a racist policy pushed by the US that most of the world did not agree with. The entire theory was premised on the racist notion that white Western European countries like Switzerland could have their neutrality respected, however, the nations of the inferior races must be a vassal state of one of the great powers. They have no right to neutrality. You are pretending that a foreign policy position must either be based on anticommunist prejudice or racial prejudice. When in actuality they are the same thing. Anti-communism in someone else's country is racism. You can't insist that you have the right to overthrow a foreign country and establish it as slave state if you disagree with their internal economic policy decisions unless you are already operating under the assumption that these people do not have any right to self determination. Worse still, it was unclear precisely how "communist" North Vietnam even was. The land redistribution policy was less a communist policy than it was an anti-racist policy. Since the entire purpose of the previous regime was to siphon wealth from Vietnam into French hands, most land and resources were obviously still controlled by the agents of the empire. So obviously they would have to be seized and redistributed as part of the independence process. This would be a bit like saying when the allies repatriated the gold the Nazis stole they were engaged in "communist seizures of property." Weird that the video would conceal this element of it. Furthermore, the final configuration of the North Vietnamese economy was still an open question. Would it be communist, socialist, or some kind of mixed system? Would it choose to ally with the US or China or Russia, or would it be neutral (since this too is a separate question)? Would it be a democracy or authoritarian? All of these are open questions. If you consider a people equal to you, you let them make a decision. Or you ask them what you can do to influence that decision (as the US asked the French). But if you believe them to be your subjects anyway, you just go ahead and kill them. Consider that when the French, by their own admission, stated that they were under risk of becoming communist the US response was not invade and topple a government under risk of turning communist, but rather to ask if they could do anything for them to change their minds? Perhaps capture some yellow slaves for them? But when the US see the risk of Vietnam becoming communist, the response is not "What can we do to convince you otherwise?" but rather, to take away their freedom. Domino theory was a fundamentally racist theory because it: a) Was premised on the assumption that certain people did not have a right to self-determination b) Didn't reject communism in favor of free economic systems, but rather, almost exclusively insisted on preserving racist colonialist economic relationships. ____________ On a separate note I should also repeat what I said before. The decision of the documentary (and this video) to perpetuate the myth that there were 2 Vietnams is an intentional decision to obfuscate the truth on the single most critical aspect of the entire conflict. Voila! We've turned an invasion into a Civil War. This is downright villainous. I agree that modern propaganda is not as blatantly heavy handed as the older stuff, but it's still quite bad.
    7
  261. 7
  262. 7
  263. 7
  264. 7
  265. 7
  266. 7
  267. 7
  268. 7
  269. 7
  270. 7
  271. 7
  272. 7
  273. 7
  274. 7
  275.  @Person01234  How do you think performance levels are measured exactly? It is done by looking at the track record of the athlete. In other words if you put children and adults in the same division you will run into many "Tyson Fury vs a 12 year old" situations early in their careers as neither will have a considerable record upon which to ground your matchmaking. This is already a big problem in boxing right now, even with the gender and weight class divisions. Managers will "sandbag" in order to build up a promising young athlete's career by throwing unprepared people in with absolute savages. Resulting in permanent injuries to many athletes every year. When Tyson Fury started his career he had a 0-0-0 record. Just like any other rookie. However, anyone with insider information would know that this man is dangerous and should not be matched against a regular person. But it is in his Manager's interest to conceal this fact and have him matched up against the easiest competition available. So some unlucky men will end up taking severe beatings likely resulting in permanent injury in order to build Tyson's record to the degree that we can begin to matchmake properly. Now imagine if you replaced these men with women & children. You would have no way to know ahead of time how good Tyson is. Thus you would end up replacing the injuries with a wave of deaths. This is why we have the divisions. Because matchmaking and bracketing is a labor intensive, time consuming and unreliable process. So divisions are at least drawn up broadly to minimize the likelihood of catastrophic miscalculation. Now let's take a less dramatic example: the 100 yard dash If you mix men and women together, the top 100 times will all be men. Women will start appearing in the 101 - 200 ranked places. Now your typical broadcast will likely only have enough time to cover a few races. So your first segment will be a race amongst the top 10 athletes, the second will be the athletes ranked 11- 20, the third will be the next 21 - 30, and then you will have run out of broadcast time. You will never get the chance to see a woman run because you would have to run 10 races before you ever got to the 101 - 200 ranked runners where a woman was competitive. But your airtime is only long enough to show 3 or 4 races. The reason we have the gender division is so that we can "skip the line" and show the top 10 competitive men, the jump all the way down to the 100 - 110 ranked runners, where women will be present. Now, if you want to create a special bracket called "The Slower bracket" where you select from athletes ranked 101 - 200 solely for the purpose of including women, cool. But then you might as well just call that the women's bracket. Finally it is important to note that athletes can't afford to invest in training if there is no chance for them to win. Because the rewards that come from winning are what make it financial possible. If you set up a condition where women will consistently come in 100th place and thus never feature on a podium or televised race then they will not be able to afford their training. They will simply have to quit and stop competing.
    7
  276. 7
  277. 7
  278. America doesn't "think" anything. Policy is primarily a product of lobbying strength. Which itself is a product of wealth. This is especially the case on the cusp of a competitive election cycle wherein the support of a single powerful lobby may mean the difference between winning or losing. The challenger has already demonstrated during his tenure that he has no interest in global politics and that his foreign policy doctrine is 100% for sale. This has triggered a race to the bottom, wherein the incumbent must also reaffirm his commitment to crafting his foreign policy in accordance with monied interests. In this particular episode, the side committing war crimes has significantly more money and lobbying power than the victim. Thus, the US position will be to support and assist the commission of these war crimes by any means necessary including but not limited to financing, deploying military assets, concealing their extent, and providing moral justification for them. However, since the power of any individual lobby is not absolute, nor guaranteed to remain permanently unchanged, the US position will also be to hedge against this by simultaneously expressing performative sorrow over the loss of life and paying lip service to the notion of restraint. They may also feign helplessness as demonstrated in this podcast, wherein these spokespersons for the party currently in power are suggesting that US compliance with the will of the aggressor state is aimed at currying favor with the state in order to more effectively plead for restraint. This is a transparently ridiculous "tail wagging the dog" view of the power relationship, but again these people will say and do anything up to and including supporting war crimes to increase the chances of their candidate winning in the next election cycle.
    7
  279. 7
  280. 7
  281. 7
  282. 7
  283. 7
  284. 7
  285. 7
  286. 7
  287. Your explanation does not address the timing. He's been doing aggressive interviews on his show for a long time with no problems. This decision comes down to ISRL. It was clearly made in response to an ISRL government request in light of his thorough interview of an ISRL government minister. Mehdi was the only journalist in US news media who addressed the issue of ISRL wartime mis information and blatant propag. The ISRL minister was unprepared for this and the interview seriously undermined his and his country's credibility. To be clear: ISRL is engaged exclusively in an information war, there is no physical war. The hostilities on the ground are completely one sided. They are difficult to characterize as a conflict so much as that are busy one side demolishing a disarmed other for as long as the international community will let them. So the entire game is information warfare. Who controls public narrative. This is why American media has essentially devolved into a mouthpiece for ISRL government talking points. In this context, it is quite clear that MSNBC did not pull the rug and their best and most consistent journalist weeks after he received national acclaim for derailing the Ramaswami hype train. Rather, this was a last minute decision made in response to pressure by a foreign government. I mean let's be honest: If this was planned they would have replaced it with a new show rather then simply stretch the adjacent show (which itself has terrible ratings) an additional hour to cover the gap. Seriously? Who wants to watch a show that long? Finally, we should also note that Mehdi Hassan is not actually more aggressive than their other hosts. He certainly strikes a significantly more professional tone than Rachel Maddow.
    6
  288. 6
  289. 6
  290.  @NeilLewis77  "They never invaded Cuba or El Salvador or Columbia and enslaved anyone. " Accepting the legitimacy of colonialism as an international order doesn't necessarily mean you find it strategically advantageous for yourself. Given the that the US itself consisted of a series of large, sprawling, underpopulated, resource rich, relatively recently conquered or acquired territories that were insulated from the rest of the world, the US did not pursue the same colonialism heavy foreign policy. However, it has indeed invaded multiple Latin American countries (Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc.) and did have its own colonies (Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.) and client states (eg: Cuba). Thereafter it pursued a neocolonialist policy of acquiring proxy sates that consisted mainly of repressive authoritarians installed by the US who were ultimately answerable to the US (eg: Chile, Indonesia, Cambodia, etc.). "This idea that American anti communist rage was to do with race is strange." Only to Americans. The rest of the world is pretty clear on what it was. It's not like the US was concerned that communism was a threat to a free and fair international economic order. They were concerned that communism would interrupt a racist colonialism and neocolonialism based economic order. Their intervention was not targeted at moving people away from communism and towards freedom, but rather, away from communism and towards colonialism or neocolonialism. That's pretty racist. I'm glad you brought up Germany, because this illustrates the point well. Germany had just finished launching two existential wars against the US and Europe. They were already conquered and occupied. And yet still, it was never on the table for the US to enslave Germany as a French colony. Why not? Or failing that, to establish a repressive authoritarian regime in West Germany that would operate as a US vassal state against the wishes of the German people. Nope, not an option. However, in Vietnam these were the only options considered. Why was Germany treated as an equal and Vietnam as a subject? Seems particularly odd. Why the kid gloves? (Hint: it's because they're white Western Europeans, so they're still considered equal). We're dealing with a United States that at the time still had segregation, hadn't passed the voting rights act yet, and still had laws barring interracial marriage or black people buying homes in white neighborhoods. It's not surprising that there wasn't a seat at the table for Vietnamese allies, but there was for German enemies. "To say America was happy to go kill brown people but wouldn't go kill white people is just silly. Especially considering the gap between WW2 and the viatnam war was just 9 years." Well, no. Being racist doesn't mean there are no circumstances where you wouldn't go to war with people of your own race. I mean, the US fought the British while they sill had slaves. Pretty sure that didn't make them less racist. "Also you surely know that Bao and many other south viatnamese people wanted independence based on western systems. And Ho wanted independence based on communist eastern systems." Lol no. Now you're just being silly. Bao Dai was the puppet monarch that administered the enslaved colony of Vietnam for the French. After Ho Chi Minh freed Vietnam from the French, Bao Dai was obviously ousted from that position. He tried to make himself relevant again by claiming that he supported a "French sponsored Vietnamese Independence from France", whatever the hell that means. At the first opportunity, he signed the Ha Long Bay Agreements (1947) which recognized French interests in Vietnam without committing France to granting Vietnamese independence or transferring any authority to Vietnam. In short, he was a weak colonial puppet monarch who tried to re-establish French colonialism. Both sides of the Vietnamese independence movement ended up hating him, communist and anti-communist alike. Eventually in 1950 he admitted himself that what he proposed as the "Bao Dai" solution was just a rebranded French solution. The fact that you would even bring this guy up as a legitimate counterpoint is a joke. Ho Chi Minh on the other hand, attempted to establish a democratic independent Vietnam with a Constitution and Bill of Rights modeled on that of the United States. Contrary to the video above, he actually reached out to the United States (Truman) 8 times for support. Hell, he had been reaching out to the US even before he took power having lobbied Woodrow Wilson(!) for assistance in establishing civil rights in Vietnam in accordance with the charter of the League of Nations. After WWII he invited the Allied powers into Vietnam and cited the United Nations charter as his guidance in establishing the new state. It was only after the US rejected supporting him and he witnessed the United States successfully work with China to return nearby Northern Indo-China to French colonial rule while the English occupied and return Southern Indo-China to the French that he realized the only option the Allied powers (& the US) were offering was a return to race-based subjugation. Given all of that, it seems obvious that Minh was looking to establish an independent free Vietnam that was a pawn of neither super power. The issue was that the US simply would not accept a world order where the lesser races were treated as equals and allowed self-determination. "You seem to be suggesting America just made up the 2 opposing parties and everything was fine till they came and tore the country in two. " I am not suggesting that. The US itself admitted that. In the Pentagon Papers the US Department of Defense characterized Ho Chi Minh as the only leader in Vietnam with a true national following. They acknowledged his overwhelming popularity. When the French withdrew the Geneva Accords established South Vietnam as a temporary entity, with the condition that elections for reunification would be held within 2 years. The US then plucked Diem Bien Phu from New Jersey, installed him as the dictator of South Vietnam and told him not to hold the promised elections. The US had Phu cancel the reunification election multiple times, stating outright that if he held elections Ho Chi Minh's would win all of Vietnam. In the Pentagon Papers the US itself declared outright: "We must note that South Vietnam (unlike any of the other countries in Southeast Asia) was essentially the creation of the United States" Thus the need for the CIA operation to artificially populate the country by pushing people out of their homes in Northern Vietnam under threat of nuclear annihilation and Chinese invasion. Knowing that he was the puppet head of a fictitious country and widely disliked, Diem proceeded to replace all locally elected chiefs and officials with military men loyal to him, further entrenching his repressive dictatorship. So yes, like every country there was more than one political party in Vietnam. However, the public was overwhelmingly in support of Ho Chi Minh's party and there was no widespread support for the fictitious political entity known as South Vietnam or for a civil war. "If this is propaganda to make America feel better, then it fails on every level" Not quite. When the reality is so much worse, propaganda is quite successful if it at least mitigates your villainy to a certain extent. That's how you can end up with Youtubers who delusionally create video documentaries with horseshit lines like, "The Vietnam war begin in good faith by good people with good intentions." That is a propaganda success.
