prev <-> next
[2020-09-15 19:45:35] - But if you are inferring a desire for their town to be and remain an all black city then thats on you since you are then just assuming they are liars given that they explicitly say that isn't a goal. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 19:44:42] - They want to try and have a town that isn't prejudiced by starting with black leadership to presumably set policies in order to support that goal. I don't know all the policies that they will set. I'm not even sure what they would be. But they are going to give it a go and see I guess. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 19:43:35] - Thats a quote from the article. I don't have to infer intentions because they are stated. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 19:43:21] - FTA: It's impossible to have anything exclusively Black because our families are integrated," says Scott. "We are an integrated, tolerant and diverse community even as Black people, so we don't intend for it to be exclusively Black, but we do intend for it to be pro Black in every way."
[2020-09-15 19:29:17] - paul: they're all arguments for why "if you replaced every instance of the word 'black' with 'white' in that article" things need not be equal. ~a
[2020-09-15 19:27:21] - a: Okay, but what does any of that have to do with motivations? I could see those being arguments for why they might be more justified for wanting what I think is a mostly black town, but I don't see why that would change the assumptions that I make about their intentions. -Paul
[2020-09-15 18:29:00] - paul: lol i forgot about money, oops. median household income, white 70k. median household income, black 40k. 50% of black children under 6yo live in poverty. compare that to 15% of white children. the average wealth of black households was $140k. white, $900k. that's 550% more. ~a
[2020-09-15 18:13:07] - paul: the situation isn't symmetrical. ~a
[2020-09-15 18:12:50] - paul: "black youth are more likely to encounter negative contact with law enforcement and accrue violations, which leads to fines and failure to pay, which in turn leads to warrants and/or probation violations" . they're also underrepresented in college. in 2016 there was a huge rise in hate crimes on college campuses (+25% in one year). ~a
[2020-09-15 18:12:45] - paul: their healthcare is typcially much worse: black veterans have been incorrectly denied disability pension by the military disability pension system in the early 1900s. the us responded slowly to the aids epidemic in minority communities. the war on drugs famously treated crack and powdered cocaine very differently. police kill a disproportionate amount of black people during arrests. ~a
[2020-09-15 18:12:44] - paul: black people are over-represented in our criminal justice system and that they receive longer sentences than white people when convicted. you don't have to go too far in the past to find a history of redlining in housing and lending. in fact, you don't have to go into the past at all. because it's still here today: in 2015 the us settled a case on redlining. ~a
[2020-09-15 17:45:46] - a: Why isn't it symmetrical? -Paul
[2020-09-15 16:45:48] - paul: of course i wouldn't. the situation isn't symmetrical. ~a
[2020-09-15 16:45:09] - a: And I am very dubious you would be giving the same benefit of the doubt if you replaced every instance of the word "black" with "white in that article. -Paul
[2020-09-15 16:44:05] - a: Than to assume that maybe they want to create a city which is exclusively or (more realistically) as close to exclusively black as possible. -Paul
[2020-09-15 16:43:27] - a: Okay. I guess agree to disagree. I really don't see any other reasonable way to read an article all about creating a "safe haven for people of color, for Black families in particular", which has an entire section devoted to previous "all-black" communities, and where when the creators are asked why they want to "create an all-Black city" their response is "It's something that's been done for generations" -Paul
[2020-09-15 15:03:05] - i don't know. it won't be easy, but i don't think it'll be impossible. ~a
[2020-09-15 13:54:05] - a: And how do you think they plan to accomplish that? -Paul
[2020-09-15 13:27:18] - paul: basically the same as most towns in the united states, but for black people like it usually is for white people. imagine systemically promoting the addressing of black issues instead of systemically promoting the addressing of white issues. ~a
[2020-09-15 13:24:35] - a: So what do you think they want? -Paul
[2020-09-14 20:25:19] - yes. ~a
[2020-09-14 20:24:45] - a: I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying they don't want an all (or as close to all) black city as possible? -Paul
[2020-09-14 20:08:39] - paul: i did notice that and thought it seemed fairly ambiguous. i'm glad they clarified at the end that it wasn't going to be an all-black town. that it wasn't going to be as close to an all-black town as possible. ~a
[2020-09-14 20:07:20] - a: I suppose the "History of Black cooperatives" section which references multiple all-black cities is just thrown in as a completely unrelated history lesson as well. -Paul
[2020-09-14 20:06:18] - a: "Scott and Walters say they've gotten questions about why they want to create an all-Black city. Their response? It's something that's been done for generations." If they didn't want an all-black city, wouldn't their response be "we don't want an all-black city" and not "It's something that's been done for generations" and "It's impossible to have anything exclusively Black"? -Paul
[2020-09-14 20:05:51] - paul: i've read the article. which part specifically. ~a
[2020-09-14 20:03:17] - a: Uh, may I present the whole article? -Paul
[2020-09-14 20:02:49] - Daniel: I mean, it's a very puzzling article to me. There first 90% or so is all about creating a safe haven (safe from who?) and there are like 3-4 paragraphs directly before which talk about the history of all-black towns... and then they have almost a throw-away line about it being "an integrated, tolerant and diverse community". -paul
[2020-09-14 19:59:10] - "they might want as close to an all-black town as possible" can you source why you think this? because you state it twice (and imply it a third time) without any evidence. ~a
[2020-09-14 19:57:50] - Daniel: My point was that they might want as close to an all-black town as possible, but they probably can't outright say that because to enforce that would probably be illegal. -Paul
[2020-09-14 19:36:27] - mig: man i really thought we were going to do well against the lakers. Especially after game 1. If the rockets had won I'd have defended it as a legit title so I don't think I can diminish it if Lebron wins. -Daniel
[2020-09-14 19:27:26] - isn't the "title" or the "season" well defined? like even if there's one game or 100 games, a season (or a title) is well defined, right? ~a
[2020-09-14 19:26:29] - fun question: assuming lakers win, does this title count for lebron in terms of goat-ness? - mig
[2020-09-14 17:51:40] - whoosh. my bad then -Daniel
[2020-09-14 17:45:48] - daniel: that was sarcasm. ~a
[2020-09-14 17:45:28] - a: There is no " all black parts of their town". Unless I suck at reading (possible) its just a town being started by some black families. Thats it. There is no intention for it to stay or be enforced as an all black town. -Daniel
[2020-09-14 17:03:55] - i hate the fucking npr pledge drive. "support" "sustainer" "ongoing" "vital" all day long. ~a
[2020-09-14 16:50:40] - daniel: it's probably the anti discrimination law that will prevent them from enforcing the all black parts of their town. ~a
[2020-09-14 14:49:50] - paul: I'm not sure what the it in your sentence refers to. Your original statement implies you thought the town was going to be an all black town into the future. The article quotes them explicitly saying that its not a perpetually black town. So there isn't anything to run against anti discrimination laws because there is no planned discrimination? -Daniel
[2020-09-14 14:09:31] - Daniel: Also, probably because it would bump up against anti-discrimination laws? Assuming those apply. -Paul
[2020-09-14 13:38:56] - FTA: It's impossible to have anything exclusively Black because our families are integrated," says Scott. "We are an integrated, tolerant and diverse community even as Black people, so we don't intend for it to be exclusively Black, but we do intend for it to be pro Black in every way."
