I never really got the appeal of PUA culture and I'm in the prime demographic for it, a young man whose romantic success is more than a bit bellow average. I've never been a part of hook-up culture, NSA sex, FWB, or whatever you want to call it. I feel actively excluded from it at my darker times. My more traditional dating life isn't that much of ranging success either. Still, PUA culture is obviously a scam besides being really anti-Feminist. Its snake oil and the techniques can not possibly work.
I think that the MRW movement is kind of dangerous. It seems filled with people who know thats something very wrong from personal experience but can't get the cause of their problems right or the solutions right. We had lots of examples of this from history. They never tend to work out well.
ND, I really don't make it my business to know the personal details of writers for Slate but I believe that Rosin is married to Saletin and they have one daughter. Dahlia Lithwick also has a daughter and so does Dana Stevens. Its Emily Bazelon who has two sons.
I agree with your overall point, the "End of Men" really is the "End of Blue Collar Men", the type that would get good paying jobs in factories or other work-sites after college. Some blue collar men like plumbers, construction workers, and miners are relatively safe because you always need them. Getting the sons of blue collar families into college seems hard for some reason.
Chris, 2 isn't even true any more. The countries with socialized healthcare might have been relatively ethnically homogeneous when they created their system but they aren't anymore. The systems still work fine. Most European countries always had minority populations as well, the Jews and the Roma. The dynamics weren't quite the same as they were in the United States but even in the most liberal countries, both minorities were viewed as kind of being strangers.
Another one I encounter is that America can't do what other countries do with healthcare because than we won't be America. We need our own system even if its really crappy.
Thats another reason why having "routine" car being paid for out of pocket is a really bad idea. What gets defined as routine. To me, routine is simply the annual physical or the twice a year cleaning at your dentist or the annual eye exam. Others might have a more extensive defintion of routine.
The abuses of health insurance companies are well-documented and have been so for years.
Roger, again I ask this question. Why are you so focused on a free market solution to healthcare? We know what works based on our programs like the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid and what other countries do. Why not just scale Medicare up to cover everybody and allow the purchase of supplmental insurance or free market purchase of things like cosmetic surgery. Whats with this obsession with having a free market solution just because we are America and thats what we do?
Roger, these are all easy-peasy solutions with single-payer to and we have evidence that single-payer works. We have this evidence in the United States, we call it medicare. People on medicare seem to really like it and get pissy when any changes to it are announced. We have no evidence that your free market solution would work. Why can't we do what we know works?
One big difference between health insurance and car insurance is that car insurance companies are relatively sure that people are going to do everything they can to avoid accidents. Probably. Health insurance companies know that people get sick even if they do everything possible to stay healthy. In order to make money they have to find a way to collect premiums while providing minimal coverage or ideally no coverage.
I'm not buying this. I think that we have enough evidence from our own experience with Medicare to show that single-payer can work in this country. I'd even argue that the VA is a sign that we can pull of NHS if it was desirable. I'd prefer NHS over single-payer but most liberals seem to prefer Medicare for All as the solution. The problem is that doing either of these things is politically impossible but they can work.
Why should the public, government-run program only cover the catastrophic and extremely serious? If there is a government program, it should cover the routine and non-catastrophic as well. One way you prevent illnesses from becoming castastrophic is to nip them in the bud if possible. People would get more necessary, routine care if they could do so without getting hit in the pocket book or penalized by their bosses for taking time off work to go to the doctor or take their kids to the doctor.
Roger, at this point can't we just use the evidence available from other countries rather than try for some market-based solution that has never been attempted before because we are devoted to the free market or something like that.
People shouldn't take the law into their own hand. It might start with simple self-defense but enough people do it, it escalates into dangerous vigilantism and possibly lynch mobs.
Mike, as explained above, a lot of liberals are very weary of the ability of the private sector to provide quality healthcare to the bulk of the population. Health insurance companies have long histories of doing anything they can to deny care in the name of profits. If healthcare was provided on a free market basis rather than through insurance, most of us would believe that everything but the most ordinary care would be too expensive for most people. Most liberals wanted a more statist healthcare reform than the ACA but accepted the ACA as the best possible reform possible under our political system. Healthcare is an area where socialism really does work.
When did this change? I took criminal law in the Fall 2003 semester of law school. I was taught that self-defense was an affirmative defense and the burden was on the defendant.
