prev <-> next
[2018-04-17 15:00:10] - Paul: We're both positive again! Now you are further ahead though... -Daniel
[2018-04-17 14:27:05] - How about the market today? I've got a few holdings up 5%+. -Paul
[2018-04-17 12:21:12] - paul: (the other benefit of using 1/2 is you can more accurately measure "replacement". using the 1/2 rule, "dewey+paul+gurkie" reach replacement at 3) ~a
[2018-04-17 12:19:45] - paul: (the 1/2 rule, if you care, has to do with groups of people where more than one parent is in the group. for example, if we were looking at this group, things get complicated "dewey+paul+gurkie". you have to count each of your kids twice, because you and gurkie are both in the group. or count each of dewey's kids as 1/2. the benefit of using 1/2 is you never pass the number of actual kids.) ~a
[2018-04-17 12:17:01] - a: Hah, I wasn't trying to make any kind of announcement, so don't let my prediction sway you. Here is my math: I figured Dewey was good for 2. Vinnie felt like a good bet for 1. And I thought between Andrew, Travis, Dave and I, there could be two. -Paul
[2018-04-17 12:14:42] - 5 is plausible, and after hearing you specifically argue for it, i think it's more in the realm of possibility. ~a
[2018-04-17 12:12:30] - paul: well you (and xpovos) definitely have some insight here that i do not.
~a[2018-04-17 12:12:11] - a: I guess I am technically taking the over on your upper limit of 16 kids, although I was torn between saying 4 or 5. -Paul
[2018-04-17 12:11:13] - a: Well, I figure at least 2 is a pretty safe bet, and 5 years covers an important time span for people our age to where women our age start to transition to more high-risk births. So basically, I figure we might see a little spike in "last" births as people try to get one (or more!) in before getting too old. -Paul
[2018-04-17 12:09:51] - paul/aaron: you know what, let me make it simpler. i'm removing the complicated 1/2 rule (reason behind this rule makes sense, but is confusing): "me+miguel+pierce+dewey+paul+travis+vinnie+david+you+aparna+andrew=[6 kids]" from 2013. i predicted we'd be at [10-12 kids] in 2018 and we are! ([12 kids]?) 11 of us, 12 kids, we passed half way to replacement. i predict in 2023 we are at [14-16 kids]. any differing predictions? ~a
[2018-04-17 12:07:26] - paul: yeah, it's complicated math because we're dealing in 1/2s. the reason for that is complicated, but "5 more are added" seems pretty high to me and outside of my prediction of 2-4 added. ~a
[2018-04-17 12:04:14] - a: I'm not quite sure of your math, but if we're predicting how many more kids that group of people will have over the next 5 years? You can put me down for thinking 5 more are added. I don't think we're getting to replacement level in our group. Too many non-breeders. This is what Idiocracy predicted, right? -Paul
[2018-04-17 11:52:12] - a: No way we keep up the doubling, but an additional 2-4 in the next five years seems plausible. So our cohort is a shade over half-replacement? -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 11:50:20] - a: I don't THINK I have any problem with regulating the taxation of churches as 501(c) or similar, but I'm not intimately familiar with the nuances. There may well be some small issues that should be worked out. But in principle, it's probably OK. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 11:50:17] - it's also weird that we doubled the number of kids in 5 years. i doubt we can keep that up. ~a
[2018-04-17 11:49:24] - aaron: update on this: "me+miguel+pierce+dewey+paul+travis+vinnie+david+you+aparna+andrew=3" from 2013 (1/2 kid per parent). i predicted we'd be at 5-6 in 2018 and we are! (6?) 11 of us, 12 kids, we passed half way to replacement. i predict in 2023 we are at 7-8. any differing predictions? ~a
[2018-04-17 11:47:51] - a: I honestly don't know. I think part of the issue is that tax codes like 501(c) are so late to the party compared to the church exemption. If we had the tax code as it currently existed when it was first being discussed, maybe the churches would've ended up in a better category with less special exemption? -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 11:41:39] - xpovos: iow, if it's a 501-c-3, then just use those laws. your contributions to the church will be untaxed. if the church is non-profit, then they won't get too many taxes (no real estate, no capital gains, no sales). why the separate special exception for churches? is it because churches have a profit? (i'm asking because i don't know, i'm not making a point). ~a
[2018-04-17 11:33:57] - xpovos: "In my opinion, no. But it is a point worth considering. The reason they are exempted is that they are providing a social good with that money that is not being taxed" if i can have a non-church that is providing a social good, or if i can have a church that isn't providing a social good, why is it "church" that we're using to decide whether it should be taxed? ~a
[2018-04-17 11:26:44] - xpovos: yeah, that's plenty thanks. it's what i thought based on what we've discussed before, i just wasn't sure. ~a
[2018-04-17 11:18:06] - Depending on the location and the nature of the allegation some of these are done better than others. I don't want to say any more in a public forum even under a pseudonym. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 11:16:03] - such as: reporting to local law enforcement, as appropriate, assisting in the police investigation, outreach to the victim, family and community, outreach to find other potential victims, and a canonical law process for possibly removing the accused from the clerical state. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 11:15:12] - a: Point first, priests never settle. At least not in any way that I'm concerned about. The lawsuits are against the dioceses for mishandling the abuse situation, not against the priest for the actual abuse. Priests go to jail. Dioceses get fined. A priest who is accused, and does not deny the accusation, or for whom the allegation is deemed "credible" is removed from ministry immediately. There are additional actions as well. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 11:10:53] - xpovos: priests who settle (the ones that were guilty), are they removed? ~a
[2018-04-17 11:10:26] - Personally, I'm less concerned about lavish buildings because I see a lot more dilapidated church buildings than lavish ones, but it's certainly a reasonable point. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 11:09:49] - Uber lavish buildings are a thing. Less for some churches, of course, but even for some genuine ones. You guys seen the McLean Bible Church? Fantastic campus. Lots of money there. Couldn't have done that with tax burdens, I'm sure. Is it lavish, though? It looks a lot like a community college. It in many ways is, it serves as a community center, an educational center, etc. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 11:08:40] - a: I can say for a certainty that the amount of money used to protect bad priests is dwarfed by the amount paid to settle lawsuits because of those bad priests. That's not a phenomenal use of money either, but at least it's going towards less fortunate people... and their lawyers. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 11:07:31] - Daniel: Absolutely. Hubbard was particularly proud of his fraud. And he got away with it, and his institution is likely to continue to. It's not great. It defames churches with better intentions. It does add fodder for taxing these organizations which hurts them, but REALLY hurts proper churches. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 11:05:37] - Parish secretaries will make somewhere between 20K and 50K, most of the time. Not exactly high dollar amounts, but significant enough to take a bite out of the offertory collections. Most parishes publicize the offertory amounts they collect weekly in their bulletin. St. Anthony does. I couldn't find St. Philip's quickly. St. Anthony's average weekly offertory is about $25K. They have a yearly parish budget of about $1.1M. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 11:02:07] - xpovos: "they are providing a social good with that money that is not being taxed". couldn't that be said about some non-churches? i fail to see why churches should be considered differently than other charitable organizations. especially when you consider some churches aren't very charitable (like the ones daniel suggest), or when catholic money is used to do non-social-goods (protecting bad priests, and uber lavish buildings). ~a
[2018-04-17 11:00:00] - Daniel: I'm guessing Xpovos is referring mainly to Catholic churches here, which could be some misunderstanding. Not all churches are Catholic.