[2020-09-14 13:38:50] - Paul: I'm confused - its just apparently some town forming and being made by all black individuals but I don't think there is a plan / expectation that it remains all black. -Daniel
[2020-09-12 20:30:39] - https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/12/us/freedom-black-cooperative-toomsboro/index.html Far be it for me to be even remotely critical of a town called "Freedom", but I am kinda curious how they intend to enforce the "all-black" aspect of it. -Paul
[2020-09-11 20:48:42] - imo, she probably thought, "we aren't allowed to have kids show toy guns", and either panicked or decided to fuck over the kid because she's a jerk or wanted to make an example of him? ~a
[2020-09-11 20:47:08] - did you look at the gun? i mean we can both agree she's an idiot . . . but more-so, i don't honestly think she thought it was a real gun. do you? ~a
[2020-09-11 19:38:06] - No but if they thought it was real then maybe? -Daniel
[2020-09-11 19:31:24] - you need supervision to use a toy gun? ~a
[2020-09-11 18:35:42] - Like how did the teacher know he wasn't being supervised by a parent? Maybe if they knew that... -Daniel
[2020-09-11 18:34:58] - Calling the police seems incredibly assholish. Suspending him for a toy gun seems like a dick move by the school. Even if it was a real gun if he's in his house /shrug? -Daniel
[2020-09-11 18:30:49] - do you have any links? i'm not sure i'd come down as "this is ridiculous" as quickly for other toy-gun situations. ~a
[2020-09-11 18:29:22] - When it wasn't convid season I think Reason posted a story like this almost once a week. - mig
[2020-09-11 18:18:54] - a: Yes, you said it much more succinctly. -Paul
[2020-09-11 18:18:39] - a: To be clear, I think if you look at the entire universe of "things" (ie, is stealing wrong? is murder wrong? is being prejudiced wrong? is Donald Trump dumb?), we probably agree on more than we disagree... but if something is being brought here it probably means it is at least a tiny bit controversial and those things we all tend to agree on less. -Paul
[2020-09-11 18:17:19] - nah, i think we agree on a lot of things. we just focus most of our time / effort on things we disagree on. ~a
[2020-09-11 18:16:52] - a: About the only thing I think we can all truly agree on is how horrible a person Donald Trump is. -Paul
[2020-09-11 18:16:39] - usually? ~a
[2020-09-11 18:16:24] - a: I'm just saying that I pretty much never go into anything on the message board with the idea that, "we can all obviously agree on this", because I usually end up being proven wrong.
-Paul[2020-09-11 18:16:22] - "They wisely decided to transfer him to a private or charter school." AMEN. - mig
[2020-09-11 18:10:58] - paul: apparently. ~a
[2020-09-11 18:04:56] - a: I mean, I am on the side of it being incredibly silly to call the cops, but.... I dunno, I guess I have gotten to the point where I don't take any "obvious" things for granted anymore. I thought outrage over the "chink in the armor" comment from the Chinese announcer about a Japanese baseball player was just as ridiculous as this but apparently was wrong about what everybody else thought. -paul
[2020-09-11 18:01:57] - unless you thought it was a real gun, i'm totally confused. ~a
[2020-09-11 18:01:22] - ok i guess maybe not? doesn't change my opinion. even if you're going to suspend the kid for breaking rules (dubious), what's with getting the police involved? ~a
[2020-09-11 17:59:14] - a: https://www.essence.com/news/police-called-elliott-toy-gun-online-school/ You sure that is something we can all agree on? I believe here is a picture of the gun. -Paul
[2020-09-11 17:50:56] - news is a few days old so you maybe all saw it. just trying to find some news we can all agree on . . . but how about that teacher?! she knew what she was doing. i'm not sure to be more mad at the teacher, or the school who reacted horribly, or the police department who didn't laugh in the teachers face. the teacher was only ONE idiot. ~a
[2020-09-11 17:38:22] - The incentives and benefits for police are just not in line with what they could be and it leads to negative outcomes. Sadly. -Daniel
[2020-09-11 17:37:16] - a: Police are so fucked up right now. Its going to take a long time to "fix" them. -Daniel
[2020-09-11 16:52:02] - daniel: yay austin? ~a
[2020-09-11 16:52:00] - xpovos: yeah, i like looking at excess deaths. it's an interesting metric i didn't know about before covid. ~a
[2020-09-11 16:04:35] - But that's still a potentially lethal long term side effect. It's one of the reasons why I think the excess deaths metric is going to be so much more important. That has other problems, such as trying to break out which part of excess deaths is attributable just to COVID, but it's a number with an actuarial basis. -- Xpovos
[2020-09-11 16:03:23] - The lethality of COVID does seem to be decreasing. We're getting better at treating it. And who knows, it may have already mutated to a less leathal variant. There are still major health consequences, even pontentially in non-aypomtomatic cases. 15%, not the headline number (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2020/09/03/big-ten-athletes-covid-had-myocarditis-symptoms-one-third-cases/5704234002/) -- Xpovos
[2020-09-11 14:02:38] - a: I'm tempted to check it out, but I worry I would be too tempted to provide input and that sounds potentially disastrous. -Paul
[2020-09-11 14:02:10] - a: Right, so I guess with IFR and CFR generally going down everywhere, it's a little unfair to point at NY and say they handled it poorly, but at the same time I do wonder what the "COVID deaths over projected COVID infections" rate is for NY versus other states. -Paul
[2020-09-11 13:34:13] - apparently 100k is the only number i know. ~a
[2020-09-11 13:33:45] - paul: i think you should go and report back to us. you'll be the stakeholder representing rampant discourse and the message board with our combined 100k nova resident patrons. ~a
[2020-09-11 13:32:22] - paul: still (!) death rate could mean other things too though. death rate could mean the number of people dying per day, or the number of people dying per 100k people. like, it's even more ambiguous than that. but yeah, i agree the cfr and ifr are both going down. ~a
[2020-09-11 13:31:10] - a: I do not consider myself an influential stakeholder. -Paul
[2020-09-11 13:30:58] - a: Yeah, I could mean CFR or IFR.
