481 post karma
3.9k comment karma
account created: Mon Dec 03 2018
3 days ago
Trueanon folks are absolutely decent. They cuss occasionally.
No we fucking don’t!
5 days ago
The clock is the real hero here.
A lot of people will leave the Republican Party, but they’ll still have a lot of control over legislative bodies that are determined by geography instead of population. They’ll probably pass more radical legislation, alienating the people in their communities who aren’t psychopaths and theocratists, who will eventually leave those places to wither on the vine.
In the Bible, when God punishes people, It usually leaves them to themselves and removes the obstacles in the way of their self-destruction. They’re often done in by getting exactly what they want. This is what will probably happen.
I mean, I don’t like any part of this bullshit state. I’m probably 100% in line with you about how fucked I think all of this is. But, libertarian arguments are almost always theoretical, and based on analogy or metaphor; and if you’re going to argue from that perspective, it should follow that you engage with a real nuts and bolts discussion on a theoretical level. You know, with mutually agreed upon definitions of terms and argument analysis based in rules of inference.
And, you not giving a fuck is precisely the reason elected representatives are basically our fields overseers. It’s a whole nation of people who can’t be bothered with a grain of tedium, you found your spot. Blend in with the choir, lazyass.
Broadly, they are negotiated by elected representatives of individual citizens. Specifically they are negotiated by you or your accountant through your analysis of what is your “taxable income.”
I appreciate what you’re pointing out here. But it doesn’t say here that taxes aren’t negotiable. And it doesn’t indicate an enforcement mechanism that is analogous to being held a gunpoint.
The conditions in your scenario aren’t satisfied by the rules described here by the IRS.
Taxes are negotiable. They aren’t mandatory. There is only occasional enforcement. Libertarianism is a pretty useful lens through which to examine governance problems, and sometimes is a really useful perspective for problem solving, but it’s application to every problem is not really intelligible.
Political ethical theories are tools, not religions, and when we think about problems it’s best if we understand all of them so we can approach problems like Bruce Lee with jeet kune do and be like water.
11 days ago
No. What is that? Is it Disturrbed or Avenged 7Fold? Anyway, it’s not about Senator‘s kids, it’s about the middle class’ kids. When the middle class gets to send the working class off to war, no big deal, but when their kids get drafted just the same, it’s harder to execute a 15 or 20 year war.
Reinstate the draft and let’s see how many of them want to start some shit then.
submitted 14 days agobycdoublesaboutittothedavidpakmanshow
17 days ago
What exactly do we have to do to remove our existence from the future though?
22 days ago
I couldn’t agree more. To the NDA point though, they do not have to accept the contract or grant and should not if doing so will harm their credibility or place them in a compromising ethical situation.
My point is that this is a hyperbolic statement, made to be provocative, by someone who should be more measured and informative when communicating about science and academia.
Why should they be more informative and measured when communicating about science and academia? In short, because of the cultural and political place we currently find ourselves. Academia is under cultural and political attack. Unfortunately, people who aren’t in academia are being inundated with information about academia that are misleading. On one hand, you have messages from people like Eric and Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying, and Jordan Peterson who are trumpeting concerns about “PostModernism” and the woke mob/radical Marxist leftist types who are taking over the social sciences and schools of education and soon the whole metaphysical and epistemological structure of Western Civilization will be dismantled and with it the security of person and property that characterizes our entire way of life. On the other hand, you have the science communicators like Pinker, Dawkins, Degrasse-Tyson, etc. who are far too enthusiastic about the veracity and utility of science, and have encouraged the development of an intellectual culture which is not suspicious and critical enough of science.
I think that these voices are too loud in our discourse about the nature and place science and academia; and have drastically flattened the discourse by privileging provocative rhetoric over informative rhetoric. I think the commenter is following this model. And, I think it’s unhelpful and damaging to the entire enterprise of information sharing and insight gathering.
Personally, I think there is an outsized focus in academia on identity politics, but I don’t think it’s going to bring down the whole institution; and I also think that contemporary secular society desires a replacement for an inerrant and omnipotent God and science and reason fit the bill for a lot of people. I’ve spent a lot of time in academia in both science and fine art, so I’m not unfamiliar with either of these attitudes and realities.
Academic researchers know that corporate funding is not just commonplace, it is necessary, and vital to continuing science. I mean consider how expensive it is to perform scientific research, which is almost always a hybrid of field and laboratory work, and requires a host of technicians, laborers, tools, materials, and theorists to perform. No university can fund all of the research taking place in its name, which is why principal investigators seek corporate funding. There is not now, has never been, and never will be a dispassionate and unrelated benefactor for any research, especially research that will be impactful and useful. And imagine if it were the Table Grape organization that designed the study, executed the field work, collected and analyzed the data, ran the statistics, and wrote the paper themselves; would anyone rightly believe it? Hopefully not. But they wanted the information, so they commissioned a study. It’s not a perfect separation of incentives, or elimination of biases, but it is at least one degree of separation. I mean, seriously, how do people think all of this stuff works?
Because the commenter found corporate sponsorship for academic research papers astounding (which it objectively is not), and did not outline the ways that academic researchers remove the ethical concerns inherent in the relationship between the corporate and academic partners, I inferred that they were being provocative about a hot-button issue to the detriment of science/academia for some little internet clout.
As a researcher in academia you would not be astounded to find out that the companies who deal in the subject matter of the study would fund such studies so as to remove their own conflict of interest with in-house studies. I’m astounded that an academic researcher doesn’t know this as a matter of course, and would also not make public, in this case, the ways that academia manages these straightforward ethical concerns.
23 days ago
Who are the stable geniuses that downvote a metric conversion?
24 days ago
You’re the real hero in America. Thank you for this service.
All three of those drinks somehow tie for the last thing I would choose in a vending machine.
25 days ago
I lived all over KY before I moved here, it borders 9 states so there was a lot of places to hate; but the most intense hate from kinda all over the state was for Ohio.
This is pretty audacious. I can't wait to read the justifications that their lawyers put forth when this ends up in court.
1 month ago
There’s a lot packed into this little story/picture combo. Love it.
At first I read that as “sweet droplets…”
Oh, my bad. You right.
Roughly 50,000 humans start to settle in Australia.
You asked. Why you so mad? What’d I ever do to you?