-Paul[2018-04-17 10:59:02] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood_Church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology -Daniel
[2018-04-17 10:57:52] - Xpovos: I bet more churches make a profit than your statement seems to indicate. I would imagine its not a majority and that most "normal" churches aren't running a profit but for sure there are churches that do. -Daniel
[2018-04-17 10:56:56] - Most of the weekly offertory to the parish goes to business expenses. Heating, lights, supplies, maintenance on equipment, and most significantly salaries for the clergy and administrative teams. Catholic priests make about 35K, if my old figures are still correct. They do also get fuel reimbursements, medical benefits, and room and board, though. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 10:53:23] - The parochial schools essentially never make a profit. I know of one that ever has, and that was a Montesorri style school in a high-wealth area. Typically the parish funds ~30% of the school's expenses, which helps keep tuition low since these are private schools, and funds scholarships. Teachers at the schools typically make ~20% less than public school teachers. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 10:51:19] - St. Philip's has a school. They share a school system with St. Anthony. St. Philips hosts the Pre-K. St. Anthony has the elementary school. The Pre-K has 176 students, according to the directory. The elementary school has a few hundred. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 10:48:07] - mig mentioned St. Philip. That's a small parish in Falls Church. St. Anthony is nearby and much bigger. St. Philip lists ~4500 registered parishioners. The church building can probably hold ~600. They have 6 Sunday services (including the Saturday vigil). If every registered parishioner showed up every week, they'd be over capacity. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 10:46:08] - In some cases, particularly if there are several parishes close together, they might be consolidated, but many of the Catholic churches in the area are pretty much at capacity, so consolidation isn't a practical option.
[2018-04-17 10:45:22] - The first cuts would be employees. If there are three secretaries, there'll be one. The second cuts would be services. The third cuts would be selling the property, but for larger groups, e.g. the Catholic Church, as mentioned before, the diocese might subsidize the high wealth area parish the way they currently subsidize low wealth areas. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 10:43:58] - Real estate tax would be the biggest deal. Charge that and a lot of property would come on the market pretty quickly afterwards (within 10 years). Churches just, typically, can't afford to pay it. Churches have to be in high-wealth areas to serve the high wealth families that want a church. One Catholic parish in McLean has to have a astounding tax burden, if they were charged. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 10:41:54] - a: In my opinion, no. But it is a point worth considering. The reason they are exempted is that they are providing a social good with that money that is not being taxed. That is less true for some churches than others, and less true if you believe the good a church does is less significant. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 10:40:47] - Do churches make a profit? Some years, maybe. But it'd be pretty rare. And extremely minimal. At least for most (ignore the Bakkers below). It comes of actually performing the work of a non-profit. There's always another soup kitchen to fund, etc. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 10:39:49] - xpovos: churches don't have to pay real estate tax, or corporate tax (even if they're profitable). this is written into our law. i'm wondering if this should be changed. ~a
[2018-04-17 10:39:40] - a: Capital gains... I'm not sure. I think not. If a property is owned by the church and then sold later at a price higher than the original donation, they get to keep the difference for the benefit of the non-profit goals. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 10:38:58] - a: Non-profits do not pay sales tax, though in many cases it easier to pay the sales tax, particularly on small goods, than to demonstrate that the organization is tax-exempt. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 10:37:53] - a: And yes, churches do pay payroll taxes. The 1099 minister exception is not always used, either. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 10:37:20] - a: Churches tend to be non-profit. Even the televangelists like Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. have non-profits. That causes scandal from time to time, but most of them operate properly and within the law. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-17 10:34:50] - ah, nonprofits *and* churches do currently pay (corporate and employee) payroll taxes. (though ministers show up as 1099s). it's very surprising to me that they pay this tax now. ~a
[2018-04-17 10:31:14] - xpovos: my original question was should churches pay taxes (sales, real estate, payroll, capital gains) like everybody else? unless they're non-profit. (then imo they should not pay sales tax, or real estate tax, just like all non-profits. i'm not sure if non-profits pay payroll tax or capital gains). ~a
[2018-04-17 10:29:20] - paul: there's also hospitals. 600 of them with nearly a million employees. some of them could make a profit as well. ~a
[2018-04-17 10:28:35] - OK, I'm here now. Form and orderly queue and I'll answer questions.
-- Xpovos[2018-04-17 10:25:29] - https://twitter.com/i/moments/986069319774683136 I was surprised by how many responses to this was not just acceptance, but encouragement. I wonder if the roles were reversed (a boy demanding a male dentist) if Twitter would make it a promoted moment or if they would ban the users.