I used "death rate" because I honestly wasn't sure the best term to use. It does seem like most ways you measure it, it is going down, right? -Paul[2020-09-11 13:14:41] - paul: do you consider yourself an influential stakeholder? ~a
[2020-09-11 13:11:46] - paul: probably not, given the discussions i've seen on the topic, it's probably going to be a shit show. - mig
[2020-09-11 13:09:46] - paul: you might not want to use the term "death rate" as it's ambiguous (deaths / 100k people? or deaths / estimated infected people? or deaths / cases?) ~a
[2020-09-11 13:06:52] - https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_lhJvSQnBQ8Gm5fQwEHvpVg Any TJ alum here get an email about this and thinking about going? -Paul
[2020-09-11 12:54:55] - For context, I was originally wondering what NY's death rate was versus other states, then realized that might be a misleading comparison. -Paul
[2020-09-11 12:53:51] - So, isn't the death rate from COVID pretty much going down in almost every country right now? Do we know why that is? As far as I know we haven't developed any special new effective treatment, have we? Is it because of increased testing? Or did all of the vulnerable already die and now the relatively young and healthy are left? -Paul
[2020-09-11 12:09:38] - so I'm standing by my initial statement. - mig
[2020-09-11 12:08:53] - The death count to me is mostly irrelevant. No one really disagrees this policy was courting with disaster and you don't get a pass because maybe it didn't completely turn into one, though we don't know if we actually have an honest accounting of the NH death totals (which Cuomo is fighting to prevent any independant investigation into this). - mig
[2020-09-11 12:06:01] - as for "force", the fact check piece provides a really dubious. Is it technically true that they could have gotten out of this under federal guidelines? Maybe. They would have to sue the governor probably to do that, not sure that's something NHs would consider during an emergency with the governor handing you a mandate. - mig
[2020-09-11 12:02:26] - daniel: it was shitty and reckless. I really can't believe this was the only option to deal with the hospital bed problem, and I don't believe Cuomo ever argued such a point in defense of this. - mig
[2020-09-10 22:32:48] - mig: https://khn.org/news/is-cuomo-directive-to-blame-for-nursing-home-covid-deaths-as-us-official-claims/ Less opinion based peice. -Daniel
[2020-09-10 22:28:48] - Which is totally a strawman, I get that, but if hospitals are full and people gotta go somewhere then we / someone has to figure out where they go. -Daniel
[2020-09-10 22:28:05] - I would agree that its a shitty choice. But if the alternative is just putting them on the side of the road then maybe its a better choice than that. -Daniel
[2020-09-10 22:26:52] - mig: Why is that morally terrible? Is there context around that statement? I wasn't even aware of the directive till now but if its made in overall balance of the states populace and trying to figure out hospital beds then maybe it was the only choice out of bad ones? I don't think NH residents dying is good or anything but I think there is more needed to know before it seems appropriate to label it immoral to me. -Daniel
[2020-09-10 21:15:26] - paul: I'm not as sure, I think Andrew Cuomo's policy of forcing nursing homes to accept convid patients is probably the worst of the worst when it comes to policy failures from a moral standpoint. - mig
[2020-09-10 19:02:51] - Again you're ignoring the time aspect. Trump is TODAY downplaying the concern. the Whitehouse downplaying affects everybody (~100% of Americans, including you and me, and maybe like 75% of the world). ~a
[2020-09-10 18:55:55] - a: I'm fine saying Trump's was, by far, much worse morally. -Paul
[2020-09-10 18:55:22] - a: At best, we're looking at something like maybe 30% of Americans believe Trump and might change behavior based on what he said? But they're still often restricted to laws passed by their state governments. I imagine the CDC probably had a lot more people listening to them and governments crafting laws based on their suggestions as well. -Paul
[2020-09-10 18:52:57] - a: Well, I was working on the assumption that it wasn't a mistake (didn't Fauci or somebody pretty much acknowledge as much?). I should've more specific, though: I meant which was worse in terms of it led to a worse outcome? Obviously we'll never be able to measure it, but did Trump's downplaying help spread COVID more than the CDC discouraging mask use? -Paul
[2020-09-10 14:22:30] - paul: the cdc mask thing was a short term problem (were it not for trump) would have been very temporary (like, 1 month max, say 10k extra deaths? or maybe fewer if you count the front line workers.). the trump downplaying the virus is still happening today (8 months and counting, say 100k extra deaths?). ~a
[2020-09-10 14:22:24] - paul: trump downplaying coronavirus. that was much worse and it's not even close. "preventing a panic" is only a narrative. it doesn't actually make any real sense: it helped prevent no panic (nothing good) and it did harm. the cdc mask thing was a mistake (maybe?) that did harm, but maybe actually did some good. ~a
[2020-09-10 12:59:54] - Also, and this isn't intended to be whataboutism at all, but is an honest question: Which was worse? Trump downplaying Coronavirus or the CDC telling people NOT to wear masks early on? Let's assume for the sake of argument both were done intentionally (ie, the CDC knew masks helped by wanted to save them for emergency workers). -Paul
[2020-09-10 12:58:09] - a: That's a fair difference. I guess either way, I would be leery of keeping either an emergency fund OR money needed in a year and a half in the stock market. It could certainly work out... but it could also lead to some selling at the bottom. -Paul
[2020-09-10 12:55:15] - Re: Trump downplaying Coronavirus. I guess I'm surprised this is news? It has felt obvious from the very beginning that he has been downplaying the danger of Coronavirus and the impact it has been having. I guess now we know it was intentional and not incompetence? -Paul
[2020-09-10 12:08:25] - a: travel bans are kind of his wheelhouse. - mig
