prev <-> next
[2019-07-23 11:06:45] - a: Okay, maybe my mistake in not being precise enough. I was using sympathy and understanding kinda interchangeably. It's basically the idea of: "Yeah, we won. They lost. Let's be gracious winners and leave them alone now." It would be one thing if Eich was firing gay employees or the bake shop was picketing gay weddings.... -Paul
[2019-07-23 11:00:38] - paul: maybe it's the word "sympathy" that bothers me. sympathy > understanding. sympathy implies (its definition even includes this) that your understanding goes even further to the point of feeling pity and sorrow. or worse, that you share a common feeling! ~a
[2019-07-23 10:46:22] - a: Why was interracial marriage not allowed? Why did slavery happen? Humans are not perfect. They're jerks. They're tribal. I think it's okay to be against those stances but also have some sympathy and understanding that people are imperfect and that our society accepted that gay marriage was "wrong" however many decades ago. -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:31:31] - correct. they shouldn't be allowed to hold jobs. i dunno, paul. maybe eigh shouldn't have been fired. i wouldn't have fired him. but his position (and the position of 6 million voters in 2008) is fairly indefensible. like, why would you vote that way? why would you do that, man? ~a
[2019-07-23 10:30:03] - a: There they are, one of the most progressive states in the US, voting directly for a bill to ban gay marriage. Open and shut case, right? They're not living and let living. -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:29:25] - a: Okay, so how about the majority of Californians who voted to pass that measure? Should they all be not allowed to hold jobs? -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:29:23] - again, politicians are not bills (ha!). but 2019-1997 (clintons second term) >= 6. ~a
[2019-07-23 10:27:43] - paul: bit of a stretch. every politician you've voted for holds many views you disagree with, duh. obama had *many* positions in 2008 (not *all* of them great). voting for obama != voting for / donating to 2008 California Proposition 8. ~a
[2019-07-23 10:27:36] - a: I honestly think Obama and Clinton's "sins" are much worse than Eich. Yet I'm guessing you don't hold them nearly as much in contempt as you do Eich or Chick-Fil-A or whoever else. -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:26:37] - a: Support Clinton? Didn't he enact don't ask don't tell which forced people out of the military? I guess that doesn't make somebody's life difficult, though, so I guess it doesn't count. -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:25:57] - a: Who did you vote for in 2008? Assuming it was Obama, then you are guilty of not living and let living because he didn't support gay marriage. -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:25:08] - paul: 2014-2008 = 6. i'll admit 6 is a fairly large number, i probably wouldn't have made a big deal about it. but 6 isn't HUGE. 6. it's . . . fairly large but not huge.
~a[2019-07-23 10:24:09] - a: "it would be whether you're generally (*) infringing on other people's rights or not" Ugh, I hope not. That seems like a horrible way to define a mental illness. It's only a mental illness if it's likely to lead you to infringing on somebody's rights? -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:23:06] - a: Maybe it doesn't. But if past "misdeeds" still count against you in terms of not letting people "live and let live", then I imagine the majority of Americans are people you should consider bigots with no sympathy for. -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:21:48] - "what makes one a mental illness and the others not?" i'm not sure, but if i had to guess, it would be whether you're generally (*) infringing on other people's rights or not. * = this is where the grey are exists. ~a
[2019-07-23 10:20:25] - "He didn't donate 'At the time he was forced out'". i don't think i follow. it matters that he was let go at a different time that he made the donation why? ~a
[2019-07-23 10:15:29] - a: Okay. Thanks. -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:14:43] - paul: no idea. ~a
[2019-07-23 10:14:18] - a: Any reason given? Or is it because it's a little un-PC to call it a mental illness? -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:13:49] - homosexuality was recently removed. ~a
[2019-07-23 10:13:37] - a: Interesting. I'm assuming homosexuality and transexuality (is that the name?) isn't? Assuming that's right, what makes one a mental illness and the others not? -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:13:03] - "pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)" (from wikipedia) ~a
[2019-07-23 10:12:20] - DSM-5. stupid caps. ~a
[2019-07-23 10:12:02] - paul: "is pedophilia considered a mental illness" oh yes i'm sure it's in the dsm-5. ~a
[2019-07-23 10:11:10] - paul: normally yes. i'm pro pluralism. but some POV are anti-pluralism themselves. ~a
[2019-07-23 10:11:08] - a: ""not wanting them around your kids" is fine" Also, I'm a little surprised to hear you say that and make the comparison to schizophrenia. Is pedophilia considered a mental illness? -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:09:57] - a: "but calling it "disgusting" is like calling schizophrenia disgusting" Sure, and I might even agree with you, but you can think it's a wrong POV and still have sympathy for the person thinking it. -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:09:06] - a: How about we use Obama for comparison? By pretty much every metric I've heard, it sounds like we should've removed Obama from office for being against gay marriage. -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:08:59] - paul: no. "not wanting them around your kids" is fine. but calling it "disgusting" is like calling schizophrenia disgusting. that's backwards shit. ~a
[2019-07-23 10:07:50] - a: He didn't donate "At the time he was forced out". -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:07:27] - a: Would you be? -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:07:24] - paul: "certainly seemed he was trying to live and let live" no. his donation was on the anti-live-and-let-live side. ~a
[2019-07-23 10:07:12] - a: Okay, well, if somebody said, "being aroused by kids is disgusting and I wouldn't want that person around my kids". I would be very sympathetic to that. -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:06:22] - well "pedophilia" is a word we use to describe infringing on other people's rights (i know the dictionary might disagree with me here, but we use the word in *many* related contexts). so, i think that confuses the issue some. ~a
[2019-07-23 10:05:44] - a: At the time he was forced out, it certainly seemed he was trying to live and let live. Getting fired from your job isn't tough? So it's fine to, say, fire somebody for being gay? That doesn't make their life hard? -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:04:31] - how was eich living and let live? he was trying to force people to *not* live and let live? moreso . . . how was is his life so hard? ~a
