Lord Ratner

This is generally my most reliable indicator that a movement lacks a foundation in reality. If you have to redefine (verbal appropriation?) the language to make your point, you probably don't have one. It does not seem coincidental that the people trying to change what words mean are the same ones equating speech with violence. The first amendment is the most powerful tool in the world for discovering truth. I do not trust those that seek to restrict it.

2. Pop sociology is a good term. A huge amount of the scholarly output from sociology departments in the last 20 years is unsupported. Pull up some of the papers on Critical Race Theory, and the only thing they cite (if anything at all) are other papers on CRT. It's just a big loop of non-support. 1. https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/ 3. Absolutely a discomfort. A noble and morally necessary discomfort. That doesn't change the timeline. It's like a G-ex. Pull too hard and the plane stalls. Keep the stick in your lap forever and the plane falls out of the sky. Some of the framers wanted to abolish slavery, but they recognized that the time wasn't right. So they did what they could, and established the new country on the philosophical basis that would eventually be used by Lincoln. You don't have to like it, I don't, but things take time. One of the biggest pushes for gay rights in the US was Will and Grace, not protesting. That doesn't mean you don't protest, but the "how" matters just as much as the "why." Dr. King and Malcom X disagreed vehemently on the "how," where X thought King's strategy was too gentle, too slow. But it worked, eventually. Further, King didn't rely on statistical misrepresentation to make his point. The BLM movement does. That matters, because when you hit someone in the face over and over with evidence of injustice, don't give them a reason to ignore your message. Misrepresenting crime and policing statistics does just that. 4. It's nothing cosmic, nor deeply philosophical. How do people think? Confirmation bias, group think, rationalization, confabulation, etc. How do they act? What do they do? As an example, people like to have stuff. They just do. Cars, TVs, jewellery, golf clubs, you know, stuff. Any culture, any era. Give them the chance to get more stuff, and they'll work surprisingly hard. So hard that they produce an overflow of wealth that enriches the society. So hard that the economy of a country that recognizes property rights and personal freedom to choose will dominate every other economy on the planet that instead tries to determine what stuff and how much stuff you should have. The brilliance of capitalism is that it accepts human nature and channels it. Racism is an ugly form of a natural phenomenon, grouping. If humans don't group, they die. You can't fix racism without addressing grouping. The American dream is a set of ideals that do not exclude anyone based on unchangeable characteristics. You don't get rid of racism, you replace it. "Black people are Americans too." That's a winning message that made a difference. But by its very nature it excludes people who aren't American. That gets into cosmopolitanism, which is another thing all together, but fits into my point that you ignore human nature at your own peril.

I'm not sure I would call it quibbling, but if you consider the entirety of Waco, TX, Lawton, OK, and Oshkosk, WI to be part of the Urbanization we are talking about, then we're having two separate conversations. For multiculturalism, let's go with the Stanford explanation: Multiculturalism First published Fri Sep 24, 2010; substantive revision Fri Aug 12, 2016 The idea of multiculturalism in contemporary political discourse and in political philosophy is about how to understand and respond to the challenges associated with cultural and religious diversity. The term “multicultural” is often used as a descriptive term to characterize the fact of diversity in a society, but in what follows, the focus is on its prescriptive use in the context of Western liberal democratic societies. While the term has come to encompass a variety of prescriptive claims, it is fair to say that proponents of multiculturalism reject the ideal of the “melting pot” in which members of minority groups are expected to assimilate into the dominant culture in favor of an ideal in which members of minority groups can maintain their distinctive collective identities and practices. In the case of immigrants, proponents emphasize that multiculturalism is compatible with, not opposed to, the integration of immigrants into society; multiculturalism policies provide fairer terms of integration for immigrants. As the first American-born child of Cuban immigrants, I'm not completely removed from the concept. Nations (all groups actually) need a shared identity. The neat thing about America was the use of ideals (espoused in the constitution and bill of rights) to generate that identity rather than ethnic origin, skin color, or other immutable characteristics. Freedom of speech. The rule of law. Individualism. Abandoning the melting pot is a threat to shared identity, which seems pretty clear these days. Why reply? For the exact reason I "shit on you" in the first place. You use strawman arguments regularly to support your own position. For example: "and my wife is paid the same as any other person doing her job regardless of gender (general equality). Life is good! If you'd like to live differently feel free" Absolutely no one has argued for women to make less money for the same work. And they don't. But discussing the reasons why only 4% of airline pilots are women is easier when you can just blame discrimination. Mostly though, like you I simply enjoy the mental sparring.