[2020-09-10 06:21:12] - a: He did do the travel bans early but then didn't do anything else or suggest people be careful or issue any kind of warnings about social behavior. Shouldn't have to leave it up to the NBA to shut down america. -Daniel
[2020-09-10 05:10:24] - the white house travel bans with china and europe were prescient. is this really what happened? that doesn't sound like trump. ~a
[2020-09-10 03:38:45] - a: I think that mostly was the story (re: travel bans). - mig
[2020-09-09 23:29:14] - daniel/mig: for fun I read through the r/conservative comments on that story. I did find the comment I came up with: "prevent panic". so, yay me. But I also saw one I should have seen but didn't. The evidence that he was just preventing panic: he shut down travel to China and europe when people told him not to. Which is true but probably not the whole story (I honestly don't remember the whole story). ~a
[2020-09-09 21:06:26] - daniel: that's a big yikes from me, dog. He really is testing the "i can shoot someone on 5th avenue and they'll still love me" concept. - mig
[2020-09-09 20:57:10] - paul: i disagree. emergency funds are perpetual and rolling. they're also needed at an undertermined date. daniel's situation is non-perpetual, and needed at a determined specific date. this is different and should be treated differently (imo). i'd probably use bonds+equity mix for both: but that mix would be different (emergency fund ~80% stocks ~20% bonds 20y from retire, planned-non-emergency purchase ~20% stocks ~80% bonds). ~a
[2020-09-09 20:56:16] - a: I think actively anti mask is definitely more than preventing panic. Also everything was more than preventing panic. But yeah I do agree that almost nothing would change a lot of his supporters minds at this point. -Daniel
[2020-09-09 20:50:55] - daniel: meh. unless there's more to this story than i've read, his followers will say "of course he was playing it down, that's his job: to prevent panic". ~a
[2020-09-09 19:40:12] - Oof https://twitter.com/CNNnewsroom/status/1303731716645937153 I mean no one here likes Trump but still. Oof. -Daniel
[2020-09-09 17:41:17] - a: True. But for the reasons that matter (chance of the account losing value before it is needed) it seems the same. -Paul
[2020-09-09 17:22:04] - we aren't talking about an emergency fund. ~a
[2020-09-09 17:21:42] - a: I wasn't talking about bonds. I meant equities (the stock market). I thought you were of the opinion that it was perfectly fine to keep emergency fund money in the stock market. -Paul
[2020-09-09 17:02:53] - paul: yeah, seems about right. trump is a master at distraction. ~a
[2020-09-09 17:01:03] - paul: i think you and i disagree on this a bit, but bonds don't have the same risk-scenarios as stocks do. when the market crashes hard, and 25% of the world is unemployed, and the economy draws back hard, bonds still don't see more than a 1% change. for some things, 1% is a big deal, especially now where bonds aren't paying more than 1%/year anyways. but still, it's very different than leaving money "in the market". ~a
[2020-09-09 17:00:53] - a: https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1303737163494940677 Amash brings up drone strikes, which you have mentioned before and which the media seems to have completely forgotten about. -Paul
[2020-09-09 16:55:23] - Daniel: A boat or house remodel sounds like there is some flexibility in timing that it might be worth the risk of leaving the money in (although that depends on your risk tolerance too). Something like solar panels has a bit of a harder deadline considering the phasing out of the tax credits. -Paul
[2020-09-09 16:50:42] - Daniel: I think Adrian and I disagree on this a bit, but I wouldn't be comfortable leaving money in the market that I needed in 1.5 years. Now, that is for "needed", and if it was something closer to "I want to buy a house in 1.5 years" then maybe I would be okay with it since that "want" implies some flexibility. -Paul
[2020-09-09 14:38:55] - when i bought my last house i didn't know about the ease of vanguard bonds. so, i kept most of the down-payment money in my checking account (for ~12 months). i figured it was better than leaving it in the market. and it was. but still, i would have put it all into bnd or vbtlx if i had known what i know now. ~a
[2020-09-09 14:32:05] - according to the literature, we're supposed to keep most of our bonds in ira/401k. but i still keep some (fewer) bonds in my taxable accounts too. ~a
[2020-09-09 14:30:52] - check out bnd (vanguard etf) or vbtlx/vtabx (vanguard non-etfs) if you don't know about them already. ~a
[2020-09-09 14:29:30] - daniel: bonds. or . . . depending on specifics (like how important the timing of the "boat/remodel" was), i'd probably leave it in the market, which i currently have at ~25% bonds anyways. ~a
[2020-09-09 14:28:15] - daniel: bonds. ~a
[2020-09-09 14:27:57] - a: If you had a chunk of money that you were going to buy a boat, or remodel a house, or buy solar panels etc with within the next 1.5 years would you still invest it in the market till you were ready to spend it? -Daniel
[2020-09-09 13:33:02] - mig: sure seems to be missing a link. probably along the lines of "pandemic is deepening pre-existing inequalities, exposing vulnerabilities in social, political and economic systems which are in turn amplifying the impacts of the pandemic" link ~a
[2020-09-09 13:28:37] - https://twitter.com/un/status/1302593895029714944 I'm not sure I follow this logic ... - mig
[2020-09-05 02:36:19] - a: Ah, sorry, that explains my confusion. -Paul
[2020-09-04 20:25:56] - a: I don't have to imagine. It actually happened. - mig
[2020-09-04 19:31:57] - the "same standard" will never happen. ~a
[2020-09-04 19:31:03] - can you imagine the president condemning violence by the police? oof. ~a
[2020-09-04 19:27:58] - paul: i was referencing mig's posts if that wasn't clear. ~a
[2020-09-04 19:27:35] - paul: mostly media and republican leaders. ~a
[2020-09-04 19:24:20] - a: Sure, police and counter protestors should be held to the same standard. - mig
[2020-09-04 18:09:13] - transmasculine, transbaiting, queerbaiting, gender binary... These are all terms I either hadn't heard before or had to stop and think to process what it meant (especially considering it was often listed directly after and related to one of the other terms). -Paul
