CC, I don't think we have enough info to blame the university for lack of communication -- sometimes job candidates will say what they think the employer wants to hear, and employers know that this happens. Just because this particular woman said she wanted to teach doesn't necessarily mean she really wants to teach -- this latest request may have left an impression with them that was at odds with what she had told them earlier, and so they may have concluded that the tenor of the demands gave them a more accurate picture of her true interests than her previous statements did.
There's a school of thought that Jesus was directly influenced by the mysticism of one or another eastern religion. Though the experiences of mystics across most religions tend to rhyme anyway, so perhaps that's all it is.
@tod-kelly Really? OK, pardon my ignorance then -- I always assumed that for non-health insurance I was paying just the expected actuarial cost for a person in my age/gender/risk factors group. I do think that, as Will says, the degree of pooling is still relevant to the discussion -- it's not fair to say that there's always pooling so it doesn't matter how much we flatten the rates. But I didn't realize that it was already happening to some degree.
As a safe driver in his forties, that kinda sucks -- I'd much rather pay $5/month than what I'm paying now.
@tod-kelly your sounds of frustration aren't justified -- you're missing something important here.
If I buy insurance, I'm paying the insurance company to take on my personal risk. That risk has a cost, and if we're talking about life insurance or car insurance, I'm paying the full cost of my own risk -- if I'm a teen or I've had a lot of accidents, I'll pay more for car insurance than 40-year-old with a perfect driving record.
Per the PPACA, younger, healthier people are paying more than the actuarial cost of their personal risk so that older, sicker people can pay less. This is not inherent in the concept of insurance.
And FWIW I'm no conservative -- if you asked me to cast the deciding vote on all of today's major issues, I'd come out somewhere between liberal and libertarian. I just find myself more annoyed these days by the ideological antics of my own (former?) "side" rather than the other side, so that's where I tend to push back. And also I have the liberal's love for the underdog -- conservatives are definitely that around here.
Just want to "ditto" what Will Truman said. And as far as changing things, I don't think it's purely a numbers game -- I think if this site as a whole really wanted to encourage participation by reasonable conservatives, it could do so. It would involve actively pushing people to stay open-minded, having more posts engaging reasonable conservatives politely rather than pointing and laughing at Fox News and other such nut-picking, etc. But someone with authority would have to decide that and make it happen, because AFAICT the majority are happy enough to have this be basically a liberal-to-liberaltarian site. Not that there's anything wrong with that per se -- I assume it's not far from where Erik and Mark would want it to be anyway.
Well, but you assumed that their statement meant less energy. FWIW though, I'd deduct more points from James for the false accusation with a smattering of misplaced ridicule.
James and notme: based on that page, neither of you can say with any confidence what the Sierra Club has in mind for the energy that had been supplied by the remaining retired coal plants -- it just says what it will do with the majority, not what it will or won't do with the remainder.
I don't know much about the Innocence Project, but I'd say that if their only concern is overturning wrongful convictions, then it would be crazy for anyone to oppose them, but if they're also advocating for changes to the criminal justice system, then the fact that they also exonerate the innocent doesn't mean that they're above criticism or that someone who disagrees with their politics can't reasonably decide that the negatives of their political advocacy outweighs the positives of their exonerations. At that point it just turns into a difference of opinion about the current state of the criminal justice system.
Obviously NotMe is swimming against the current on this (as on many other issues), but that doesn't make him/her a troll.
Hmm... I'm intrigued by the concept of "place" in this exchange. Obviously an internet forum is not like a physical place -- we have no way of seeing who else is in the "room" within earshot, and there's no way to go to another "room" except perhaps by leaving the blog entirely. If Chris created another post, the same people who might see and be hurt by his words here could see and be hurt by the words over there.
I understand both the interest in being considerate and the interest in having a more clinical, detached conversation about sensitive topics -- but I'm not sure how we honor both of these things on the same blog.
I don't think it's worthless at all -- those are the sharp rocks on the path to wisdom. Which we must walk barefoot, and backwards. With no first aid kit. And it's a 10% incline. And I won't even mention the ice and snow.
