i think "empathy" is a made-up, new age term, that does a lot of damage

I don't think anyone really needs to be sad per se about Charlie Kirk's assassination, but maybe asking not to celebrate or condone such assai nations isn't too much to ask. - mig a:  “charlie kirk was increasing human suffering” *citation needed* - mig paul:  am i the only one that thinks it's weird it's called the fourth?    and here i've been calling it 2A this whole time.  ~a paul:  "The idea is you're always going to have some gun deaths in a society that has guns"  ah then i agree with you.  but i think the number of guns we have in our society *and* the number of gun deaths we have is orders of magnitude higher than it could be.  ~a paul:  charlie kirk was preaching hate, and charlie kirk was increasing human suffering.  you seemed to skip over that in your post?  i'm empathetic for kirk and his wife, and his children, of course i am.  but, i also know and respect those for which he was preaching hate, and for which he creating suffering, are also allowed their own take.  i can be empathetic while also not demanding it in others.  ~a a: My point is that we should have empathy for (and mourn the loss of) people even IF we disagree with things they have thought or said. (Especially if that's the only thing they've done, but that is not part of my Facebook post) -Paul a: "your facebook post seems to be a strawman?" How so? "having empathy for people who you disagree with isn't the issue" Um... that is EXACTLY the issue I am talking about. -Paul a: Yeah, we have a lot of car deaths, but not many people are talking about banning cars because we as a society seem to have accepted that the benefits outweigh the costs. -Paul a: "why is zero gun deaths the goal!" I don't know if it's the goal, but that's the logical opposite of "some gun deaths" which was mentioned in the original quote. The idea is you're always going to have some gun deaths in a society that has guns. -Paul paul:  your facebook post seems to be a strawman?  you're ignoring the actual counterargument:  having empathy for people who you disagree with isn't the issue.  ~a paul:  my second favorite part, (after the terrible false dichotomy) is he also uses car driving as a defense.  the only thing worse than US driving deaths is US gun deaths.  ~a paul:  "By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in."  this argument is also not compelling to me.  it seems to attack the character of your opponent.  ~a paul:  "the only way to get to zero gun deaths is to have a completely disarmed society, which I think is true"  what?    why is zero gun deaths the goal!  this is the most extreme case of false dichotomy i've ever seen (current gun deaths vs disarmed society), and i've seen some pretty crazy false dichotomies.  you were right that this doesn't change my mind, but maybe not for the reason you were expecting.  ~a a: Sorry about stressful Augusts and Septembers. Hope things get better. -Paul a: And I'm sure he draws the line in a different place than you do, but the quote seems like it's mostly referencing how the only way to get to zero gun deaths is to have a completely disarmed society, which I think is true. -Paul a: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ I don't suspect it'll change your mind, but I think his "gun deaths" quote makes a fair amount of sense in context. It's about trade-offs. -Paul paul:  i also miss starcraft.  august was pretty stressful, and september won't be any easier sadly.    i'll try to prioritize it, though.  ~a paul:  kirk also said "i think it's worth to have a cost of some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other god-given rights. that is a prudent deal. it is rational."  here i disagree.  his reading of the second amendment is probably different from mine:  we can drastically decrease our current gun deaths by changing a bunch of laws.  ~a paul:  nah i don't have a point.  the full quote is that he preferred sympathy, and i mostly agree with him.  empathy is a dumb term, and being sympathetic is pretty much the same thing in most real ways.  ~a a: We miss you during Starcraft! -Paul title: Point? That Kirk doesn't deserve empathy? -Paul a: Yeah, I vaguely recall it having more exposure to Asia (mainly because of China at the time, I think) than I wanted. I was hoping to get more South America and Africa (and maybe Southeast Asia). -Paul paul:  yes, vemax is ~90% asia.  it is 1% europe, 2% north america, etc.  ~a paul:  i do feel that the "US government / economy /monetary supply" are all three pretty divorced from the stock market value.  to some measurable degree, anyways.  the US is pretty shitty at a lot of things, but retaining value to the share holders is one thing we've consistently done pretty well (with 2025 as a notable exception).  ~a a: I believe VEMAX doesn't contain Europe, right? Or a least most of Western Europe? I remember way back when I wanted exposure to the rest of the world but not Europe. -Paul a: Honestly, watching VTIAX / VGTSX / VXUS consistently underperform VTSAX for decades no matter how messed up the US government / economy /monetary supply got.... it really opened my eyes to how screwed up the rest of the world was (as well). -Paul yeah, vtiax == vgtsx == vxus.  you can convert them (with a lot of exceptions) without it being a taxable event.  yes, i agree it has drastically underperformed before 2025.  ~a a: I've got VEMAX and VTIAX instead but I've had them for probably 20 years of underperformance vs VTSAX. I guess I'm glad to see things turn around a bit, even if temporarily? Except my VTSAX holdings are still larger so.... maybe not? -Paul for the first time, maybe ever, vxus is beating vti (year to date).  i always felt like a dummy investing in vxus (and vtiax), and maybe i was, but finally we're here, it's finally happening.  ~a mig:  all four judges signed on that the finding was supported by the record?  ~a They also didn't all agree that the conviction should have stood.  2 judges wanted a new trial, and 1 was in favor of tossing the case entirely.  That's a majority wanting at minimum  to retry the case, but the impracticalities of bringing a civil case against a sitting president meant though those two judges ultimately decided to punt the issue to a higher court. - mig a:  it doesn't sound like there will be a new fine.  The fine was completely tossed unanimously. - mig mig:  hmmm fun.  seems like a split decision, and that they all agree the conviction stands.  I hope the new fine accounts for the loss of the defendants:  I assume the defendants are maybe just the citizens of new york?  ~a https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/new-york-appeals-court-throws-out-500m-fraud-penalty-against-trump we talked about this a fair amount at the time, seems like a pretty strong rebuke of the NY ag even if the conviction technically stands (for now). - mig Maybe, top three per four year term, otherwise it is unfair to FDR, dude did a lot, but he had most of 4 terms. Paul:Honestly, a "top three" list of accomplishments per President (while in office, and as a political action) and a similar "top three" of other facts about the guy, would probably help with a lot of historical education in general, and probably stop some of the mythologizing we're continuing to experience. -- Xpovos a: So that way I can at least understand their rationale, even if I disagree that creating a lot of government programs was a good thing. -Paul a: So maybe for FDR it's: + Saw us through WW2. + Created a lot of government programs. - Imprisoned a lot of American citizens based solely on their race. -Paul I feel like instead of just vague categories with simple number ratings it would be more helpful to have a few bullet points for each president explaining the factors/accomplishments considered for ranking them so high (or low). -Paul a: "biden rated high on "ability to compromise" and "court appointments"" I'm genuinely confused on this. I know it's more a product of the era than a ding on Biden, but where exactly did he compromise? I assume court appointments go beyond KBJ? -Paul FDR: Paul hit important highlights, but I'll reiterate that probably the single most important was the executive power grab.  It's been increasing all along, but certain Presidents were the most responsible for the ratcheting. Jackson, Lincoln and FDR get most of my ire for it. Lincoln at least had a constitutional crisis he was trying to solve. Jackson and FDR just created their own. -- Xpovos Grant: Before Trump's first term, the most corrupt presidency.  Even worse than Harding.  All of the hate that Johnson got for Reconstruction mostly belongs here. -- Xpovos Johnson: He's particularly hated because he was seen as ineffectual in his Reconstruction efforts, but they were actually pretty good.  There's a lot of Southern smear there, and the Northerners hated him because it cost a lot of money.  But it was probably the closest thing to a genuinely effective solution to the Civil War. -- Xpovos Jackson: War hero turned president. Probably personally committed war crimes.  My guess is with a smile on his face. It's a good song, though. Absolutely atrocious (beyond atrocious) handling of the native population. Disasterous relationship with the courts.  Probably the first president to set in motion the wheels of oppressively increasing executive power.  That first bit of inertial push is infinitely important. -- Xpovos (also if you have any animosity towards fdr that isn't covered below, i'd be interested in that too)  ~a xpovos:  hi, it's me:  i don't know any history.  i know some of the details of jackson being violent and reckless in his personal life, but what's your other basis for johnson, grant, and jackson?  ~a Those rankings are hugely upsetting. I get that no one likes Andrew Johnson, but that’s ridiculous. Grant and Jackson in particular being middle of the pack shows how little history these historians know. I have tremendous animosity towards FDR, so obviously Forrest is upsetting. I’d maybe see him in 10th, where his intelligence is ranked. — Xpovos biden rated high on "ability to compromise" and "court appointments"  ~a nixon rated high on "willing to take risks" and "foreign policy accomplishments".  reagan had a high rating in "party leadership" "speaking ability" "leadership ability" "luck" and "relationship with congress".  what drug reagan down was an even combination of everything else.  ~a paul:  historians also think fdr should go on mount rushmore (search for "rushmore" on that pdf).  also that historians hate the electoral college and that donald trump (ci 2022!) weakened the presidency more than any other president.  ~a paul: i don't think they're rating the most "impactful President" or the presidencies "during a pretty important time".  if you look at the columns on "this one where fdr got number one" you can see their rating system.  "luck" was a column (and lincoln was unlucky).  read the whole thing, the future-prediction at the end was pretty interesting.  ~a