I'm not sure. I like that it makes a distinction between Democratic and democratic, but if there's a broader movement behind it I've been unwittingly conscripted. Your definition of multiculturalism is what I would call ethnic diversity. Very different things. And using anecdote to make a point isn't particularly useful. Of course *you* like raising a family in an urban center. You have the resources to choose, and to live in a manner that is better than how the lower class lives. If you didn't like it you would leave, like so many do. But statistically you are in the minority, and that matters for policy decisions. But I agree, there's not much of a point. You have the tendency to mischaracterize opposing views by their most cartoonish representation then act enlightened that you don't agree with what no one said. Like I said, strawman.

1. Absolutely. Urbanization has created high densities of poor (mostly minority) citizens living in the most expensive places in America to live, without the earning capacity to get out. Meanwhile the upper middle class can afford what most people want (human nature) for their families. A house for their kids, a yard to play in, a pool to swim in. So they move out to some suburban paradise (with their tax dollars) and commute to work while the very people meant to benefit from urbanization have to send their kids to terrible schools and rely on ever decaying infrastructure and public services. Equality of outcome for the genders is an obvious one, look no further than the Nordic countries where the world's most gender-equal society has greater occupational disparity between the genders. Turns out women statistically want be be nurses instead of engineers, veterinarians instead of pilots, and teachers instead of welders (human nature). Affirmative action put minority young adults into universities they weren't prepared for, resulting in a higher dropout rate. That doesn't mean you abandon the cause. It means you have to be very, very careful with the policy you develop and willing to abandon it when the results aren't what you hoped for (or after you've succeeded even). 2. We can go with "science" if that suits you. Considering that there is ample research into human nature based on scientifically validated research and data, outside of political theater we actually have a pretty developed sense of how humans work. Now, the wide body of sociology writing that has no cited material, no supporting data, and no basis in reality? That we can and should ignore. 3. Many of the founders were deeply conflicted with the inclusion of slavery. Even the ones who owned slaves did not do so under the guise of human nature. Racism *is* human nature, but it's human nature that impacts the ability of others to be free. Eliminating the manifestations of racism that oppress minorities is a worthy and noble goal, and one that has been largely accomplished in the US. Eliminating racism itself is a much bigger endeavor, and will take generations. Pushing the timeline too hard will inflame the issue and delay eventual progress. 4. Same-sex attraction is an abnormality of evolution, but still a part human nature. One of many. It exists in nature outside of humans, and has existed in humans for as long as we have kept track. More importantly, human nature or not, it does not impact the lives of others, so the government should stay out of it. Interracial marriage isn't even an abnormality, it's a feature. 5. It's hardly foolish and it's supremely relevant. It may be impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube on existing policy, but a whole lot of dangerous new policy ideas are floating around, and the Democrat party is competing with themselves as to who can endorse the most extreme options. We can and should seek to prevent further damage.

Nonsense. "We" don't know shit. I have virtually no progressive friends who are aware of even the simplest facts surrounding their platform, and hypergamy is blasphemy. Meanwhile the right denies income inequality as a threat because the left mischaracterizes it as "income" inequality when really we may be facing a completely unintentional eugenics program. Both sides have their heads firmly in the sand. Do not mistake your own awareness as common. That aside. I'm not sure what the answer is. The system is *great* for me. My partner is a doctor, and I'm a pilot. We will make a fortune and our children will have amazing opportunity, as long as they don't lose the genetic lottery. To me it's just one more example of a narrowly-focused goal that overwhelmingly disregards human nature. Which one needs to be fixed first? Urbanization? Multiculturalism? Equality of outcome for the genders? Affirmative action? I think we would be just as stupid to assume we can do something to fix all of the problems these programs have caused with another narrowly focused policy. We probably need a broader return to the concept of human nature. This is not a new concept considering the founders crafted our entire system around it. I don't think most people actually want what the modern world is providing in many cases. Suicide rates in the developed world support the idea. Maybe we stop telling people what they *should* want from a young age. Viciously protect and provide opportunities for all kids. Remove any and all government policies or programs that discourage two-parent homes. Stop incentivizing behavior unless the behavior limits someone else's rights and freedom. Overall, stop thinking that you can reengineer the human race quicker than over the course of several generations. Beyond that, 🤷‍♂️. Hopefully a broader conversation on the above rather than sloganeering and sign waving will result in some specific answers.