" If it is 10% of the group? The generalization is probably fair. If it’s 40%? Probably not."
So then until you've made a good-faith effort to determine the actual percentage for the given trait across the entire population (as opposed to relying on your personal experience and impressions), you shouldn't comment on it one way or the other? I'm fine with that, but as Will says, it would drastically lower the comment volume here.
The statement " it’d be really hard to define what it means to be an X that wouldn’t get a lot of people in X saying, 'That doesn’t describe me' " is true for just about all X in [ways to categorize people]. I don't know that it necessarily means that we shouldn't make generalizations, but we should be aware that they're just generalizations, whether X is a racial/ethnic group or a political grouping or anything else.
TBH, when I first read the quote, it did seem pretty SMH-stupid -- it was only after reflection that it looked more like just a novel presentation of the usual drivel.
From what I can gather, if Francesca had just said "it's a smell test", Kazzy wouldn't have posted anything on it -- he seemed to be keying in on the (admittedly odd) phrasing whose denotative meaning is completely tautological, as opposed to the connotative meaning which is merely vague and unhelpful.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Right Path, Part I: “To look more hard working””
I'm confused -- who's on which team? It's not like y'all are wearing uniforms.
On “Don’t Ask For Nothin’”
CC, I don't think we have enough info to blame the university for lack of communication -- sometimes job candidates will say what they think the employer wants to hear, and employers know that this happens. Just because this particular woman said she wanted to teach doesn't necessarily mean she really wants to teach -- this latest request may have left an impression with them that was at odds with what she had told them earlier, and so they may have concluded that the tenor of the demands gave them a more accurate picture of her true interests than her previous statements did.
On ““Hang him on my wall”: Why Museum Failures Concern Me”
If you have enough damn money, you can usually find someone else to pluck your damn strings for you.
On “The Irrational Logic of Christ”
There's a school of thought that Jesus was directly influenced by the mysticism of one or another eastern religion. Though the experiences of mystics across most religions tend to rhyme anyway, so perhaps that's all it is.
On “Obama’s Awkward ‘Between Two Ferns’ Interview”
@tod-kelly Really? OK, pardon my ignorance then -- I always assumed that for non-health insurance I was paying just the expected actuarial cost for a person in my age/gender/risk factors group. I do think that, as Will says, the degree of pooling is still relevant to the discussion -- it's not fair to say that there's always pooling so it doesn't matter how much we flatten the rates. But I didn't realize that it was already happening to some degree.
As a safe driver in his forties, that kinda sucks -- I'd much rather pay $5/month than what I'm paying now.
"
@tod-kelly your sounds of frustration aren't justified -- you're missing something important here.
If I buy insurance, I'm paying the insurance company to take on my personal risk. That risk has a cost, and if we're talking about life insurance or car insurance, I'm paying the full cost of my own risk -- if I'm a teen or I've had a lot of accidents, I'll pay more for car insurance than 40-year-old with a perfect driving record.
Per the PPACA, younger, healthier people are paying more than the actuarial cost of their personal risk so that older, sicker people can pay less. This is not inherent in the concept of insurance.
On “Holder Says State Attorneys General Don’t Have to Enforce Obamacare”
And FWIW I'm no conservative -- if you asked me to cast the deciding vote on all of today's major issues, I'd come out somewhere between liberal and libertarian. I just find myself more annoyed these days by the ideological antics of my own (former?) "side" rather than the other side, so that's where I tend to push back. And also I have the liberal's love for the underdog -- conservatives are definitely that around here.
"
Just want to "ditto" what Will Truman said. And as far as changing things, I don't think it's purely a numbers game -- I think if this site as a whole really wanted to encourage participation by reasonable conservatives, it could do so. It would involve actively pushing people to stay open-minded, having more posts engaging reasonable conservatives politely rather than pointing and laughing at Fox News and other such nut-picking, etc. But someone with authority would have to decide that and make it happen, because AFAICT the majority are happy enough to have this be basically a liberal-to-liberaltarian site. Not that there's anything wrong with that per se -- I assume it's not far from where Erik and Mark would want it to be anyway.