    6
  291. 6
  292. 6
  293. 6
  294. 6
  295. 6
  296. 6
  297. 6
  298. 6
  299. 6
  300. 6
  301. 6
  302. 6
  303. 6
  304. 6
  305. 6
  306. 6
  307. 6
  308. 6
  309. 6
  310. 6
  311. 6
  312.  @dianelapp  Nope, sorry you're wrong. Moreover your opinion is far more ridiculous than even the SC's decision. The Chevron doctrine only applies to instances where the law cannot be applied as written because it is too vague. In instances where it can be, Chevron is irrelevant and never applied. The Chevron Doctrine reserves to courts the final decision as to how to interpret the law and whether a regulatory agency's interpretation is valid in all cases. In other words, the judiciary always has final say. The doctrine simply states that in cases where there is ambiguity over interpretation of the law and the law cannot be applied as written, and the regulatory agency provides an interpretation, the courts should usually (but do not have to) defer to that interpretation. In other words, the regulatory agency has first crack at interpreting the vague law, and if that interpretation is reasonable, the court should respect that interpretation. But since the courts decide what is considered "reasonable", they can always reject the regulatory agency's interpretation. So eliminating the Chevron doctrine does not in any way alter the judiciary's power versus the regulatory agency when interpreting the law. The courts always had all the power. What it alters, is the regulatory agency's power to interpret the law versus private interests. The judiciary's opinion always has the final say. But when the judiciary is considering other opinions while forming their own, whose opinion should they weigh more heavily? Removing Chevron is saying that the Court must weigh all parties' opinions equally. Even if the regulatory agency's opinion is obviously reasonable they must give it equal precedence as the opinion of anyone else when coming to a final decision. The problem with this is that in cases where the law vague, the issue at hand is usually extremely technical and requires special expertise. This is why the Chevron recommended that the courts should defer to the regulators. Because it would be impossible for a judge to develop the necessary expertise to really parse the issue out. But now, without this recommendation, private interests could simply flood the courts with frivolous suits and submit thousands of pages of meaningless hyper-technical briefs that the Court would have to weigh equally with a regulatory agency's reasonable interpretation. Thus preventing any regulatory activity from being possible.
    6
  313. 6
  314. 6
  315. 6
  316. 6
  317. 6
  318. 6
  319. 6
  320. 6
  321. 6
  322. 6
  323. 6
  324. 6
  325. 6
  326. 6
  327. 6
  328. 6
  329. 6
  330. 6
  331. 6
  332. 6
  333. 6
  334. 5
  335. 5
  336. 5
  337. 5
  338. 5
  339. 5
  340. 5
  341. 5
  342. 5
  343. 5
  344.  @paulbutkovich6103 1) "I don't consider those lasting injuries" Fortunately you're not a physician. Neurons do not regenerate. This is why all brain trauma is cumulative. Broken bones frequently result in permanent changes to the integrity of the skeletal system. That student that had his orbital bone broken will likely permanently be more susceptible to a similar injury. Sprains, strains, and tears may similarly result in permanent changes to the underlying structures (scar tissue, later advent of arthritis, etc.) However, I think this all of this is besides the point. The question was whether "serious" injuries have occurred. The answer is unequivocally yes. It serves no purpose to linger beyond that on this issue except in some misguided and unethical attempt to downplay the seriousness of the police escalation by suggesting that the victims may one day have a full recovery. 3) "I mean Fox News regular does this" If it were just Fox News we wouldn't be having this conversation. 4) "1 agree to divest, some to transparency, some to open discussions" You're describing excellent progress so far. "they don't have the support of the majority" Some of their demands do. "It's difficult" That's why protest is required. "the influence of universities on the US government is over-stated" This is too silly a comment to address. "US influence on ISRL is overstated, cutting support won't stop them." Their prime Minister explicitly stated that cutting funding would stop them. Virtually every political analyst on the planet agrees on this point.
    5
  345. 5
  346. 5
  347. 5
  348. 5
  349. 5
  350. 5
  351. 5
  352. 5
  353. 5
  354. 5
  355. 5
  356. 5
  357. 5
  358. 5
  359. 5
  360. 5
  361. 5
  362. 5
  363. 5
  364. 5
  365. 5
  366. 5
  367. 5
  368. 5
  369. 5
  370. 5
  371. 5
  372. 5
  373. 5
  374. 5
  375. 5
  376. 5
  377.  @thenonexistinghero  I'm literally in "that area" right now and have lived along multiple parts of the Sahara border for a long time. There are significant communities all along the border of the Sahara and major World Bank development projects already underway. The reason for this is because the current borders of the Sahara have already overtaken a number of pre-existing population centers with electricity, water, food, and roads. I can literally name multiple overpopulated cities that are close enough to provide a giant workforce. And this doesn't even include all the towns and villages. The educational bar for solar power farm maintenance is about on par with that of many other industrial processes and certainly lower than for fossil fuel and nuclear based power - all of which have already been successfully done in similar locales. The entire surface area of New Mexico is about 3.5% of the Sahara. We're not talking about a giant solar power farm here. We're talking about a strip of small farms circling the circumference of the desert. They do not have to do deep into the desert to cover that surface area and are easily accessible from multiple population centers. And again, they would be implemented in an area already in environmental flux due to human caused desertification. We're not intervening in a pristine environment here, we're reversing pollution in an already damaged place. Finally, it's important to understand that this project would essentially displace all the brainpower and effort currently being wasted on the production of every other form of electricity in the planet. This is already a tremendous load. So while it would have a cost to run, it is certainly significantly less than the cost we are currently paying. This is eminently doable. Tbh, the political and beurocratic hurdles are more likely slowing the process than the technical challenges.
    5
  378. 5
  379. 5
  380. 5
  381. 5
  382. 5
  383. 4
  384. 4
  385.  @akhsdenlew1861  Gotcha. Didn't want to drop this on a kid lol. My opinion is that these videos are extremely biased and tell a very one sided view of history. They tend to focus on Soviet injustices and aggression, while either ignoring or downplaying US transgressions. When, a fact is too obvious to ignore (eg: US missiles in Turkey), it is usually glossed over in a single sentence or framed sympathetically as a response to Soviet aggression. For example the Cuban missile crisis diagram shows the range of Soviet missiles in Cuba, but doesn't show the range of US missiles in Turkey. They also seem to gloss over the fact that the US was threatening the extinction of the human race over Soviet transfer of missiles to one of their allies (a fairly commonplace activity). Immediately following their own attempts to assassinate a foreign head of state and invade a sovereign country (NOT commonplace activity). The videos are fun if you already know the history, but if not, they are a bad source of information that will produce a very skewed perspective of history. A few examples of critical facts that are either missing or incorrect in these videos: - The video series focuses heavily on the oppressive relationship between the USSR and its satellite states in Eastern Europe, but it totally ignores the equivalent relationship between the US and its satellite states in Latin America. During this time, the US toppled democratic governments, assassinated political figures, carried out invasions, propped up military dictatorships, supported death squads, torture, terrorism and narco-traffickers in their attempt to establish a Latin American sphere of dominance . - The video doesn't mention that the US threatening to start 3 nuclear wars with the Soviets in the intervening 3 years between the end of WWII and the Soviet development of their own bomb. The US coerced USSR concessions and troop redeployments on 3 different occasions under immediate threat of launching a nuclear attack. This is very important because this cavalier approach established the terms for the Cold War and cemented the necessity of Soviet development of a nuclear arsenal. The arms race may have been an abstract strategic concern for the US ("what if the Soviets do this..."), but on the Soviet side it was a response to a very real and imminent threat of unilateral nuclear attack that had already materialized 3 times for them ("the US has already done this"). - Some of the countries painted red on the map were neither communist nor allied with the USSR. Egypt for example, was not a communist country and maintained a strict policy of neutrality toward both sides of the Cold War rivalry. They therefore would not agree to sign a pact against the USSR. Meanwhile, a country like Yugoslavia was communist but independent, and Tito (their leader) had a pretty frosty relationship with the USSR. However there was a US bias toward perceiving neutral states as hostile to US interests and this video reflects that bias. Overall, the point is that this is a period of time in world history where two superpowers were exploiting the entire world while engaged in a largely amoral chess match with one another. But for everyone stuck in between, both were fairly indistinguishable from one another. It is unfair to paint the USSR as the aggressor, since often it was the US aggressively launching wars or murdering people to expand their sphere of influence. Neither side had any sort of moral high ground in the international arena at this time, and even a simplified video should make that fact central. Had this video been produced by virtually any other country outside the US, these events would be told very differently.
    4
  386. 4
  387.  Chris Porter  He had a long conversation from the officers without ever complaining that he could not breathe. His first complaints came after they began forcibly pushing him into the back of the car, after he had explained that he was claustrophobic. He had politely explained that he was willing to get into the back of the car, but needed to count to 3 in order to calm himself down. Any person under these circumstances may be expected to experience respiratory distress. His second set of complaints about not being able to breathe came after the knee was on his neck. Even if he had never complained about breathing, once he passed out, this alone would be reason enough to suspect respiratory distress and begin to administer first aid. Instead, officers continued to apply pressure, likely sinking their position deeper due to the lack of muscle tension in the victim. That is a clear-cut homicide. Two separate medical examiners have attributed the death to the actions of the officer with only 1 even considering the chemicals as a contributing factor (ie: not the primary cause). Only the third medical examiner has said anything different. Aside from that multiple doctors have also publicly given their medical opinion that death was almost certainly caused by the officer's actions. Failure to deliver first aid to a suspect in your custody that you have observed passing out due to respiratory distress in and of itself is sufficient for criminal conviction. However, the intentional application of force to a suspect's neck and chest for multiple minutes after he is unconscious elevates it to a homicide.
    4
  388. No you are wrong and you are not telling the truth about Joe Rogan's ridiculous denialism. Joe repeatedly denounced the usefulness of masks and suggested multiple times that they were not necessary. He has spread disinformation about COVID including repeatedly downplaying it's seriousness, claiming that COVID death numbers were overinflated, and suggesting that dangerous activities were not dangerous. He has spent months suggesting that lockdowns were either arbitrary and unnecessary, or motivated by corruption. He has parroting extremist conspiracy theories and engaged in smear campaigns against the public officials responsible for crafting responsible COVID policy, often sharing fabricated information while concealing the real details behind these stories. Lockdown policies in cities like NYC and the designation of essential and non-essential work has generally followed the best advice of the most qualified experts. No one has ever claimed that every decision would be perfect, but they have general been in line with the science. No one is denying that the economic impact of these policies have been severe. Nor is anyone denying that middle class and poor people have been hit harder than rich powerful corporations. But this has nothing to do with COVID or the lockdowns. This is simply how America runs. Any costly crisis will always impact poorer people worse. If Joe has a problem with this, he can feel free to spend all day shouting about progressive wealth redistribution, or transferring more wealth to these struggling businesses. But you and him need to absolutely shut up about questioning the lockdown policies. The only people who should be talking about that are the epidemiologists. No, this is not a man worried for small businesses. This is a disconnected rich a-hole who is tired of the mild inconvenience COVID has caused in his life, calling for a culling of the poor and weak so that he can go back to his regular routine. And let's be clear: this bullshit has had an effect. Johns Hopkins just released a study indicating a direct correlation between Governor party affiliation and COVID impact. Spread of this disinformation has facilitated a politicization of COVID restrictions that has resulted in higher infection & COVID death rates in Republican governed states vs democratic ones in spite of the fact that democratic states were hit first, hit harder, and by virtue of their population density at greater risk for pandemic spread. Yes, Joe's bullshit is getting people killed. Between the amount of his friends who've actively been infected and infected others (Shaub, Musk, Callen, etc.) and the constant propaganda these guys are almost certainly responsible for people dying.
    4
  389. 4
  390. 4
  391. 4
  392. 4
  393. 4
  394. 4
  395. 4
  396. 4
  397. 4
  398. 4
  399.  @sevynn3970  Ryan Chapman actually comes off as extremely biased and a little racist in this video. This was a deeply misleading and deceptive "explanation" of CRT. He used primary sources, but he misquoted them or misinterpreted them throughout the video. His technique is to take a passage, then highlight a sentence fragment, then misinterpret it as saying something different than what it actually says. Worse still, this doesn't seem to be due to stupidity, but rather to willful malice. Here are 2 obvious examples: 1) 7:27 Chapman claims that critical race theorists reject "objectivity, balance and detached neutrality" in academia as "white values." However, this is not what the highlighted text states. The highlighted text does not refer to "objectivity", but rather to "purported objectivity". Which means when one attempts to convey they appearance of objectivity without actually being so. That's a big difference. CRT theorists are saying that white academics have historically laundered their bias through a thin veneer of false objectivity. They reject trying to pretend you are unbiased when you are actually very biased. Thus, they recommend that it's better you don't try to pretend to be unbiased, and instead, announce your biases ahead of time so that the readers of your work can be cautious. Chapman totally misrepresented this point by selectively highlighting only a fragment of the sentence and not the whole thing. 2) 2:07 Chapman claims that CRT rejects "color blindness" because CRT theorists believe that we're too racist to be color blind, but again, that's not what the quoted text says. The text doesn't say that we're too racist to do it. It says that the result of previous years of racism have created major inequities that color blind policies tend to reinforce. Chapman totally lied about what the text. He said one thing while the text onscreen said something entirely different. The text also explains that because color blind policymaking tends to reinforce previous inequities it can actually be exploited by contemporary racist people to make the problem worse. They illustrate this by pointing out that the Reagan campaign embraced color blind policymaking as a way to beat back the civil rights movement, rather than as a way to support it. Chapman of course, ignores this.