[2019-07-23 10:02:53] - a: Right, but how about somebody who says, "Pedophilia is sick". Are they a bigot deserving of zero sympathy? That's the analogy. -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:02:01] - paul: "They can look at virtual images" when pedophiles aren't infringing on other peoples rights . . . "replace murderers with people in incestuous relationships" when people in incestuous relationships aren't infringing on other people's rights . . . we don't judge them. i don't judge them. ~a
[2019-07-23 10:01:00] - a: "it's not like this makes their life hard or some shit" Tell that to Brandon Eich. -Paul
[2019-07-23 10:00:20] - a: Pedophiles don't have to. They can look at virtual images. If it makes you feel better you can replace murderers with people in incestuous relationships. -Paul
[2019-07-23 09:59:07] - paul: "Seems incredibly cold-hearted to have zero sympathy for them". ok. it's not like this makes their life hard or some shit. i'm not having sympathy for a person for a person who is going to be forced to . . . live and let live? what am i even doing to this poor uncle/grand-parent? ~a
[2019-07-23 09:58:58] - paul: that murders and pedophile hurt people. a lot. "being who they are" isn't what we were mad about. it was when they started infringing on other peoples rights that we got mad. ~a
[2019-07-23 09:57:55] - a: I actually did think that you might go the low road and suggest I was comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, but I guess I had faith you would take it in the spirit intended. Go ahead, though. What's your retort? -Paul
[2019-07-23 09:55:55] - paul: "exclusionary of murderers and pedophiles for 'bring who they are'". i'm surprised you would even suggest this analogy. like it was fair or something. do i even have to refute it? you know what i'm going to say right? ~a
[2019-07-23 09:53:43] - a: I would be amazed if you didn't have a grand parent or uncle or close friend that doesn't believe gay marriage is wrong (although they're probably pretty tight-lipped about it now). Seems incredibly cold-hearted to have zero sympathy for them. -Paul
[2019-07-23 09:52:30] - a: "they're being exclusionary of other people for being who they are" Right, but we all do that to a certain extent. We generally accept being exclusionary of murderers and pedophiles for "bring who they are". There's a line somewhere for everybody. -Paul
[2019-07-23 09:48:52] - paul: alternatively i have zero sympathy for them. it's *not* that they're being judgmental first. that was never the problem. they're being exclusionary of other people for being who they are. i'm being exclusionary of people for being exclusionary of other people for being who they are. it's like saying people with brown hair shouldn't have rights. if you want to feel that way, i'll feel zero sympathy for your fucking plight. ~a
[2019-07-23 09:35:55] - a: I just wish people had more sympathy and less judgment for those people. Yeah, I get that fingers can be pointed at them to say, "They're being judgmental first!", but I'm not sure fighting fire with fire is the best approach. -Paul
[2019-07-23 09:33:37] - a: Sure. Public sentiment largely seems to be accelerating in terms of social acceptance. That's part of the reason I have some sympathy for people who are on the wrong side of it. It wasn't too long ago where it was perfectly "acceptable" to be against gay marriage, and now that position is almost like a scarlet letter that gets you called a homophobe or bigot or whatever. -Paul
[2019-07-23 09:24:11] - meh, nbd. i foresee a not-so-distant future where the majority would vote on the trans side anyways. public sentiment has moved a long way, and it doesn't have much further to move. this was 2017. 2019 is probably "rosier" (depending on which side you fall). ~a
[2019-07-23 09:21:16] - ok. ~a
[2019-07-23 09:20:05] - a: " I guess it should probably mostly bow to the whims of the majority." But this does, no? -Paul
[2019-07-23 09:19:32] - "minimizing the number of people made uncomfortable". this doesn't sound like a majority vote to me. ~a
[2019-07-23 09:18:56] - a: Well, I was more saying go with the democratic option and let the majority vote on which they prefer. But yeah, in reality, I'm sure a trans person could use whatever bathroom they like and not get caught, just like people illegally jaywalk all the time. -Paul
[2019-07-23 09:17:15] - paul: well then you'd clearly be on the trans side. nobody even knows the trans thing is happening in 99.99% of "restroom uses". (like one person in one thousand in like one use per one thousand uses, i guess that's closer to 99.9999%). and on the other side not ever being able to use a public restroom seems *very* uncomfortable to me. do you agree? ~a
[2019-07-23 09:14:38] - a: Because it seems roughly "equal" on both sides. Neither is being prevented from using the bathroom, it's just about who gets made uncomfortable. In this case, I guess you aim for minimizing the number of people made uncomfortable. -Paul
[2019-07-23 09:13:40] - a: Yeah, state run bathrooms are a thornier issue. One more reason the state should be running as few things as possible.
Honestly? I guess it should probably mostly bow to the whims of the majority. -Paul[2019-07-23 09:12:54] - (oh oops i think it was NC, sorry. not SC. my bad.) ~a
[2019-07-23 09:11:33] - a: I'm not sure I'm anti-the entire state of South Carolina, but sure, it sounds like I am anti those two laws. I'm not really familiar enough with either to say for sure, though. -Paul
[2019-07-23 09:10:30] - question number 2: what about state-run bathrooms? you said "depends on whose bathroom it is". what if the bathroom is owned by the state? what would your laws state about that bathroom? ~a
[2019-07-23 09:09:29] - in-person voting fraud. omg thank you. perfect example. i'm so glad you brought this one up because it fits exactly. the south carolina laws that "protect" people from a thing that doesn't exist, actually hurt real people in major ways. the cure is worse than the disease. i guess you are anti-south-carolina though, right? because south carolina went a step too far in *forcing* bathrooms to be anti-trans? ~a
[2019-07-23 09:05:59] - a: You probably don't. Like you said, this is like in-person voting fraud where it's probably mostly hypothetical. But, like with this waxing case, these things do happen whether it's legit or simply because somebody is trying to make a point. -Paul
[2019-07-23 09:04:40] - "If a store is uncomfortable with a biological male using the female bathroom, I think they should be allowed to disallow it" how are they supposed to confirm that people are even following their rule? like, you're the store owner, right? if a dude says he's a dude and walks into the mens restroom, and you have an issue with that. if he says he's a biological dude, how do you confirm he's . . . "lying"? ~a
[2019-07-22 15:44:27] - a: Same deal with the gay wedding cake, I imagine. Practically a non-issue except for the principle behind it. Why would a gay couple want to force somebody to make their wedding cake knowing they disapprove? Go to another bakery. -Paul
[2019-07-22 15:43:27] - a: Depends on whose bathroom it is.