Strawman. Weak. There is lots of interesting conversation about the after effects of the feminist revolution. That revolution (first and second wave) was necessary and good, but as usual, no one took the time to look ahead. The introduction of women into the workforce at all levels, not just a few select professions, is having profound impacts on social norms far beyond workplace humor and who watches the kids. Again, worth it, but many are pretending like those changes are either fabricated or not nearly as impactful. Specifically to the topic of incoming quality, female professionals are a driving factor in the separation between successful families and unsuccessful families. There's a fantastic podcast on Sam Harris discussing this, and it's something that I've noticed over the past few years. It goes something like this (very short version): Modern income inequality has nothing to do with the historical carries, that is to say family wealth. Now that women are an active force in the workplace, their performance in the business world is something that is now measured, both societally and by themselves. However unlike men, women (statistically) prefer a mate who exceeds their own abilities. There's a lot of debate as to why this is, or if we even have a firm understanding of the cause, but statistically it remains. So that leaves us now with an entirely different dating dynamic, and women who might have partnered with men of a lower income or professional level are now aiming higher (than their new, elevated position in the world). This creates a dynamic where intelligent, driven men are partnering with intelligent, driven women. What do you think the odds are that their children will have the best schools the best resources the best tutoring and overall the best opportunities? This dynamic was made possible by the second order effects of the feminist revolution. Again, for those perpetually seeking something to get upset about, I'm not arguing that the feminist movement was a mistake, but as with all movements the after effects can be just as or even more devastating than the prior condition.

Here's a thread where pilots can solve complex societal issues without contaminating other threads. Consider this a safe space for no one and a trigger warning for all. Mods, feel free to move the cross posting from the WTF thread to here. Or don't, I'm not your mother.

Jesus dude, I would hope if someone treated you like that you'd have some choice words for them too. It was, however, an excellent example of your analytical perspective. As you indicated, we have no basis for discussion.

Well then by all means, what has he said that's so cringy? Include context. Comparing him to AOC is the second silly thing you've said.

So the only thing you've ever watched of his comes from videos made by people who hate him? That's like asking for a fair account of Barak Obama's presidency from Sean Hannity. JLP is one of the most inoffensive intellectuals in modern history. The hate for him is indicative of the mental flimsiness of progressive philosophy. If you're message is garbage, go after the person instead of the point.

This is a massive and important distinction. There *are* racists. Varying degrees of intent and magnitude, but they absolutely exist. The timeline and procedures for eradicating racism (if possible at all) is a long, nuanced conversation. But that doesn't translate into the existence of systemic racism, or a racist America. Or for that matter a racist police force, even though there are definitely racist cops. (Both once were, but no longer are) The statistics don't lie, there is no systemic extermination of black people in America. Even the Washington Post pegs the number of unarmed black men killed in the US in 2019 at nine. Nine out of 30 million is not a result of systemic racism. Why does it matter? Because people react violently and unpredictably to narative lies. We have an insane president because the Democrat party told a story about illegal immigration that just didn't jive with the American people. Despite what the Twitterati and talking heads say, the average American cocks their head to the side when they are told that America in 2020 writ large is a racist nation. Many times this fallacy is exaggerated to the point to say that it's *just as racist* as it was 200 years ago. Really? Why is this narative being pushed? Counter intuitively I think it's because the warriors of the bad old days, the survivors of a time when America *was* systemically racist, see the end of their crusade to change the system, and while they were successful (thank god), there hasn't been any sort of obvious retribution for the perpetrators of hate. This is why reparations are being brought up again. If we can't punish the people who bear the blame, we can at least extract a measure of compensation from the group as a whole. Or riot. Break their stuff. But thats just the way of things. The timeframe for wide scale societal change is measured in generations, not days or months or years. And the previous generation doesn't change so much as get overruled by their progeny. And they don't pay for their sins, they just die eventually, leaving their kids to sort it out. Dr. King understood this: Americans do not believe in the sins of the father. It's the generational version of "one guy shits his pants and we all wear diapers." It's a bad strategy in the military, and it's a bad strategy in social change.