    4
  400. 4
  401. 4
  402. 4
  403. 4
  404. 4
  405. 4
  406. 4
  407. 4
  408. 4
  409. 4
  410. 4
  411. 4
  412.  @MichaelJames-lz7ni  This is not true. Record sales revenue did not pay for production costs. Rather, the tiny portion of record sales revenue earmarked for the artist were used to pay production costs (and multiple other invented fees). The company's share was untouched. This was known as 'recoupment'. Many platinum artists did go bankrupt directly as a result of predatory recording contracts (TLC, Toni Braxton, etc.). Furthermore, it's extremely misleading to include examples like Madonna & Michael Jackson who are radical outliers, even among platinum artists (who are already outliers). This doesn't represent the prevailing reality. It's a bit like studying poverty but only looking at homeless people who won the powerball lottery twice. Finally, it's important to understand that even among these super-outliers better terms came as a result of contract renegotiation subsequent to their success. They lost a lot of money under the terms of their first contracts. The prevailing wisdom amongst managers, agents, and financial advisors was that in the absence of some miracle, the vast majority of artists (particularly debut & sophomore) should expect to realistically earn $0 from recording royalties after fees were deducted, and focus on merch, live shows, and capturing as much of the advance as they could. This was all the case before the invention of .mp3 Let me be clear: Unless you were already a multi-millionaire, there was no way in hell you would see a million dollars from selling 1 million records.
    4
  413. 4
  414. 4
  415. 4
  416. 4
  417. 4
  418. 4
  419. 4
  420. 4
  421. 4
  422. 4
  423. 4
  424. 4
  425. 4
  426. 4
  427. 4
  428. 4
  429. 4
  430. 4
  431. 4
  432. 4
  433. 4
  434. 4
  435. 4
  436. 4
  437. Glad to hear it. Here are 2 points that Bassem Youseef missed: 1) The fundamental problem of ISRL as a country. Separate from the isssue of the PLSTN people, there is a larger problem with ISRL that is at the root of the conflict. ISRL is the modern day attempt to create an ancient style religious ethnostate. Such states should not exist as they fly directly in the face of our modern concepts of justice and equality. An ethnostate is one in which the rights and privileges associated with full citizenship are reserved only for a specific ethnicity, with other ethnicities occupying a second class status. In ISRL, being a citizen and being a national are 2 different things. Theoretically anyone can become a citizen, but being a national is reserved exclusively for members of one ethnicity and entitles one to extra rights, government benefits, and privileges. This differs sharply from the direction the rest of the world is moving, wherein all citizens are supposed to be treated equally and citizenship is simply a matter of meeting a few bureaucratic requirements. For example, anyone of any ethnicity can be French, so long as they meet the application requirements. No advantage is conferred due to ethnicity. The system ISRL sets up flies directly in the face of our notion of the fundamental equality of all people and requires the government to be in a constant state of warfare against certain ethnicities to ensure that they cannot use the democratic process to remove this unequal treatment. This problem is compounded of course by the fact that the ethnostate was constructed on top of a very diverse population. 2) What is ISRL supposed to do in response to the attacks? Bassem understands that what ISRL is doing right now is both illegal and unethical, but he was not entirely sure what the proper response should be. I can help. The same system of international law that says the current response is illegal, also proposes a mechanism for responding properly to such incidents. First, collective punishment is not allowed. What should happen is that ISRL should approach the ICC and the UN and request assistance. A peacekeeping force should be deployed to the region with the intention of securing it and beginning the door to door process of rooting out the offenders. These missions are typically staffed internationally so that every country gas a vested interest in seeing justice done. Offenders on both sides of the dispute should be referred to the ICC & ICJ for prosecution. Second, ISRL must address the material circumstances which led up to this crime. The reason these criminals are able to hide in the occupied territory is because the occupied territory is a large open air prison. Keeping this sort of facility running creates the perfect environment for the cultivation of this kind of crime. The occupied people must be extended human and civil rights so that they may go about the process of living free. Whether this is done via adding them officially to the 1 state or giving them their own state is not important. But the current injustice must be ended immediately.
    4
  438. 4
  439. 4
  440. 4
  441. 4
  442. 4
  443. 4
  444. 4
  445. 4
  446. 4
  447. 4
  448. 3
  449. 3
  450. 3
  451. 3
  452. 3
  453. 3
  454. 3
  455. 3
  456. 3
  457. 3
  458. 3
  459. 3
  460. 3
  461. 3
  462. 3
  463. 3
  464. 3
  465. 3
  466. 3
  467. 3
  468. 3
  469. 3
  470. 3
  471. 3
  472. 3
  473. 3
  474. 3
  475.  @tattooed1979   "Who is taking away voting rights" The US Republican Party has launched multiple lawsuits to attempt to roll back the Voting Rights Act, having successfully eliminated 2 out of 3 of it's major enforcement provisions. They've also produced over 200 separate pieces of legislation this past year alone restricting voter access without establishing any compelling need. This legislation has overwhelmingly targeted historically disenfranchised groups. Most recently, they managed to sway the results of a congressional election through legislative and regulation tactics designed to suppress the black vote (eg: last minute shut down of polling stations, erroneous voter roll striking, last minute changes to ID requirements combined with shut down if government ID production facilities, etc.) Much of this was accomplished by allowing Republican candidate Brian Kemp to serve as the election administrator in an election that he was running in (a clear conflict of interest). Kemp was successfully able to strike hundreds of thousands of names from the voter rolls costing Stacy Abrams the victory. They've also consistently fought hard to establish, entrench, or preserve felondisenfranchisement in multiple legal jurisdictions. The majority of the Republican Party have expressed support for the fictitious claim of an unfair election as promoted by the last president. This of course, underpinned the attempted coup d'etat at the head of this year. The Party has stifled any attempt to investigate the coup and multiple members expressed open support for the crowd who showed up for the express purpose of overturning the results of a democratic election. The Party also blocked the testimony of any witness during a hearing intended to investigate potential foreign involvement in the previous election cycle, further undermining voter confidence and strength. Overall, these actions paint a clear picture of party intent on compromising the democratic process and disenfranchising voters through both formal and informal tactics.
    3
  476. 3
  477. 3
  478. 3
  479. 3
  480. 3
  481. 3
  482. 3
  483. 3
  484. 3
  485. 3
  486. 3
  487. 3
  488. 3
  489. ​@Roughman 1) Roughman's right that they almost certainly have both used 'steroids'. 2) It is also correct that there are studies linking some PEDs to increased risk for some cancers. 3) However, it's extremely irresponsible to use the general correlation to explain an individual case. For example, we can say PED use in baseball will increase the number of homeruns in general, but it's impossible to say any one specific homerun was caused by steroids. 4) This is all the more ridiculous when there are MAJOR confounding variables (smoking, UV exposure, different steroid stack uses, different cancers, different ages, genetic profiles, etc.) and that some of these variables are much higher risk factors for cancer. 5) Since we don't know how they supplemented it's impossible to say whether their 'steroid' usage played a role at all. A good TRT program developed slowly under a qualified doctor combined with a healthy lifestyle can produce the physical results seen in Swayze with a negligible increase in cancer risk. It may actually decrease total cancer risk if it facilitates activities associated with reduction in the risk of cancer (exercise, lowered stress, etc.) 6) It's also pretty disrespectful and mean, as the implication is that you're blaming the victim for a disease for which the causes are unclear. 7) Finally, using studies generated by the medical community to argue the link between cancer and steroids while simultaneously make the completely unsubstantiated claim that the medical community is somehow engaged in a widespread conspiracy to conceal the risks of steroids because they are 'industry adjacent' is the sort of boneheaded and stupid statement that does more to hurt your own credibility than anything else.
    3
  490. 3
  491. 3
  492. 3
  493. 3
  494. 3
  495.  @unnamed776-m9h  This is well beyond my field of expertise. I understand contract terms and economics, but I have no idea what it takes to make a star. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving much advice in this regard. That said, I can suggest generally: 1) Keep costs down 2) Perform often 3) Focus on establishing a living wage through your work before thinking about being a star. Being a star is a unicorn/winning the lotto type thing. If you can earn a living wage from your art, you're already ahead of most people. 4) Find visual artists that can help you with branding. A cheap way to do this is to find senior year visual arts students. 5) Read any contract carefully. Do not sign anything on the spot. Always ask politely for time to review. No exceptions. 6) Seek the assistance of pro-bono lawyers. Organizations like Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts provide these services at little to no cost. 7) Try to minimize the duration of any contact you sign. Preferably 3 albums, although this is often difficult to get them to agree to. More than 5 is too much. 8) Treat the enterprise as a small business. 9) Get health insurance, establish a savings & retirement fund, go to the dentist and brush your teeth. These sound silly, but little things like this derail entire careers. An unchecked cavity can become a career ending disaster when you find out an infection has spread and you need $10,000 to treat. Now you have to get an exhausting job and are trapped in a cycle of debt that is difficult to break free from. 10. If you get signed, treat your advance like the only money you'll get, because its the only thing guaranteed.
    3
  496. 3
  497. 3
  498. 3
  499. 3
  500. 3
  501. 3
  502. 3
  503. 3
  504. 3
  505. 3
  506. 3
  507. 3
  508. 3
  509. 3
  510. 3
  511. 3
  512. 3
  513. 3
  514. 3
  515. 3
  516. 3
  517. 3
  518. Ryan Chapman actually comes off as extremely biased and a little racist in this video. This was a deeply misleading and deceptive "explanation" of CRT. He used primary sources, but he misquoted them or misinterpreted them throughout the video. His technique is to take a passage, then highlight a sentence fragment, then misinterpret it as saying something different than what it actually says. Worse still, this doesn't seem to be due to stupidity, but rather to willful malice. Here are 2 obvious examples: 1) 7:27 Chapman claims that critical race theorists reject "objectivity, balance and detached neutrality" in academia as "white values." However, this is not what the highlighted text states. The highlighted text does not refer to "objectivity", but rather to "purported objectivity". Which means when one attempts to convey they appearance of objectivity without actually being so. That's a big difference. CRT theorists are saying that white academics have historically laundered their bias through a thin veneer of false objectivity. They reject trying to pretend you are unbiased when you are actually very biased. Thus, they recommend that it's better you don't try to pretend to be unbiased, and instead, announce your biases ahead of time so that the readers of your work can be cautious. Chapman totally misrepresented this point by selectively highlighting only a fragment of the sentence and not the whole thing. 2) 2:07 Chapman claims that CRT rejects "color blindness" because CRT theorists believe that we're too racist to be color blind, but again, that's not what the quoted text says. The text doesn't say that we're too racist to do it. It says that the result of previous years of racism have created major inequities that color blind policies tend to reinforce. Chapman totally lied about what the text. He said one thing while the text onscreen said something entirely different. The text also explains that because color blind policymaking tends to reinforce previous inequities it can actually be exploited by contemporary racist people to make the problem worse. They illustrate this by pointing out that the Reagan campaign embraced color blind policymaking as a way to beat back the civil rights movement, rather than as a way to support it. Chapman of course, ignores this.
    3
  519.  @leirex_1  1) " the text says that the differential treatment continues into the present." NO. You are misreading the text. The sentence does not say "this differential treatment continues into the present". It says "the effect of this differential treatment continues into the present". In other words, color-blind policymaking would make no sense in a society where historical racism caused problems whose effects persist into today. This is very different from saying that the historical racism itself persists. That's the entire point of this section of the text and your interpretation is literally the opposite of what it says. The entire idea is that even with the best intentions, even in a society where no one is racist, colorblind policies would typically work to reinforce historical racism. 2) "that doesn't change the conclusion that academia should be openly subjective and political." The text doesn't say that at all. It literally doesn't say that or anything close to that anywhere. The text says 3 things: a) It is impossible to be objective often it is more harmful to pretend to be objective than to admit your own biases. b) The default bias in most historical academic scholarship produced in the US has been slanted towards reinforcing white biases. c) If you are doing critical race theory you should not pretend to attack this white bias from a neutral position, but admit and embrace the fact that your position is also biased. That last one is pretty important. It's not prescribing this to all academia. Or telling you that you should always do this. It's saying that when you're doing CRT you should act like this. This actually has less to do with Critical Race Theory itself, and more to do with Critical Theory in general. Critical Theory in general is a field of study that requires us to explore the hidden biases and assumptions in our traditional beliefs. So if you do it without being open about your own bias, you're doing it poorly. Critical Race Theory applies that same idea to race. But that doesn't mean that ALL academia should be biased. The goal of all academia is to arrive at real objective truth. When you're doing orthodox academic study, its ok to adopt the default "neutral objective voice", even if you know it's a lie. But when you do critical theory you have to reject this voice and speak from your own "authentic" and biased position. Then, when you combine the two, you're able to get closer to the real truth. Because your own openly biased position may help you see the hidden biases in the supposedly "objective" work you usdd to look at as neutral. This is not really a controversial position and it's a pretty old idea in academia. And the text excepts explain this reasonably well. It's very different from any of the crazy garbage this imbecile Chapman was saying. 3) "You're overreacting here" No. You're underreacting. I simply chose a small representative sample. but lIterally every single thing Chapman said about CRT in this video was wrong. You would literally be better off having heard nothing. Most of the time, he interpreted the text to mean he opposite of what was written. He quoted sentence fragments out of context and read out loud something different than what was written. And the absolute worst part is that he did it while pretending to present an unbiased, neutral view of the topic. This is SO much worst than an open racist simply admitting that he hates colored people and attacking CRT for an hour. He is literally committing the very sin the text warns against. He is purposely lying and smearing the study of CRT as a result of his own prejudices and adopting a fake objective and neutral voice. This is the worst kind of racist.
