Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/20/22 in Posts

  1. We instituted a version of a safe zone in my household when my children were too young to drink. Coming home drunk was a violation of our rules, but if my kids were out with the car and under the influence, they could call home for a ride, 24 hours a day, with zero retribution for drinking. I was willing to accept law breaking and rule breaking if it meant saving them from harm. I suspect people who aren't willing to accept safe zones for drug use among strangers will usually feel differently if it is a loved one whose life is at risk.
    5 points
  2. Putin dies and goes to hell, but after a while, he is given a day off for good behavior. So he goes to Moscow, enters a bar, orders a drink, and asks the bartender: -Is Crimea ours? -Yes, it is. -And the Donbas? -Also ours. -And Kyiv? -We got that too. Satisfied, Putin drinks, and asks: -Thanks, how much do I owe you? -5 euros.
    5 points
  3. Every body appreciates the printed classics. A lot of the new printed stuff is garbage 🙂 . If you say so. Keep in mind that I mentioned two members who expressed a desire to re-purpose sports as 'games', and one of them has replied, and not objected to that characterization. Is that a 'strawman' ? I was not replying to you, I said 'some members', and then named them. I was not replying to an imaginary argument. So maybe by 'strawmanning' you mean someone doesn't share your worldview ?
    3 points
  4. Permanant dipoles are easy to explain. You have a molecule with partial +ve charge in one place and a partial -ve charge somewhere else. The partial +ve charge will attract a partial -ve charge in a neighbouring molecule and vice versa. So it's just like the attraction between oppositely charged ions but involving only partial charges. London forces, also known as dispersion forces, arise due to "flickering, fleeting dipoles" due to motion of the electrons in an atom or molecule, which induce dipoles in the neighbouring ones. The strength of dispersion forces is greater between atoms (or molecules involving them) that have greater polarisability, which tends to mean larger atoms with a more diffuse outermost shell of electrons. As I recall, the random fluctuations in electron density that give rise to this arise from the same quantum mechanical principle responsible for vacuum fluctuations - basically another manifestation of the uncertainty principle. The name Van der Waals forces is given to all intermolecular attractions that don't involve a chemical bond. So the term includes both London (dispersion) forces and the attraction between permanent dipoles. (But it would not include hydrogen bonds, as these have some directional bonding character and are thus not entirely electrostatic dipole attractions.)
    3 points
  5. Wow! ... bastards. Ukrainian intercept about that:
    3 points
  6. Society is only allowed to use the drug that you prefer?
    3 points
  7. I spent the middle third of my 60 years on mostly cannabis and amphetamines. The only time I've had black eyes or social strife is on excess alcohol. The saddest people I've ever seen are alcoholics by a wide margin, it knocks all the other drugs into the second division for the mess it causes. AFAIK one cannot safely withdraw from a full-on alcohol addiction without medical assistance... the physical addiction is real.... as I'm sure you know. Not sure about meth, but all the others are about a two week withdrawal for the physical side of the addiction. Obviously, the psychological side takes longer to overcome, but one is passed the physical aspect of the addiction after that time. Not so with barbiturates and alcohol. I've had many conversations with a UK Social Services substance misuse team, whose care I was under for a couple of years under a voluntary admission. Their sources are based on evidence.
    3 points
  8. No, the values are normalized, otherwise they would not make sense. Also, it is more of a rank score. They used multiple factors, such as mortality, dependence, impairment of cognitive functioning, etc. and the idea was to create scores that reflect their relative relationship to each other. I.e. a drug with double the mortality would receive double the score on that metric. For some, data are more lacking than others and also are shifting. Depending on what you look out for, cannabis has been shifting up and down over the years and depending on cohorts, for example. Long-term data are going to be quite interesting in that regard. That being said, certain harms could increase once the use increases. However, that is not always the case. For example, legalization of cannabis did increase hospitalizations in certain regions, but it was not an universal effect and the trend stabilized within a relatively short time frame. Conversely, if alcohol was not such an accepted social drug, harms, especially those to others, would be massively mitigated. These types of rankings are therefore somewhat tricky, but almost every way folks look at it, it is clear that the top spot belongs to alcohol by a fair margin.