[2020-09-04 18:07:26] - Daniel: That paragraph was a particularly difficult one, but some of the ones before and after were tough too. It largely comes down to not being immediately familiar with the words. Pretty much every sentence had a word or concept I had to either look up, or stop to think about what it means. -Paul
[2020-09-04 18:06:15] - "If queerbaiting in the modern sense involves intentionally including overt queer subtext in a work in order to capitalize on a queer audience, only to later textually reject the possibility of queer relationships, then this version of Mulan feels a lot like that for trans identity, a tantalizing tease to trans viewers that ultimately reinforces a gender binary — like it wants to have its gender reveal party cake and eat it too." -Paul
[2020-09-04 18:06:00] - Daniel: "And because we see Mulan leaning so strongly toward presenting as transmasculine, the film’s conflation of “true” identity with the gender you’re assigned at birth, and Mulan’s ultimately abrupt embrace of her womanhood, feels a little like ... transbaiting." -Paul
[2020-09-04 18:02:56] - a: "unequivocal condemnation of violence by police and counter-protesters would be a nice start" By who? I'm not sure what that is in relation to. -Paul
[2020-09-04 16:02:01] - Paul: I read the Mulan article. Which part did you not understand? Do you mean like you don't know the words (cis, transbaiting, etc) or you don't understand why its relevant / important / etc? -Daniel
[2020-09-04 16:01:42] - mig/paul: unequivocal condemnation of violence by police and counter-protesters would be a nice start. and i mean real condemnation. ~a
[2020-09-04 15:58:10] - a: Absolutely. Considering the attention paid towards Kyle Rittenhouse, I have faith the media will be on top of violence attributable towards counter-protesters. -Paul
[2020-09-04 14:55:01] - and counterprotesters. ~a
[2020-09-04 14:54:40] - a: "accounting the 7% as strictly blm is terribly unfair." I'm not sure what that means, but I also don't know if anybody is doing that? The article is about "racial justice protests" (from what I can tell having not read it
). I guess you are saying that some of that could be instigated by cops? I would be curious if the article addresses that. -Paul[2020-09-04 14:52:24] - paul: "I don't know if that anecdotal evidence excuses the violence at the other.... dozens? of protests." accounting the 7% as strictly blm is terribly unfair. ~a
[2020-09-04 14:37:49] - https://www.vox.com/culture/21419366/disney-new-mulan-review-2020-live-action-remake Not trolling, but I legit couldn't even understand the part of the review under the heading "The weak writing makes Mulan’s gender issues a lot messier". Is this was getting old feels like? -Paul
[2020-09-04 14:36:55] - paul: i remember that too. ~a
[2020-09-04 14:35:57] - a: I can remember tons of pieces worried about violence at tea party protests or COVID outbreaks at the re-opening protests or the fact that a single boy smiled at a native american banging a drum in his face at a moment in time, and yet the coverage of these protests are all about how "mostly peaceful" they are and how unlikely they are to spread COVID and so forth. -Paul
[2020-09-04 14:35:55] - paul: do i think they're treating them differently? yes. they're different in many ways. so i guess they should be treated differently. i also treat them differently. ~a
[2020-09-04 14:34:41] - mig: done ~a
[2020-09-04 14:33:54] - a: Yes, I get that the President did something bad to one protest you went to. I don't know if that anecdotal evidence excuses the violence at the other.... dozens? of protests. You don't think the media is treating these protests vastly different than they have previously treated protests like the re-opening ones or tea party protests or others? -Paul
[2020-09-04 14:33:00] - as far as media goes, CNN specifically. - mig
[2020-09-04 14:28:34] - a: mostly media and democratic leaders. - mig
[2020-09-04 14:28:28] - mig: "because the polling is starting to sour on it" yeah, in this case they waited too long and their punishment is the president gets to say exactly what you just did. and then he did. trump said the same thing you did and he gets to win political points for it. ~a
[2020-09-04 14:26:57] - mig: did you mean me or someone else? violence by protesters and counter-protesters is bad. property damage by protesters and counter-protesters is bad. ~a
[2020-09-04 14:26:49] - It doesn't strike me as sincere when Biden and Ted Wheeler come around to more directly condemning the violence only because the polling is starting to sour on it. - mig
[2020-09-04 14:25:28] - Unequivocal condemnation would be a nice start. And I mean real condemnation, not trying to tie in "Orange Man Bad as part of it. - mig
[2020-09-04 14:21:18] - mig: i think ~93% (about) of protesters and ~93% (about) of counterprotesters that have nothing to do with BLM think it's a BFD and wish there was $0 damage. ~a
[2020-09-04 14:19:49] - mig: it's a BFD. i don't disagree. but now what? ~a
[2020-09-04 14:17:17] - Does it matter what the percentage is? The damage being caused by the violence is significant, and kind of a BFD. - mig
[2020-09-04 14:16:13] - paul: at 75% of the protests i went to in 2020, the president didn't ask the secret service to beat the shit out of protesters and pepper spray them. ~a
[2020-09-04 14:14:17] - paul: "93% of Bill Cosby’s nightcaps ended amicably": accounting the 7% as strictly blm is terribly unfair. ~a
[2020-09-04 14:10:59] - paul: of the remaining 7% some of those were due to police being blatent assholes: for example one of the few protests i went to the police pepper-sprayed protesters and beat the shit out of them for (what i now know was) a photo-op by the head of the executive branch. ALSO counterprotesters were counted as violence: so even more of the 7% had nothing to do with blm. (!) ~a
[2020-09-04 14:08:12] - I saw a few responses that basically said, "What percent of police interactions end in death of the suspect?" which I thought was interesting. I don't know the answer, but I am guessing less than 7%. I wonder if the opposite point was trying to be made, though. -Paul
[2020-09-04 14:06:41] - a: "93% of Bill Cosby’s nightcaps ended amicably" I personally enjoyed that response.