I know that's a flippant answer, but it's mostly serious. I personally don't care what bathroom they use, but I also don't feel like forcing others to let them use whatever bathroom they want. If a store is uncomfortable with a biological male using the female bathroom, I think they should be allowed to disallow it. -Paul[2019-07-22 15:41:40] - do you think trans people should be allowed to use whatever bathroom they want? ~a
[2019-07-22 15:41:30] - i actually used to have this friend who was trans (not quite a friend, more of an acquaintance). if he was in the men's restroom you wouldn't have known anything was amiss. i think only like 1 time in a million any issue will arise from this. like it's mostly a non-issue, that americans care *way* to much about. ~a
[2019-07-22 15:39:54] - a: That's fair. -Paul
[2019-07-22 15:36:15] - (again, it's 2019 and this opinion expires in 10 years
) i don't care what bathroom trans people use. but if you look like a female and you walk into the male bathroom, i might say something. i might not. ~a[2019-07-22 15:34:44] - (i should specify that it's 2019, and my opinion on this may change by, say, 2029). i think it's ok to specify that your brazilian waxing company only waxes women genitalia? i'm not big on the brazilian waxing scene, though. maybe that's not a normal thing to demand. ~a
[2019-07-22 15:34:18] - a: Honest question: Should trans people be allowed to use whatever bathroom they want? -Paul
[2019-07-22 15:30:10] - a: *Shrug* Apparently in Canada. -Paul
[2019-07-22 15:30:02] - a: Would that be a reasonable excuse for my all male restaurant? -Paul
[2019-07-22 15:29:51] - are trans people a protected class? ~a
[2019-07-22 15:29:33] - a: I mean, what if my restaurant only had men's rooms and so I only wanted to serve men and it would be a huge change to add a woman's room? -Paul
[2019-07-22 15:28:46] - a: Which, yeah, it's always different. If it were the exact same situation, then what's the point? I don't need a nice neat rule, I just want consistency. This (shutting down waxers for not performing on male genetalia) seems logically consistent with the idea that businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against trans people. -Paul
[2019-07-22 15:26:42] - a: I think it's self selecting because from my perspective, it seems like you have specific groups that you are okay with being targeted by certain laws, and my preferred method of trying to show why that's wrong is showing how those laws can be turned around to hurt groups you support. Your response to those attempts generally tend to be, "But it's different!". -Paul
[2019-07-22 15:24:27] - "the same principle to me" seems to be 99% of the disagreements we have here. nothing fits into a nice neat rule like you want it to. "different in scale" imo, everything is a matter of scale and almost nothing matters more than scale. ~a
[2019-07-22 15:09:20] - a: I get that the changes being asked are different in scale, though. This example seems more ridiculous, but I guess the same principle to me. -Paul
[2019-07-22 15:07:56] - a: "it's not the same situation exactly" Agreed it's not the exact same situation but... "i'm not sure its all that similar" disagree on this. I think it's pretty similar in that in both cases people are being asked (forced?) to perform their service for a group they don't want to. -Paul
[2019-07-22 14:16:26] - bit of a grey area, but i'm not sure its all that similar. in one situation you're changing a minor thing about your product and in another situation you're changing a major thing about your product. again, grey area, for sure, i'll admit. but . . . it's not the same situation exactly. ~a
[2019-07-22 13:03:52] - Curious what people think about this on here. Seems similar to the "gay wedding cake" controversy here. -Paul
[2019-07-22 13:03:30] - https://www.thepostmillennial.com/another-b-c-woman-forced-out-of-business-in-transgender-male-genitalia-waxing-case/ Not the best article on the topic, but has anybody else heard of this? Basically some people who perform Brazilian waxes are getting shut down for refusing to perform on a male genitalia. -Paul
[2019-07-22 11:01:07] - https://twitter.com/Russo_Brothers/status/1153313134595022849 Russo Brothers shot some gratitude back at Cameron. -Paul
[2019-07-22 10:57:25] - a: Or, maybe the best thing to do is to calculate what percentage of all movie tickets sold that year a certain movie got? I guess that doesn't work with movies that span years and would make older movies way overweight since there were just fewer options... -Paul
[2019-07-22 10:55:39] - sure, your measure would be fine. the middle class has more disposable income than they did (say) 50 years ago. that means more people and more dollars for movies. people watch movies at home, but they're also willing to pay extra for fancy theaters. entertainment has moved "past" movies. lots of confounding factors all around, but i think your measure would be just as good/bad as inflation-adjusted dollars. ~a
[2019-07-22 10:49:00] - a: Honestly, I think the best metric would be some sort of calculation on how many tickets were sold as a percentage of world population. At least going forward, even thought that kinda screws really old movies. -Paul
[2019-07-22 10:47:05] - yeah i was going to mention inflation. endgame is only #5. just barely beat out the sound of music. ~a
[2019-07-22 10:46:43] - a: It's so hard to compare movies today with movies even just 10 years ago. Inflation is one thing, but there's also the international box office changing so much and even how we go to movies changing. -Paul
[2019-07-22 10:45:51] - a: Oh, yeah, Cameron is the king of high grossing movies (although a lot of people think that both were a little overrated after the fact). -Paul
[2019-07-22 10:45:12] - 2019 = 2009, sorry. ~a
[2019-07-22 10:44:11] - but that brought me to another realization. in 2019, james cameron took the top spot from himself. that's actually pretty fucking impressive. ~a
[2019-07-22 10:43:16] - i'll assume you've all already seen this (james cameron congratulates endgame for taking the top spot). it reminded me of the avatar / gone with the wind conversation we had prompted by daniel's "Is Avengers Endgame the biggest movie event ever?" question. link. ~a
[2019-07-22 10:36:13] - Daniel: https://rampantdiscourse.com/thor-ragnarok-review/ I think this review says it best.
