Jump to content

Serak The Preparer

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Serak The Preparer

  1. @Axiom of Choice For someone who seems to want to elevate the discourse of discussion, you have a strange way of showing it. From your initial post where you (like @GRHorn, @workswithseed, and @Onboard 2.0) you immediately claim that BLM has as an objective to disrupt the nuclear family. Whether through conscious choice or willful misinterpretation you leave out words in the sentence, changing the meaning. You can say that @Huckleberry was rude or dismissive in his reply, where he pointed out the other words in the objective (e.g. the requirement for nuclear families) but I am not sure what you expected. Especially given your multiple posts on logic / philosophy, I would hypothesize that you are certainly capable of parsing the sentence. So, are any of the following thoughts correct? 1- You hadn't read the statement so accepted the notion from others that BLM is trying to disrupt nuclear families. 2- You read the statement but missed the notion of requirement. 3- You read the statement, saw the notion of requirement, but you think that this is the same thing as disrupting the family itself. 4- You willfully misrepresented the objective of BLM in order to make a point (maybe about marketing)? 5 - Something else?
  2. "Every state's favorite other state' - Minnesota likes Canada Shit, did I miss something in quarantine? Does this mean no tariffs on maple syrup or Canadian Bacon? Is defunding the police really about transitioning to Mounties?
  3. While I assume you are throwing that 0.0001% number out there as your baseline, I don't think it is absurd to say you are several orders of magnitude too low on that. I think it is way closer to 1%. Still not likely, to be sure. But that is enough for me to at least suggest we should think about this contingency.
  4. i think the idea of secret service arresting trump is super low. But that is not the only concern. Also, what does option 1 even mean? I think we will have a substantial shift in use of mail-in ballots. In your writing, it seems that this necessitates opportunity for substantive foreign interference. I do not think that foreign interference is likely, so how would option 1 even be assessed? Just to be complete, I would say option 1 is likely (assuming as you did that mail-in ballots necessarily facilitate opportunities for foreign interference. I think option 2 is unlikely. How would you rate the likelihood of the following additional items? 1B - Substantial shift to the use of mail in ballots during pandemic leads to Trump / Barr / Other national Republicans claiming interference without evidence? 2B - Trump uses this claim to prepare some kind of legal challenge to election, leading to some level of chaos / confusion as to next president?
  5. Surprised by your post @Bama Chick, especially calling Faith a bitch. I sweater god, not trying to mansplain (I am a white dude, full disclosure), but despite @washparkhorn's declaration, Karen is not a gender-neutral insult. Yes, you can call a man a Karen, just like you can call a man a pussy, a bitch, a cunt, etc., but the point of calling a man these things is to further emphasize that women are inferior to men in some way. This is far from gender neutral. The behavior that many white women display is absolutely terrible and is certainly a result of weaponizing the privilege they have, but I am not sure that we as a culture really need another pejorative term aimed at women. Doing so gives cover to the behavior / comments that Faith noticed, about further emphasizing the gender / looks / quality of the targets using even more misogynistic language.
  6. What's the situation like in Texas? I live in California now, and here there were significant shortages of blood. At least locally, they started offering free COVID-19 antibody test with donation and all of a sudden it's a 3-week waiting list to donate. Is that being done in your area?
  7. I am biased but T-Mac over Bradley will always be my favorite, especially for being in the playoffs.
  8. Man, it is just so odd that those right-wing twitter accounts that you follow are really tracking the Bubba Watson story but aren't alerting you to the cops-faking-illness story. I guess it will forever be a mystery about why you are only getting select news stories.
  9. These ideas are good on paper, and are certainly in use in many places, but the goal (not to impact low income residents too much) is not always met. For instance, let's say a household can use X gallons for low cost. If there are two people there, they each get X/2 low-cost gallons. Now let's say that due to job loss, kids / siblings / friends move in. The amount of low-cost gallons doesn't change, but more people are using those gallons. This means they will move to higher tiers much sooner, paying more per gallon. These people, who live together to save cost, are more negatively impacted by tiered pricing than middle-class or better households.