That's not the definition of racism. But yes, the second and third order effects of overwhelmingly-liberal policies are exactly to blame for the disparate outcomes between the races in America. Will they ever see that? Nope. Double down and just keep doing what doesn't work.

Lighten up, Francis.

The problem as I see it is that the experts are responsible for the backlash against expertise. I know it's fashionable to blame policy makers and political leaders, but they are still doing what they were put in position to do. Experts, however, have made a media-like move towards opinion making, not simply the hard work of science. I think the root of it is that they are no longer willing to say that they do not know. And the coronavirus was a perfect opportunity to do just that. They just didn't know. Instead, they put out models that were based on incredibly thin data, and those models had sensational implications. Rather than recognizing those implications were hypothetical at best, they used the mere possibility of a catastrophic situation to justify catastrophic action. then, as humans are prone to do, they double down as their models fell apart. Because humans are prideful. if the experts had come out as soon as the data was starting to turn and said "our bad, this thing is nowhere near as dangerous as we thought it was, we should end the lockdowns immediately," then perhaps we would have a case for trusting experts. But they didn't. This isn't the first time we've seen it either. They've been so catastrophically wrong on climate change that any good that could be done to the change that *is* based on science is probably lost. They've been wrong on diets as well. Overpopulation, peak oil, acid rain, the hole in the ozone, global cooling, they just keep getting it wrong. That's fine, science is messy, and in the long term it always tends towards progress, but in the short term it is frequently, if not more often wrong. The problem is, they don't want to admit that because it would mean a loss of authority. Power is a hell of a drug. You should trust an expert when they are interpreting a historical body of work in their field. When your doctor says your cholesterol needs to be fixed, you should trust him. when a structural engineer tells you that you need a foundation of a certain thickness, you should trust her. But if a UFO lands in your backyard tomorrow, there are no experts. New things seldom have the luxury of experts.

The conversation is pointless (though still fun) until the restrictions are lifted. There's nowhere to fly to. Only after we see how quickly people come back with the companies actually furlough. I think the pax will come back fast (end of summer). However, I think the ensuing recession, maybe by late fall, is going to crush everything, including the airlines, for the next couple years. Hang on tight.

A little story about lying to the authorities: When I was being investigated for sexual assault, they wired my accuser in an attempt to record a confession. Since I didn't assault her, there was no confession. However when the summary of the recording was given to the commanders who decided to proceed with my case, it referenced three separate admissions of guilt, with partial quotes as evidence of wrongdoing. Slam dunk, jail time for sure. That's what they told my commander. it wasn't until the trial when the tapes were played in their entirety. Those confessions? Turns out they weren't exactly what they were portrayed as. In fact, they were so supportive of my case, the lead prosecutor, who hadn't reviewed the tape thoroughly, stumped himself without me saying a word. My point? Even I didn't remember what was on that tape. I had no idea that I was being recorded at the time, and by the time I was asked about it months had passed. So when I was told that my words were on that tape, essentially admitting guilt, it was very difficult to answer any questions about it. Fortunately for me, and not so fortunately for Flynn, I was smart enough to know that there's no point in talking to the authorities. I have no doubt they would have tried to do exactly the same thing they did with him, and had I fallen for it, I would have undone my own innocence. Memory is a tricky thing. nNw imagine if OSI had already known, via a video recording, that I was completely innocent of sexual assault. And then imagine that they had still pulled me in, lied to me about what was on the tape, in the hopes that they would get me to incorrectly recount a 2-month-old conversation from memory, then get me for lying to them about the conversation. Not the assault, which they already knew didn't happen. People need to go to prison for this.

In Texas and Georgia there is no shortage (beyond the usual) of hospital beds, ventilators, or doctors. NYC is the exception, not the rule.