Yes, self-defense was always a rebuttal to charges rather than something that the prosecutor had to disprove. It was the defendant's burden to show that he or she acted in self-defense and since self-defense is basically the defendant arguing for his own version of the events than it should be the burden of the defendant to prove it.
I'd argue that tackling isn't okay either but to an extent its better than punching, its because tackling is less likely to result in serious harm or the domino chain that led the drunk being in the hospital in critical condition. If physical confrontation is necessary the goal should be to restrain rather than harm.
Who gets to determine what racist language justifies physical violence? Do certain groups, like African-Americans, get more of a right to react violently than other groups, say Asian-Americans, because overall the racism against African-Americans wrecks more havoc on them than anti-Asian racism wrecks on Asian-Americans?
And George Zimmerman's problem was that he thought he lived in the latter when he lived in the former or at least African-American men only walk around slowly to because of the latter. Sometimes presuming the worst causes more trouble than presuming the best.
Honestly, the prosecutors should have tried Zimmerman for mansalughter rather than murder. That would have resulted in a conviction probably.
New York law states that people have a duty to retreat before they can act in self-defense. This becomes an absolute duty to retreat when death is involved, which pretty much means you have to be in your dwelling or cornered. In New York, the law is if you have a choice between acting in self-defense or running like a scared kid who pissed in his or her pants than you run like the scarred kid who just wetted themselves. I support this. The law should presume that violence is never an acceptable solution to most problems.
Its really hard, maybe even impossible, for the law to take all contexts into consideration though. Thats why the law has to often ignore some really significant past evils like the treatment of African-Americans past, present, and future or the subjecation of women throughout history in order to be theoretically equitable. The law can't say in X situation Class Y is allowed to do Action Z but in all situations Class B can never do Action Z. Thats even worse than some or many prosecutions that seem egregious. Trying to put morality or historical contexts into the law is not going to work.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “July Leaguecast: The Role of Men in the 21st Century”
I never really got the appeal of PUA culture and I'm in the prime demographic for it, a young man whose romantic success is more than a bit bellow average. I've never been a part of hook-up culture, NSA sex, FWB, or whatever you want to call it. I feel actively excluded from it at my darker times. My more traditional dating life isn't that much of ranging success either. Still, PUA culture is obviously a scam besides being really anti-Feminist. Its snake oil and the techniques can not possibly work.
"
I think that the MRW movement is kind of dangerous. It seems filled with people who know thats something very wrong from personal experience but can't get the cause of their problems right or the solutions right. We had lots of examples of this from history. They never tend to work out well.
"
ND, I really don't make it my business to know the personal details of writers for Slate but I believe that Rosin is married to Saletin and they have one daughter. Dahlia Lithwick also has a daughter and so does Dana Stevens. Its Emily Bazelon who has two sons.
I agree with your overall point, the "End of Men" really is the "End of Blue Collar Men", the type that would get good paying jobs in factories or other work-sites after college. Some blue collar men like plumbers, construction workers, and miners are relatively safe because you always need them. Getting the sons of blue collar families into college seems hard for some reason.
"
I thought Russel would speak with a Mid-Atlantic accent like the old movie announcers for some reason.
On “Health Insurance Changes”
Chris, 2 isn't even true any more. The countries with socialized healthcare might have been relatively ethnically homogeneous when they created their system but they aren't anymore. The systems still work fine. Most European countries always had minority populations as well, the Jews and the Roma. The dynamics weren't quite the same as they were in the United States but even in the most liberal countries, both minorities were viewed as kind of being strangers.
"
Another one I encounter is that America can't do what other countries do with healthcare because than we won't be America. We need our own system even if its really crappy.
"
Its capitalism as religious doctrine rather than as an economic system.
"
Thats another reason why having "routine" car being paid for out of pocket is a really bad idea. What gets defined as routine. To me, routine is simply the annual physical or the twice a year cleaning at your dentist or the annual eye exam. Others might have a more extensive defintion of routine.
"
The abuses of health insurance companies are well-documented and have been so for years.
Roger, again I ask this question. Why are you so focused on a free market solution to healthcare? We know what works based on our programs like the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid and what other countries do. Why not just scale Medicare up to cover everybody and allow the purchase of supplmental insurance or free market purchase of things like cosmetic surgery. Whats with this obsession with having a free market solution just because we are America and thats what we do?