    3
  520.  @Person01234  The point is that in sports like the NBA or the 100 meter dash, the difference between male & female performance is so wide that there is no good reason to integrate them. For the NBA it would essentially mean no woman would ever see a minute of game time. Because the worst NBA player is lightyears ahead of the best WNBA player. In the 100 meter dash it would mean that you'd integrate the sports only to immediately separate them again because no woman would ever be good enough to get close to competing against any of the men. So this is pointless. In boxing a similar thing would happen. You would integrate the divisions and they would immediately self-sort into a male & female division because no female boxer would be able to compete with a male one. So you would be back to the status quo only you will have injured/killed a whole bunch of women getting there. In singles figure skating women would have to perform maneuvers that their bodies simply cannot perform without causing permanent back and lower extremity damage. Resulting in very short (~2 year) careers for women. With men essentially dominating the sport. For example, men can do quads fairly easily. And they are the highest scoring techniques. For women to do quads they essentially have to damage their backs. It seems you're trying to force integration into areas where it simply isn't feasible. The only two possible results are that either women will either be pushed out of the sports entirely, or that the male/female divisions will re-establish themselves through a series of high profile injuries. Do you understand that the performance difference in many of these sports are so wide that you can essentially take fairly poorly performing men and put them up against female world champions and the men would still win? You might as well be asking to integrate the children's division with the adults. Do you not see how it might be a good idea to avoid putting Tyson Fury in the same division as a 12 year old? In the hopes that "Well, the brackets will eventually sort themselves out."
    3
  521. 3
  522. 3
  523. 3
  524. 3
  525. 3
  526. 3
  527. 3
  528. 3
  529. 3
  530. 3
  531. ​ @Bertinator-nm9ld "What other nation could be a reliable ally?" For $300 billion, a set of atomic weapons, open visas, a guaranteed UN vote, and unending support even Yemen could be transformed into a reliable US ally. Particularly given that ISRL is not a particularly reliable ally. Between constantly violating international laws, launching unapproved invasions of neighboring states, repeatedly flouting UN resolutions, routinely appointing international criminals to governing positions, and spying on us the bar is set quite low. We're paying vassal state money and getting a problematic and aggressive sometimes ally that repeatedly thumbs our authority. "Biden is already applying pressure" This is not what applying pressure looks like. Sending money and deploying military assets in support of their actions while repeatedly rationalizing it and vetoing any international attempt to condemn it is not "applying pressure". Would you like to know what is? How about this statement: "The US does not feel that the recent tragedy justifies the wholesale intentional violation of international law, nor the purposeful commission of war crimes in retaliation. To that end we will not support the current action militarily, financially or diplomatically and demand an immediate ceasefire followed by the deployment of an international peacekeeping force tasked with identifying war criminals on both sides of the conflict, arrest and trying them in the ICC. That would be applying pressure.
    3
  532. 3
  533. 3
  534. 3
  535. 3
  536. 3
  537. 3
  538. 3
  539. 3
  540. Here are 2 points that Bassem Youseef missed: 1) The fundamental problem of ISRL as a country. Separate from the issue of the PLSTN people, there is a larger problem with ISRL that is at the root of the conflict. ISRL is the modern day attempt to create an ancient style religious ethnostate. Such states should not exist as they fly directly in the face of our modern concepts of justice and equality. An ethnostate is one in which the rights and privileges associated with full citizenship are reserved only for a specific ethnicity, with other ethnicities occupying a second class status. In ISRL, being a citizen and being a national are 2 different things. Theoretically anyone can become a citizen, but being a national is reserved exclusively for members of one ethnicity and entitles one to extra rights, government benefits, and privileges. This differs sharply from the direction the rest of the world is moving, wherein all citizens are supposed to be treated equally and citizenship is simply a matter of meeting a few bureaucratic requirements. For example, anyone of any ethnicity can be French, so long as they meet the application requirements. No advantage is conferred due to ethnicity. The system ISRL sets up flies directly in the face of our notion of the fundamental equality of all people and requires the government to be in a constant state of warfare against certain ethnicities to ensure that they cannot use the democratic process to remove this unequal treatment. This problem is compounded of course by the fact that the ethnostate was constructed on top of a very diverse population. 2) What is ISRL supposed to do in response to the attacks? Bassem understands that what ISRL is doing right now is both illegal and unethical, but he was not entirely sure what the proper response should be. I can help. The same system of international law that says the current response is illegal, also proposes a mechanism for responding properly to such incidents. First, collective punishment is not allowed. What should happen is that ISRL should approach the ICC and the UN and request assistance. A peacekeeping force should be deployed to the region with the intention of securing it and beginning the door to door process of rooting out the offenders. These missions are typically staffed internationally so that every country gas a vested interest in seeing justice done. Offenders on both sides of the dispute should be referred to the ICC & ICJ for prosecution. Second, ISRL must address the material circumstances which led up to this crime. The reason these criminals are able to hide in the occupied territory is because the occupied territory is a large open air prison. Keeping this sort of facility running creates the perfect environment for the cultivation of this kind of crime. The occupied people must be extended human and civil rights so that they may go about the process of living free. Whether this is done via adding them officially to the 1 state or giving them their own state is not important. But the current injustice must be ended immediately.
    3
  541. 3
  542. 3
  543. 3
  544. 3
  545. 3
  546. ​ @rossmanngroup  "Describing deaths in units of 9/11 is something that never happened..." It has happened often and is frequently used when trying to describe major tragedies in a way that is easily accessible, quantifiable and emotionally resonates with Americans. Cut the crap. "Someone is using bombastic terminology" It would be bombastic if we weren't talking about millions painful, lonely and tragically preventable deaths. Given that we are, it is restrained understatement. "The assertion that criticizing LDs 18 months in as bad policy" Oh, I'm sorry, is 18 months higher than the time you personally typically require to eliminate a deadly global pan spurred by a mutating pathogen and exacerbated by a global community in the thralls of a disunited nativist resurgence? Nothing about the number 18 is magical. This could take 19 months, it could take 19 years. In either of these conditions you have zero basis for criticism if said criticism is based solely on the idea that 18 is a big number. Do you have any epidemiological basis for your opinion? Any experience in crafting public health policy or analyzing viral vectors? Or is it just that 18 sounds like a big number? Here, let me make it easy for you: It's not 18. The previous pan is over. This is another pan related to another new disease (delt) that has not been around for the full 18. If a new outbreak occurs in a few months should we also relax our response irrespective of the scientific data simply because we already put in our 18? " your comparison of messing with a nuclear reactor to me walking outside and living my life" I never made that comparison. I said that you are more qualified to tinker with a nuclear reactor than you are to have an opinion on this matter. That is how ignorant you are on this topic. So until you either dedicate some serious time to becoming an expert in the field. Or at least begin communicating with experts, it's probably best that you avoid sharing your uninformed and irresponsible shittakes. You're literally working on the side of the virus right now. "One need not be a PHD" Correct. You can simply read the research and keep your opinions in line with the scientific consensus. And the consensus is overwhelming. Virtually every major public health institution on the planet is in general agreement here. The national health and science authorities in almost every single country are in agreement. Every major health and virology associated IGO. Every major professional association. An overwhelming majority of experts in every associated field of study. The need for continued vigilance, selective distancing and targeted LDs remains. And somehow because you can fix an iphone you can say they're wrong about these life and death decisions without investing a shred of effort into studying the issue? What kind of narcissistic delusion is this? Conclusion We are talking about a novel virus that has successfully infected the entire world's population in a matter of weeks. It has wiped out so many million people we have difficulty even quantifying the total amount. It has demonstrated ability to mutate and adapt. The total amount of pathogen incubating uncontrollably "in the wild" at any given moment is directly proportionate to the probability of further mutation and the advent of more dangerous strains. As is the total viral load any infected individual carries. The imperative to gain control of the situation goes beyond the immediate consideration of the lives lost today. When dealing with a problem that multiplies exponentially it is critical to move quickly and decisively in a manner that errs in the direction of too much rather than too little action. Failure to do this previously is what put us in our current situation today. Any number of case studies demonstrate that countries (and geographical locales within countries) that are able to impose effective controls on dangerous behavior (distancing, vaccinating, contact tracing, targetted LDs) are more effective at reducing or eradicating the total numbers of infection and community viral load. Among the greatest hurdles in this entire effort has been the difficulty in communicating the science with the general public, and eliciting cooperation among uninformed individuals. You are actively making this more difficult by your immature exceptionalism. Let's be clear: regardless of what anyone wants, there can be no economic recovery until the biological threat is under control. Do what you want in your private life. But stay off the GD microphone when you say this dumb garbage.
    3
  547. 3
  548. 3
  549. 3
  550. 3
  551. 3
  552. 3
  553. 3
  554. 3
  555. 3
  556. 3
  557. 3
  558. 3
  559. 3
  560. 3
  561. 3
  562.  @tomcads1604  There are many MMA fighters who are primarily wrestlers/grapplers but know some striking (eg: Woodley). This is not Askren. Askren was not just primarily a wrestler, he was essentially exclusively one. He was a very rare kind of fighter in the sense that he was one of the few single style purists left. He appeared to be transplanted from an earlier era of MMA when guys were still this way. During the peak of his career, Askren was literally banned from one promotion and refused entry into another solely because he was "wrestling too much." He is literally the only MMA fighter I ever heard of in my life who was kicked out of a promotion that he was the undefeated top contender in because he was too one-dimensional. That is absolutely insane. Whatever little striking training he had appeared to be oriented towards passing through kicking range with lunging attacks l, as his team seemed confident that if he ever got remotely near boxing range, his opponent would be grounded. It's important to understand precisely how little striking training is required for an MMA fighter with that strategy. Rhonda Rousey was able to knock out actual boxers with strikes using some fairly horrendous kickboxing solely due to the ever-present threat of her world class grappling ability. Randy Couture was considered an evasive and effective striker with remarkable rudimentary head movement solely because of the ever-present risk of his freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestling. I mean Jesus Christ, Kevin Randleman knocked out Mirco Crocop. And Askren was more one-dimensional than all these guys. (Maybe on par with Randleman). Take that guy, age him up and put him though hip surgery and the results are predictable: Poorly timed lunging attacks performed more slowly than he's ever done in his career with no purpose or threat since he's unable to deploy the wrestling which made this inane fight strategy viable.
