Youtube comments of yessum15 (@yessum15).
-
2100
-
1100
-
835
-
590
-
577
-
468
-
416
-
369
-
333
-
255
-
248
-
241
-
241
-
240
-
236
-
205
-
189
-
163
-
153
-
@Laocoon283 100% not true. Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you. Netflix is successful despite the fact that i can literally go to duckduckgo and find any movie streaming for free within the top 3 results.
When Weezy's new album dropped i listened to it on Spotify despite the fact that it was widely available on bittorrent and i already had utorrent installed on my PC.
Even before Napster, tape decks allowed you to get music for free from your friends. The industry didn't fail.
Nothing is free. Limewire, kazaa & napster were expensive in terms of time investment because you'd frequently get corrupt versions of the song, mislabeled copies, viruses, etc. And the product offered was inferior. Time is not free. Furthermore, breaking the law is not free, and even though the risk of getting caught is negligible, it still creates marginal stress and occupies a bit of thought.
The problem is that the only official alternative was ridiculously overpriced, produced in a very restrictive format (CDs), and sold to you by blatant white collar criminals.
149
-
148
-
141
-
125
-
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
-
105
-
101
-
100
-
87
-
79
-
77
-
74
-
73
-
69
-
67
-
65
-
64
-
60
-
59
-
56
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
48
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
38
-
35
-
@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
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@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
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
@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
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
The current opiod crisis is present in a bunch of conservative strongholds. Also, most major cities are liberal anyway, so hard to single out 'liberalism'. Particularly the cities with pleasant climates year round, that make outdoor living practical (eg: NYC doesn't have a public shit problem)
Also, much of the current homelessness is the result of conservative scaling back of the social safety net including reduced funding for welfare, mental health services, lack of public healthcare, affordable housing initiatives, etc. Not to mention Republican led financial deregulation that has caused multiple financial crises in the past 30 years.
If you were to remove the number of people who were made homeless due to lack of access to mental health services, or due to bankrupting themselves paying for a medical emergency, or due to losing their jobs or savings because of a financial crisis, you would probably not have a homelessness problem to begin with.
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@paulbutkovich6103 1) Broken bones, head trauma, lacerations, & respiratory illness. This is remarkably easy to check and you should have done so yourself before asking.
3) I wouldn't call it usual.
4) "There isn't enough pressure to make them do those things"
Until there is. Some colleges have already negotiated and met some of the students' demands. And this sort of civil disobedience has a decent track record of success.
"Transparently would make their operations more difficult"
That's the point.
"How much actual investment is there?"
Hundreds of millions.
"Colleges have no power to affect other governments"
This is a very silly point. It is not necessary to influence distant governments.
First and foremost academia can exert significant influence on the US government. The current operation could not continue without US endorsement, cooperation, and financing. If the US pulls support, the conflict is over.
Aside from that, it is well known that academia has a major influence of distant governments. Both in validating their legitimacy, financial support, innovation & cooperative research, and in setting the public narrative. A call for cessation from major academic institutions in the US exerts significant pressure.
Finally, we should note that academic endorsement of immediate cessation of hostilities has a significant effect on public opinion influencing voting patterns and investment decisions globally.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@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
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Leyrann lol Well, that's certainly one (thickheaded) approach to interpreting my words.
"You assume rich men are naturally abusive"
This might be a simple reading comprehending deficiency on your part.
We do not have to assume abuse on anyone's part because there seems to be ample evidence of mutual abuse. Depp has already admitted to this.
I made no assumptions.
"Sometimes a weaker person may abuse a stronger person"
Yes, but we're not comparing a physical weaker person to a stronger person. We're comparing a weaker, less wealthy, less experienced, less famous, less powerful, less charismatic, younger, less career established person.
What you're doing here is multiplying improbabilities.
A child on a playground may abuse a stronger child. But that becomes infinitely less likely when the purported victim is not just stronger. But also faster, older, more experienced, more popular, more well liked, richer, and has already admitted to abusing the younger, weaker, poorer, less popular, less experienced and less well liked child.
If a graduating senior tells me he had to fight a kindergartener who he has already admitted to repeatedly abusing that senior is getting in trouble every single time.