  10. As @bschoolprof pointed out, exponential and logarithmic growth are inversely related. That means if you have logarithmic growth, but show the data with the y-axis using exponential growth, they "cancel" each out out and you have a straight line. Similarly, with exponential growth, if you plot using a logarithmic scale, it looks linear (or flatter). It is easy to get growth vs scale mixed in the message.
  11. Umm, I'm -pretty darn sure the first image is from protests in 2015. Note the signs specific to Freddy Gray, and the sign mentioning spines that break (Freddy Gray had a spinal injury). Also there is not a single mask present, which should be the biggest clue that maybe that image is not from present day. So unless you are trying to prove that protesters were morons for not recognizing the risk of COVID-19 in 2015, not sure the relevance? What right-wing news site or twitter feed did you see that on? For the bottom image, is that supposed to disprove Brisket's point? I haven't counted faces but I think I see two uncovered mouths? Maybe I missed one but it sure looks relatively close to 95% to me.
  12. Ha, I forgot how it started, just remember the fence. Akita something, right? And then it led to a hilariously awkward party at his house involving suspicious-looking sausage?
  13. Thanks for posting this, hasn't been discussed. You should cross post this in the football forum, I bet it will lead to some healthy and productive conversations.
  14. Fair enough. So "disrupt" = "destroy" and you ignore words that are strange or frightening to you. Still don't if it's a bit or you are this dense but I appreciate your answers.
  15. Are you clinging to the notion that BLM wants to "destroy" the nuclear family?
  16. OK, fess up. Is this a bit or are you really this dense? I will again quote the passage (that you typed or pasted): "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable." I bolded a word for you, one that you keep skipping for some weird totally-not-prejudiced reason. To be super super duper clear, they are not stating they want to disrupt the nuclear family. They are trying to disrupt the requirement for a nuclear family. As certain posters love to post, the amount of kids raised in non-nuclear (e.g. two parent) households is lower in black families relative to rest of population. As such, they want to increase awareness / acceptance / opportunity for other parts of society to help. Is this now clear to you or are you clinging to the notion that BLM wants to "destroy" the nuclear family?
  17. First, start reading a full sentence. This is a critical step. Once you do that, you can see that they want to disrupt the nuclear family requirement, not the actual family. They are saying the want to augment structure where the traditional nuclear family is not there, by offering further support as a village.
  18. If you read the statement you posted in the second quote and come up with the interpretation you have in the first post, I think we all have a much better idea of relative suckage between your reading comprehension and BLM goals.
  19. [Serious] question: do you think anyone reading this thinks otherwise? Is anyone thinking "holy shit, this is WW 3!". We all know it's a skirmish, India and China have had this skirmishes for literally decades. Yes any incident is interesting to read about, and I talk to colleagues in India about their perceptions, but even for a discussion board your comments are essentially fluffy air with no weight. Hell, a post that just says "wow" is less insufferable than a post making obvious declarative statements with a voice of insight that offers no insight at all. COVID-19 is making me cranky.
  20. So it won't be bad. But there is a danger it's bad. This is some top-notch analysis.
  21. Guys, don't worry, I'm sure if anyone were to go back to the Minneapolis is burning thread, I'm sure that you would find 16 negs from @Johnny Sack, @StruggleBus, @John Lawrence, and@Enchubben for all of the false reports about bricks being left out by Antifa, reports by Andy Ngo that are blatantly false, etc. These guys are paragons of virtue and would NEVER preferential neg false posts by Pancho over other, say, differently complexioned posters.
  22. That's great if yourself and AoC are trying to be conservatives without being Trump conservatives. I am not being sarcastic - that really is great. The problem is that this literally does not exist at the national level. There are essentially no conservatives that hold any national office that is not obedient to Trump (sort of exceptions with maybe Amash and Romney, but they have not provided significant resistance to any Trump initiative that I am aware of). And while you and AoC may not think the Trump admin is inherently racist (or maybe you do, not trying to pin you to anything), most of the people on this board do. So there are the two inherent associations: Trump = Racist and Conservative = Trump. I suspect that bridging either of those gaps is going to be impossible.
  23. I think we are certainly going to end up agreeing to disagree, but I will simply say that for myself, I am trying really hard lately to not assume that was is a really normal and easy response for me is also a really normal and easy response for others.
×
×
  • Create New...