    3
  563. 3
  564. 3
  565. 3
  566. 3
  567. 3
  568. 3
  569. 3
  570. 3
  571. 3
  572. 3
  573. 3
  574. 3
  575. 3
  576. 3
  577. 3
  578. 3
  579. 3
  580. 3
  581. 3
  582. 3
  583. 3
  584. 3
  585. 3
  586. 2
  587. 2
  588. 2
  589. 2
  590. 2
  591. 2
  592. 2
  593. 2
  594. 2
  595. 2
  596. 2
  597. 2
  598. 2
  599. 2
  600. 2
  601. 2
  602. 2
  603. 2
  604. 2
  605. 2
  606. 2
  607. 2
  608.  @goober69er    I think your analysis suffers a bit from 'mile wide inch deep' perspective. You brought up a smattering of issues, however when you look more carefully into each one, i think they are not all the concern they appear to be. 1) I don't know that Canadian law regarding child sex reassignment actually differs from US laws substantially. These procedures are already allowed in the US and have been for a long time. The issue is that barring the most extreme cases, they are very difficult to actually have done due to a combination of a stuff (ethical standards among provider professional associations, cost, exposure to legal/civil liability, etc.) Furthermore the process is not as simple as alarmist conservative media tends to make it, as the amount of medical and psychological evaluation that needs to take place prior to a full on reassignment surgery is so extensive that (barring extreme cases like biologically intersexed individuals) it is unlikely a child will be able to qualify before enough time has elapsed that the individual is at adulthood. All signs indicate that this seems to be a virtual non-issue that has been blown out of proportion. Almost certainly any reform in this area will probably happen through refinements in the criteria for surgery as published by the relevant professional associations and not by any new legislation. Simply put, this is a red herring. 2) I also agree with the Roe v Wade standards, as do most Americans. While half of your statement is true (with some conservative states trying to undermine the ruling by effectively banning abortion) the other half is not. There is no equivalent race to allow for abortions at the last day. The situation of the US right now is that we are failing to meet the RvW standards by a wide margin due to lack of funding, access, and a number of other deceptive and complex schemes plotted out by anti abortion conservatives. So again, this is not a case of evenly balanced sides. We are radically below the RvW standard, with zero risk of being above it. And only one side is working to undermine the law in this regard. 3) The US has faced much greater threats to freedom of speech than today's PC culture. McCarthyism, total domination of broadcast media in the 80s, etc. Currently speech is more free than it has ever been. Now, it's true that there are some annoying college kids out there. But there are a few things to consider: - There always have been. - Social movements tend to gain more traction when traditional sources of power are dominated by the opposition. The PC police are high profile because Trump is in charge, just as the Tea Party saw its zenith under Obama. Don't get distracted by the pendulum swing, it'll roll back when leadership changes. - Most social movements are initiated and led by their most annoying members. So it's usually ridiculous people asking for ridiculous things. But when the dust settles, we tend to find a good balance. When this is over we won't use some of the offensive language we used to, but we also won't be the politically correct automatons some young idiots are asking for. - Honestly the PC movement appears to already be losing some steam. I think it peaked like a 18‐24 months ago. - Comedy is a good example because whereas comedians complain about it, anti-PC comedy is actually extremely popular with all the anti-PC guys making record revenue. And comedy in general is experiencing a golden age right now. That's a good tradeoff for skipping some college gigs. So all in all, this doesn't seem like a real threat.
    2
  609. 2
  610. 2
  611. 2
  612. 2
  613. 2
  614. 2
  615. 2
  616. 2
  617. 2
  618. 2
  619. 2
  620. 2
  621. 2
  622. Ryan Chapman actually comes off as extremely biased and a little racist in this video. This was a deeply misleading and deceptive "explanation" of CRT. He used primary sources, but he misquoted them or misinterpreted them throughout the video. His technique is to take a passage, then highlight a sentence fragment, then misinterpret it as saying something different than what it actually says. Worse still, this doesn't seem to be due to stupidity, but rather to willful malice. Here are 2 obvious examples: 1) 7:27 Chapman claims that critical race theorists reject "objectivity, balance and detached neutrality" in academia as "white values." However, this is not what the highlighted text states. The highlighted text does not refer to "objectivity", but rather to "purported objectivity". Which means when one attempts to convey they appearance of objectivity without actually being so. That's a big difference. CRT theorists are saying that white academics have historically laundered their bias through a thin veneer of false objectivity. They reject trying to pretend you are unbiased when you are actually very biased. Thus, they recommend that it's better you don't try to pretend to be unbiased, and instead, announce your biases ahead of time so that the readers of your work can be cautious. Chapman totally misrepresented this point by selectively highlighting only a fragment of the sentence and not the whole thing. 2) 2:07 Chapman claims that CRT rejects "color blindness" because CRT theorists believe that we're too racist to be color blind, but again, that's not what the quoted text says. The text doesn't say that we're too racist to do it. It says that the result of previous years of racism have created major inequities that color blind policies tend to reinforce. Chapman totally lied about what the text. He said one thing while the text onscreen said something entirely different. The text also explains that because color blind policymaking tends to reinforce previous inequities it can actually be exploited by contemporary racist people to make the problem worse. They illustrate this by pointing out that the Reagan campaign embraced color blind policymaking as a way to beat back the civil rights movement, rather than as a way to support it. Chapman of course, ignores this.
    2
  623. 2
  624. 2
  625. 2
  626. 2
  627. 2
  628. 2
  629. 2
  630. 2
  631. 2
  632. 2
  633. 2
  634. 2
  635. 2
  636. 2
  637. 2
  638. 2
  639. 2
  640. 2
  641. 2
  642. 2
  643. 2
  644. 2
  645. 2
  646. 2
  647. 2
  648. 2
  649. 2
  650. 2
  651. 2
  652. 2
  653. 2
  654. 2
  655. 2
  656. 2
  657. 2
  658. 2
  659. 2
  660. 2
  661. 2
  662. 2
  663. 2
  664. 2
  665. 2
  666. 2
  667. 2
  668. 2
  669. 2
  670. 2
  671. 2
  672. 2
  673. 2
  674. 2
  675. 2
  676. 2
  677. 2
  678. 2
  679. 2
  680. 2
  681. 2
  682. 2
  683. 2
  684. 2
  685. 2
  686. 2
  687. 2
  688. 2
  689. 2
  690. 2
  691. 2
  692. 2
  693. 2
  694. 2
  695. 2
  696. 2
  697. 2
  698. 2
  699. 2
  700.  @blahblahboii  "But thousands of ABS were recorded migrating" Not sure how this is relevant. Any indigenous group in a larger empire experiences migration. There are indigenous Egyptians despite the fact that there was a ton of traffic in & out of the Nile Valley. How odd would it be for a group of New Yorkers to randomly annex a section of Cairo on the claim that their ancient ancestors likely originated in this region thousands of years ago. And then use the argument that there was traffic during the Ancient Egyptian empire to deny the indigenousness of Egyptians who had been living in the region for as long as we have records? You are essentially doing the same thing. The indigenous PLSN and JSH people of the region are well known and well documented as having lived there for generations. They are distinct from the recent set of Europeans who showed up in the 20th and 21st Century on a mission to take the land. That first group are the indigenous people and that second group is not. It's not complicated. "Half are Egy the other half are SD" It's odd that you would use a quote to prove a fact that even you do not believe in. We obviously both know that this is rhetorical flourish in a speech aimed at getting financial support from EGY and SD. We also both know that factually speaking not every PLSN is from either of these places. As there are many closer neighboring countries in the region. The speaker himself contradicts this point moments later by pointing out that only 30 families can trace any ancestry to EGY. Again, because this speech is not a geographic survey but rather a rhetorical appeal to a vague pan-ABism. However, given that both EGY & SD have existed for thousands of years the notion of indigenous PLSN people having ancestry from either place isn't really surprising. Again, it does nothing to undermine their indigenousness. You might want to avoid using MEMRI as a source since it is not credible. "But the League of Nations recognized JSH people as the indigenous" It didn't. Did you actually read the mandate? The mandate refers to the future goal of establishing a state for JSH people here. It doesn't claim that they're indigenous. In fact, quite the opposite. It notes specifically that there are a people already living here who are not JSH. In other words, the mandate notes that the land is already inhabited by an indigenous people, but intends on establishing a JSH state there anyway, given that the recent JSH migrants have a historical connection (which of course is not the same as being indigenous). This makes sense of course since the mandate intended on creating a state available to all JSH people and it would be very silly indeed for the mandate to claim that people all over Europe who have never seen the new land, have no relatives or family in the land and haven't even moved there yet are somehow "indigenous". "This is a pro gen statement" Not really. If we can stop a gen in progress I'm all for it. If we can restore a family to the land it was removed from I'm all for it. If we can offer compensation for people who had a gen done against them I also like that. But when we talk about ancient migrations that occurred thousands of years ago, none of that is possible or desirable. Namely because none of these people or their families are even around any more and there is no record to even determine what happened to who. The reason contemporary JSH people don't have a connection to the ancient people of ISRL is because they're a different people now. They have lived in Europe as indigenous people for a thousand years. Their families are already intertwined with European families. There is no way to tell how any of them got there. Who moved voluntarily and who didn't. It would be like trying to determine which Swedish people migrated out of North Africa willingly and which were made to leave due to ancient wars. Do you intend on establishing a Swedish state in Sudan? So you see. This is not pro gen. This is simply stating that there of course must be some reasonable cut off point beyond which we do not attempt to litigate. A good cut off point is to say that once it has been so long that there is no still alive who is even distantly related to the people who experienced the hardship, we move on.
    2
  701. 2
  702.  @blahblahboii  "The Mandate's historical connection" The Mandate is a legal document. The words are selected carefully. If they refrained from calling the land the historical home land of the JSH people. Or calling them indigenous it was on purpose. Citing a vague "historical connection" was done specifically so as not to commit to any particular claim of what that connection is given the obvious silliness of the claim. Imagine a group of African-Americans suddenly annexing Senegal. Their claim would be infinitely stronger given that this was only 300 years ago and we still have records. Yet every international legal authority would immediately label the claim as an utterly ridiculous excuse for US expansion. Now compare that to a bunch of European colonists invading an inhabited land they never saw before based on the vague notion that thousands of years ago there may have been someone living here who had the same religion as me. Not a family member, not a friend. Just somebody. Thus the ambiguous term "historical connection". "You just said you're for gen" No. Poor reading comperehnsion. "All of this too will become something that occurred thousands of years ago." Yes. That's how time works. "The Romans & Greeks kept very good records." Not really. There's no JSH person today who can go to PLSN and say "Yes, this was my family's plot of land thousands of years ago." This is one of the many reasons we don't litigate ancient grievances that are suddenly and conveniently rediscovered by contemporary people who are in all practical manner totally unconnected to them. "I'd like to see you tell indigenous Australians they're not" If they leave for a thousand years and have no connection to Australia? Sure. I doubt anyone would bat an eye. I mean do you really think Drake would be offended if I told him he was not from Togo? "Who gets to decide the cut off point?" Logic and practicality. It's impossible to revert the world's borders to what they were 400 years ago in a misguided search for justice. Imagine trying to go back thousands of years. It's also generally undesirable. Since we must prioritize the family community connections that exist today, and no those that have been extinct for a thousand years. "Why would the JSH people not wait out that cut off point?" Well yes. That's every settler colonist's plan. They're already doing a fine job of it. Despite having no legitimate claim to the land, they have already been there long enough that it would be inhumane to make them leave. If they stay another few generations, they will probably have a legitimate claim to being natives. They understand this, and this is what they're doing. It is a very effective strategy, despite being deeply unethical and requiring the commission of a great deal of crimes.
    2
  703. 2
  704. 2
  705. 2
  706. 2
  707. 2
  708. 2
  709. 2
  710. 2
  711. 2
  712. 2
  713.  @Tamachii12  This is deeply misleading and frankly, impossible to prove. Under regular operating conditions coal power plants release more radiation into the environment than nuclear power plants. But that is because coal ash emits such a tiny amount of radiation that no precautions need to be taken and it can be safely released in the environment with no adverse effects. However, nuclear fuel and nuclear waste emit such a dangerously high amount of radiation that it must sealed up tightly in order to prevent any of it from entering into the environment. Thus, under normal operating conditions both coal and nuclear power plants do not release dangerous amounts of radiation into the environment. Coal because it is inherently safe, nuclear because we maintain a strict set of safety procedures to contain the danger. But the caveat here is use of the term under normal conditions. If something goes wrong at any point in the process (extraction, refinement, transportation, refinement, storage, disposal) nuclear will release dangerous amounts of radiation into the environment. In contrast, no matter how much goes wrong, a coal power plant will never do so because there simply isn't any significant amount of radiation present to begin with. Thus, the statement is deeply misleading since the radiation threat of a coal power plant is inherently and always zero, while nuclear power plants are massive always a high level threat in terms of radiation. It is also impossible to validate since there is no way to definitely say about any particular power plant that nothing will ever go wrong. As such it is impossible to say what amount of radiation a nuclear power plant "will ever release."
    2
  714. 2
  715. 2
  716. 2
  717.  @Typecast-L  Joe is spreading misinformation about a topic that he is blatantly ignorant about and jeopardizing the public health in the process. Elon Musk is extremely unqualified to weigh in on this matter and is far worse than Joe in this regard. He is peddling unscientific conspiracy theories and jeopardizing people's lives for his own selfish purposes. Both of their positions are directly opposed to the domestic and international scientific consensus on this matter. The entire world's supply of medical professionals, virologists, and epidemiologists are remarkably united in their disagreement Musk's (and Joe's) dangerous and outlandish claims. YouTube is exercising it's social responsibility by limiting the degree of dangerous misinformation being peddled. However, even within this context they have not censored Joe's discussions with Musk. So they have been extremely tolerant of both these guys abhorrent behavior. So let's be clear that neither of these men have the moral high ground here. That said, Joe's entire show is based on ranting. It's not surprising he'd rant about demonetization. However, as you said yourself, he's made a lot of money of YouTube. So demonetization isn't actually that big a deal for him. You know what is though? $100 million. PS: YouTube isn't silencing medical professionals. They are banning crackpots who are giving illegitimate medical advice that counters national and international guidelines during an extremely deadly pandemic. They're doing the right thing.