    3 points
  9. No, I do not have a link. However, if you knew me even a little you would know that I have references. No, only if the ratio actually impact the outcome we are investigating. Otherwise you are biasing the analysis by assuming an advantage (after all this is the very question we want to establish in the first place). Especially if other factors, like, say the horse may be more important factors. So what you need to do before assuming that the advantage plays a role, you'll have to look whether the effect is present in the first place and also whether other, potentially more influential confounding factors are present. In other words, you are doing the exact mistake that many are criticizing. Without first establishing whether your factor has an actual effect you just assume it in all and demand that it has to be incorporated into the research design. And again, this is would be a classic example of bias in the study design. Rather, you would need to first figure out what factors influence race horse performance and then look whether gender is among those and how strong it really is, relative to the system we created around this assumption. For example if we have a huge gender difference, just looking at number of wins really only tells us about how many of each gender are participating, and not that whether is a physiological effect. If experience is a huge contributor and for whatever reason one gender does not stick around for the sport, it does not mean that there is a physiological reason either, and so on. So the challenge here is of course that a perfect data set would have exactly the same race conditions (including same horses) just with the gender swapped (and having an otherwise comparable cohort) in exactly the same races . Since there is not such a data set, one way to one needs to adjust external variables (i.e. physiology independent parameters) that may affect for example the likelihood of receiving higher rated mount (or being able to race at all). When adjusting for these factors the conclusion was that https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1527002520975839 Now there are other papers out there looking at the performance of the horse and the impact of the jockey. After all, the horse does the running. And here a fairly recent study suggest that the gender does of the rider does not seem to impact horse performance. In the same paper they also just calculated winning ratios based on UK and Australian data and here they found that in the UK the winning-rate (again, adjusted for the fact that fewer women are competing) to be not significantly different between men and women. In Australia there was a difference but which vanished if one considers the money spots (i.e. top three positions) in the races. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1341860/v1 So if the numbers do not immediately show a strong gender-based difference in outcome if one adjusts for the system (in contrast to sprinting, for example) why would one start off with the assumption of a difference and then try to frame the study from a flawed position? And this exactly is the issue with many of these assumptions. We know there are gender differences, but then we immediately jump to the conclusion they must be pervasive in everything we are looking for. And if we look with these blinders on, unsurprisingly we miss other aspects. This is one of the big reasons why there have been so many studies claiming to show that for some reasons folks with darker skin colour are less intellectual or that in general we only find the effects we are looking for (see the replication crisis) or why we have pervasive myths in the medical field. I.e. we first need to establish that there is an effect, then eliminate potential sources until we find the determining factors. In other words, we need to apply the scientific method also for those questions and should not start with a strong preconceptions.
    3 points
  10. To further clarify the point I didn't make very well earlier... By definition, conservatives tend to conserve and be somewhat averse to change, especially social change. Thus, I think the objections being raised by some about Biden's pre-selection announcement have something to do with the simple fact that we are progressing. Since conservatives tend to be somewhat averse to change they will often do a lot more analysis and questioning about all the trappings surrounding a change that is happening. When gay marriage was such a hotbed of debate, conservatives tended to question whether there could simply be a kind of 'separate but equal' arrangement, or whether or not gay marriage would 'destroy the sanctity of marriage', or why gay people couldn't take it slowly to let straight people get used to the idea over time. Progressives on the other hand were more inclined to simply say 'just let it be legal already!' And now that we've had gay marriage for a while, those concerns conservatives had no longer seem so significant to many. A more recent example is Hollywood's move to be more racially and culturally aware when choosing actors for a role. For example, not too distant arguments that you should pick the 'most qualified' candidate for the role regardless of skin color/culture were ignored, and very few people complained, when Steve Spielberg announced ahead of time that he would choose an Hispanic for the role of Maria in West Side Story. And just to show how important a qualification skin color was to Spielberg for the role, he chose Rachel Zegler, who had exactly two previous credits to her name, one of them being a podcast. Thus, I think that recent concerns raised regarding Biden's pre-announcement are part of the nature of the conservative mind, are part of the process we must go through as changes occur, and will not seem to be very important in the not too distant future. Similarly, I suspect that in the future conservatives will not be as concerned as they are today about trans-gender athletes, pronouns, politically correct language, and incandescent light bulbs.