-Paul[2018-04-17 10:15:29] - Daniel: Fair. I was specifically thinking of Catholic churches, since that's the only experience I have. -Paul
[2018-04-17 10:08:54] - Paul: I'm sure a lot of churches don't make a profit but I bet there are a significant number that do and a few that make a TON. -Daniel
[2018-04-17 10:06:40] - mig: Ah, that's a good point. Forgot about schools. I guess that could be considered a service that they could have profit from. -Paul
[2018-04-17 10:04:20] - a: from what I remember ... probably not. As far as I knew the only direct revenue was from school tuition (it was a private school as well as a church). - mig
[2018-04-17 09:55:14] - mig: agreed. if St. Phillip's Church wasn't a church, but a corporation, would it report a profit some years? ~a
[2018-04-17 09:51:50] - Case in point: On my mom's taxes she has listed donations to St. Phillip's Church (her local parish), not "the catholic church". - mig
[2018-04-17 09:50:07] - "the catholic church employs something like a million people", that is literally true, but not in the way you probably mean it to be. There's no single non profit entity known as the "Catholic Church". It's a collection of dioceses at its largest and I wouldn't be surprised if it was each parish was its own separate non profit. - mig
[2018-04-17 09:40:57] - a: Okay, that's fine, and maybe we need Xpovos here to weigh in, but I don't see what the Catholic church could be selling that it could be making capital gains on. -Paul
[2018-04-16 16:42:46] - paul: both of those sound patently false. the catholic church employs something like a million people. now, you could argue that many of those people would fit into a non-profit framework, which is totally fine. but to say a million employees and a $100 b/y institution doesn't have any capital gains seems crazy naive. again, some of those capital gains would probably fit into non-profit worlds so, that's fine. but some might not. ~a
[2018-04-16 14:53:36] - a: But I don't think churches sell things or make capital gains, do they? Payroll is also weird. I guess priests are on payroll? -Paul
[2018-04-16 14:35:31] - iow, if your church is non-profit, you don't pay real estate taxes. if your church is for-profit, you do pay real estate taxes (imo). ~a
[2018-04-16 14:34:55] - paul: i found this that should answer your question about real estate tax: "organizations that qualify for federal tax-exempt status are, by law, exempt from paying property taxes in all 50 states" (according to some random website) ~a
[2018-04-16 14:32:17] - sales tax: i think non-profits don't have to pay sales tax, but if they're operating as a non-non-profit (
) i feel like they should pay sales tax too. ~a[2018-04-16 14:31:13] - paul: real estate is a great example, sure. i was considering corporate taxes though. assuming they're not actually operating as non-profit, their profit should (imo) be taxable as usual. if they become a S-corp, or LLC, or C-corp, they'd follow the rules like usual. corporate side payroll taxes included (i can't find if they pay this now). capital gains: i don't think they pay these now. ~a
[2018-04-16 14:27:14] - a: I'm a little stuck on the answer to 1. Trying to figure out exactly what organizations should be taxed and in what way. What kind of taxes would churches by subject to if not exempt? I assume real estate? What others? -Paul
[2018-04-16 14:25:30] - Daniel: *Shrug* I think people figure that if somebody is into a team, they believe in their chances more and so it might open up a difference in opinion on how they'll do, give the person better odds. -Paul
[2018-04-16 14:21:21] - so, also, really the data that brought this to my attention was the rate at which irreligion changes from year to year. in the united states: 2007: 16%, 2014: 23%, 2017: 34%. it seems like a couple of percent every year. i feel like by 2020 or 2030, the voters will have actual pull. ~a
[2018-04-16 14:16:41] - a story from last year about montreal having the audacity to remove churches from their special status ~a
[2018-04-16 14:13:42] - 3. will we have mandatory self-driving cars on virginia highways first?
~a[2018-04-16 14:13:40] - i just had an interesting thought: 1. should there be an exception for churches in our tax code? should profit-taking churches be untaxed? 2. assuming "no", how much time needs to pass before the laws are changed in the US becomes a reality? how much time until a politician (i.e. openly atheist with nothing to lose) proposes a law to tax churches at the same rate. then that law needs to pass. 2020? 2030? ~a
[2018-04-16 13:51:52] - I like 6ers and Wiz better if I'm supposed to actually believe in my side for winning. All it takes is Bucks to go 7 in the first round and then I think your side will probably end up with more wins. -Daniel
[2018-04-16 13:38:13] - pride hah. that and some amount of dollars will get you a something of something. ~a
[2018-04-16 13:24:40] - Daniel: I think some people think it adds more excitement to have more on the line. How about we do Sixers and Bucks vs Rockets for no money, just pride? -Paul
[2018-04-16 13:21:17] - a: Yeah I phrased that poorly - less why people gamble in general - more why people try to get me to bet on the Rockets in particular. -Daniel
[2018-04-16 13:14:22] - it is addicting though. gambling, alcohol, tobacco, drugs (legal and illegal), these things can ruin people's lives if you don't keep a close watch on the slope of addiction. ~a
[2018-04-16 13:11:42] - gambling is entertaining for some people. though it's hard to put into words for someone who doesn't enjoy gambling
~a[2018-04-16 13:05:37] - Everyone always wants to bet on sports and then people ask me to bet on the Rockets because I'm a fan. Why do people need to bet? Interesting aside. -Daniel
[2018-04-16 13:04:57] - Paul: I don't know. I'd put the guess line for the Rockets around 10 wins. I'm not confident we beat the warriors. I think we have a good / decent chance but I'm not sure. So if I think Sixers can get probably get 8 wins on their own then I don't think you need much help. Maybe sixers and wizards
-Daniel[2018-04-16 11:32:42] - Daniel: Would it be better if I get Pacers instead of Wizards? I just need a few more wins to toss in on my side. Come on... you've got the team with the best record on your side!
-Paul[2018-04-16 11:31:33] - Daniel: Problem is the 76ers and Bucks meet each other next round if they somehow both advance, which really caps my upside. Rockets don't meet the Warriors until the conference finals, so even if the Warriors sweep you, 8 wins is close to a lock. 8 wins for me feels like almost the best possible scenario. -Paul
[2018-04-16 11:02:55] - Paul: Maybe sixers and bucks vs rockets. Sixers I think have a pretty good shot at the finals too. We have to go through the warriors. -Daniel
[2018-04-16 10:36:55] - inflation-adjusted prices: usd-2016 rounded: atari=800, NES=400, SNES=400, ps1=500, n64=300, ps2=400, gamecube=300, xbox=400, xbox360=400 or 500, wii=300, ps3=600 or 700, wiiu=300 or 400, ps4=400, xboxone=500, switch=300. looks like nintendo is always 300-400, and sony/microsoft is always 400-500 (exc ps3). link ~a
[2018-04-13 23:41:49] - Daniel: Might sound lopsided, but I think Rockets have to be favored to at least make the western conference finals, whereas the Wizards and Bucks are likely out in their first series (and 76ers could be vulnerable as well). -Paul
[2018-04-13 23:41:05] - Daniel: It doesn't have to be high stakes. Heck, it doesn't even necessarily have to be for money. I was thinking something like Rockets total playoff wins vs total playoff wins of Wizards, 76ers and Bucks. -Paul
[2018-04-13 23:37:08] - aaron: Oh, I realize now you meant the browser. I think? I never tried installing another browser. I will say I've never had a problem with any websites on my chromebook, but I also don't use adblock. Is there some flash heavy website you want me to check? -Paul
[2018-04-13 23:36:13] - aaron: I'm sure you could probably do crazy things like dual booting a linux on a chromebook, but if you wanted to go that route, you probably wouldn't want a chromebook to being with, so I guess the practical answer to your question is yes, it has to run chrome. -Paul
[2018-04-13 17:31:00] - paul: chromebooks have to run chrome, right? that means they can't do things like run websites that require flash? i can't remember what chrome's stance is towards adblock. can you have adblock on your chromebook? - aaron
[2018-04-13 17:30:13] - a: yeah, i'm thinking of getting an asus then. or maybe a chromebook - aaron
[2018-04-13 16:19:28] - Paul: Its tricky because I think to some degree we are ( and Harden is) better at front running. So I think it will depend on how much we can just stomp people into the ground. If we have to gut out 4 series in a row I'm less confident. But if we stop Jazz and Minn and only have to dig deep to get past GSW then thats better for us. -Daniel
[2018-04-13 16:18:14] - Paul: I'm not a huge fan of sports betting so probably nothing significant but maybe something small. I think they have a good chance. I think its them and golden state. Luc being out isn't good. We need him against gsw but should be able to get past others in the meantime. -Daniel
[2018-04-13 16:06:53] - Daniel: And assuming you like them, how do you care for a little wager?