    2
  718. 2
  719. 2
  720. 2
  721. 2
  722. 2
  723. 2
  724. 2
  725. 2
  726. 2
  727. 2
  728. 2
  729. 2
  730.  @jeronimo196  "Tip the scales enough for males to always come in second place" Not necessarily. But this seems more like an emotional outburst on your part rather than a sincere retelling of what I said. The goal would be to tip the scales enough to compensate for an unfair advantage to either competitor in order to establish an approximately level playing field. This is always the goal. "We'll ruin the next 5 years of women's sports collecting data" Unlikely. This sounds like hyperbole. Truth is, there are so few athletes for whom this rare condition applies that virtually any decision we take will have a negligible effect on women's sports overall. That said, this is really nothing new. Rules are constantly being tweaked by various athletic federations and venues giving certain athletes better or worse advantages at any given time. So long as we approach the adjustments conservatively, and examine the data we already have, we can minimize the disruption. "~13lbs disadvantage. Why not 12 or 14?" I guess you don't understand what the tilde (~) symbol means, huh? Just look it up and perhaps you'll understand why this comment is a bit silly. "What kind of woman wouldn't be happy to take punches in the name of inclusion?" So I think this statement makes it clear you don't understand how MMA works at all. No one is actually required to take a fight with anyone. Your manager pitches you fights which you either reject or accept. Now, given that among the tens of thousands of MMA fighters that have ever competed, there have only ever been 2 that fall into the category we're discussing, it is basically impossible that any woman would ever be in a position to have to "take punches for the sake of inclusion." Women get to select their fights and given that the vast majority of participants are female, the only women who would ever fight a transitioned competitor are the ones who would go out of their way to track one down and single her out. We know this because this is literally what is happening right now with the single transitioned competitor currently active. So yeah, this sounds like panicky hyperbole. Tbh, given the current level of data from both transitioned fighters and fighters known to use illegal substances I think we probably already have enough information to make a pretty good guess. A ~13lb handicap, maintaining proper T levels, with the currently required minimum time post transition, guarantees no advantage to the transitioned fighter. The only question left to ask is whether a smaller handicap is more appropriate. However, there is no chance that a larger one would be required. So as you can see, no female fighter would be incurring any additional risk using this system. "Then only group sports would remain unbalanced" You've failed to provide any support for this claim. Why would group sports be immune to handicapping? In any case, it's important to note that maximizing inclusion doesn't necessarily mean that every sport is going to work out. The idea is just that you try your best to do it with as many sports as you actually can. That's what the word "maximizing" means. It seems odd to have to explain this. Conclusion: As you can see most of what you said seems like a knee-jerk emotional response rather than a well thought out criticism. You also seem pretty unfamiliar with and disinterested in the actual subject matter. My recommendation would be to probably just let this conversation pass you, rather than get yourself angry about something you aren't really interested in.
    2
  731.  @jeronimo196  Sorry, busy with important stuff. Here's your response: "What would the suggested methodology be?" I've already explained it. Please re-read the previous comments. "What happens when the T version of Usain Bolt comes along?" We already know the mean, mode, and range of margins of victory for women who win gold, as well as the theoretical upper limit. If a transitioned athletes deviates from this range significantly this would be a legitimate reason to change the handicap. Because the truth is, the odds that a transitioned athlete demonstrating a level of dominance outside of this range is doing so not because of an advantage related to the transition process but rather because of Usain Bolt like natural talent are astronomical. You are taking two incredibly low probabilities and multiplying them to produce an even less likely scenario. Then using that essentially non-existent scenario to justify scrapping an idea that would work the rest of the time. Yes, I suppose if the first transitioned athlete also happened to be a werewolf the system would also fail. "We could only have somewhat adequate data until the number is large enough to have a negligible effect on women's sports" You misunderstood this point. My point was to say transitioned athletes are such a rare phenomenon that overall this question is pretty unimportant. So anyone who begins with the claim that any strategy "will ruin all of women's sports" is being silly. Given that your responses with riddled with this energy and with statements like this, the first and most important thing to remember is: settle down. "To quote Randy Dewey..." Yeah Ramsey Dewey says a lot of weird things. I've turned down fights. Guys I've trained with have turned down fights. UFC fighters have turned down fights. WBC boxers have turned down fights. Amateurs who went on to compete in Golden Gloves have turned down fights. This happens pretty frequently. I doubt that the stigma associated with being a transitioned fighter is going to make it harder to turn a person down. "I understand enough to know the rule book should use an equal sign" Did you think you were reading a rule book right now? And let's be honest, 1lb isn't going to be the difference. You're already allowed 0.5lb deviation anyway. The important part is what range you settle on. "I'd be worried about the transitioned athlete incurring additional risk" Different kind of risk. It's pretty common for fighters to fight oversized opponents. This is a well known phenomenon and the nature of the risk is well understood. So even in a situation where we were trading one risk for another yet the total size of the risk remained the same, we would still be better off. Because we are trading a less understood and more difficult to counter risk, for a well understood one with long established mitigation strategies. However, realistically people who have enough experience in the sport would be quite good at making this determination within a range likely to reduce total risk, which while not perfect, is significantly better. Also, let's be honest: No you're not. "Maximizing means optimizing for a certain parameter. If you're optimizing for this, you're not optimizing for that." Indeed. That's why maximum strength Benadryl has killed so many. When will the madness end?! Lol Come on, stop being silly. Obviously maximizing within the parameters establish by a ranked priority list is a thing. "Group sports are vastly more complex" Yes, but fortunately group sports also have a vastly wider acceptable margin of error. Unlike something like the 100 meter dash, a game like football or basketball often experiments with making dramatic rule changes that will have a great deal of unknown effects with far less than conclusive research. Because there are so many unknown variables the fans are pretty used to this sort of thing. No one actually knew what would happen when we banned dunks, changing the charging rules, changing the rules of the drafting system, etc. There was literally almost no data to support these dramatic changes that all had a much larger impact than any rule about transitioned athletes ever could. And yet they were all implemented on the basis of enhancing fairness, with a wide variety of actual results. So yeah there's actually significantly more room for experimentation here. "Ad hominem" I don't think you know how to properly use that phrase. In any case we can agree to disagree on this point. "I'll decide when my fun/annoyance reaches the point of bailing out" Translation: "I'm actually not very confident in the validity of my point and feel discomfort being challenged, therefore I reserve the right to frame my imminent retreat as snobbery." Cool man, whatever works for you. Just glad I could inject some reason into your thinly veiled prejudice. Conclusion: It appears that your entire objection boils down to: "It cannot be done perfectly, therefore it is entirely unacceptable. My experience has been that is typically the disingenuous sentiment expressed by people who want society to continue to act in accordance with their personal bigotry but do not care to be openly associated with such a regressive attitude. It is the "[blank] people will never achieve full equality so we should segregate them" position of the disingenuous moderate. It seems pretty clear that many sports can accommodate this ridiculously small number of outlier individuals and risk mitigation strategies are plentiful. We should bring together the experts and proceed carefully along trying them with a clear priority list of maximizing safety, fairness, and inclusion. With full knowledge that frankly, we've taken far greater risks before.
    2
  732. 2
  733. 2
  734. 2
  735. 2
  736. 2
  737. 2
  738. 2
  739. 2
  740. 2
  741. 2
  742. 2
  743. 2
  744. 2
  745. 2
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808.  @goober69er  Congratulations on your attempt to grow a brain. Now if only you could learn how to pay attention before commenting. I never made the point you're arguing against lol. I didn't take issue with the idea that men and women may have an evolutionary tendency to act differently. I took issue with people who claim to know precisely what that difference is, when even the people studying this stuff for a living haven't reached agreement on it. I also don't see why both can't be true. That women can have an evolutionary tendency to behave a certain way, but also that socially constructed gender roles influence people's behaviour as well. And if that's the case, where does one influence end, and the other begin? And which has a greater effect? And could they be in conflict with one another? Also, if we're using an evolutionary model, what is the rate of evolutionary change with regard to behavior? We know it may take millions of years to grow legs, but only a few generations to grow the ability to metabolize milk. So how many generations of complex human society are necessary to cause an evolutionary change to a psychological feature? If few, then animal models wouldn't help very much. Also, we run into a problem when we try to translate an emotional or cognitive characteristic into actual behavior, since behavior is as much determined by your instincts as it is by a cost/benefit analysis. This is why it's important to say, "yes, evolution may play a role in determining gendered psychology, but i will refrain from attributing gendered behavior to evolutionary forces because of all the confounding variables i have not accounted for."
    1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832.  @futuza  This argument makes sense when Twitter was growing. Having Charlie on Twitter benefitted Twitter about as much as it benefitted Charlie (like the restaurants & tvs). But now Twitter is so large it doesn't really need Charlie at all. It doesn't make sense for them to continue to subsidize his channel growth for free. $100/year is a pretty small amount ask Charlie to consider as part of his advertising budget. I agree that most other platforms are not doing this yet. But I think that's one of the ways in which Musk is pushing the industry forward. Everyone needs to re-evaluate this free service policy. I think the only relevant question is as follows: Does Charlie value the checkmark because it is valuable to his company to have an official Twitter account? Or is he simply forced to purchase the checkmark out of fear that Twitter will allow Charlie imposters to run rampant and smear his reputation? If it's the first, he should definitely pay. If it's the second then Twitter should be giving the checkmarks out for free. The only way we can find out which is true is to charge the business so that this is a question they will have to confront. What I would like to see is for content creators and small businesses to actually band together and sue Twitter for allowing imposters to steal their identity online. I think that if Twitter is forced to start spending extra money tracking down and deleting fake Charlie accounts they might realize the cost of doing this exceeds the cost of giving Charlie the checkmark for free and then we'd be back to where we started but we would have established legal precedent. So I think Elon doing this is probably the right idea since it moves the entire industry forward and closer to becoming more properly professionalized and regulated.
    1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871.  @davidpilger4136  The law is not the deciding factor but it can certainly offer guidance as the law is essentially our best attempt at codifying mortality. While it can sometimes be flawed, more often than not, the legal stance on matters that are long settled is actually a pretty good gauge as to the underlying morality. In this case, the legal principle here is extremely well establish dating back to long before the existence of the United States. It is also widely agreed upon given that the attackers actions violate the law in virtually every country on the planet. As a general rule, theft and assault are both illegal and immoral except in the instances of self defense, in the service of enforcing the law by law enforcement officers (searches & seizures), or in exceptional cases related to public safety (cases in which a clear and imminent threat to safety) Finding someone annoying is insufficient as valid legal or moral grounds for obvious reasons: the degree to which someone is annoying is mainly subjective. Furthermore, opening the door to this kind of behavior opens the door to far greater injustices. For example, if the prankster happened to know martial arts he would have been well within his legal rights to defend himself and we would not be dealing with a potential murder case. Finally, it's important to note that vigilante justice is often not as righteous as we may perceive it. It appeared that the attacker in this video hesitated briefly, and sized up his opponent before attacking him. This suggests that if the prankster were a Mike Tyson or Jon Jones looking fellow the attacker may not have attempted to exact justice. In other words, promoting vigilante justice is supporting a system which will consistently target the weak with violence, rather than the deserving.
    1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957.  @carlinthomas9482  1) Genius, the article doesn't say that the population of these islands was small, it says that they were depopulated by invaders before the European arrival. These invaders came from the Americas. Think about it: If a 100K population is reduced to 10k due to invasion from a nearby country, then it's likely that the invading force was about the same size. In other words, this is not an argument for radically reducing our estimates of the population of the Americas, it is an argument for reorganizing the distribution of that population within the Americas. This says nothing about the total population of indigenous people across the 2 continents except to say that there are nations in those 2 continents large enough to support the military forces necessary to potentially depopulate island strings. 2) We should also note that this is new hypothesis with minimal evidenciary backing at this stage. The sample size is about 100 remains, with heavy reliance on subjective interpretations of pottery traditions in order address the issue of migration as a confounding variable. 3) "You use the high estimates" I actually didn't use the high estimates. I cited the reasonable estimate derived by the study linked after analyzing every published estimate. I already told you this. 4) "You proved my point" No. No one has ever claimed that the Americas were as densely populated as Europe. The issue at hand is whether they were as underpopulated as you characterized them. 60 million people is not dense population. But it is still a ton of people comprising a large chunk of the world's total population. Thus the indigenous genocide is a staggering tragedy affecting a proportion of people that can readily be compared to the total population of Europe at the time. 5) "Blood Libel - Europeans didn't know" Nonsense. They didn't have germ theory all worked out, but they definitely knew how to get someone sick and how to minimize their chance of recovery and maximize their chance of spread. This is pretty well documented. We know they purposely passed out blankets infected with smallpox in the hopes that disease would ravage their enemies. The use of this kind of biological warfare far precedes the American colonial era. They used to do this during medieval times.
    1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050.  @Hertz2laugh  CRT uses the structure of Marxism the same way both guns and cars use the structure of metal. Calling CRT "Marxism that swaps in race for class" is purposely misleading, reductionist, and frankly a bit dumb. Why not call a gun a car that moves bullets rather than people? I mean they're both made of metal. Lol Yes, reference to conflict theory and materialism are shared in both. But work in both fields is both quite diverse and often contradictory across fields. The predictions (and occasional prescriptions) of Marxism are frequently not present or directly contradicted by CRT theorists. By your definition all a theory has to do is draw on materialist analysis and conflict theory to be considered a variation of Marxism. Fair enough. I guess Realpolitik is Marxism. So is Evolution. Hey you know what? I think Global Warming is also Marxist come to think of it. Maybe capitalism is too. You see what happens when you're over-reliant on one boogieman? "I reject the premise that the US was set up to oppress black people" Fair enough, but you'd be denying an incredibly well established historical record. I mean it's pretty uncontroversial to declare that most states are set up to entrench the powers that establish them. Given that those powers were white people of a specific class, it is quite obvious that the US was indeed (at least in part) set up to perpetuate the same system of racial privilege that preceded it. There is also a clear historical record indicating that both the founding fathers and subsequent leadership went out of their way to emphasize this point stating clearly that nothing in the constitution or declaration should be interpreted as undermining the racial hierarchy.