On “Outsourcing Manufacturing, Importing Smog”
Cheers, Will. I should learn to stay out of these things, though -- obviously no one was asking me to arbitrate.
"
Well, but you assumed that their statement meant less energy. FWIW though, I'd deduct more points from James for the false accusation with a smattering of misplaced ridicule.
"
James and notme: based on that page, neither of you can say with any confidence what the Sierra Club has in mind for the energy that had been supplied by the remaining retired coal plants -- it just says what it will do with the majority, not what it will or won't do with the remainder.
On “I’ve Got the Immigration Blues”
But you can’t say trash like this without some actual data to back it up
I don't see why you'd call it "trash" -- isn't it conventional wisdom that the Republicans are the party of the well-to-do?
On “Why is Michael Sam’s coming out a big deal?”
How it works
On “Not Guilty of a Crime That Didn’t Happen”
I don't know much about the Innocence Project, but I'd say that if their only concern is overturning wrongful convictions, then it would be crazy for anyone to oppose them, but if they're also advocating for changes to the criminal justice system, then the fact that they also exonerate the innocent doesn't mean that they're above criticism or that someone who disagrees with their politics can't reasonably decide that the negatives of their political advocacy outweighs the positives of their exonerations. At that point it just turns into a difference of opinion about the current state of the criminal justice system.
Obviously NotMe is swimming against the current on this (as on many other issues), but that doesn't make him/her a troll.
On “Stupid Tuesday questions, Franz Kafka edition”
Oh wait, literature. I was just trying to think of the honey connection.
"
Honey Boo-boo?
"
a man who thinks sexual congress with a child is an appropriate way to express love?
To be fair, HH was interested in 14-year-olds, not 4-year-olds.
On “Caleb Hannan, Gender Identity and Journalistic Ethics”
Hmm... I'm intrigued by the concept of "place" in this exchange. Obviously an internet forum is not like a physical place -- we have no way of seeing who else is in the "room" within earshot, and there's no way to go to another "room" except perhaps by leaving the blog entirely. If Chris created another post, the same people who might see and be hurt by his words here could see and be hurt by the words over there.
I understand both the interest in being considerate and the interest in having a more clinical, detached conversation about sensitive topics -- but I'm not sure how we honor both of these things on the same blog.
On “Stupid Tuesday questions, Dave Coulier edition”
Yeah, we old geezers need lots of rest.
"
I don't think it's worthless at all -- those are the sharp rocks on the path to wisdom. Which we must walk barefoot, and backwards. With no first aid kit. And it's a 10% incline. And I won't even mention the ice and snow.
On “We All Make Our Own Paper Tigers: Amy Chua and Why ‘Culture’ Doesn’t Displace ‘Race’ the Way You Think It Does”
@kazzy
" If it is 10% of the group? The generalization is probably fair. If it’s 40%? Probably not."
So then until you've made a good-faith effort to determine the actual percentage for the given trait across the entire population (as opposed to relying on your personal experience and impressions), you shouldn't comment on it one way or the other? I'm fine with that, but as Will says, it would drastically lower the comment volume here.
"
The statement " it’d be really hard to define what it means to be an X that wouldn’t get a lot of people in X saying, 'That doesn’t describe me' " is true for just about all X in [ways to categorize people]. I don't know that it necessarily means that we shouldn't make generalizations, but we should be aware that they're just generalizations, whether X is a racial/ethnic group or a political grouping or anything else.
On “Someone Paid to Talk About Sports Just Said This About Sports”
When it comes to sports commentators, whatever the question is, the answer is always more mocking.
"
TBH, when I first read the quote, it did seem pretty SMH-stupid -- it was only after reflection that it looked more like just a novel presentation of the usual drivel.
"
@jm3z-aitch
From what I can gather, if Francesca had just said "it's a smell test", Kazzy wouldn't have posted anything on it -- he seemed to be keying in on the (admittedly odd) phrasing whose denotative meaning is completely tautological, as opposed to the connotative meaning which is merely vague and unhelpful.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.