-Paul[2019-07-22 10:33:47] - Daniel: I didn't really like Ragnarok. Thought it was too jokey. Way too many events that should've been huge and emotional were just kinda glossed over and played for laughs. I like a good balance in my movies and that almost felt like just pure slapstick comedy to me. -Paul
[2019-07-22 10:32:34] - Paul: Why leery? -Daniel
[2019-07-22 09:51:08] - mig: https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-15-dollar-minimum-wage-staff-2020-controversy-1450267?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=NewsweekTwitter&utm_source I assume you heard of this? -Paul
[2019-07-22 09:45:31] - How about Natalie Portman returning for Thor 4, though!? I'm still leery of another Taika Waititi film, but they have me intrigued. -Paul
[2019-07-22 09:44:51] - mig: Yeah, I think it's safe to say you called it. Bravo. Taskmaster is a character I know so little about. -Paul
[2019-07-22 03:26:47] - mig: I'm willing to give credit anyway. Well done.
[2019-07-22 00:35:58] - paul/xpovos: https://www.cbr.com/black-widow-concept-art-taskmaster-fight/ can we say I called this one? (I know, I didn't really "call" it) - mig
[2019-07-19 21:52:05] - <a href=“https://nypost.com/2019/07/19/bernie-sanders-campaign-staff-wants-15-minimum-wage-he-advocates-for-all-workers/â€>Do as I say, not as I do.</a> - mig
[2019-07-19 15:17:07] - a: That seems really vague. Isn't that basically what most analysts try to do? -Paul
[2019-07-19 11:18:39] - i know this is probably in the ball-park of a "no no" idea, but i wonder if there is a way to predict earnings. you know, legally of course. ~a
[2019-07-19 11:15:53] - a: Heck, I might still hold until next earnings. -Paul
[2019-07-19 11:15:36] - a: I should've trimmed before earnings. Thought the troubles were further away. Still think it'll be fine for awhile. They maintained year long guidance. -Paul
[2019-07-19 11:04:02] - yeah i trimmed a lot too. i'm fine IRL. netflix is my 23rd largest position (down from 22nd). in the competition though . . . lame. ~a
[2019-07-19 11:00:10] - a: https://paulvsthemarket.com/why-i-might-trim-my-netflix-position-this-week/ Yeah, my PvtM article was timely! I'm feeling the pain too, since NFLX was my 4th largest position. -Paul
[2019-07-18 10:14:50] - ouch, netflix. i actually got pretty close to you yesterday, paul. oof not anymore. ~a
[2019-07-17 16:27:39] - https://gizmodo.com/congressman-to-facebook-your-digital-currency-could-be-1836452739 I'm going to drop this little tidbit here as a tease for the most recent Rampant Discourse podcast series on social media. You'll have to listen in to find out what this congressman has in common with Xpovos.
-Paul[2019-07-17 12:01:33] - 42! -- Xpovos
[2019-07-17 11:52:14] - content aggregation on top of content aggregation. If we keep layering curation eventually we should end up with the best internet comment of all time! -Daneil
[2019-07-17 11:46:20] - do you guys want me to just post comments i like from reddit?! ~a
[2019-07-17 11:46:02] - also "Hans Struhar should play Steve Bannon in a biopic" ha ~a
[2019-07-17 11:29:57] - i love the top comment from that thread "In The Rock, that guy had less that 10 seconds of screen time 23 years ago and I can hear his accent in my head right now"
~a[2019-07-17 11:29:26] - paul: jokes. ~a
[2019-07-17 11:24:53] - a: I assume you mean how much I love The Rock?
-Paul[2019-07-17 11:13:05] - paul: i saw this movie detail and thought of you because everybody knows how much you love national treasure 2. (the movie "detail" is in the title, not the image) ~a
[2019-07-17 10:12:49] - a: "there are laws that protect against harassment in the workplace" Agreed. I just don't know if you want to extend those laws to politics. Doesn't seem the same to me, especially when it comes to politicians. There is no employer/employee relationship. People can't really be fired in the traditional sense. -Paul
[2019-07-17 10:10:26] - i don't think it's dangerous though. it's the point (?) (kaine's point?) that there are laws that protect against harassment in the workplace, not necessarily that this is covered directly? ~a
[2019-07-17 10:09:36] - yah. ~a
[2019-07-17 10:08:53] - a: I can't imagine half the rhetoric thrown around by politicians would be tolerated in an actual workplace. -Paul
[2019-07-17 10:08:03] - a: I guess this just seems dangerous to me. If we're going to treat the executive and legislative branches as if they were coworkers in a company.... I'm sure that has lots of other connotations that haven't been thought through which would hurt both sides. -Paul
[2019-07-17 10:07:29] - they're in the same "workplace" (legally? maybe?). that's why they call it "workplace harassment". ~a
[2019-07-17 10:06:59] - "Are they even the same company?" again, no. and, again, yes, i think that does matter. but, again, workplace harassment from a person who doesn't work for your company is probably covered, right? ~a
[2019-07-17 10:06:18] - a: Yeah, maybe I was being too specific. Are they even the same company? Is everybody in the federal government considered to be in the same workplace? -Paul
[2019-07-17 10:05:43] - yeah, they talk about it in the twitter comments some. i think it does matter that he isn't their boss. but, i think workplace harassment from a person who isn't your boss is probably covered, right? ~a
[2019-07-17 10:01:15] - a: Maybe I missed it, but do they address that the executive branch and legislative branch are supposed to be kinda separate? Trump isn't really their boss. -Paul
[2019-07-17 09:57:06] - huh. we had "tricky dick" for nixon and "slick willy" for clinton. i wonder what trump will be? tricky trump seems too derivative. ~a
[2019-07-17 09:56:04] - technically workplace harassment. interesting sub-thread i hadn't considered. thoughts? probably won't amount to anything (since he seems to be the "slick willy" of this generation), but interesting thought experiment regardless. ~a
[2019-07-16 17:16:05] - 1m price = 20t total (in 2020). gold total is 7t. the us m2 total is 10t. s&p500 total is 20t. dummy. ~a
[2019-07-16 17:12:05] - i think 500k and 1m are very unlikely prices. it probably assumes that any 10x jump is equally likely. for example, market-cap change from 100m to 1b != market cap change from 100b to 1t. they aren't the same because they represent different proportions of the world net worth. mcafee is dumb. ~a
[2019-07-16 16:55:03] - a: But an amusing moron. I just like that somebody took him serious enough to create the site.