    1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1) The audience didn't hate the joke. They laughed & gave performative groan. The same reaction they'd give for a corny pun. Mild amusement with some eye rolls. 2) Why are we pretending like Alopecia is cancer? This is barely a medical condition, somewhere on the level of acne. Valid target for a harmless and very brief dig. To her credit, Jada only seemed mildly annoyed. 3) Failing to prosecute over this is sending the message that the rich should indeed feel entitled to commit battery whenever they are annoyed. Half the celebrities leaving the show that night essentially indicated that they do believe this is their right, expressing some level of support for Smith's actions, or stating they would do the same. These are people who have been rich so long they truly believe certain laws and moral standards do not apply to them and the tepid and middling response to a public battery is evidence of that. The fact that he was allowed to take his seat and was applauded with a standing ovation afterwards is disgusting. I wonder if an usher or a security guard would receive the same treatment for punching the host live on national TV and then heckling afterwards? 3) On a side note we should state the obvious: Will was not angry. This was a calculated move of performative violence by a toxic personality in order to rehabilitate his masculinity in front of his wife and the public following months of lampooning in response to the revelation that his wife committed infidelity with a teenager. If this was Alonzo Bodden, Brendan Schaub, Joe Rogan, Mike Tyson, or anyone else not half his size, he would've been happy to laugh it off and the Smiths and the world at large would have forgotten the joke seconds afterwards. 4) If the comedian community were not so disunited and desperate to appease Hollywood, they would have organized a boycott. I suppose we'll have to wait until a violent heckler gets shot before we discuss this seriously.
    1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068.  @bluemelon7818  Unfortunately, this is not true according to every authority on international law on the planet (UN, ICJ, WB, EU, etc.). GZ is currently under ISRL occupation. It is not an independent state. This means that there is no law in GZ that can exist without ISRL approval. The local GZ authorities work for ISRL. They are tasked with the legwork of administering the day to day running of the occupied territory because it is expensive for ISRL to do it themselves. This is in fact the standard relationship between any empire and its occupied territory. In the absence of full scale settlement, a local authority is tasked with day to day administration, while remaining ultimately answerable to the controlling power. This is why (beyond imports & exports) an entire host of commercial, industrial, and military projects are forbidden in GZ by ISRL. Every inhabitant in GZ is required to be registered with ISRL along with a whole host of information related to their lives. Inhabitants of GZ are subject to ISRL law and both the military and police of ISRL can enter and operate in GZ subject exclusively to ISRL approval irrespective of the local authority's protestations. To be clear: the local government of GZ has no standing in ISRL to claim any authority over any function in GZ except with the unilateral approval of ISRL. ISRL has also reserved for itself the right to rescind any approval unilaterally. So yes, the GZ laws you are complaining about are actually ISRL laws. They exist only because ISRL wants them to exist as they help ISRL to reduce day to day costs of maintaining the occupation. They rely on ISRL for their enforcement, as the local authorities cannot exercise any power that is not approved by ISRL, and they can be rescinded at any moment through a unilateral ISRL decree.
    1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079.  @relaxolotl_ltoloxaler  "Reactive abuse" This argument tends to fall apart when we have multiple witness statements and multiple pieces of physical evidence demonstrating that you inflicted severe physical injury on your wife in multiple separate incidents with no such similar damage to yourself. Reactive abuse doesn't work as a defense if you've actively announced your desire to hurt her repeatedly. It doesn't work when the physical injuries are inconsistent with a defensive response. It doesn't work when there are multiple recordings of you standing by and acknowledging that you beat her senseless multiple times without ever denying it. And finally, it's frankly more difficult to prove when you have a well established history of abusing your wife in non-physical ways which you do not deny. Again, the more likely case here is mutual abuse. "In all evidence we have seen Amber is the one initiating the abuse" To be clear you're referring to short audio clips provided by Mr. Depp. His behavior is obviously going to be different when he knows he's capturing secret recordings with the intention of incriminating his partner. However, even in these recordings, the full versions do refer to previous incidents of what appear to be mutual abuse. The recordings are also well in line with the sort of conversations we would expect in this kind of situation, with both sides accusing the other and both sides minimizing their actions. At no point in the recordings did we get any admission from Amber that she made up any physical abuse allegation. Nor did Depp even get her to corroborate his denial of ever having hit her. If they knew it was a lie, why didn't he simply say, "He Amber, you know I've never hit you." And have her admit that on tape? He purposely avoided asking this question. The most incriminating part of the tape is simply Amber minimizing the fact that she hit him based on the fact that: a) he is a man b) these were open palm strikes If we're to be fair, this is actually not a crazy rationalization. He is a man and these are a woman's slaps. There is essentially no real threat posed here and no damage caused. So yes, it is wrong but it doesn't represent the level of threat that would typically spark a massive public outcry. And is not in line with the amount of physical damage Depp caused to her. Again, all of this seems in line with a mutually abusive relationship. A NOTE ON AMBER'S TAPES: We should also bear in mind that the tapes Amber provided to the court were much more damning of Depp. In these tapes she accused him of beating her severely inflicting significant damage. He did not deny this. He also admitted to cutting his own finger off and both threatened to cut himself repeatedly while she begged him not to. He also pressured her to let him cut her while holding a knife. There is no question this man abused her severely.
    1
  1080.  @relaxolotl_ltoloxaler  "You're saying a man can't be abused by a woman" No. I'm saying that her minimizing slapping him in the context of a relationship where he beat her up is understandable. During that same recording she references multiple times where he beat her to the point of causing injury. He never once denies it. So yes, in that context, it's a bit laughable that he would then try to pass off being slapped with no ill effect as abuse. I would have laughed too. So would you. "No witnesses ever saw Johnny hit Amber" Stephen Deuters did. "Amber claimed broken ribs" No, she said bruised ribs. Meaning bruises on her body where her ribs are. "She claimed 2 black eyes and a broken nose" A makeup artist and a nurse confirmed swelling and a cut on her nose as well as minor bruising around both of her eyes. I agree here that she overstated the extent of the injuries, but these are still consistent with having been hit. I wouldn't be surprised that a woman with no medical training or fight experience might mistake a damaged nose for a broken one. Aside from that there are numerous pictures of her face with injuries from being hit which include bruises on her eyes, cheeks, and nose. No girlfriend I've ever had is regularly photographed with facial injuries like that. Clearly, somebody was hitting her. Let's try to remember that Depp was accused by her numerous times of beating her. On tape. She referenced multiple specific incidents where he hit her, in great detail. He never once denied it. Hell, after she accused him of beating her up during one recorded conversation his response was: "I made a huge mistake, I'll never do it again." The denials only began after the lawsuits started. CONCLUSION Sorry but this pattern is pretty clear. Amber has been complaining consistently about him beating her since before they even got married. 8 different medical professionals attested to this. She never changed her story. We have photographs and multiple people claiming to have witnessed it. The Metadata of the photographs correspond to the dates and times where Johnny reached out to her to apologize. We have Johnny apologizing constantly for ambiguously "monstrous" behavior and admitting to blacking out and doing crazy things when drunk and not remembering what he did. We have Johnny tacitly acknowledging it on tape without ever once denying that he hit her. We have two other people accusing Johnny of assaulting them when intoxicated during the same time period. We have a history of Johnny lying on the stand multiple times (claiming that she cut his finger until a tape was revealed of him saying that he literally cut himself). We have audio tape of Johnny threatening to cut himself while she begs him not to, and then insisting on cutting her with a knife despite her protests. I mean this is a really clear picture.
    1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116.  @forfun6273  "There's more than one judge" It doesn't matter. At any level of the judiciary private interests would have the advantage since they can flood the court with amicus curae briefs that the SC just told the courts they have to prioritize. Ones' ability to produce amicus briefs is directly tied to ones bankroll. So obviously big business is going to have the advantage. Beyond that the red party which openly claims to be pro-business has disproportionately more representation in the judiciary having stacked not just the SC, but multiple appellate circuits. It is well known that the judiciary which is by its nature anti-majoritarian and has the highest hourly cost would normally give well funded complainants. No one has ever claimed that the poor have an advantage in court. "If the corporation pays the president" First of all, this is unrealistic. While it is very dramatic, this is the least effective and riskiest way to effect change. It is extremely against the law and requires avoiding multiple monitoring systems. When business wants to influence the president, they finance the campaign. Which is both legal and more effective. They rarely pay the president directly. Second, if this were the case we would see constant overhauls of regulatory agencies between presidencies with very little continuity. But we do not. What we see is relatively minor changes in prioritization with a great deal of continuity of staff across administrations. This is because, while it is in the best interests of the president to influence the regulatory agencies to assist his sponsors, the creation of an institution comprised of highly experienced field experts whose careers will probably outlive any individual administration creates a powerful check on presidential power. They can offer pushback because they know more than the president does and because they know that both their careers and the institution will outlive any particular president. This is precisely what happened to the last president. He attempted to overhaul multiple regulatory agencies and got significant pushback from the career staffers who had a greater interest in preserving the validity of the institution's work. "The company would at least have to spend both the executive and the judiciary branch" No they wouldn't. Because now the company can ignore the regulatory agency, file a suit in a friendly jurisdiction, and then flood the court with misinformation. Trying to persuade a friend who has no information is harder than trying to convince a third party who is an expert.
    1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125.  @bigsundays9058  "It was very clearly the intent of the allied forces" Sure. A vague and non-binding intent subject to change by any country unilaterally without advance notice subject to whatever was more convenient. So this was not realistically a barrier to the US if it decided to negotiate for peace. Thus it can't reasonably be argued today that this declaration thus compelled the US to discard a negotiated surrender. "Japan's likelihood of winning was non-existent so they were in no place to negotiate a surrender" Most negotiated surrenders have occurred in the context of one side having zero chance of winning. The idea is that if the cost of the negotiated concessions are reasonably within range of the cost of winning outright, then there is room to negotiate even if one side has no chance of winning. "Chance of Russia mediating a surrender were gone after they declared war following Hiroshima & Nagasaki" Yes. Of course. That's why the US decision was unnecessary and unethical. They eliminated the possibility of a negotiated peace in favor of using this instrument against a civilian pop in order to push Russia out of the region. Not to end the war. Had they either: a) Supported the Russian effort to negotiate peace or b) Supported the Russian ground invasion They could have ended the war with favorable terms while supporting the establishment of a peace promoting international order of law & cooperation. Instead they started the next war before the current one was even finished. And let's be clear: In the following 3 years, the US threatened to use this same tool against the Russians 3 times in order to coerce various concessions from them. These threats would not have been credible without their having already established their willingness and propensity to use this tool unnecessarily. This is one of the reasons the Russians developed their tools so quickly. It was an absolute necessity given their reckless counterparty.
    1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. A few things to add: 1) Settlement Building: As John said, it is extremely illegal & did accelerate under Bibi's administration. But it's important to remember that settlement building has never stopped under any administration. This "cleaning out" of the "PALS" peeps has been a consistent policy of every administration and is the primary method through which the country was established and is consistently expanded. 2) The root of all problems in this region derive from a single critical point: The ISRL project is the attempt to craft an old school "Et Know State" over a diverse population. The entire notion is to create a state where one "Et knee city" has higher status than the rest. More privileges, influence, and well-being. This anachronism might be possible (though extremely inadvisable) in a remote, empty region gradually moved into by only the single group you want to exalt. But to actually shoehorn the project in the middle of an already populated region with a wide array of people already living there is a recipe for discord. It requires all the "cleaning out", "liquidation, and "locking up" tactics which we've seen here. Along with the backlash and subsequent disproportionate response. It is essentially exactly what we built things like the UN to prevent, since we've already seen where these projects must lead. 3) For obvious reasons John is not able to discuss the reason why US policy and journalism is so unbalanced on this issue. Suffice it to say, campaign finance reform and media consolidation needs to be addressed.
    1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144.  @blahblahboii  "The land is a melting pot, that ws part of many empires" Which is why the PLSN people are a diverse group. Nonetheless they are distinctive and have a well documented history of inhabitation and local governance of the region. In the same way that Egypt has been a part of many empires and a melting pot, yet we know that there is such a thing as an Egyptian. "It's not about the genome it's about cultural identity." The problem is that the PLSN people have a greater claim to that as well, having lived in the region for over a thousand years, versus a group of Europeans who have never even seen the land or met anyone who did. So it doesn't really matter which one you look at the answer is pretty obvious. "ABS were not denied living in ISRL" Unfortunately it is well documented that may were indeed removed from their homes forcibly. The remaining ones live as second class citizens in a country where they are not allowed to repatriate their families, consistently have access to inferior accommodations, are denied land purchases on a routine basis, and live under a government whose official policy is that the country is not their home. "But the census" You haven't given me any dates, so I can't comment. However this doesn't seem at odds with regular population growth and moderate migration given global population growth and local patterns. "Living in a region does not make them indigenous" That's literally all that does it. It's simply about being there long enough.