    3 points
  11. On the topic of trolling: Just registering my concern that some of the smartest minds on this site are currently wasting their cognitive skills on the infinite Escher staircase that is the Ketanji Brown Jackson thread. You have a couple members who just are Not. Ever. Going. To. Concede. Any. Point. No matter how well argued and factually supported. It's Spring in the northern hemisphere! Go outside!
    3 points
  12. The difference between competitive sports and politics is that in competitive sports there’s a clear, objective measure of “better”. Tiger Woods has won because he did better on the golf course. There is no single objective “better” when it comes to the judiciary. There is no “best judge” that can be objectively determined, merely a pool of judges with better qualifications, among whom the President picks. So by picking a black woman from that pool, the President isn’t deliberately choosing a worse candidate - merely a particular one from among a pool of similarly qualified candidates.
    3 points
  13. "you claim that when he said he would "pick a black female" for SCJ, that wasn't really true, and all sorts of other criteria were considered." I never said that "pick a black female" wasn't really true; my position was that this was along with potential candidates' other qualifications already being known. By claiming that this isn't true, what we're left with is the conclusion that black + female were the sole criteria. Where is the strawman? I don't think anyone is contending this This is a false dilemma, and at the crux of the issue here. There is nothing about "I will pick a black woman" that says other factors weren't considered. It is an assumption, and one that nobody here has backed up with evidence. (edit to add: IOW, you are essentially claiming that you know that Biden did not do anything to vet people before his announcement and there is no way for you to know this, so how can you possibly insist that it is true? "I will do X" is not the same as "I will do X and only X") I'm waiting for J.C. MacSwell to come by and admonish you for your strawman
    3 points
  14. 3 points
  15. Just to be clear, it was an analogy and thus imperfect. The idea was that if blacks were mistreated, then to make up for that mistreatment you do something extra for blacks. That was not part of the analogy. The idea was that going forward, all would be treated equally. However, that is not enough. You must also make up for past harm. Which is of course how our justice system works. If I commit a crime but never again commit another crime, I still must pay my debt for that original crime I committed. I am not 'let off the hook' for that past crime just because I never commit any crimes going forward. Yes, I can. But it seems so obvious to me that if our actions caused harm in the past, then we must take direct action to repair those harms. It is fundamental fairness and I cannot see how anyone would object to that. Thus my thought is if someone is uncomfortable, it probably has to do with the mechanism employed to rectify the harm done, rather than the fact that the harm was rectified. I think a fundamental difference between the opposing points of view in this thread is that group 'A' thinks "this was a poor way to fix the problem", and group 'B' thinks "poor way to fix the problem or not, I don't care, we finally got the right result and it was long overdue, and that is more important than any mistakes that might have been made in the way we went about it". I wouldn't be surprised. But I suspect that no matter which way was chosen there would be critics. It is difficult to know ahead of time the best way forward. Thus you pick a path and execute it. And while you and others in this thread object to Biden's announcement during the campaign, his 'pre-announcement' doesn't seem to be a widespread concern as that is not what others in the press seemed to object to. It seems that most people objected to her past record of court ruling, rather than Biden's pre-announcement. Therefore, while some may object to that pre-announcement, it seems that it was not a major faux pas. As I said, above, the view of many of us is that the good done far outweighs what some view as a clumsy process.
    3 points
  16. My understanding is it’s related to asymptotic freedom. When you add energy to a “typical” bound system (e.g. ionize an electron) you end up with free particles. When they combine, you get a release of energy. But adding energy to bound quarks doesn’t do this - you can’t free a bound quark. Their potential energy at large separation doesn’t go to zero as it does with gravity or Coulomb forces.
    2 points
  17. This is all part of the modern phenomenon of re-defining words to suit an agenda. Republicans are trying to re-define 'progressivism' as something bad; as simply change for the sake of change, or change to a worse outcome. Most people ( who don't watch Fox News ) know that is politically driven, and it actually refers to the improvement of the human condition.. I would also suggest the term 'populism', has been re-defined by a liberal agenda, to mean something just short of fascism, while in effect it means a government serving the needs, and representing all the people, including commoners; not simply the elite affluent/intelligentsia, who don't necessarily believe the 'commoners' deserve representation.
    2 points
  18. That's technical analysis. It's bullshit. The stock doesn't know what it did yesterday any more than a coin knows what it did in the last 50 flips. However, it's still rational to know a little about it, because so many other players believe in it! You need to know what the chart watchers are thinking in order to make your own moves. It's rational to pay attention to the irrational beliefs of others. Strange but true.