-Paul[2018-04-13 16:05:57] - Daniel: How do you like your Rockets' chances in the playoffs this year? -Paul
[2018-04-13 15:31:23] - aaron: Really depends on what you're trying to do, but I've loved the chromebooks I've had. They obviously have limitations, but if all you want to do is internet stuff, they are usually fairly cheap, have long lasting batteries and are pretty snappy. -Paul
[2018-04-13 15:21:03] - aaron: i dunno, things have changed. ever since 90% of the smartphone and tablet world started running linux, i feel like more hardware companies started taking it seriously, and more hardware started supporting linux (in my experience). ~a
[2018-04-13 15:19:44] - aaron: i hear you. everybody at my company (everybody at my current site) uses linux 100% of the time at work and at home. we've all just grown accustomed to making shit work in linux, instead of buying a "linux laptop" (i'm not even sure i'd recommend that route). we buy a laptop that there are no known problems with on linux. msi, and thinkpad, and asus, and dell, some of their shit will work in linux just fine. ~a
[2018-04-13 14:39:19] - sorry, i meant if you ask them "does your laptop work with linux", had a brain fart - aaron
[2018-04-13 14:38:52] - a: thanks. it seems like laptop retailers sell stuff with windows, and you can install linux. and for the most part if you ask like, "does your laptop your linux" they're like, idk, it's linux. that's complicated. i guess i was kind of hoping there might be a manufacturer who just sells a laptop with some linux distro on it, or at least a manufacturer whose laptops are understood to have drivers available for popular flavors of linux - aaron
[2018-04-13 14:35:07] - aaron: i love keyboards. if i have to type anything of length, smartphones/tablets are lame and laptops are awesome. if you end up making a linux laptop, make sure it's not underpowered: an underpowered laptop is probably the best way to hate linux out of the gate. also you should consider making it dual-boot. not having windows at all will make you feel hamstrung. ~a
[2018-04-13 14:26:06] - anybody have any advice about non-gaming tablets and laptops? just for stuff like surfing the internet or taking to hotels on trips and stuff? i like the idea of a linux laptop. i think i probably want a keyboard but i could be convinced otherwise - aaron
[2018-04-13 10:01:52] - happy friday the 13th ~a
[2018-04-12 16:00:36] - alabama evangelist acton bowen jailed in hoover on child sex charges involving young boy. bowen is a contributor on fox news and active politically online. also, he has some ties to roy moore (really to moore's attorney). "what's the over-under that pizzagate is true only it's not the clintons, it's a bunch of republicans?" hah nice. ~a
[2018-04-12 15:28:46] - hey i was also born in 1981! yeah, war is hell. i'm not sure why we seem to love it so much. ~a
[2018-04-12 15:04:33] - We have been at war with Eastasia 48.6% of the time. https://i.imgur.com/0SNYp3j.png -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 15:03:49] - paul: as opposed to something silly like, "yeah, london imposed strict gun control. but on April 7th 2018, their homicide rate was over 50,000,000% higher than new york's! wow!! that really makes you think doesn't it" (technically true, and even more convincing because it's a bigger number) - aaron
[2018-04-12 15:02:53] - paul: i just think a better article would explain like, "yeah london imposed strict gun control, and the homicide rate dropped a lot; maybe they're related or not, it's hard to say. and now they're imposing knife control; maybe that will work too. but is it worth it? do we want to live in a city where people's only motivation to not commit murder is that they're physically unable to?" - aaron
[2018-04-12 14:24:15] - aaron: But, yeah, I agree that as a convincing point, it falls very short. -Paul
[2018-04-12 14:24:02] - aaron: Gotcha. It sounds like the problematic line for you is, "The result of all this gun control? A London homicide rate higher than New York's, at least in the short term."? Is that accurate to say? In that case, I agree, although I'm almost positive the author was trying to be flippant. I'm familiar with his style and he likes to make light of things. -Paul
[2018-04-12 14:12:27] - aw man i missed the subject change. ~a
[2018-04-12 14:12:11] - xpovos: #1. i trust the authors on that topic, sorry. their understanding of stat is better than mine, and probably also better than yours. i don't see any problem with their methodology. #2. i'm not sure if that's true. there is no chance of there being zero correlational reduction (we've seen reduction). maybe you're saying that there is a chance of there being zero causal reduction? that i'm not qualified to refute. #3. yah. ~a
[2018-04-12 14:10:08] - Subject change! https://imgur.com/gallery/AubeuEb Found it because I was playing around on imgur to load all those images I screen capped from the report. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 14:08:51] - a: So really, the fact that it doesn't increase given the increasing volume of transactions (theoretically) of a very dangerous profession is itself indicative of something positive. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 14:08:18] - a: Indeed, and the graph for murders of women is definitely stronger evidence. https://i.imgur.com/zjbR0zs.png. While the error bar issue is less profound, it is still there, and the scale of the graph is lower. So what I can say is 1) It may be too much to claim "17% reduction," 2) it is possible, if unlikely, that there is zero reduction, 3) there is definitely no _significant_ increase, and almost certainly no increase at all. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 13:56:45] - aaron: yes, agreed on that. it's why i didn't like the article too. london's homicide rate is nowhere near nyc's. ~a
[2018-04-12 13:55:30] - xpovos: yes, agreed on that. which is why i said "less causally linked", they used the words "modest evidence". i think the murder rate drop, which has better numbers, is the more interesting regardless. especially if rape didn't also go up (which it looks like it didn't) a la "buyers priced out would likely have turned to ... rape". ~a
[2018-04-12 13:53:30] - paul: i thought the really good point was the "london has a Knife Crime Strategy" thing, which was at least eye-opening for me personally. then two paragraphs later is "because of gun control, london's homicide rate is higher than new york's" which made me rethink everything else i'd read. - aaron
[2018-04-12 13:50:59] - paul: yeah it was the "higher homicide rate than new york" thing. they state it in the beginning of the article and then they state it again in the middle. - aaron
[2018-04-12 13:48:54] - Sorry for the delay, office kitchen flooded so I had to go play plumber for a bit. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 13:48:36] - a: Here's the rape line, e.g. https://i.imgur.com/8pQQnZJ.png If you take the mid-points, which is reasonable, it does look like there is a statistically significant decline in rape, which given their methodolgy would seem to coincide with a causal relationship with CL erotic services listings. But, it's entirely possible the rates are completely unchanged. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 13:42:08] - the error bars are huge, but that's because you aren't looking at the hyperbolic sine data (j/k, why the fuck is that a thing?) ~a
[2018-04-12 13:23:00] - a: Yeah, I did see that. I also read through that whole paper and have now spent a fair bit of time reviewing their data. It's tough. It's clear they are attempting to be scientifically rigorous, but we're working with really small numbers, so the error bars are huge. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 13:20:39] - xpovos/paul: agreed. that is funny. tangentially related, yeah. it's also fun that mueller signed it. ~a
[2018-04-12 13:18:18] - "rape" it's interesting you mention rape. in the link they say that craigslist also (less causally linked) decreases incidence of rape. ~a