-Paul[2019-07-16 16:47:43] - paul: (nsfw-*ish*. it's all text). it won't happen. mcafee is a moron. ~a
[2019-07-16 16:45:16] - https://jacobedawson.github.io/dickening/ Not safe for work. -Paul
[2019-07-16 15:15:19] - the strangest one for me so far is cohen. how is he in jail for doing what a guy asked him to do. and that guy gets zero charges? like, how are we all ok sending cohen to jail? i guess we sent liddy to jail, and not nixon. ~a
[2019-07-16 15:04:37] - no i have trouble keeping it straight myself. manafort is in jail, gates pleaded out (still working with prosecutors regarding stone and craig), cohen is in jail, patten / flynn probably won't see much if any jail time, papadopoulos did his time, zwaan did his time then was deported, pinedo hasn't been sentenced. we'll see what happens with stone. ~a
[2019-07-16 14:53:50] - a: Also, I don't really follow the ins and outs of the corruption with the Trump administration as you probably do. -Paul
[2019-07-16 14:53:14] - a: Hah, okay. Sorry. I legitimately was confused because also haven't a lot of them escaped punishment? -Paul
[2019-07-16 14:52:45] - paul: jokes. ~a
[2019-07-16 14:52:09] - a: Haven't a lot of them spent some time in jail? I guess it depends on what you mean by "Trump team". -Paul
[2019-07-16 14:51:22] - wouldn't it be crazy if someone on the trump team spent time in jail? ~a
[2019-07-16 14:50:57] - rules for thee but not for me. i honestly thought the punishment for ignoring a congressional subpoena (more-so ignoring it willfully and with intention) was severe. so, it's not a felony . . . but it carries a maximum sentence of 12 months. ~a
[2019-07-16 13:38:15] - a: Yes, you are right. I will change that. -Paul
[2019-07-16 13:03:17] - a: Ah, found it. You're referencing my post from 2 months ago that I never published part 2 of.
-Paul[2019-07-16 12:53:41] - paul: kinda a nit-pick but "it only needs 28 days to do it" should say "it only needs 27 days to do it". since (day 28)-(day 1) = 27 days. also ceil(ln(1e6/.01)/ln(2)) = 27 days. ~a
[2019-07-16 09:53:53] - a: Oh, that doesn't seem nearly as bad as other stuff he's done. Honestly, I don't even think the message is that bad. I mean, it's not good, but it's a message that has been delivered before and is kinda within the normal realm of political discourse. Didn't he talk about murdering family members of terrorists at some point? -Paul
[2019-07-16 09:49:34] - he's getting more angry. and less professional. i didn't think it was possible. ~a
[2019-07-16 09:41:54] - a: " i guess i see it a bit like asking if an assault was a hate crime. who cares? it's wrong to beat people up" Heh, sounds a lot like my response. I mostly agree. I think Trump's comments were dumber, but I almost find the thinking behind Pressely's comments more offensive. The implication is that all "black faces" should have the same voice? -Paul
[2019-07-16 09:36:54] - paul: sure that's borderline racist. more-so it's a dumb thing to say because it rejects voters with zero upside. . . . i guess i see it a bit like asking if an assault was a hate crime. who cares? it's wrong to beat people up. . . . in our culture (and in every culture?), being racist against the race of which you are a member is given serious latitude. (there, you get three responses. pick one) ~a
[2019-07-16 09:34:21] - a: Yeah, avoiding technical aspects was intentional because (A) I don't feel confident discussing it and (B) I don't know if it was relevant to explain why I own some bitcoin. The censorship resistance and other things you mentioned are reasons why I think it has potential as an alternative currency, but not necessarily why I think it fits in my "investments". -Paul
[2019-07-16 09:31:24] - paul: no errors at all. mostly because you stayed away from the technical aspects? i'd say the only "errors" would arise from omissions, but even those were minor: you didn't mention censorship resistance, or pseudonymity, or payments over the internet, or portability, or scarcity, or programmability. i did like your diversification discussion though. diversification is not a benefit i often consider. ~a
[2019-07-16 09:24:31] - a: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/453007-pressley-democrats-need-any-more-black-voices-that-dont-want-to-be-a-black I've got a question for you re: racist comments. What do you think about Ayanna Pressley's comments about not needing "any more black faces that don't want to be a black voice"? -Paul
[2019-07-15 16:52:14] - a: https://paulvsthemarket.com/why-i-own-some-bitcoin/ Do you mind reading to make sure I didn't make any embarrassingly bad errors? -Paul
[2019-07-15 16:28:50] - a: 'is in a remark you can get behind?" Not really. I can't think of any of that I can get behind. Nothing wrong with criticizing the government. I guess it's a little hard to say it's stupid and wrong because he didn't specify who it was directed at, but we're a nation of immigrants so I don't see how "go back to your country" makes much sense. -Paul