I'm sorry this playground analogy is quite stupid and inappropriate, but please remember that you brought it up.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@maggieburkart907 1) At the adult level, hormone therapy is usually insufficient to compensate for the advantage of having been biologically male. Hormones do not change your height, the size of your hands, the width of your chest, the size of your head, the shape of your hips, etc. It's also unclear that hormones compensate for previous exposure to high levels of testosterone or 'muscle memory' advantages
For example, a man who abused testosterone (steroids) for many years and then quit, may experience a reduction in testosterone levels, however he will retain a long term advantage over men who did not abuse steroids and may have a higher testosterone level than him due to additional myonuclei created during the period of heightened test levels in his past.
2) I think the argument is that at the school level scholarships and other opportunities are tied to athletic performance. For example, a student athlete is much more likely to be accepted into an ivy league college.
To be clear, I am not advocating for excluding trans people from participating with their identified gender. And I do believe that most of the people trying to stop this are either bigoted or using this topic as a wedge issue to push forward their own radical regressive agendas.
However, past all the politics there are some serious issues that need to be considered and discussed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Doesn't work like that in real life. For the most part, once you're shooting, you'd better be shooting to kill. First, it's hard to isolate a limb, and much easier to aim for center mass, even from close range. Second, once you've started shooting you've escalated the violence to life and death level. The person you're shooting at is not gonna think "oh, he's just trying to injure me." So he'll be fighting for his life and will be much more dangerous. Finally, the immediate response to a gunshot wound is not always reliable there is a good chance a person will continue to be a threat after he's hit, particularly in a grappling type situation where there is more than one weapon present. The real question to ask is whether they should have shot in the first place, which looks like what most people are arguing about now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Cate someone Listen buddy, you're not a woman or a man, you're a turd that has achieved sentience, and while that is impressive, it does not qualify you to make grand generalizations about half the population of the planet.
At this point there is no consensus across any academic field to support any of the radical claims you are making (medicine, anthropology, sociology, economics, psychology, etc.)
Furthermore your current turd status means that your kids are almost certainly genetically at least 50% turd. As such it is unsurprising they would encounter difficulties in socialization.
In any case it's your job to get up off your lazy ass and help them deal with their own personal problems. Bullies? Deal with it. Bad teacher? Write a letter. But don't indict an entire gender and make vague unsupported bullshit claims about the school curriculum.
Like seriously, who am I supposed to side with? A school I've never seen before or a sentient turd with a yt account?
I say this all totally unemotionally. lol
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
@rossmanngroup "You continue to pretend that there is no scale.."
No, he's just claiming that you're not qualified to operate it.
You're not a virologist, an epidemiologist, a public health expert, or even an economist. You have dedicated zero time to research hospital capacities, budget priorities, mutation rates, risk profiles, or really anything about the local situation.
You're simply talking out of your backside about a deadly issue whose deadliness has been enhanced dramatically by other people talking out of their backsides.
Blast your freedoms buddy. Cut the edgelord libertarian childishness. No one wants a LD. When the experts say it's good then it's good.
You are literally more qualified to tinker with the nuclear reactor at IndianPoint than to make these assessments. Go give that a try and see how quickly you get snuffed on sight. Yeah, I know: more tyranny right?
Jeez man, this has been a 9/11 every day for over a year and you're still chattering? Get over yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
No one is 100% right in this situation.
Reading through the allegations, there are definitely instances where Louis seems to have behaved inappropriately. However, in some cases, his accusers seem full of shit, as it seems like they openly consented.
At the same time Louis' total surrender with zero attempt to defend himself seems lazy and dismissive. If he didn't agree with the accusations, why confess? I mean you make it hard for yourself and for other guys like Aziz when you don't tell the truth and defend yourself.
Most of Louis' comedian friends didn't really stand up for him at the time, with people like Sara Silverman and even Joe himself bowing to the public at the time, and only now, over a year later beginning to say anything to defend Louis.
This club promoter also seems to have distanced himself from Louis at the time, using the excuse "I lost your number". Dude just be honest, you were waiting for the heat to die down.