    1
  1145. ​ @blahblahboii  "The land is a melting pot, that was part of many empires" Which is why the PLSN people are a diverse group. Nonetheless they are distinctive and have a well documented history of inhabiting and local governance of the region. In the same way that Egypt has been a part of many empires and a melting pot, yet we know that there is such a thing as an Egyptian. "It's not about the Adenine Thymine Guanine Cytosine it's about shared identity." The problem is that the PLSN people have a greater claim to that as well, having lived in the region for over a thousand years, versus a group of Europeans who have never even seen the land or met anyone who did. So it doesn't really matter which one you look at the answer is pretty obvious. "ABS were not denied living in ISRL" Unfortunately it is well documented that many were coercively removed. The remaining ones live as second class citizens in a country where they are not allowed to bring their families, consistently have access to worse accommodations, are denied land purchases on a routine basis, and live under a government whose official policy is that the country is not their home. "But the census" You haven't given me any dates, so I can't comment. However this doesn't seem at odds with regular population growth and moderate migration given global population growth and local patterns. "Living in a region does not make them indigenous" That's literally all that does it. It's simply about being there long enough.
    1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184.  @JanCarol11  I wouldn't base your entire opinion on a single critique. Gary makes some good points and some weird ones. It seems a bit stupid to insist that nothing can be labeled a disorder until you can establish the physical mechanism by which it occurs. Even standard medicine doesn't follow that rule. There are many diagnosable conditions (eg: fibromyalgia, corneal neuralgia, etc.) for which the physical mechanisms are not understood. Hell, even some basic biomechanical stuff like torn shoulders lack evidence linking the tear to the poor function (eg: bicep tenodesis surgery severs the labrum without compromising shoulder stability). Obviously we do need to have a system for categorizing human mental distress that is not directly tied to measurable brain chemical balances. Obviously this system will be subjective to a certain degree. In the broadest sense, it will at least be dependant on the social norms of the society that produces it. However even within that limitation, there is a scientific & unscientific way to do so. If we establish cut offs based on statistical improbability, good research on patient experience (controlling for environment and cultural bias), etc. then, it is the best scientific approximation of a reality we don't fully have access to. But the question to ask yourself is: what is the alternative? Because if you don't go with expert consensus based on years of clinical research, statistical inquiry, and experimentation, you open the door to even less scientific explanations. Superstition, bias, religion, etc. I mean seriously, at one point Gary suggests "evil" as an alternative. The guy really knows how to sell a book.
    1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189.  @JanCarol11   That's a hell of a conspiracy theory. Particularly odd since the parties that stand to make money keeping gender identity disorder in the DSM are overrepresented in the APA (psychotherapists, psychiatrists, etc.) while those that stand to make money removing it from the DSM are underrepresented in the APA (gender reassignment surgeons, confirmation MDs, etc.). Yet the APA still removed it. Also, as with many wild conspiracy theories, it is unnecessary since the rationale provided by the APA requires they remove GID in order to remain consistent with their own standards even in the absence of a secret conspiracy. So to clarify, - you do not believe gender identity is a disorder. - But you do not believe in any disorders (psychopathy, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.). - You disagree with the DSMs diagnostic matrix. - But you seem to inexplicably endorse NIHM's alternative RDoC diagnostic matrix even though it will incorporate the DSMs. - You do believe in treatment for people suffering psychological distress - but you don't offer any alternative system for categorizing distress, establishing cut offs for what warrants treatment and what doesn't, or for distinguishing between types of distress. Presumably this is all up to the subjective judgment of the care provider. - Furthermore if an alternative diagnostic system is developed, it can't be based on aggregating statistical analysis of symptom patterns across diverse populations by field experts attempting to control for confounding variables (ie: the scientific method), since this is what the DSM does. Is this accurate?
    1
  1190.  @JanCarol11  "Still trying to figure out why this "treatment" is pushed." The removal of GID from DSM does not demonstrate that any treatment is being pushed. Nor have you established that any particular treatment is being pushed. This is a baseless claim you've just injected into the conversation. GID's removal is a simple acknowledgement that we have not produced sufficient evidence to distinguish it as a disorder as opposed to simple human diversity. It does not necessitate any particular treatment. "Not everyone thinks the DSM is the definitive bible of disorder" Yes, the concept of an actual unchanging and infallible bible is antithetical to any science based discipline. But no one ever said that. We're saying it's the consensus using the best science available to date. The idea that there is a project underway that hopes to yield future improvements does not invalidate the current position. It certainly doesn't lend credibility to what you're attempting to pitch: vague unscientific alternatives with no discernable system and no standards. Literally your only guideline is "be nice to people". This apparently can be twisted to mean whatever you'd like it to mean in the moment. "Let's call them what they are: insurance codes" You get a diagnosis if you pay out of pocket. Disorders are identified in patients that can't be treated. Conditions that are untreatable are still labelled. DSM categories are used in pure research and academic applications. Clearly disorder labelling preceeded modern insurance coding. These are two entirely different things. Finally, you can find a lot of stories of harm done by poor psych treatment. You can also find a lot of success stories. Again, you appear to ignore cognitive behavioral therapy, group therapy, and hundreds of other modalities and focus solely on a specific class of prescription drugs. This is ridiculously myopic. And again, failure in treatment does not justify completely dispelling with any attempt at scientific cataloging of diagnostic criteria.
    1
  1191.  @JanCarol11    I have some doubts that you're involved in the mental health field at any advanced level. You don't seem aware of fairly basic research principals, rules of the scientific method, the number and type of diagnostic manuals, the way they relate to each other, or the variety of ways in which they're used. You tend to either cite people that are fringe alternative medicine advocates or cite legitimate critics but draw conclusions that they did not make. An example of this is Peter Bregins whose criticism is much more limited than the broad conclusions you draw. You describe contemporary practitioners with sweeping generalizations lumping together radically different (and sometimes diametrically opposed) types of professionals and treatment protocols. You frequently confuse diagnosis with treatment while constructing an argument. You speak in absolutist terms that no medical practitioner, researcher, or even first year grad student would ever use. You're unable to even describe the alternative system you propose with any sort of precision or systematic (and therefore scientifically testable) approach. The very fact that you feel citing your own personal experience is a valid counterpoint to the efficacy of the ENTIRE mental health industry as documented through thousands of studies, surveys, and annual reports published at the city, state, national, and international level suggests a certain level of scientific illiteracy. This sounds ad hominem, but I'm not trying to be. The gaps created by the mistakes you're making are what allow personal bias and hooey to creep into your analysis.
    1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197.  @daltigoth3970  "The child doesn't have the means to survive on its own" This is only a problem in poor societies. In highly advanced rich societies it is not essential for the child to have parents to ensure that they will survive into adulthood. As social services are generally abundant. So their chance of survival following the accident is pretty much the same. "Until it grows it will be a drain on resources" Again, this is only relevant in poor societies. They live at subsistence so they can't wait for adulthood in order to reap an overall higher payout, so adults who are able to work now retain higher value. But in rich advanced societies, the drain on resources getting to adulthood is negligible so the greater amount of remaining productive years is more valuable than the negligible cost of a few additional years spent growing. Thus children are always more valuable in rich societies. It's a bit like saying a garbage man is more valuable than a med student because one is immediately capable of working. Only for a society so poor it cannot afford to wait for the med student to finish school. In a rich society the robot should be comparing their overall productivity across their whole lives to determine which one is more valuable. In a poor society where you can only afford to think about tomorrow, the robot should only calculate as far as tomorrow. So the question is: which society did I, Robot take place in? Clearly they are extremely rich. Thus children are more valuable.
    1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. I don't understand why flash posing in a deep hip stretch before he started running. His face also looked silly as fuck when he was running. And the actor's jaw is so square he doesn't seem appropriate for flash. Wonder woman looks too skinny to be her. The actress has the kind of face that sometimes looks pretty and sometimes looks stupid (She kinda has this 'derpy' look). Her accent is annoyingly strong and not Greek. She often feels like she's struggling to get the words out so much that when she does, she's just satisfied with that and forgets she needs to actually be acting too. Some of her line delivery in this scene is horrendous and she appears to be slightly smiling (micro emotion) when the character wouldn't be. Aquaman did nothing and disappeared. Cyborg looks like shit. Why wouldn't another character tackle him before he shot? Affleck's phoning it in and seems a bit overweight. I don't mind batman's voice modulation, but there should be a visible small boom mic stem on his cowl. Otherwise, how's he doing this? This fight seemed incredibly stiff and had all the earmarks of cost cutting. I mean when they literally just had a headbutting competition wtf? Also, I don't mind superman beating the JL. But if you're gonna do that, at least have him demonstrate his power a little. Let's see a dynamic fight. He's barely moving here. Let's see arctic breath, hurricane breath, heat vision. Let's set him fly someone into the upper atmosphere, etc. But I guess congrats, we had 1 cool moment when superman side eyed flash.
    1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328.  @angeloromano9346 The problem here is that you're basing your estimates on current manufacturing distribution and productive capacity. But this is not an overnight process. The solar plant itself takes decades to build. The introduction of new electricity to the international grid would happen very gradually. As new electricity is introduced, industry shifts around the new comparative advantage. High energy industry develops around the region, or in some cases relocates. The produced value is then transported more efficiently than actual electricity. For example, mineral and ore refinement in Africa is energy intensive. This creates an upper bound on the amount of raw materials and commodities that can be supplied to the international community, raising prices significantly. If free electricity lowers the price of production, more is produced, allowing Western countries to drastically speed up production of complex manufactured goods. Crypto currency miners and data centers generally relocate to areas where free clean electricity is an option, drastically raising world computing power and creating major innovations and spillover effects. Sure, it would be nice if tons of incredibly cheap and clean energy were produced in an even distribution across the globe. But the truth is that no matter where it is produced, the value is so high that humans will naturally adapt their production patterns around it to distribute the benefits globally. Before Egypt built it's hydroelectric dam people argued that the country did not have a high enough electrical demand to justify the construction. But the cheap electricity it built caused the country to develop to the degree that it is now insufficient to meet the country's electrical needs. And consider the alternative that we're already employing. We're literally mining barrels of oil and mountains of coal and moving them across the entire Atlantic Ocean to burn in other countries to make their own electricity. This is hardly an efficient alternative.
    1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358.  @OPFlyFisher304  There is significant documentary evidence to identify who is who because both sides of the conflict have kept records and both tend to roughly agree with each other. Everyone knows who the colonists are and who the indigenous population is. The only dispute they have is that both feel equally entitled to the land. In the same way that if China were to invade Spain today, there would be significant documentary evidence of who is who, with both sides' records roughly aligning. The only dispute would be that both sides feel equally entitled to the land. Since, in both cases the ethical approach is to prioritize the interests of the indigenous victims over the colonist aggressor, our primary interest would be in simply restoring to the expropriated their land. Typically the process for this would be to gather up any documentary evidence of ownership and redistribute the land accordingly. In instances where this is not practical, financial remuneration would be made. The primary difficulty would not be in establishing original ownership, or in running out of land/money because (as I stated before) there are a good amount of records still being kept that establish ownership and this region tends to have significantly more land than people, the vast majority of which (90%+) is currently held in a government sponsored trust. The bizarre references you made to physical color and killings are random outbursts unrelated to anything I've said so obviously I have nothing to say on that weird topic.
    1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369.  @LowJSamuel  Shockingly, I was not asking for your own uniformed opinion, but rather the video maker's. 1) The word "victim" may or may not influence a jury (this is a matter of opinion) but factually it does not come with any presumption since the legal definition of "victim" does not exonerate the injured of criminal culpability nor incriminate the injurer. However, the judge's decision to bar use of the word is extremely uncommon and contradicts the opinion of most judges and legal experts. Typically, the most care we'll see exhibited is the use of the words "alleged victim" among individuals particularly sensitive to this sort of potential inadvertent influence. 2) In spite of the fact that no one was being tried for looting, referring to the victims of a potential self defense shooting as criminals does have a far stronger prejudicial effect than calling them victims, because whereas the label "victim" does not include a determination of criminality, the words looters & arsonists do. Specifically, these words suggest that the injured parties have already been tried & proven to be criminals in despite access to a legal and fair defense. We can describe their actions on the day in question, but to label them with criminal designations without access to a trial is prejudicial to the current matter. 3) Regardless of ones opinion of the carry law, no legal expert has had the audacity to claim that it is clear. It is not. I have indeed read the law. It is not will written. Whether there even is a minor exception at all is arguable. However, assuming there is, the repeated inclusion of reference to hunting in describing the minor exception does seem to indicate the intention of the lawmakers in carving out said exception. One may argue whether that exception was meant to be exclusive, but it seems extremely likely that the intention of the lawmakers in carving out this rule was that said exception was intended only to facilitate a very specific kind of activity, as opposed to creating a loophole for general open carry among minors. BONUS: The jury's decision in this case did not establish the victims as assailants, since affirming a shooting as legitimate self defense does not mean that you believe the shooter was actually in danger, rather that you believe it was reasonable for him to believe he was in danger. Please don't misrepresent the verdict in this case.
    1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1