-Paul[2020-09-04 14:04:08] - a: Well, I thought it could be an interesting rorschach test. People on both sides seem to think that these findings justify their position.
-Paul[2020-09-04 14:02:31] - paul: if i saw the opposite article with opposite facts (93 percent of protests were violent) i'd dismiss it as fake news
~a[2020-09-04 14:01:32] - paul: "About 93 percent of the racial-justice protests that swept the United States this summer remained peaceful and nondestructive, according to a report released Thursday, with the violence and property damage that has dominated political discourse constituting only a minute portion of the thousands of demonstrations that followed the killing of George Floyd in May" i'm surprised to see you link this article
~a[2020-09-04 14:00:54] - paul: well the only one we could actually watch was the chinese language teacher. i don't think he should have been put on leave if this was all he did. ~a
[2020-09-04 13:59:53] - a: Which is why I was curious about your thoughts on the other 8 instances. I know we disagree on a lot of this cancel culture stuff, but I was wondering if it was like 100% or just 50% or something else. -Paul
[2020-09-04 13:59:25] - and that i'm even on the side of cancel culture (sometimes). ~a
[2020-09-04 13:59:12] - https://twitter.com/Sulliview/status/1301854344661393409 I can't read the actual article because it's behind a paywall, but it sounds like we finally have some numbers behind percentages of protests recently that have been violent (vs peaceful). -Paul
[2020-09-04 13:58:49] - i knew using damore as an example would be controversial. it was a borderline case imo. which was to say: the chinese language teacher should not have been put on leave (if this was his only infraction, which i suppose it might not be). there is no borderline here. ~a
[2020-09-04 13:55:32] - a: I don't either. I thought it was mostly gender based. I did a quick search and couldn't find anything, but that doesn't prove anything. -Paul
[2020-09-04 13:54:51] - a: And "publicly announced", wasn't it an internal forum for discussing these types of things? So I guess public for the company, but not public as I traditionally think of it. -Paul
[2020-09-04 13:54:13] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Age,_sex_and_geographic_patterns And I get that phrasing it as "fewer women were engineers because they were neurotic" sounds bad, but isn't neuroticism a scientific term where studies have shown women in general score higher? -Paul
[2020-09-04 13:51:59] - i put a question mark there because i saw reference to it but didn't remember. we did talk about whether i thought damore was racist or not (though i didn't see how i answered). in short, i don't remember. ~a
[2020-09-04 13:51:16] - a: Did Damore say anything about race and IQ in his memo? -Paul
[2020-09-04 12:52:55] - mig: you can count me as part of this particular mob (pro-cancel-culture?). i do care about intent and context. for instance, that google employee (damore) that publicly announced fewer women were engineers because they were neurotic and certain races weren't typically engineers because, lower IQs (?), (borderline) but fine. canceling a chinese teacher for saying a word that sounds like another word to his class ONCE, that's not fine. ~a
[2020-09-04 12:43:54] - I'm awaiting the day now when someone will get in trouble for the use of the spanish translation for the color black (negro). - mig
[2020-09-04 12:42:47] - a: If it was his intent, that would probably already be part of the story. The mob doesn't care about "intent" or "context" just for satisfying its bloodlust. -mig
[2020-09-03 20:17:36] - paul: which is what i was getting at with the "intent" thing. if that chinese (language) teacher was saying that shit on purpose (does he constantly do this shit?), then he probably should be in some hot water. ~a
[2020-09-03 20:16:04] - paul: it reminds me of that time you and aaron talked about that word: "coincidentally using a phrase like 'niggardly' or 'chinks in the armor' is yeah more of an edge case and that's when it comes down to intent." ~a
[2020-09-03 20:11:38] - a: Heh, I didn't listen to the video for the first one. It reminds me of something that happened in DC awhile ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly#David_Howard_incident -Paul
[2020-09-03 20:09:33] - paul: meh, i'll only reply to the first video, because we get to watch what actually happened. what he did in that video was fine (unless he was doing that on purpose: like he's been doing shit like that a lot). he shouldn't have been put on leave (unless he was doing that on purpose). ~a
[2020-09-03 20:04:53] - Note: I fully admit the headlines could be misleading and the actual details are far more nuanced. I didn't read past the headlines and don't expect anybody else to either. I'm curious people's thoughts based on the headline alone. -Paul
[2020-09-03 20:03:52] - https://twitter.com/cabot_phillips/status/1301516424276578305 Below the main tweet are 8 numbered "cases" of things that happened. I'm curious how many of them people here think should have been fired/disciplined based on what happened. -Paul
[2020-09-03 20:01:33] - a: But when you are on the opposite side policy-wise as Obama on an issue, and he would dismiss it with a strawman like that, it was a little annoying, even if I couldn't help but admire how clever a rhetorical flourish it was. Again, to be clear, not even on the same planet as the things Trump does on a daily basis. -Paul
[2020-09-03 19:58:52] - a: Yeah, demonization was too strong a word (especially for the examples I provided). I do believe there were more egregious examples in the past akin to the Biden one, but I had trouble finding them. Might look again later. I think he largely got away with it because he was such a good speaker and clever and seemed like a good guy... -Paul
[2020-09-03 19:30:24] - yeah i saw that.