I don't think anyone has the moral high ground here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2300 Slatt Good answer, so feminists want things like not being shamed for having sexual desire and not being discriminated against in the workplace. But they don't want to be forced to pretend they don't have feelings at all.
What part of that do you find objectionable? I mean those seem like pretty reasonable requests for anyone really.
Now, separate from that you say feminists call you weak. Who are these feminists? I mean I've never seen any feminist manifesto that complained about men not being stereotypically 'male' enough. No academic papers, no rallies, no lawsuits, no major feminist speaker, no publication, etc. These are usually the things that define a movement.
As I understand it, a major part of feminism is deconstructing the artificial polarity between our stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. Understanding that people are more alike than we frequently assume.
So it sounds to me like either:
a) You're hanging around mean people who are bullying you
or
b) You're an exceptionally weak human by any standard male or female, and they're just calling it how it is.
Both of these seem like personal problems. If you could provide some sort of example (even hypothetical) to suggest otherwise, maybe I'd appreciate it. Because right now it seems like you're wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@goober69er If you seek out extremist opinions, you'll find plenty of opportunities to get pissed off. An entire industry has grown around outrage politics with guys like Jordan Peterson and his left wing counterparts who make money by misrepresenting facts and demonizing the other side.
This is made worse by the fact that reasonable moderates who are working in earnest, often haven't figured out every answer yet.
But that isn't an excuse to say fuck it, because there are a ton of resources for learning what things like the trans movement and feminism actually are. And overall, they're both good things.
The most basic concept to understand is that biological sex, gender role, and sexual orientation are 3 different things. And while they most commonly tend to align, sometimes they don't. It's not that big a deal as long as you're a chill fucker who treats everyone alright.
All this gender pronoun stuff is just temporary noise while people are trying to get their bearings. The dust will settle in a bit.
And as a general rule, when determining the source of an observed behavior, always begin by attributing proximate and quantifiable causes, before appealing to grand and vague ones.
If a black guy robs you, think maybe he's short on money not "it is in the African's nature to steal as the warm climate is not conducive to long term planning"
Same thing when analyzing Male/female behavioral differences.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mike Williams lol congratulations. You've absolutely proven that Google is wasted on thickheaded people such as yourself. Don't worry, I'm here to help.
@puplerains' comment was neither a counter-accusation, nor a "different issue". Rather it was clarifying context for the very same issue.
The point of the comment is that underreporting of one specific form of DV is also present in broader category of DV. Thus causality here may be linked.
Perhaps if we take a topic you're not so emotional about, you can see this more clearly:
If you say,
"over the past 3 years, all the mockingbirds in this forest have disappeared",
a whataboutism would be for me to say,
"So what? High school drop out rates are increasing, maybe you should focus on that instead"
You see? I am changing the subject in order to deflect.
If, however I say,
"actually, all the wildlife has disappeared, so this might not be specifically about the birds alone"
This is not a whataboutism. I have not changed the topic as a deflection mechanism, rather I have introduced contextual facts which give us a greater nuance about the original topic of conversation. Namely, that a phenomenon we may falsely identify as unique to a specific population may actually be related to broader dynamics within the overarching population.
@purplerain does this when he relates a specific claim about female-on-male DV to broader patterns we already know exist among all DV.
Don't worry, read it slower and you'll get it. You're welcome 😉
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andresabantoenns9697 We must also avoid making the mistake of entirely distinguishing deaths from disease from deaths war, since we know that disease in this case, was a tool of genocide.
One of the reasons why smallpox ravaged the indigenous population was because it was purposely spread by European colonizers as part of the practice of biological warfare. Similarly, the efficacy of the disease in eradicating the native population was to a large extent caused by the conditions amenable to the spread of disease created by European war practices.
Typically, upon exposure to the pathogen, the Native population would be expected to experience a rise in deaths followed by a leveling out and gradual recovery. However, deaths from war, destabilization of native societies, forced expulsions, overcrowding, purposeful "starving out", and general disenfranchisement worked symbiotically to promote the spread of disease and reduce the society's ability to recover from it.
Much in the same way that many of the deaths in WWII concentration camps came from disease rather than outright execution, the Native depopulation is an example of disease as a tool of genocide.