    2 points
  19. Though I have participated minimally in this thread, with brief comments on decriminalization, I would rather not be turned into a Straw Man, or attached to other posters' positions. I have no problem with the rule of law, or control of harmful substances, be it leaded paint, horse dewormer, or crystal meth. I was referring only to end-user decriminalization, which has mountains of evidence as an effective alternative to dumping sick people in prisons or letting them OD in gutters. AFN.
    2 points
  20. Me too. I'm no more than a hobby geologist but it has been a somewhat obsessive fascination since I was about 8! (a very long time ago) One observation that strongly colours my view of this topic is that it must square with not only the surface geology we see around us, but also a very long term gradual trend of oxidation from the global reducing conditions of the earliest times due to photosynthesis. The banded iron formations around the world record oxygen fugacity being controlled by the oxidation of oceanic Fe II to Fe III in the Archean. And to this day, there is still an iron oxidation front controlling oxygen fugacity - called the FMQ (fayalite-magnetite-quartz) redox buffer - now deep within the earth's crust. 3Fe2SiO4 + O2 = 2Fe3O4 + 3SiO2 Compare this with @exchemist's serpentisation reaction 1a) 3Fe2SiO4 + 2H2O → 2Fe3O4 + 3SiO2 + 2H2 ... which can proceed when FMQ has exhausted all the free silica in its environment, and water becomes the favoured source of oxygen. I'm all too aware that this picture is simplistic in the extreme, and maybe the second reaction is not favoured at some key limiting temperature, but it does raise a question in my mind about the stability of water in the low silica reducing environments found at depth. Or perhaps I'm completely off-track, and the ocean is busy converting the lower mantle to topaz!
    2 points
  21. So, up until about day six the plants used nutrients and organic matter stored in the seeds, and used the soil just to hold to something. After that, the plants needed more from the substrate and then "discovered" that something is missing. I'd guess that botanists know what is missing. I read this news and couldn't understand what was so astonishing, what did they expect, what new knowledge have they obtained...
    2 points
  22. In some other report I read that gas orbits the BH in minutes, much shorter than the observation time used to create this image. In any case, I understand that what we see is not the accretion disk, but its image distorted by the BH. E.g. the source of the bright spots maybe behind the BH and we see it three times as its light is lensed by the BH.
    2 points
  23. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/business/salton-sea-lithium-extraction/index.html Superheated brine provides easily extractable lithium to help the production of batteries for the many electric cars we need to meet future goals of carbon neutrality. The sea is a geologically interesting location, where two crustal plates grind past each other. So you get both geothermal energy (one of the world's largest geothermal fields) and future electric cars....from one puddle of hot brine. Beautiful.
    2 points
  24. Interesting. It seems to have quite a lot in common with the Dead Sea. Though I'm not sure whether there are geothermal springs there. What I also found interesting was to read that much of the world's lithium for batteries comes from a spodumene mine in Australia. Spodumene, apparently, is an igneous pyroxene mineral with formula LiAl(SiO3)2, (i.e. 2 silicate tetrahedra with one shared edge). Other sources - or potential sources - are brines in Chile, Bolivia and Argentina. So at least the world is not currently dependent on China or Russia for it. Furthermore it occurred to me that perhaps it could be a good mineral money-spinner for Australia, which might help some of their (numerous) dinosaur politicians to get their heads round the need to stop extracting coal. But more diversified sources would certainly seem prudent, given the difficulty in replacing Li in battery technology. Li seems unique in this role. I imagine this will be due to the small size of the Li+ ion (only the 1s shell is filled) allowing it to form intercalated compounds with carbon, CoO2 etc, reversibly.