The first one is stupid. The second we lower restrictions, of course the number of cases will rise until we have herd immunity. Then what? Lockdown again? The second one is the whole point. We locked down so the medical system could beef up and prepare for the flood. They should be ready by now. In many states they absolutely are.

Uh, have you ever met a nurse? Break break Are we ready to stop pretending like this thing is a threat to healthy people? We flattened the curve, forestalled the infections long enough to get ventilators and hospital beds ready. There's no cure or vaccine coming soon, so let's just stop pretending like the world stays paused for however long that will take. We are going to open up, and more old/unhealthy people are going to die. That was never, ever going to be avoided. We didn't flatten the curve to keep people from getting sick forever, we did it to make sure there would be a bed for them when it happened. We're there now, so let's stop ****ing around. The world doesn't stop just because a disease exists. We had to adapt our medical system to this new reality, and that required social distancing. We're close enough to go back to living again.

This is my suspicion. When you read about the stories (like the choir that got hit hard), this thing is super, super, super contagious. And there's zero chance it wasn't already here in the US by December, probably November. So how the hell could it be isolated? I don't think it can. More likely, a ton of us got it and never knew, and the early deaths (Nov - Feb) simply weren't diagnosed, since everyone in the governments of the world were in denial mode. Once it really kicked off, and millions were infected, the low death rate (let's say .1%) still yields scary numbers. But it will also burn out quicker, since there are far fewer people left to be infected than we thought. The social distancing was necessary and a bit late. The CDC lying about the effectiveness of masks in a stupid attempt to stop panic buying was a huge, huge fuck up. But we are probably a lot closer to opening everything up, but keeping the six foot spacing and masks on for the summer. The next hurdle is when the economy catches up. There will be way more fallout from this than a one-month recession followed by a rally. Great opportunity to invest if you don't lose your job.

This is great news. If we find out that *way more* people are infected than we thought, then it's not as deadly, and the curve is a lot flatter than originally suggested.

There is a zero percent chance the mortality rate of this thing is 3%. We have crappy data on the actual number of deaths, and effectively no data of the number of asymptomatic/resolved cases. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316 13% of a semi-random sample were infected without symptoms. Extrapolate that out and NYC alone has one million asymptomatic cases, or five times what the entire state is reporting. That means at the epicenter in the US the death rate is 1% or lower. Everywhere else will be even better. This thing is going to be about as fatal as the flu (my guess), but it's much more contagious than the flu, and everyone is getting it all at once. We definitely needed to do something to mitigate the risk. But we did nothing, then we did too much. Face masks for everyone who goes out in public, six feet social distancing, including tables at restaurants, no public gathering like concerts and sporting events, and keep the high-risk people at home. That probably would have been enough, but we panicked and didn't allow the social distancing measures to take effect before locking everything down. TJ Maxx, where no one gets within 6 feet of each other usually, is closed while grocery stores, where people are all over each other, are open. We did not have to erase 3 months of wealth creation, but we did. At least it will be a great time to invest or get a mortgage, if I don't get furloughed. But worse, because the "experts" were too afraid to admit they just didn't know (death rate of 3.4%), because they felt the need to bend the truth to influence behavior ("masks don't really help, so let the health professionals have them"), we will leave this crisis with yet another reason for many people to not trust trained professionals, and to not trust science. Pity. Another one added to the list. Global warming, global cooling, acid rain, peak oil, overpopulation, nuclear holocaust, zika, Y2K, the food pyramid, satanic cults, COVID-19.

I think for now that's correct, but as the speed of these automated weapons increases, the human authority will become the primary weakness. Of course it could just end up being the next Doomsday weapons, so the only use is to destroy other AI weapons. I dunno, but whatever it's going to look like, it won't be what we're expecting. Also, just as we can't foresee how AI will change the military landscape, we can't see how AI will learn to trick other AI. That's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Of course not. But there are miles of difference between what we have now and what is possible with visible-spectrum AI. If a fighter could launch a full sized decoy with a perfectly matching IR and radar signature, it would be useless. Tricking a learning algorithm is a different beast. Besides, that already-existing tech didn't blow any minds in the Syria A/A kill.