[2018-04-12 13:16:20] - a: I also did not intend to imply that CL was at all capable of reducing risk once the participants met. That's clearly counterfactual. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 13:15:36] - a: Do men ever give up? Of course. If the price is too high, market participants will turn to substitute goods, or refrain entirely. Screening is a way to increase costs for egregiously harmful buyers without raising the costs for less-harmful buyers. Those buyers priced out would likely have turned to a substitute good (rape?) or refrained (ideal case.) -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 13:13:17] - Paul: Tangentially relevent and hilarious. Thank you. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 12:41:54] - This might not be relevant to what you two are discussing at all (sorry, I have been busy and not able to keep up), but I thought I would drop this here anyway: https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/984465604789891073 -Paul
[2018-04-12 12:40:56] - i think maybe you're assuming that men don't ever give up? i'll grant you that some of them don't/won't give up. but the numbers suggest (to me) that some of them give up some of the time. ~a
[2018-04-12 12:39:49] - "that somehow they ended in death less often" wouldn't it be more likely that harm-causing men had fewer liaisons with vulnerable women? i can't imagine any situations where craiglist could possibly prevent a death in the bedroom after the meeting has occurred.
~a[2018-04-12 12:36:38] - a: I understand what you're saying, however, we're talking about different statistics. I haven't dug into that link (I have it back at home from previously, and now at work, I guess) but even assuming that is a valid statistic, it does not indicate that harm-causing men did not have liaisons with vulnerable women. Just that somehow they ended in death less often. That' a good outcome, but probably not the best. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 11:44:24] - xpovos: "they just bought from even less priveledge individuals, right? The demand was still there ... eventually there's supply" no. this is *not* proven out by the numbers. causally, CL erotic services listing in a city reduced the female homicide rate by 17%. all females. link again since it scrolled off the page. ~a
[2018-04-12 11:20:13] - But, even that isn't as clear-cut. The buyers who got screened out by the women on CL (we'll skip backpage, then, OK) still bought, they just bought from even less priveledge individuals, right? The demand was still there, and per the previous post I made, where there's demand, eventually there's supply. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 11:19:06] - a: There's no reason that the new system they move to can't also improve their safety an equal or greater amount, though. Although I agree it's likely going to reduce safety of the activities because a move that forces it to be more anonymous, to avoid detection, means less screening. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 11:05:00] - xpovos: and they actively decrease the murder rate in a huge way (causally). ~a
[2018-04-12 11:01:16] - xpovos: "If the law is passed the pimps will move to harder to monitor services" it goes much past that though. backpage, craigslist, dating sites, and dating apps (backpage is a bad example because they were actively breaking the law) helps women stay away from dangerous situations. ~a
[2018-04-12 10:56:20] - That's a very fair argument. Demand doesn't go away, and if demand doesn't, someone will try to find a way to bring in supply. All this does is make it harder and potentially more dangerous--therefore more expensive. That does reduce demand at the margin, but it's more of a coincidental effect than the primary effect. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 10:55:28] - a: I assumed the argument would be something like, "We can trawl Backpage and see the ads easily, and that allows us to track pimps very easily, even if Backpage doesn't want to cooporate. If the law is passed the pimps will move to harder to monitor services." -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 10:54:30] - a: When that one death is someone you know and care about? Absolutely. The death of one is a tragedy. The death of millions is just a statistic. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 10:53:59] - He also ponders the constitutionality, which is fine. This is a fair constitutional question since it is a law which abridges speech, which is heavily protected. But speech is allowed to be abridged for cases of imminent physical harm, so how it actually plays out would be up to the SC. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 10:53:33] - but andrew, one death is too many.
~a[2018-04-12 10:52:58] - a: Reading the AG's letter, he is primarily concerned about conviction. He states a belief that the law, if passed, would result in HIGHER burden of proof requirements due to the language. Clearly the industry felt otherwise. He doesn't seem to make any comment on the law making it harder to "catch," or identify suspects--just convictions. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 10:43:26] - a: As for the F/C thing from before, I want to talk a bit about the differences between #1 and #2, and the AG who was making that point on #2. But, I need more time to study. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 10:41:10] - a: I'm pretty obviously "OK" with our current rates, and I'd probably tolerate higher. This is very similar to the Scott Adams terrorism question I've referenced before. Assuming you CAN trade liberty for safety, how many lives are your liberties worth? How many American deaths to terrorism are we willing to tolerate before we adjust. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-12 10:05:46] - paul: indeed if crime were easy to lower, we'd probably have a lower rate. an interesting question that brings up in my mind: how low is low enough? people who say "one death is too many" or "any loss of life is blah blah blah" are idiots. i wonder: what's the per capita murder rate we would be ok with? ~a
[2018-04-12 09:41:11] - a: My suspicion has always been that murder rates have more to do with a mix of other things (prohibition, political upheaval, economy, whatever) that can be maddeningly hard to pin down rather than being too tied to gun control laws. -Paul
[2018-04-12 09:39:35] - a: I don't know if this is what you were trying to do, but I think it's always hard to make connections between gun control laws (and/or availability of guns, which is a different thing) and murder rates. There are often ways of finding correlations, but then are often just as often examples that buck the trend. -Paul
[2018-04-12 09:33:07] - To be honest, the whole comparison between London and NY is not something I really took away from the article at all because who really cares about monthly homicide rates? It was more a slightly flippant (but maybe not as much as you guys think) continuation of our gun control debate from before. -Paul
[2018-04-12 09:29:30] - aaron: yes, i agree with your overall point, but disagree on the details. london banned guns in the early 1990s and nyc made it hard to get gun permits. murder rates have dropped *drastically* in nyc since the 1990s and london has stayed low (i'm not sure why on either). nyc now has (only) 3x the murders per capita compared to london. i wouldn't ban knives. ~a
[2018-04-12 09:28:18] - Ah, although I guess they do throw this line in later, "The result of all this gun control? A London homicide rate higher than New York's, at least in the short term." -Paul
[2018-04-12 09:27:32] - aaron: Was this all about my "London bans knives" article? What is the "really good point" and what is the "follow it up with a really stupid point"? The comparison between London and NY homicides is one of the first things stated and the way I read my article, it was kinda dismissive of that "stat". -Paul
[2018-04-12 09:25:36] - aaron: Oh, wait, maybe I need to continue reading what you wrote.... -Paul
[2018-04-12 09:24:02] - aaron: I have no idea what article you are referring to with the national deficit and Obama golf thing.
