Part of the challenge is that the "liberal vs conservative" dynamic overtakes more nuanced distinctions -- probably if we were to take just the folks here who are open to a conversation instead of name-calling and go through a bunch of scenarios in detail, we wouldn't be that far off. But we're all consuming different media and have a different sense of who "out there" is most responsible for the turmoil.
"Pretending that schools weren’t promoting belief systems until NOW is just silliness."
Neither InMD nor I were doing that. Public institutions, especially those funded by obligatory taxes, have a responsibility to be maximally accommodating to people's beliefs. Any time a public institution is appealing to a sectarian concern, there will be understandable blowback.
"Well, that remains to be seen, no?
You’re always going to get louder people in opposition to what is happening than in support."
Well there are polls and other ways for the public to provide feedback. This starts to get into the weeds of what exactly the school is doing/teaching and where exactly it's located. But if you agree that public schools should be sensitive to public opinion and not just do what a given teacher or administration or educational group thinks is "right", then we may not be far apart.
"The issue is that some schools aren't promoting YOUR belief system"
No, the issue is that these schools are promoting a belief system that is not widely shared in the community, based on an ideology of very recent vintage and pushed by people who haven't spent 10 seconds thinking about larger ramifications.
The jurors certainly need to follow the rules, because their judgment actually affects people's lives. We're just shooting our mouths off here, so we can think what we want. I'm totally with you that we don't have enough information yet to conclude anything with 100% certainly, but i don't see why we can't form tentative, even probability-weighted conclusions based on what we know so far. Otherwise let's shut down all the current events conversations here until a year after the event is done -- it takes a long time for all the info to work its way out.
I have no idea what this means.. i was basically saying the same thing as CJ below. Seems like you're in full Fight Mode and just posting your first reaction to everything -- maybe take a breath and carve out a bit of time to reflect before responding more?
Neely's history wasn't relevant for Penny, but it's relevant to us in evaluating how likely it is that he was acting threatening in the incident (since we weren't there to see for ourselves). Maybe not usable in court, but certainly makes sense to factor into our assessment in our own debates.
Interesting... my first reaction to this was that maybe by the time they died, they would've already seen some flaws in this assumption, but i found this study showing that the trend toward longer tenures didn't get started until around 1900.
You don't understand -- the popular vote total is *meaningless*. Not every citizen in the country voted, and many of those who didn't decided not to because they were in a deep red or blue state where there was no question of the outcome. If it had been an NPV basis instead, many potential voters would have made different decisions, and the candidates would've made many different choices in their campaigns. It's possible (though not likely given polls at the time) that Trump would've won the NPV in 2016 if that's what was required for winning -- but there's no way for us to know because *no one cared* about the NPV, at least not until some people needed to console themselves after the painful loss.
Oh god, not "But the popular vote!!" still. It's like talking to a guy whose team lost a close Super Bowl six years ago insisting that his team was still better because they had way more total yardage. "She won on a completely meaningless metric!!"
As a non-lawyer, I've never really understood why a civil trial would involve _punitive_ damages in the first place -- isn't that what criminal law is for? And why would punitive damages be awarded to the plaintiff -- shouldn't they be treated like fines and paid to the state?
Also, I didn't watch the video but i'm sure it wasn't obvious at what point things changed from "he's being restrained" to "he's being choked to death". Is there any sign that the death was anything other than accidental?
You can agree or disagree with it, but calling it "disgusting" goes way too far. Letting children make permanent body-altering decisions is a fraught topic and will of course be controversial -- "standard of care" is a bullshit phrase that pretends there's some sort of hard medical science here when there's obviously not. For comparison's sake, female circumcision for a minor is *illegal* in the US, regardless of consent -- I'm of course not saying that this is exactly the same, but it's similar enough that maybe people should take a breath and think through all the ramifications.
What exactly is encompassed by "gender-affirming care"? Does this include puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgery?
Taking children away from their parents is definitely way, way on the other side of the scale, but the extent to which this "affirming care" euphemism has taken hold is really quite stunning and disturbing. Once you get into the specifics of different levels of "care", public support changes drastically.
Yeah, I'm hoping people like AOC will find that they got way out over their skis on this one, and public sentiment will fall the other way pretty quickly once more info is out there. It doesn't seem like there's actually much that's ambiguous or unknowable here (which is what allows the controversies to take off), it's just taking a while for all the info to get out.
The 15 minutes was interval before police response, not length of choke hold. Unfortunately people are so eager to be outraged, they're not waiting for all the facts to come in.
Well, new yorkers are probably more likely to be able to sniff out the BS from the early sensationalist reporting, given their regular experience. But also in general I find the NYT commentariat is an interesting mix of Internet-style liberals, older liberals, and a few non-liberals. While you'll rarely see any kind words for, say, Ross Douthat, the more IDPol-ish topics often get a good mix of reactions.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “TSN Open Mic for the week of 5/15/2023”
You don't have to lecture him (I doubt he'd be too interested to listen anyway), but it's ok to disagree with him -- many Black people do too.
On “Oh, It’s A Party All Right”
Part of the challenge is that the "liberal vs conservative" dynamic overtakes more nuanced distinctions -- probably if we were to take just the folks here who are open to a conversation instead of name-calling and go through a bunch of scenarios in detail, we wouldn't be that far off. But we're all consuming different media and have a different sense of who "out there" is most responsible for the turmoil.
On “TSN Open Mic for the week of 5/15/2023”
Indeed.