This is important to emphasize since there is a contemporary right-wing move to downplay the genocidal nature of the depopulation of the Americas by blaming it on disease (and of course by downwardly revising population estimates for the region in order to indirectly claim "it was empty when we got here")
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HebraicandocomYohay The people of historic PLSTN have lived there continuously for well over a thousand years and are heavily documented as being the indigenous people of this region.
While the large majority of these people were MSM, all 3 of the major religions were represented among these people.
They had an extensive record of commerce, business, social institutions, as well as basic local governance. However at any one time or another they were also under the ultimate control of one large empire or another (eg: Ottoman, UK, etc.).
Proper ethical decolonization would typically involve conferring onto these indigenous people self-determination by rendering to them control of their land. Whether you'd like to call it PLSTN or any other name.
However, instead what happened is that a group of Europeans came to this land they had never seen before and claimed it as their own. They called it ISRL. They claimed that because they happen to be the same religion as a few of the indigenous people, they must somehow have an ownership claim to the land. Despite being unrelated to these people, having never met them and having never seen the land.
So, if you're asking me who the land belongs to, it rightly belongs to the indigenous people who have lived their for a thousand years, regardless of what religion they are.
But the recent transplants who arrived with an army for the purpose of take over have no claim and should probably leave.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeschmo247 No. You are mistaken. Trump put a travel ban on China February 2. The Europe travel ban didn't take effect until March 13, over a month later.
Furthermore, Trump's "ban" on China wasn't actually a ban. 40,000 people traveled from China to the US in the 2 months following the fake ban. This was because the ban had tons of exceptions and was poorly executed. A ban must be >90% effective to have any effect on virus with a reproduction rate of 1.9 or higher. Trump's fake ban fell vastly short. This is because the ban was conceived as a political gambit, not as a genuine disease prevention strategy. It was a xenophobic attempt to stoke a culture war, which is his standard electoral strategy.
Trump not only failed, but actively resisted all the steps necessary to actually prevent the damage that Coronavirus has done to America. Namely: Stockpile supplies, enact early testing, reach out internationally to establish multilateral strategies, enact early quarantines, direct emergency funds to strengthening relevant healthcare services, and generally take the problem seriously.
This seriousness of this crisis is as much Trump's fault as it is China's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Radio Kaos It makes sense if you're using the starships as mobile command centers to deal with a highly mobile terrorist whose full resources are still uncertain.
The Mexican navy did essentially this a few years back when dealing with land based drug dealers. They took over some of the responsibilities of traditional law enforcement. The idea being that they had greater resources and naval command would be sufficiently isolated to prevent being corrupted and infiltrated by the wealthy and influential drug syndicates in the same way that land based police were.
In general, modern day naval ships are actually a lot more versatile than the popular idea of old school battleships. They're often used to provide logistical support and coordinate land activity.
However, in ST their tech makes starships even more versatile. They've been shown to be capable of surgical precision with no collateral damage, rapid personnel mobilization (transporters), surveillance, and they consume basically no power. They operate as laboratories, military installations, diplomatic centers, educational facilities, etc.
In short, starships are not battleships. Hell even battleships are not 'battleships'. It makes a lot of sense they'd be used in this scenario.
1
-
Radio Kaos My point is exactly that they don't know much about him beyond the fact that he operates interplanetarily, is capable of doing a lot of damage, and is probably not alone. I mean that's really more than enough.
Starships have so many benefits for capturing this kind of criminal. They can deliver surgical strikes (transporters, shuttlecrafts) but also have extra firepower in case he has more backup (eg alien allies, his own ship, space based weaponry), they can pursue and follow a highly mobile target, they have a large amount of personnel with a wide variety of expertise who all know how to work together, they have an isolated and well protected command structure, they have what is essentially a mobile crime lab, etc.
But the biggest difference is that in the star trek world, the cost of deploying a starship is almost nothing.
I mean seriously, Osama bin Laden was captured by the Navy in an operation coordinated on a carrier through the rapid deployment of troops to a residential setting with no civilian casualties. He was a much smaller threat and this was far more expensive.
It'd be crazy if the Federation wasn't using starships.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1