-Paul[2018-04-12 07:47:08] - (sorry to be clear, adrian didn't say any of that; but he merely suggested the "london has a higher homicide rate" thing is b.s. i made up the rest. i don't know what the real story is about london's anti-gun law or its effect on the homicide rate) - aaron
[2018-04-12 07:45:56] - paul: but if we ignore the weaselly statistic, and like adrian says, the REAL statistic is "hey london and new york used to have comparable homocide rates... then london banned guns in 1997 which didn't have an immediate effect, but over the course of 20 years the per capita homicide rate decreased by 50%..." then, you know, maybe enacting a comparable law is a logical way to reduce the homicide rate in the long term - aaron
[2018-04-12 07:40:33] - and i think it's reasonable to think ahead to, "well if we do eventually impose harsh restrictions on guns, would we foresee imposing similar restrictions on knives, and what's the real goal here, and is there a more practical way to accomplish that goal." - aaron
[2018-04-12 07:39:48] - i don't think it's unreasonable to ban certain kinds of knives in certain situations. like i just learned about the tim mclean thing yesterday and, you know, if some part of canada wants to say, "okay no more knives on buses" for awhile, i think that's interesting. but it is also a good point to question, how far does it go and can you really control violence this way - aaron
[2018-04-12 07:37:44] - paul: i hate when articles make a really good point and then follow it up with a really stupid point. "the national deficit over doubled during obama's presidency AND he spent his weekend playing golf! GOLF!" ...it's like, c'mon, i respect the point you were making during the first half of the article, and then you sneak in some weaselly irrelevant statistic which discredits all the stuff i kind of thought i agreed with - aaron
[2018-04-11 20:58:14] - a: To be fair, the article I linked to spent much of its time rebutting that. The contention was being made (kinda?) by a UK news organization which my article linked to. -Paul
[2018-04-11 17:27:15] - paul: "some contend the murder rate [in london] is now worse than new york's" some contend that's complete bullshit. whoever has contended this is lying to themselves. and everyone who reads their article. homicide rate is double (per capita) in nyc compared to london if you look at a few years time. in fact, it's closer to triple. wake me up when a trend continues for (much) more than two months. ~a
[2018-04-11 17:03:02] - http://reason.com/archives/2018/04/11/now-theyre-coming-for-peoples-knives-no That's why London wants to ban knives.
-Paul[2018-04-11 15:25:08] - 🥖 ⇶ 🦆 Ù Ù¢â±
[2018-04-11 14:40:15] - daniel: ohhh i saw that mythbusters, the knife vs gun thing? knife beats gun until you get crazy, crazy far away. - aaron
[2018-04-11 14:39:16] - daniel: 3 seconds sounds about right. you only really have to run about 18 feet and then reach out for the last 2 feet. i think i could do it if i practice - aaron
[2018-04-11 14:37:58] - a: 5 feet is way too easy. geese are like fat little watermelons with wings! ...maybe 10 would be close, but i'm pretty confident i could do it at 20. you cannot mislead the goose - aaron
[2018-04-11 13:53:05] - aaron: (5280/20)*3/60, yeah, ok i guess i can run that fast. so probably the later. 1.5 seconds for him to start moving faster than i can. ~a
[2018-04-11 13:45:57] - After watching some video's of geese taking flight (what have you done to me aaron?!) I think 3 seconds is to long. But somewhere in the 1.5 - 2 seconds range seems about right. So 20 feet still ought to be doable but would be close. -Daniel
[2018-04-11 13:37:48] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill -Daniel
[2018-04-11 13:37:22] - Its like a different version of the twenty foot rule for knife / gun fights. -Daniel
[2018-04-11 13:36:33] - a: I'm estimating about 3 seconds for the duck to take off. You don't think you can cover twenty feet in 3 seconds? Or you think the goose would take off faster than three seconds? -Daniel
[2018-04-11 13:03:45] - RIP Mitch. -Paul
[2018-04-11 12:58:12] - wow, it worked! ~a
[2018-04-11 12:56:44] - see, i did not know that -- ducks eat for free at subway. had i known that, i would've ordered a much larger sandwich. 'lemme have the steak fajita sandwich, but don't bother ringing it up, it's for a duck! there are six ducks out there, and they all want sunchips!'
[2018-04-11 12:56:43] - i went to a subway sandwich shop, and i said, 'let me have a bun,' but she wouldn't sell me just a bun. she said it had to have something on it. she told me it's against regulations for subway to sell just a bun; i guess the two halves ain't supposed to touch. so, i said, 'alright, put some lettuce on it,' which they did. they said, 'that'll be $1.75.' i said, 'it's for a duck.' they said, 'alright, well then it's free.'
[2018-04-11 12:55:28] - insert duck sunchips joke. ~a
[2018-04-11 12:54:51] - aaron: Depends. Do I have a gun?