"
Roger, these are all easy-peasy solutions with single-payer to and we have evidence that single-payer works. We have this evidence in the United States, we call it medicare. People on medicare seem to really like it and get pissy when any changes to it are announced. We have no evidence that your free market solution would work. Why can't we do what we know works?
"
One big difference between health insurance and car insurance is that car insurance companies are relatively sure that people are going to do everything they can to avoid accidents. Probably. Health insurance companies know that people get sick even if they do everything possible to stay healthy. In order to make money they have to find a way to collect premiums while providing minimal coverage or ideally no coverage.
"
I'm not buying this. I think that we have enough evidence from our own experience with Medicare to show that single-payer can work in this country. I'd even argue that the VA is a sign that we can pull of NHS if it was desirable. I'd prefer NHS over single-payer but most liberals seem to prefer Medicare for All as the solution. The problem is that doing either of these things is politically impossible but they can work.
"
Why should the public, government-run program only cover the catastrophic and extremely serious? If there is a government program, it should cover the routine and non-catastrophic as well. One way you prevent illnesses from becoming castastrophic is to nip them in the bud if possible. People would get more necessary, routine care if they could do so without getting hit in the pocket book or penalized by their bosses for taking time off work to go to the doctor or take their kids to the doctor.
"
Roger, at this point can't we just use the evidence available from other countries rather than try for some market-based solution that has never been attempted before because we are devoted to the free market or something like that.
On “On Zimmerman and Stand Your Ground [Updated]”
People shouldn't take the law into their own hand. It might start with simple self-defense but enough people do it, it escalates into dangerous vigilantism and possibly lynch mobs.
On “Health Insurance Changes”
Mike, as explained above, a lot of liberals are very weary of the ability of the private sector to provide quality healthcare to the bulk of the population. Health insurance companies have long histories of doing anything they can to deny care in the name of profits. If healthcare was provided on a free market basis rather than through insurance, most of us would believe that everything but the most ordinary care would be too expensive for most people. Most liberals wanted a more statist healthcare reform than the ACA but accepted the ACA as the best possible reform possible under our political system. Healthcare is an area where socialism really does work.
On “On Zimmerman and Stand Your Ground [Updated]”
Thats why tackling isn't okay in my book either. The law should presume that no violence is justified on its face.
"
When did this change? I took criminal law in the Fall 2003 semester of law school. I was taught that self-defense was an affirmative defense and the burden was on the defendant.
"
Yes, self-defense was always a rebuttal to charges rather than something that the prosecutor had to disprove. It was the defendant's burden to show that he or she acted in self-defense and since self-defense is basically the defendant arguing for his own version of the events than it should be the burden of the defendant to prove it.
"
I'd argue that tackling isn't okay either but to an extent its better than punching, its because tackling is less likely to result in serious harm or the domino chain that led the drunk being in the hospital in critical condition. If physical confrontation is necessary the goal should be to restrain rather than harm.
"
Who gets to determine what racist language justifies physical violence? Do certain groups, like African-Americans, get more of a right to react violently than other groups, say Asian-Americans, because overall the racism against African-Americans wrecks more havoc on them than anti-Asian racism wrecks on Asian-Americans?
"
And George Zimmerman's problem was that he thought he lived in the latter when he lived in the former or at least African-American men only walk around slowly to because of the latter. Sometimes presuming the worst causes more trouble than presuming the best.
Honestly, the prosecutors should have tried Zimmerman for mansalughter rather than murder. That would have resulted in a conviction probably.
"
New York law states that people have a duty to retreat before they can act in self-defense. This becomes an absolute duty to retreat when death is involved, which pretty much means you have to be in your dwelling or cornered. In New York, the law is if you have a choice between acting in self-defense or running like a scared kid who pissed in his or her pants than you run like the scarred kid who just wetted themselves. I support this. The law should presume that violence is never an acceptable solution to most problems.
"
Than you either call the police or physically escort the drunk out like bouncers do in clubs.
"
Its really hard, maybe even impossible, for the law to take all contexts into consideration though. Thats why the law has to often ignore some really significant past evils like the treatment of African-Americans past, present, and future or the subjecation of women throughout history in order to be theoretically equitable. The law can't say in X situation Class Y is allowed to do Action Z but in all situations Class B can never do Action Z. Thats even worse than some or many prosecutions that seem egregious. Trying to put morality or historical contexts into the law is not going to work.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.