On “Oh, It’s A Party All Right”
"Pretending that schools weren’t promoting belief systems until NOW is just silliness."
Neither InMD nor I were doing that. Public institutions, especially those funded by obligatory taxes, have a responsibility to be maximally accommodating to people's beliefs. Any time a public institution is appealing to a sectarian concern, there will be understandable blowback.
"Well, that remains to be seen, no?
You’re always going to get louder people in opposition to what is happening than in support."
Well there are polls and other ways for the public to provide feedback. This starts to get into the weeds of what exactly the school is doing/teaching and where exactly it's located. But if you agree that public schools should be sensitive to public opinion and not just do what a given teacher or administration or educational group thinks is "right", then we may not be far apart.
"
Nope, not even close. At best this is motte and bailey, at worst your complete failure to understand the points of contention.
"
"The issue is that some schools aren't promoting YOUR belief system"
No, the issue is that these schools are promoting a belief system that is not widely shared in the community, based on an ideology of very recent vintage and pushed by people who haven't spent 10 seconds thinking about larger ramifications.
On “TSN Open Mic for the week of 5/15/2023”
The jurors certainly need to follow the rules, because their judgment actually affects people's lives. We're just shooting our mouths off here, so we can think what we want. I'm totally with you that we don't have enough information yet to conclude anything with 100% certainly, but i don't see why we can't form tentative, even probability-weighted conclusions based on what we know so far. Otherwise let's shut down all the current events conversations here until a year after the event is done -- it takes a long time for all the info to work its way out.
"
Actually on second read CJ’s comment is about something else - guess I’m reading too fast as well.
"
I have no idea what this means.. i was basically saying the same thing as CJ below. Seems like you're in full Fight Mode and just posting your first reaction to everything -- maybe take a breath and carve out a bit of time to reflect before responding more?
"
Neely's history wasn't relevant for Penny, but it's relevant to us in evaluating how likely it is that he was acting threatening in the incident (since we weren't there to see for ourselves). Maybe not usable in court, but certainly makes sense to factor into our assessment in our own debates.
On “Paul Krugman, in one column, highlights the Democratic Party’s failure with rural voters”
Interesting... my first reaction to this was that maybe by the time they died, they would've already seen some flaws in this assumption, but i found this study showing that the trend toward longer tenures didn't get started until around 1900.
On “How Trump Wins By Losing”
"The people who didn’t vote most likely wouldn’t have voted with the NPV either"
What do you base this belief on?
"
You don't understand -- the popular vote total is *meaningless*. Not every citizen in the country voted, and many of those who didn't decided not to because they were in a deep red or blue state where there was no question of the outcome. If it had been an NPV basis instead, many potential voters would have made different decisions, and the candidates would've made many different choices in their campaigns. It's possible (though not likely given polls at the time) that Trump would've won the NPV in 2016 if that's what was required for winning -- but there's no way for us to know because *no one cared* about the NPV, at least not until some people needed to console themselves after the painful loss.
"
Oh god, not "But the popular vote!!" still. It's like talking to a guy whose team lost a close Super Bowl six years ago insisting that his team was still better because they had way more total yardage. "She won on a completely meaningless metric!!"
On “What the Trump Verdict Means, and What it Doesn’t”
Thanks, I appreciate the explanation.
"
As a non-lawyer, I've never really understood why a civil trial would involve _punitive_ damages in the first place -- isn't that what criminal law is for? And why would punitive damages be awarded to the plaintiff -- shouldn't they be treated like fines and paid to the state?
On “Goblins of Procrastination”
Technically the goblins are not “of procrastination “, they’re the goblins of work that the boy is running away from.
On “TSN Open Mic for the week of 5/1/2023”
Also, I didn't watch the video but i'm sure it wasn't obvious at what point things changed from "he's being restrained" to "he's being choked to death". Is there any sign that the death was anything other than accidental?
"
(Thanks -- and now reading my reply, i see what probably tripped it)
"
(Hmm, i replied to Philip but something in my response triggered the filter -- can someone help?)
"
You can agree or disagree with it, but calling it "disgusting" goes way too far. Letting children make permanent body-altering decisions is a fraught topic and will of course be controversial -- "standard of care" is a bullshit phrase that pretends there's some sort of hard medical science here when there's obviously not. For comparison's sake, female circumcision for a minor is *illegal* in the US, regardless of consent -- I'm of course not saying that this is exactly the same, but it's similar enough that maybe people should take a breath and think through all the ramifications.
"
What exactly is encompassed by "gender-affirming care"? Does this include puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgery?
Taking children away from their parents is definitely way, way on the other side of the scale, but the extent to which this "affirming care" euphemism has taken hold is really quite stunning and disturbing. Once you get into the specifics of different levels of "care", public support changes drastically.
"
Yeah, I'm hoping people like AOC will find that they got way out over their skis on this one, and public sentiment will fall the other way pretty quickly once more info is out there. It doesn't seem like there's actually much that's ambiguous or unknowable here (which is what allows the controversies to take off), it's just taking a while for all the info to get out.
"
The 15 minutes was interval before police response, not length of choke hold. Unfortunately people are so eager to be outraged, they're not waiting for all the facts to come in.
"
Well, new yorkers are probably more likely to be able to sniff out the BS from the early sensationalist reporting, given their regular experience. But also in general I find the NYT commentariat is an interesting mix of Internet-style liberals, older liberals, and a few non-liberals. While you'll rarely see any kind words for, say, Ross Douthat, the more IDPol-ish topics often get a good mix of reactions.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.