-Paul[2018-04-11 12:54:40] - aaron: 20 feet is too far. maybe 5 feet. 10 feet if you pretend to be holding food. 🞠~a
[2018-04-11 12:48:10] - aaron: Clearly we need to get a goose and line us all up and run some tests. -Daniel
[2018-04-11 12:36:01] - i was about 20 feet from a goose today and they're bulky animals, they're not like birds or ducks where they can just take off at a moment's notice. i wasn't sure if 20 feet was close enough but i think i could do it - aaron
[2018-04-11 12:35:02] - if you ran full sprint towards a canadian goose from a standing start, how close do you think you'd have to be in order to successfully touch it with your hand? - aaron
[2018-04-11 11:18:08] - a: Just don't move to the EU. GDPR sounds like a nightmare. -Paul
[2018-04-11 11:16:57] - paul: yes technically. but in reality, stupid laws are stupid. not all of them get enforced. we can host the message board site overseas if this actually ends up being a real problem. hell, worst case scenario we move the message board to tor. ~a
[2018-04-11 11:12:49] - a: I assume you're joking, but it's a legitimate concern now, right? What if some random person finds this site and starts posting prices for prostitutes and you aren't able to take it down before the feds catch it? Aren't you liable now? -Paul
[2018-04-11 11:10:48] - paul/xpovos: yeah, maybe we need to shut down the message board
~a[2018-04-11 11:07:38] - Because even though it's not the INTENT of the law, it sounds like we basically made all websites responsible for all the content that any random person puts on it, which is a huge liability issue. -Paul
[2018-04-11 11:06:40] - xpovos: One of my big issues is that it feels like this law is using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Yes, all laws and regulations have some unintended consequences, but this seems particularly big. We didn't repeal the first amendment because of the Westboro church (or whoever they were). I feel like this needs a scalpel approach. -Paul
[2018-04-11 10:58:30] - aaron: The worst stereotypes he has? I guess an accent and that he works at a convenience store? Maybe that his religion is referenced? -Paul
[2018-04-11 10:57:57] - aaron: Yeah, I'm far from a Simpsons expert, but I feel like most of the characters on the show are stereotypes to varying degrees and many of them have negative traits attached to those stereotypes. Apu seems to fare better than many in that respect. He's a good family man, a hard worker, and smarter than most. -Paul
[2018-04-11 10:55:31] - a: something something, do-something politics.... - mig
[2018-04-11 10:45:22] - xpovos: [republican assistant-attorney general] tells congress sesta/fosta will make it more difficult to catch traffickers; house votes for it anyway? ~a
[2018-04-11 10:45:21] - xpovos: well you're unsure of #2. i feel like if #2 is true, then #1 is a tautology. so, to do a deeper dive on #2, i didn't come up with that viewpoint, it came from the republican assistant-attorney general. he was appointed by donald trump, so, he's probably pro-tough-on-crime. link in next message... ~a
[2018-04-11 10:34:28] - So, ultimately, I think F/C supporters would acknowledge #3, and not care, #4 and not care, and dispute #1 and #2.
[2018-04-11 10:33:36] - would be moot. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-11 10:33:30] - a: Finally, #4, this is true of all regulation. I don't think that's anything specific to F/C. It adds a tremendous new barrier to entry to anyone trying to break in, though, to a market where user-generated content is a major factor. It's questionable how many new players there will be given that the market is saturated and that particular on is 15 years old now, but that's the thing... we could see innovation tomorrow and this argument
[2018-04-11 10:31:48] - Again, how much this matters likely depends on your political views about legal sex work and related items. But even the most anit-sex work person should be able to admit that this will ultimately infringe on non-sex work activities as well. E.g. I saw that MS has updated their TOS for things like LIVE and perhaps even Skype to prohibit certain content. If Skype is a phone replacement, that could be a freedom of speech issue. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-11 10:30:16] - a: For #3, yeah, pretty much. I can't disagree here. Was Backpage enabling questionably legal activities? Sure. I mean they got seized (again, I don't think this is the first time they've been taken down) even under existing law. Under F/C, lots of other companies will be slammed, and/or are changing business practices significantly to avoid it. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-11 10:28:39] - a: I'd need to read/learn more specifics about #2 to comment at all. I'm very unfamiliar with the specifics of the law. I think that's probably not the case, but hidden clauses and unintended consequences are all over laws like this. So, plausible. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-11 10:27:52] - a: I think I disagree with #1, even from my own standing. It's certainly a reasonable position to hold that the law(s) have negative side effects and/or won't be as good as advertised, but they will absolutely have some positive effect on the situation. How much you perceive that benefit, probably largely depends on how big a problem you think trafficking is. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-11 10:22:01] - honestly if anything i would say apu suffers from the opposite, which a lot of older sitcoms suffer from that where it's like... a bunch of white characters with a character-defining flaw; the lazy one, the asshole, the ditz, the dweeb, and then... the nonwhite one. what's his flaw? ehhh he's nonwhite. nonwhite is a flaw
- aaron[2018-04-11 10:05:45] - i still don't think the apu thing is that harmful. i would say chief wiggum, mayor quimby, mrs. krabappel, lunchlady doris and martin are harmful stereotypes on the show because they reinforce negative societal stereotypes, like police are lazy, teachers are negligent, if you get good grades people will beat you up, things like that - aaron
[2018-04-11 09:47:28] - I feel like we've pretty much accomplished #1, we're working towards #2, and I don't see how #3 isn't too far behind. -Paul
[2018-04-11 09:46:59] - I feel like the 3 big things that libertarians have been promoting for decades that were outside of the mainstream (and that they were mocked for) are: Recognition of Gay Marriage, Drug Legalization and Legalization of Prostitution. -Paul
[2018-04-11 09:45:07] - On some level the United States seems a giant experiment in figuring out what we can successfully prohibit (slaves) vs things we can't (alcohol) and seeing how it works out when we decide one way or another on a thing. -Daniel
[2018-04-11 09:41:31] - Maybe it becomes the weed of the next generation. -Daniel
[2018-04-11 09:41:12] - Yeah there are certainly aspects that I feel pretty unqualified to talk about (prostitution v feminism) and given backpages apparently glut of children it seems we ought to try and do something about that but maybe we will have to figure out a way to make prostitution itself more manageable and less conflated with all the other negative aspects that currently correlate with it. -Daniel
[2018-04-11 09:29:26] - daniel: i'm with paul. your "odd" conclusions only seem odd because they go against your preconceived notions (and mine as well, to be fair).
~a[2018-04-11 09:23:06] - xpovos: so the two main complaints (ok, somehow this turned into four) i've read online is that: 1. it won't help stop human trafficking, even a little. 2. it could actually make human trafficking easier ("provisions of the bill would make it even harder to prosecute sex traffickers"). 3. it will infringe on the rights of non-human traffickers. and not in a benign way. 4. it favors big tech companies relative to startups. ~a
[2018-04-11 07:51:31] - I'm still not completely in-the-know about FOSTA-CESTA, but I did spend a ton of time last week at a conference where everyone was praising it, so I could probably take a stab at doing the other side of the argument. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-10 19:01:29] - https://gizmodo.com/feds-praise-backpage-takedown-as-sex-workers-fear-for-t-1825124288 -Paul
[2018-04-10 18:59:39] - Did I not mention before the strong arguments that backpage is actually helpful for sex worker safety? -Paul
[2018-04-10 17:36:02] - a: I wonder if that would lead to a weird defense of backpage where they could claim they were pro child safety? Its an interesting stat but leads to some odd (to me currently) conclusions. -Daniel
[2018-04-10 17:25:16] - *causal effect* on female safety: craigslist "erotic services" listing in a city reduced the female homicide rate by 17%. jesus. homicide rate among all females? wtf. ~a
[2018-04-10 14:04:46] - a: Fair enough, but I basically just listed the sitcoms (minus Living Biblically and Superior Donuts) that I see on network TV as I'm channel surfing and looking for something to watch while folding laundry some evenings. Maybe the dumb fathers are only on after 9pm?