    2 points
  25. Yes - this is in fact a fundamental symmetry of nature, called unitarity. Colloquially speaking, information should be conserved when a system evolves, at least in principle. There is of course a precise mathematical definition for this, but for now you get the idea. For example, if you burn a book, the information contained therein becomes inaccessible for all practical purposes; however, if you somehow knew everything there is to know about the final state of the burning, ie all details of every single ash particle left behind etc, then in principle it would be possible to reconstruct the original book, so the information has been preserved, albeit in different form. Unitarity is very important particularly in quantum mechanics. Crucially, the black hole information paradox would be an example where unitarity is violated - this is why it is so problematic, and requires resolution. No, ordinary physical processes should be unitary, ie information only changes its “form” and “location”, so to speak. In the BHIP, information enters the event horizon. Quantum field theory combined with GR tells us that the event horizon carries entropy and radiates; this Hawking radiation is perfect black body radiation and thus carries no usable information. At the same time, the BH shrinks and eventually evaporates completely, leaving no remnant other than its Hawking radiation. The final state of BH evolution is thus simply a black body radiation field that contains no relevant physical information - meaning it is impossible to reconstruct whatever information entered the event horizon previously, based on what’s left of the original BH. The information is lost, not just for practical purposes, but also in principle - a violation of unitarity. As a side note - in practice (as opposed to in principle) determinism does not imply predictability. For example, a GR 3-body problem is fully deterministic, but in general only predictable for limited amounts of time (Lyapunov time), due to chaotic dynamics.
    2 points
  26. Yes, regulation. But cars are not banned, lest we crash them; working in scaffolding and towers are not banned, lest we fall off, and fireplaces and stoves are not banned, lest we burn our homes down. And we do all those things: drive carelessly, build and work carelessly, heat and cook carelessly. Accidents do happen, because nobody can force us to be sensible. Government can only try to minimize the damage we do to ourselves. And that's all legalization of drugs is meant to accomplish: make regulation possible; re-allocate the money from the futile attempt at prevention of the cause to mitigation of the effects.
    2 points
  27. That's a good theory. We tried it, in several areas we thought our kids might need guidance. Come 13, they tend to shut down: don't want to be seen with you in public, don't want you to know how they feel, don't eat what you pack in their lunch, don't ask you any questions, slam doors if you ask any. You retaliate with various stratagems that seem clever at the time and that make you cringe in retrospect. In between skirmishes, you can have hilarious family dinners and pleasant evenings of entertainment or homework mentoring, then hostilities resume. The best-laid plans of mice and parents oft go up the generation gap.
    2 points
  28. One question you should be asking yourselves. And we won't even consider abusers, but if you have a son or daughter, how happy would you be if he/she had the occasional alcoholic drink, or burned an occasional joint, or did an occasional line of coke, occasionally smoking crack or crystal meth, or even injecting heroin every once in a while. Does the idea of your son/daughter doing some of the above, stress you out a hell of a lot more than the first two ? And, if you found your son/daughter with a needle stuck in their arm, would you say that it was all-right since prohibition wasn't working anyway ? If it does, ask yourself "why ?", and then apply the resulting answer to the question of making it legal for everyone's son and daughter. Call up from the basement, Dim, and ask your mom if she's happy with you making the house smell 'skunky' all day and night. ( yes, that was a dig )
    2 points
  29. Nobody is saying that it is harmless, and mention of medical benefits is an irrelevant distraction. It is not a supporting factor for recreational use or a means to lessen perceived harm. It has harms, but the social, medical and financial burden of recreational cannabis use pales in comparison to alcohol.
    2 points
  30. Notice he calls illicit drug users 'abusers'. If they are abusers, so are drinkers. Being legal changes nothing; they are all drugs. Being legal instils a false sense of toxicological safety and personal virtue relative to illicit drugs...
    2 points
  31. Meanwhile, even before legalization cannabis-related crimes were mostly related to possession and import. After legalization obviously those rates dropped. While impaired driving under drug but no alcohol influence increased a bit, it is still only 8% of the rate of alcohol-related impaired driving. And in contrast to alcohol there are no robust associations with violence or other crimes connected to cannabis. I.e. if one wanted to allow only one drug, it would be safer to keep cannabis and ditch alcohol. This is likely also going to be the case for things like psilocybin. It is clear that the case for legalizing only alcohol is not (entirely) based on risk, public health or similar assessments.
    2 points
  32. I'd rather it not be done globally. I almost never sign out and prefer the simplicity of being logged in whenever I visit the site.
    2 points
  33. Directly proportional implies a linear relationship between two variables. If you double the one variable, the other doubles. If you triple it, the other variable also triples. And so on ... For F=ma,you have three variables, and the correct reading is Force and acceleration are directly proportional when mass is constant. IOW, it would not work for a rocket which changes mass as it expels fuel. Nor would it work in relativistic situations.