[2019-07-15 16:26:34] - "you can’t leave fast enough" jesus, i forgot about the biting sarcasm. ~a
[2019-07-15 16:25:25] - paul: that's fair. i should have asked 'is in a remark you can get behind?'? "I haven't read the tweets in question" it's linked below in my first post on the topic. but it's here too. ~a
[2019-07-15 16:21:22] - a: I guess I see it a bit like asking if an assault was a hate crime. Who cares? It's wrong to beat people up. The wrongness of that should trump (pun not intended) whatever motivations the person had. His statement was dumb and wrong. Does it matter if it was racist too? -Paul
[2019-07-15 16:18:58] - a: yes. - mig
[2019-07-15 16:01:27] - a: Didn't he tell people to go back where they came from.... and those people actually came from the United States? -Paul
[2019-07-15 15:57:54] - a: I haven't read the tweets in question (I honestly have a hard time reading stuff he writes because it is so poorly written). I dunno, I have this hangup where it feels like we as a society have this tendency to label too many things racist. Does it matter? Can't we just say it was a stupid remark? -Paul
[2019-07-15 15:53:58] - paul/mig: (from the title, which i got from another discussion forum) is telling people of color to "go back to where you came from" a racist remark? ~a
[2019-07-15 15:36:10] - a: Agreed it feels like crazy land, although honestly it's not these types of tweets that I am most amazed about, it's the completely ridiculous over-the-top bragging ones that have no basis in reality that I can't get over, like when he told the UN that his administration had been more successful than any other in the country's history. -Paul
[2019-07-15 15:33:17] - sounds like not-the-onion. this fucking timeline. can we all agree we're in crazy land? i feel like this is how people who lived through the nixon administration probably felt. but even the nixon administration seems like they had some fucking filters. i can't imagine nixon ever publishing "why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came". and that was the fucking 60s. ~a
[2019-07-15 14:48:49] - https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/donald-trump-racist-tweets-democrats/index.html Headline: "Trump denies racist tweets were racist".
-Paul[2019-07-15 14:02:16] - Trump's position on abortion is rather malleable. He's given some lip service to the pro-life crowd. Gay marriage honestly feels like a dead issue these days, because it looks like social conservatives have given up fighting over it. - mig
[2019-07-15 13:56:36] - Daniel: I dunno, it's impossible to say what Trump's position is on anything, but I thought he has been slightly more consistently pro-choice and fairly laissez faire on gay marriage. -Paul
[2019-07-15 13:55:30] - Daniel: Until the last few years, I would've said it was even, but the R's have definitely been in "hold my beer" mode for putting party over all else. -Paul
[2019-07-15 13:55:08] - Paul: I think he was in the past but isn't now? I could be wrong though. -Daniel
[2019-07-15 13:54:45] - Paul: I think you are probably right. I'd like to think it matters a little more on the D side but I think if push came to shove it would be pretty close. -Daniel
[2019-07-15 13:54:13] - Daniel: Isn't trump both pro-choice and pro gay marriage, though? -Paul
[2019-07-15 13:53:41] - Paul: I think there are a few central pillars and everything is much less important. I don't think a pro choice R candidate would work. Or pro gay marriage. There are probably a couple of others. But I think most economic policies are probably more malleable. -Daniel
[2019-07-15 13:53:06] - Daniel: And to be clear, I think it's the case with both parties. That's why we see anti-war marches when GWB is president and then those same people vote for uber-hawk Hillary Clinton, or nobody cares about Obama deporting people and caging people until Trump does it. -Paul
[2019-07-15 13:51:40] - Daniel: "if they vote for the right policies" I'm even more cynical (post-Trump, at least). I don't even think they need to vote for the right policies, I think they just need to be on the right team. So many of Trump's policies don't even jive with the supposed Republican position. -Paul
[2019-07-15 13:50:04] - "that political tribal loyalties are stronger than even I thought" - *cough* Roy Moore. That was when I began to realize that on a certain level it literally doesn't matter who the person is or what they have done if they vote for the right policies. I think its all justified as a big picture ends justify the means type thing. Like in order to preserve the fabric of our country we would tolerate pretty much anything. -Daniel
[2019-07-15 13:12:15] - a: Okay, maybe next week then! -Paul
[2019-07-15 13:11:43] - oh wait, no i can't play wednesday. wednesday, i have family in town that day too. ~a
[2019-07-15 13:11:22] - paul: i'm only available on thursdays for sc2. monday is xonotic! but even that i might not be able to attend because i have family in town.