-Paul[2018-04-10 13:58:55] - interesting note on Speedy Gonzalez: all his voice actors were white until fairly recently (2011). - mig
[2018-04-10 13:54:12] - paul: of course it's missing a bunch of shows. but it's *a* list. one that isn't biased by whether the father is an idiot or not.
it's probably also the most popular shows but i was surprised by a few animated shows that are missing. ~a[2018-04-10 13:46:38] - a: I feel like that's missing a bunch of shows, though. What about Kevin can wait (or whatever it's called) or Man with a plan (had to look that one up) or Young Sheldon? -Paul
[2018-04-10 13:44:32] - weird that the simpsons isn't in this list but the family guy is. ~a
[2018-04-10 13:44:01] - oops i missed it's always sunny. ~a
[2018-04-10 13:42:51] - paul: well i could do my google search and manually filter out the off-air ones: modern family, big bang theory, brooklyn nine-nine, roseanne (it's back), will & grace (also back, sigh), arrested development (recently off air), blackish, curb your enthusiasm (back), full house (back), new girl, family guy (you win here), the middle, the mindy project. ~a
[2018-04-10 13:38:17] - paul: ok, then i agree with you on that. except uncle phil is a main character of the show. he was a father of two of the other main characters. really he's the father of the show even though he's not will's father. ~a
[2018-04-10 13:37:44] - a: Re: "confirmation bias". Very well could be. I don't have an easy way of getting a good list of currently airing network family based sitcoms.
-Paul[2018-04-10 13:36:17] - a: He showed up at least once (the father of the character). It was one of those sad episodes where Will got excited to hang out with his father, but his father ended up basically abandoning him again. Uncle Phil tells him off. Will cries and asks why his father doesn't want him. -Paul
[2018-04-10 13:34:15] - paul: agreed on family guy and the simpsons. agree on kevin james shows. but again this is classic confirmation bias. ~a
[2018-04-10 13:32:40] - i mean i assume you mean he was an idiot for divorcing will's mother? if that's what you're basing it on, i'm not sure i have enough information to agree
~a[2018-04-10 13:32:03] - wow that wasn't clear. i mean . . . was his character's father on the show? ~a
[2018-04-10 13:31:38] - "Will's real father certainly was" will the character? was he on the show? ~a
[2018-04-10 13:28:39] - a: Yeah, most of those are old/off the air or don't have a clearly defined "father". Worth noting that Uncle Phil wasn't an idiot, but Will's real father certainly was.
-Paul[2018-04-10 13:27:23] - a: Same. I only catch it in the background in rare situations. I guess maybe part of it is that the only shows I can think of are long running things like Family Guy/Simpsons or Kevin James shows.
-Paul[2018-04-10 13:26:41] - paul: i googled sitcoms and here they are in order: seinfeld, modern family, the office, big bang theory, friends, fresh prince, brooklyn nine-nine, cheers, roseanne, frasier, i love lucy, will & grace, 30 rock, cosby show, arrested development, all in the family, mash, mary tyler moore show, how i met your mother, parks and rec, blackish, honeymooners, dick van dyke show, community. ~a
[2018-04-10 13:24:44] - paul: i don't watch the show often, i catch it in the background when audrey watches it. but looking at all of the parents, they're all hapless idiots. the most idiotic parent IMO is a father: ty burrell. the least idiotic parent is probably also a father: ed oneill. ~a
[2018-04-10 13:23:17] - a: Maybe the difference is that I was thinking about shows on TV now. I think shows from the 80s and 70s were much different in tone (I would agree that the fathers were usually much more competent in older shows). -Paul
[2018-04-10 13:20:55] - a: Interesting, do you have the list of sitcoms that you used? Which father are you talking about for Modern Family? There are 4, right? And the most traditional one is clearly much more stupid than the mother. -Paul
[2018-04-10 13:19:59] - Hehehe, I also thought of Hank Hill because in some ways, he was the least idiotic character on the show. I was mostly thinking of live action sitcoms on TV now, though (and ones based around family, Jim didn't become a father until late and it hardly defined his character). -Paul
[2018-04-10 13:15:09] - mig: cleveland brown is voiced by mike henry. that often bothers me because of the unarguably more racist shit they have on family guy than the simpsons. ~a
[2018-04-10 13:10:43] - paul: i just googled "sitcoms" and went down the list. honestly, i had a harder time finding fathers that were more idiotic than mothers just following that list. modern family is the only one in my google search where i thought that was the case. ~a
[2018-04-10 13:09:54] - mig: haha, same example
~a[2018-04-10 13:09:42] - paul: i think you're just noticing the ones where he's a hapless idiot. on the office, jim was a competent father. the father (and uncle) on the fresh prince, philip, was competent. on friends the fathers are just as idiotic as the mothers. on rossanne, the father is just as idiotic as the mother. on the cosby show, competent father (character, not actor). arrested development, mothers are just as idiotic as fathers. ~a
[2018-04-10 13:07:03] - Dan Connor (Roseanne) maybe? Hank Hill I don't think is an idiot, but he is kind of hapless? - mig
[2018-04-10 13:02:44] - More seriously, though, is there any father from network comedies that isn't some complete hapless idiot? -Paul
[2018-04-10 13:01:30] - As a white father, I'm offended by all of the dumb fathers from every sitcom, especially those played by non-whites.
-Paul[2018-04-10 12:56:51] - Interestingly, both Bumblebee Man and Senor Ding Dong are both voiced by Hank Azaria as well. - mig
[2018-04-10 12:52:25] - Though he is almost universal beloved by the Hispanic Community, though he is covered in a fair amount of stereotypes. - mig
[2018-04-10 12:49:46] - I guess Speedy Gonzales? - mig
[2018-04-10 12:49:36] - I'm trying to reflect if I can maybe find something similar in my own personal experiences w/ Hari. In the Simpsons, honestly, there's not a whole lot of Hispanic representation. The closest characters I can think of is Bumblebee Man and Senor Ding-Dong, but both are not anywhere near as prominent characters as Apu. - mig
[2018-04-10 12:45:39] - mig: Got it, thanks. I wonder, do some people also have a problem with Will and Grace? I've never seen a full episode, but from what I know isn't at least one character a complete gay stereotype and the other played by a straight man? -Paul
[2018-04-10 12:44:47] - I think it's less the accent itself and more that a white guy is doing an exaggerated version of it? - mig
[2018-04-10 12:41:47] - paul: Hari's main gripes: 1) He's voiced by a white guy. 2) For the longest time he was probably the most famous Indian person in a TV show, so it supposedly had a huge affect on the perception of Indian-Americans. 3) The stereotypes. - mig
prev <-> next