    2 points
  34. How's this for tidal effects.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_Falls The Horizontal Falls, or Horizontal Waterfalls, nicknamed the "Horries" and known as Garaanngaddim to the local Indigenous people, are an unusual natural phenomenon on the coast of the Kimberley region in Western Australia, where tidal flows cause waterfalls on the ebb and flow of each tide. The Lalang-garram / Horizontal Falls Marine Park is a protected area covering the falls and wider area.
    2 points
  35. The real reasons that the Evangelicals took up the anti abortion banner and made it their hot button issue.... https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
    2 points
  36. I fail to see how this is the middle-ground. At best, it is inconsistent. We know that alcohol does great harm and we gave up on banning due to combination of cultural reasons, law enforcement challenges (including criminalizing large swathes of the population) and the realization that drug addiction are more effectively treated by health intervention rather than by legal enforcement. The opioid crisis which was not limited to the "fringes" of society anymore but also affected "good suburban" folks, further reinforced these findings. But for some reasons, we should just accept alcohol (which, again results in more deaths than any other drugs, education or not) because society accepts it? That sounds like circular logic, really.
    2 points
  37. I subscribe to several feeds and trusted aggregators. I have a focus on science, politics, economics, and business. Used to use google reader but now use Feedly. Mostly I read and mostly it comes to me. I follow up on articles that interest me and seek other views. I subscribe also to multiple daily newsletters from multiple different sources, as well as multiple different podcasts, many daily some weekly. I try to watch all of the Sunday shows weekly and pbs newshour daily. I listen to NPR when in the car and all caught up on my copious podcasts. I watch frontline and 60 minutes and other similar film based news overview programs, too. I don’t have cable and don’t go to their websites. I don’t follow everything, but know how to find good sources that are trustworthy and am a very informed citizen.
    2 points
  38. Let me repeat a previous post. OK so to continue with the Mathematics, though Euler also had much to do with applied maths. Princeton University has been home to some of the greatest geniuses in History. They also have a small publishing house which publishes specialist topic books, most of which become standards in their field (see another use of the word field ?). I am recommending one about Euler and his constant, gamma to you as you should find much of interest in it. Most of the book is lightly mathematical to be more generally accessible but read the introduction here and see what you think. Gamma - Exploring Euler's Constant Julian Havil - Princeton University Press 2003 & 2021
    2 points
  39. The spheres are called “framboids” and here is an extensive article speculating about their possible origins. Large framboids are collections of smaller framboids rather than true crystals. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313528873_Framboids_From_their_origin_to_application
    2 points
  40. They also hit residential buildings. Fuck you and everyone who thinks attacking sovereign countries unprovoked and killing civilians and children and pregnant women and everyone indiscriminately is funny.
    2 points
  41. Whenever a theist around here questions what atheists believe, of if they believe gods don't exist, the usual response of the membership is to say something along the lines of "atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods, no more, no less". So while you, Phi and others may have your own personal beliefs (sort of like most theists do), I am of the opinion that strictly speaking there is no contradiction in an atheist believing in or practicing religion, as long as they don't believe in the existence of a god or gods.
    2 points
  42. Just to add "cautionary tales of evolution" to what @Phi for All said, The male praying mantis is, in terms of evolution, very successful. Yet, he does it by providing the female with a delicious romantic dinner after sex in which he is the main and only course. Think about the implications of this. Evolution only cares about reproductive success. Doing well for yourself doesn't necessarily matter so much. Fig wasps are an even more extreme example. There are more examples of reproductive champion = individual loser in Nature. In tournament species, successful males are tipically short-lived.