tuesday is mountain biking (unless it's raining). wednesday is . . . nothing this week! ok, i could play wednesday. and thursday is thursday. i can play thursday. ~a[2019-07-15 13:08:18] - a: Do middle aged white men play Starcraft 2? Will I see you online tonight? -Paul
[2019-07-15 12:50:30] - yep now it's mostly just middle-age white men talking about middle-age white men stuff. how about them redskins? maga ~a
[2019-07-15 12:48:04] - a: Ha, yeah. It's almost like a reverse twitter where instead of the woke people all scaring off the non-woke, we're apparently the non-woke for offended the woke people off. -Paul
[2019-07-15 12:46:58] - paul: no, but it sounds about right. i think we'd mostly agree on this topic but only because we scared off (self selected) all of the people that held the alternative opinion in the great "airbender" purge of 2010. ~a
[2019-07-15 10:59:06] - Did anybody hear about the ScarJo controversy where she said she thinks she should be allowed to play trans roles and the Twitter consensus seems to be "White privilege! Trans roles for trans actors only!"? -Paul
[2019-07-15 10:56:13] - a: Right, for whatever reason the narrative is always around who won or lost, and Trump has been able to frame every defeat as a win. If that narrative changes to "he's working with the libs instead of owning them" and has sold out, then I think his base might get shook. Only thing I can think of. -Paul
[2019-07-15 10:54:59] - paul: i agree with your sentiment. . . . if people disagree about whether he "won" or "lost" they aren't talking about whether he "compromised" or "didn't compromise". ~a
[2019-07-15 09:45:08] - a: I know he's already done that at times, but it's usually been after a lot of fighting and the media spin is that he gave in (which Trump then spins that he won) instead of focusing on the fact that he compromised with the other side. -Paul
[2019-07-15 09:44:11] - a: Actually, I think I know what the line might be: As soon as he is no longer seen as "owning the libs", then I think he starts to lose his base. In other words, if he starts cutting deals with democrats. -Paul
[2019-07-15 09:43:19] - a: Yeah, I don't know. One thing I've come to realize with Trump is that political tribal loyalties are stronger than even I thought (and I thought they were pretty strong). I honestly think he might be right about being able to shoot somebody in the middle of the street and not lose supporters. -Paul
[2019-07-15 09:19:49] - mig: there's still a line though. if it turns out he was involved with jeffrey epstein nonsense (like actually involved, like as a consumer), they'd abandon him in a second. ok, maybe more than a few seconds. anything less controversial than that, though, and i'm with you. ~a
[2019-07-15 09:08:41] - a: the line for republicans to abandon him? if the hollywood access tape didn’t do it I don’t know what will. - mig
[2019-07-15 08:51:14] - update on this thing. unprecedented attack!
~a[2019-07-15 07:27:06] - paul: link ~a
[2019-07-15 07:25:36] - paul: yes. he's deleted hundreds of tweets. though, more to miguel's point, it's usually not when he says something crass . . . it's usually when he misspells something. ~a
[2019-07-15 07:24:15] - mig: understood. there is a line though, right? i guess we haven't found it yet, but it's gotta be somewhere. ~a
[2019-07-14 22:26:52] - a: Does he ever delete tweets? I thought there was a whole industry of digging into his past tweets where he criticized Obama (or others) for doing the exact same thing he is doing now. -Paul
[2019-07-14 17:39:33] - and deletion would be a sign of contrition, which is to Trump weakness. So I wouldn't expect that. - mig
[2019-07-14 17:36:56] - a: I'm not sure it's really worth any time trying to find any rationality Trump's deep twitter thoughts. The MO is hurl baseless insults first, maybe think about it later. - mig
[2019-07-14 11:46:40] - i'm actually surprised he hasn't deleted this tweet. regarding aoc and ilhan omar: why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came? they came from the US, so . . . is he saying the US is totally broken? and crime infested? aoc was born here and omar has lived here since age 9. wtf?! ~a
[2019-07-13 15:50:43] - paul: "what if your teammates wanted to kick somebody off for wearing a hijab? Would you tell them to do that?" no. ~a
[2019-07-13 10:05:54] - I think a lot of it has to do with the intention of the team in wearing the uniform. They're emphatically saying, "we support this." Which is, of course, why she felt that she couldn't wear the uniform. A lot of the other counter examples I could come up with have less to do with "supporting" a position, and more to do with practicalities,or appearances of neutrality. -- Xpovos
[2019-07-13 10:01:40] - I happen to agree with her, but I think, honestly, more of that comes from agreeing with her belief system more than with her actions themselves. -- Xpovos
[2019-07-13 10:01:05] - My reading was a little more complicated, even, than that. She elected to sit rather than wear the uniform. The team said, "wear this," which is a thing teams do all of the time, and she said, "no." In a vacuum, that seems pretty bad sportsmanship, and like being a bad teammate. The fact that she had bona fide religious conviction reasons not to is an "accident" to this problem. -- Xpovos
[2019-07-13 09:39:23] - a: I find it weird that you're assuming they're a shitty teammate because they didn't want to wear a gay pride uniform. Is there any reason to think this person is a shitty teammate? -Paul
[2019-07-13 09:38:47] - a: Oof. Sorry. I don't know how I feel about that justification. Like Miguel said, what if your teammates wanted to kick somebody off for wearing a hijab? Would you tell them to do that? -Paul
[2019-07-13 07:31:09] - if my teammates wanted to kick off somebody because they wouldn't wear a gay pride uniform we agreed on, i'd say do it. i feel if things ever got that bad, though, i would have been like "sure kick them off" long ago for being a shitty teammate. it's kinda important that you like your teammates. ~a
[2019-07-12 23:08:38] - Obviously we don't know the full story, but it kinda seems like she wasn't preaching to teammates about the evil of their ways, and the most "intolerant" thing she did was not want to wear a gay pride uniform. -Paul
[2019-07-12 23:07:49] - I kinda get what Xpovos is saying, and agree to an extent, but I also think the whole "intolerant about intolerance" thing is a bit of a cop out. -Paul
[2019-07-12 21:42:35] - xpovos: but even granting, that, then fucking own it. Don't hide behind "no it's totally a soccer related decision". - mig
[2019-07-12 21:17:03] - "but at least it's initially logically and internally consistent." is it? if this player was a devout muslim, which has similar, if not harsher views on homosexuality, would this have played out the same way? - mig
[2019-07-12 20:53:23] - mig: That seems harsh. It's more likely to be "tolerance for anything but intolerance." That's something we can disagree about, but at least it's initially logically and internally consistent. -- Xpovos
[2019-07-12 18:51:18] - paul: tolerance for me, but not for thee. - mig