i started it, but never finished. here's a vector version. ~a[2020-09-03 19:28:30] - a: Maybe others, I feel like you'll enjoy this: https://i.imgur.com/es60Cd2.png -- Xpovos
[2020-09-03 19:17:52] - mig: you changed people
i know thy look alike, but they aren't the same guy. ~a[2020-09-03 19:16:48] - a:no demonization? "They're going to put y'all back in chains". - mig
[2020-09-03 19:14:16] - "Trump may have 'committed a felony' by telling supporters to commit voter fraud. AG Bill Barr defended the comments and claimed he did not know whether voting twice — a felony — is illegal" sorry, i know i posted about this already this morning, but i'm still mad. ~a
[2020-09-03 18:54:57] - for instance: "there are those on wall street that think we should just focus on their problems", is the description unbiased / even handed? no. is it unfair? . . . sort of. that's not a strawman. that's just normal repartee. it's wit, man. ~a
[2020-09-03 18:51:37] - half of those are genuine strawmen (the other half are tongue-in-cheek / sarcasm / figures of speech / normal fucking discourse). i agree obama did use strawmen on rare occasions. and he shouldn't have. demonizing is FAR worse, though. and you're right, paul, obama was def NOT demonizing. and demonizing is what trump does all day. setting up strawmen are too complicated for trump. ~a
[2020-09-03 18:45:18] - paul: summary is that you'll have a new row for usd. using "average" will no longer cut it, either. ~a
[2020-09-03 18:44:32] - paul: https://reason.com/2011/12/06/there-are-those-and-there-are-some-and-t/ - mig
[2020-09-03 18:43:54] - paul: regarding your scorecard, yeah, that'll be fucked: i know how to deal with it, but i'd have an easier time representing it in the spreadsheet than explaining it in words. ~a
[2020-09-03 18:42:50] - paul: well definitely keep your "scorecard" and "actual portfolio" decisions separate. regarding your actual portfolio, i'm not sure why there's a hassle: what's the hassle? you get some cash and some shares? it's all automatic as far as you're concerned. i've done some weird transactions in the past: one where i had to decide which kinds of shares i wanted. nbd, man. ~a
[2020-09-03 18:38:11] - paul: I miss the "There are those" liners. - mig
[2020-09-03 17:40:10] - Daniel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ln7chQuKyg The first four (!) articles I found all had paywalls, so I couldn't really figure out if it was addressing what I am talking about. This video kinda gets at what I am talking about. Again, it's ridiculously tame compared to Trump these days but it was pretty irksome at the time for me.
-Paul[2020-09-03 17:39:22] - Daniel: Demonizing probably is the wrong word (especially in light of how Trump has really taken that ball and run with it). Maybe the better term would be strawmanning... where he would just argue against positions that he implied his opponents hold that they don't actually hold. -Paul
[2020-09-03 17:31:21] - paul: "Obama tended to demonize people who disagreed with him too much" - Really? Maybe us plebes demonized people but generally I thought Obama was above that. I wouldn't be shocked though I supposed given politics but you have any examples? -Daniel
[2020-09-03 17:07:42] - a: Depressingly enough, I think 10% or so of the criticisms expressed (of Obama) were legit. At the time, one thing I hated was that I felt like Obama tended to demonize people who disagreed with him too much. Of course, Trump obviously took that and cranked it up a million times higher. -Paul
[2020-09-03 17:06:09] - a: Your video wasn't bad, but I like mine more with the series of Republicans explicitly going on and on about how Trump is a con artist and a bully and a liar and an idiot and everything else. -Paul
[2020-09-03 16:58:16] - a: Ugh, I just realized that I'm going to have to figure out how to deal with the Livongo / Teladoc merger in terms of my scorecard. Makes me almost want to just sell my shares ahead of time (and use the money to buy Teladoc later) to avoid the hassle (except I imagine the tax hit would be worse that way. -Paul
[2020-09-03 15:46:46] - a: The drop back down? I'm not at all surprised. The entire rise since the split has been kinda baffling. I actually almost sold some when it popped on the day the split took affect, but I decided against it. -Paul
[2020-09-03 15:35:51] - paul: tsla 420. didn't see that coming. ~a
[2020-09-03 14:59:55] - fairly pandering, but here's some fox news from 4-12ish years ago. it's exactly what you think it'll be, but some of the specifics are fairly ironic. hearing jeanine pirro say "putin" was plain comical. ~a
[2020-09-03 13:24:45] - add it to the stack of felonies that nobody wants to prosecute because he's too powerful. ~a
[2020-09-03 12:38:48] - a: Heh, I don't need to watch the video. I totally buy it. I don't even know if there is anything you could claim he said that I wouldn't automatically believe other than something like "I am an idiot". -Paul
[2020-09-03 03:27:13] - what the actual fuck. watch the video if you think that he's joking. before watching the video i was like , . . . maybe it'll seem like he's joking? yikes. ~a
[2020-09-03 03:09:43] - i am curious how you can so easily prove a negative thuogh. how is the latter very much not true? ~a
[2020-09-03 03:07:51] - dc. ~a
[2020-09-02 22:48:11] - "the media has been reporting the recent round of rioters were instigators from the right" is this in the context of DC specifically or in general? Because the latter is very much not true. - mig
[2020-09-02 19:54:34] - a: Okay, totally fair. I didn't know much about it either. I've read some more recently and, while I think there are definitely problems with what happened that need to be addressed, I am struggling with how it is evidence of systemic racism (unless, of course, there is something I don't know about, which is entirely possible). -Paul
[2020-09-02 19:35:12] - paul: no. i don't know much about the case. but sure, it's most likely related to the shitty back-asswards response. systemic racism is complicated, but i don't know enough about the case to say for sure what caused it or how blm is related. ~a
[2020-09-02 19:21:46] - a: I don't know much about Bowser. I generally assume all politicians are horrible until proven otherwise.