    2 points
  43. France and Germany are also in close proximity toward each other. Doesn't mean one gets to dictate toward the other how the others language works. Whether or not PoC or coloured is an acceptable term to use, is off topic. It offends me that when you use it, you leave out the U in coloured but I didn't come down on you for that. It is also outrage via proxy. MigL isn't the problem when it comes to racism. He's an older dude, he has biases sure but I dont think he means anything offensive when he describes a black person as coloured. I think in general this is one of the problems people have with PC culture. Most of the effort goes into forcing accountability on the people committing the least of offenses as opposed to forcing it onto the people who truly embrace racist and supremacy type ideologies and go on to commit crimes. Ultimately I understand what it is all in aid of and what it is for, but there needs to be room for us to be critical of the ways and means, if for no other reason than making real progress. I mean if we are going to come down on older Canadians for using the term coloured, why not come down on Spanish speakers when they say this "tomaré un café negro"? I don't know, maybe you could try to explain exactly why the term is not appropriate. By that I mean, why is it considered a pejorative term now? Keeping in mind I'm asking that even though I don't use the word in that context myself, and that on the KBJ "pre-announcement" issue we are in total agreement with each other. Wait until you hear someone go to a butchers and ask for some "faggots". Which is literally also a meat product in the UK. Tom Stade, an American comedian does a bit on that. Pointing out that in the US you can't say that and you certainly can't have a bag full of them either. Ahhh linguistics ngl I love this subject and hope we can all have a calm, open minded discussion about language. Fair enough. I'll leave that alone. But they do contain different languages, dialects and cultural attitudes and differences. Not even with just national borders but within county, state and regional borders. If it ought to all be one way, who decides which way? Suspicion of malice gone. I know you did not intend it now. I take that back. What do you mean by "essentially everyone?" It's also not happening near your front door. It's a different country, with different laws, languages and dialects of English. Where I'm from, I could call you and MigL a Sound Cunt. And it would be a good thing. A sound cunt is a good cunt. Cunt also means buttocks in Dutch. Now, if we are talking about crimes of moral turpitude, then I'm with you 100%. Vague and unexplained differences in language use and whether or not a certain word is okay to use and where, those don't veer into moral turpitude territory. Murder and rape are illegal in both places. Free speech isn't. If it is a pejorative term with truly harming consequences for the black community, then you need to explain how and why.
    2 points
  44. Because that’s a different label and not equivalent to calling black citizens “colored.” It doesn’t matter. I can’t force you to be more aware of or empathetic about how your words affect people.
    2 points
  45. Whataboutist arguments are hollow and feeble, especially this one. You're basically saying, "Better the devil you know...". Are devils all that Russia has to offer its people?
    2 points
  46. How would an immoral win in Germany have affected the path of the Allied countries? Would the US have stopped with just two atomic bombs in Japan? With worldwide approval of using immoral tactics to win wars, I'd imagine the US would swing towards authoritarianism much sooner than it has. We'd have had a Trump in office instead of an Eisenhower, or a Kennedy, or a Carter. There's very little that's moral about warfare, but when you defend your country's borders, you're also defending it's fundamental values.
    2 points
  47. The point of that piece is that the Indians, by sharing, removed a problem, which was poverty. It doesn't solve all forms of crime but it sorts a big one. The other point was that materialism wasn't held to such a high regard, like other cultures do.
    2 points
  48. Governor Ron DeSantis wants to eliminate 70% of all math books currently used in Florida. He says the other 12% are fine
    2 points
  49. I obviously can't know the thoughts of Biden so I'll only speak for myself, but I suspect based on past actions and comments that Biden feels roughly the same way. The selection of KBJ was racist in neither intent nor fact, even though the selection criteria included being a black woman. The selection included the anticipated benefits of gaining Biden popularity with whites, asians, rich people, poor people, and of course blacks among others. The primary benefit was to finally recognize the equality of a long marginalized group while placing an outstanding liberal judge on the Supreme Court. Since Biden is unable to control the perceptions of others, and since any methodology of selecting a black woman was likely to cause turmoil anyway, he simply chose the method he felt would work best and went for it, and let the chips fall where they may. His goal was NOT to minimize the discomfort his selection would have on certain people. When it is a question of doing the right thing, I believe you do it and simply accept that people who don't like it will find a reason to object. The objections to Biden's method are a natural part of any significant public action and go a long way to help pull people into the future; talking about previously unheard of changes makes them more common and easier to accept. The concern about how Biden went about this is reminiscent of the reaction to blacks sitting at the white lunch counter, interracial marriage, gay marriage, transgender students in schools sports, women working "men's" jobs, and a long list of other changes. People don't like change and prefer to be eased into it slowly. The first time these things happened the naysayers were up in arms, complaining about how they are going about it, but at this point the uproar would come if you tried to STOP a black person from sitting at a lunch counter. Personally I'm a fan of ripping the bandage off all at once. It may hurt, and it may even not work on the first try, but it is the right thing to do. We shouldn't deprive people of what is rightfully theirs due to the discomfort of others.
    2 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.