[2019-07-12 16:53:28] - a: "i don't have much of a problem with it here" Why? I don't necessarily disagree (not sure I agree either, I'm conflicted), but I'm curious your reasons. -Paul
[2019-07-12 16:45:41] - discriminating based on someone's faith does have negative side affects on everybody (the person being excluded *and* the people doing the excluding). but i don't have much of a problem with it here. ~a
[2019-07-12 16:20:16] - https://www.dailywire.com/news/49375/us-womens-soccer-team-accused-snubbing-star-player-hank-berrien I hadn't heard anything about this, but it seems like an unfortunate situation all around. -Paul
[2019-07-12 11:53:21] - he also wrote the never ending story, wtf. ~a
[2019-07-12 11:52:34] - i kinda want to go and watch all of wolfgang petersen movies. his filmography list includes some crazy movies: "das boot" director also directed "never ending story", "air force one", "outbreak", "in the line of fire", wow. ~a
[2019-07-12 11:39:57] - mig: Feels like a long time coming, considering how identity politics pretty much de facto pits groups against each other. -Paul
[2019-07-12 11:36:17] - https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/452701-cbc-members-accuse-aoc-linked-justice-democrats-of-targeting-black this democrat civil war is getting pretty nasty. - mig
[2019-07-11 20:54:07] - https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/11/us/air-canada-turbulence-passengers-injured/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F Look! An airplane accident article that doesn't mention the pilot. -Paul
[2019-07-11 13:25:15] - yeah, sounds right to me too. ~a
[2019-07-11 13:24:47] - a: Completely non-informed guess? Anybody who isn't in a motor vehicle who is killed or wounded in a car crash is counted as a pedestrian. Makes it easy to add up the numbers. -Paul
[2019-07-11 13:12:45] - i wonder . . . do bench-sitters count as pedestrians for crash statistics? ~a
[2019-07-11 13:03:36] - a: Which I guess is another thing. Car crashes happen all the time, so this likely won't ever get a follow-up detailing what the driver did or what happened. It's almost more a warning about traffic than anything else. -Paul
[2019-07-11 13:02:54] - a: I'm trying to find an article about a plane crash of roughly equal length and I can't. Thankfully, all the plane crashes happened awhile ago so they're all multiple paragraphs. -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:59:53] - a: I dunno, if it's breaking news about something that just happened where there's little information and the article itself is like 20 sentences or something? I'm guessing it's not going to mention the pilot and is probably going to talk about where the flight took off from and where it was headed and the nationality of the people on board and other stuff. -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:57:43] - no. i don't think it's unfair. but to take this further, i think . . . it does depend. did the article say anything about the pilot? or did it leave him out entirely? really that's what everybody is commenting on. not the *title* of the article. it's that the article left out the driver (/pilot) entirely. ~a
[2019-07-11 12:53:06] - a: What do you think about my airplane analogy. I think it works well in kinda the opposite direction. Don't you think it's unfair to use the active voice for airplane crashes? -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:52:12] - a: No, it's not. If the cyclist falls asleep then 99% of the time he falls over and hurts nobody but himself. That's not the case with cars. -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:51:41] - but paul, we don't know. the bicyclist could have fallen asleep. (s) . . . it's just as ridiculous. ~a
[2019-07-11 12:50:49] - a: Uh... it's not something to be sorry about. I'm just saying it makes the analogy tough. Bikes can't quite do things on their own as much as cars can, and they can't do damage in the same way. -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:49:41] - a: That sounds a lot different than "airplane crashes into the ocean". -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:49:37] - "there are some fundamental differences between bikes and cars" sorry? ~a
[2019-07-11 12:49:13] - a: I get what you're trying to do, but there are some fundamental differences between bikes and cars. How about this? How about, "pilot crashes airplane into ocean"? -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:48:06] - "motorcycle crashes into a group of protesters" ~a
[2019-07-11 12:47:21] - paul: part of me wants to ONLY change the type of vehicle. that's how ridiculous this is. "bicycle runs red and causes a fucking accident" people would say "bicyclist" or "cyclist" or "bicycle rider" like 110% of the time. ~a
[2019-07-11 12:38:52] - Daniel: Right? Isn't part of the point of active voice that it implies more intention than passive voice? -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:38:19] - a: I'm interested in your analogy, because I wonder if the implication I hear extends to other areas. -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:37:51] - i'd try for an analogy, but i'm fine with the agree to disagree. ~a
[2019-07-11 12:37:33] - a: And that's probably the point of disagreement between us then.
I dunno, I think if we found out after the fact that this person had a heart attack and was unconscious when the crash happened, I would feel far less angry at the driver than I would had I read about "a driver drove into a bench of people" would make me feel. -Paul[2019-07-11 12:37:18] - a: "A driver drove into a bench full of people" - that sounds intentional to me in a vacuum. -Daniel
[2019-07-11 12:35:42] - i don't see that implication that you do. ~a
[2019-07-11 12:35:21] - "it kinda implies they did it intentionally or at least consciously" it does not imply this. ~a
[2019-07-11 12:35:19] - a: "A driver drove into a bench full of people" to me implies something that "a car drove into a bench full of people" does not. -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:34:52] - a: Sorry, forgot the naming part wasn't what you were arguing. -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:34:19] - a: No, but I think if you said, "John Smith drove into a crowd of people" then it kinda implies they did it intentionally or at least consciously. -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:33:34] - "leap to conclusions" disingenuous. it's not leaping to conclusions that the car had a driver. ~a
[2019-07-11 12:33:06] - a: Fair. I guess agree to disagree. I'm very much into the idea of not trying to leap to conclusions about stuff before all the information is in. I think a more active tone could encourage that (leaping to conclusions, that is). Without knowing what happened, I think it's okay to use passive voice. -Paul
[2019-07-11 12:32:38] - "allegedly" i would have no issue with them using this word. ~a
[2019-07-11 12:31:11] - "I'm sympathetic to the writer of the article" i am not. "Is it still considered driving into people if they were unconscious?" yes. ~a
prev <-> next