-Paul[2020-09-02 19:21:11] - a: Can you speak to how Taylor's case is a potential instance of racism in policing? As I understand it, she was shot by a cop who didn't see her and was shooting wildly so it seems unlikely her getting shot was race based. Is the idea that the cops wouldn't have lied to try to cover their ass if she had been white? -Paul
[2020-09-02 18:24:56] - (republican named) acting dc attorney general replies to bowser's request to charge more protesters. my position of bowser has ebbed and flowed over the years, but it seems like she's kinda horrible. her original letter is pretty ridiculous. (backstory here is grey: the media has been reporting the recent round of rioters were instigators from the right). ~a
[2020-09-02 17:00:33] - paul: yes, breonna taylor is discussed in BLM protests frequently. "The police filed an incident report that stated that Taylor had no injuries and that no forced entry occurred. The police department said that technical errors led to a nearly entirely blank malformed report." it was months before anybody was even charged. the fact that it was a badly executed non-knock warrent wasn't the only problem with the shooting. ~a
[2020-09-02 16:46:43] - they're paying down 1/3rd of their debt, and you and i are footing the bill. anything more and i'd be concerned. it used to be you had a debt of $.04 per dollar, and now you'll have a debt of $.01 per dollar. ~a
[2020-09-02 16:44:09] - paul: 5billion isn't enough? seems like a lot to me considering the context. their market cap is only 400b and their debts are only 15b. ~a
[2020-09-02 16:21:16] - Was Breonna Taylor's case held up as a BLM issue in the sense that racism was considered to have played a role? I can't remember since it came up around the same time as some other things. -Paul
[2020-09-02 16:14:32] - a: Whoops, that should've said "Re: Tesla" -Paul
[2020-09-02 16:13:17] - a: Re: I was definitely of that opinion (I wasn't the only one), although I don't remember if I "predicted" it. I almost wish they had raised more, honestly. Could've wiped out a lot of debt. Maybe they are waiting for battery day / S&P 500 inclusion to see if the stock pops more? -Paul
[2020-09-02 16:12:10] - a: Depends on your POV. I think we both know somebody who thinks that's a bad development. I just learned that the Louisville police department has scaled back (or ended?) no-knock raids after Breonna Taylor as well. -Paul
[2020-09-02 16:11:40] - paul didn't you predict this like a week ago. you were like tesla will/should fundraise to pay down debts. ~a
[2020-09-02 15:33:16] - is asymptomatic covid19 actually asymptomatic? we should probably have been saying "asymptomatic so far"? ~a
[2020-09-02 15:21:56] - generally positive change thanks to protests? (i know it hasn't passed yet, but it does look promising) ~a
[2020-09-01 17:25:22] - roger. i'm almost never on the "inviting" side of meetings. like 100% of the time i'm the invitee, so i mostly don't get exposed to that side. ~a
[2020-09-01 17:24:32] - a: I honestly have no idea. I just get worried when inviting people to a google meet video conference (and, like I said, have had issues joining in the past). -Paul
[2020-09-01 17:21:20] - right. and i guess your point is that some of them ALWAYS require a google account. i'm not sure that's true about meet, but it might be true about hangouts. ~a
[2020-09-01 17:20:43] - a: I think I've only been required to have an account if the host wants to restrict attendance to verified people. -Paul
[2020-09-01 17:16:25] - zoom requires an account if its in certain modes. i feel like everything requires an account if certain things are true. ~a
[2020-09-01 17:14:53] - maybe. ~a
[2020-09-01 17:14:08] - a: Hangouts and Meet are pretty good, but do they require everybody to have a Google account? Also, I've had some issues joining them in the past... -Paul
[2020-09-01 16:12:20] - anything that WANTS software (and tries really hard to get you to install software) makes me mad. the web browser solution shouldn't be a second-class citizen: it should be the only way to access the meeting imo. ~a
[2020-09-01 16:10:59] - paul: i like google hangouts and google meet better (and slack calls: but agree you need to be part of the group). microsoft teams/skype, cisco whatever, and gotomeeting are the many things i hate MORE than zoom. ~a
[2020-09-01 15:26:55] - a: I like software well enough. It generally seems to be the least terrible video conferencing option when you want to connect with people you aren't necessarily connected to via work (ie, something like slack). -Paul
[2020-09-01 15:02:44] - i kinda hate zoom (the software and the company). but i probably should have bought a few shares considering the situation they're in. cest la vie. ~a
[2020-09-01 15:00:59] - jesus christ. 0 shares.
~a[2020-09-01 14:13:05] - a: Hopefully you own more shares of ZM than I do.
-Paul[2020-08-31 19:42:59] - a: It could be both, but im curious if its more one or the other. - mig
[2020-08-31 19:12:04] - why not the two? ~a
[2020-08-31 19:11:02] - a: I’m curious about how much of that disapproval stems from domestic issues or foreign policy. - mig
prev <-> next