Jump to content

Serak The Preparer

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1431
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Serak The Preparer

  1. 25 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

    Yep, I've been saying this for a while. I wouldn't make them illegal, but I would jack up the price of water for heavy users. Something like the first x number of gallons a family or business uses per month would be cheap (or hell even free for the minimum number of gallons needed to live). Then have a tier pricing plan. The next y number of gallons is a little more expensive, then on and on. If you want to water your grass every day, it's going to cost you.

     

    3 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

    Yeah that's kind of my first instinct. The first X gallons that would be a generous allotment for daily use - drinking, bathing, cooking, whatever - are cheap. The next tier that you could really only reasonably hit by landscaping or having a pool or what have you is a lot more expensive. And if you're a super user, you pay the price.

    I'm open to deeper discussion or critique on that plan though. I'm sure there are aspects I haven't considered. And of course, we need to get industrial and especially agricultural use under control if we want to actually solve the problem.

    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. 

     

  2. 10 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

    I will bite.  Fuck I hated statistics in B-School.  I thought they were just different ways of showing the same data. Why do I keep hearing that the “growth is shown on a logarithmic chart so it looks flatter than it is.”  

    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.

  3. 14 minutes ago, Bevo said:

    You might think that and maybe you were at a special rally, but considering that probably about 75% are wearing masks at the grocery and at Walmart, 25% at the park and outdoors and the rally and riot videos that I saw showed a healthy percentage of people without masks and plenty wearing masks around their neck, lets just agree to disagree. There are plenty of irresponsible people around the country to keep this thing spreading.

    As a fun exercise, see if you can find an image with 95% of attendees wearing masks.

    ows_144002532180502.jpg?fit=crop&crop=fa

    la-photos-1staff-549888-me-0601-riversid

     

    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.

    • Like 8
    • Haha 1
  4. 45 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

    The neighbors had a light that was shining into his house so he tore down his own fence as retribution.  He also became an aggy hero.

    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?

    • Like 1
  5. 1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

    I’m not seeing a Thread about this.  Sorry to pollute this board with football asshattery. 
     

    Texas Monthly Article.

    I’m of the opinion it should be changed.  I get it’s gonna be a big one,  but I honestly believe listening to the voices of the athletes on the field is where we need to start. 

    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.

  6. 4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

    You don't need to disrupt the nuclear family to do that. You gonna tell me that?

     

     

    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?

     

    • Like 2
  7. 1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

    What does the word "disrupt" mean then? 

    It's not saying building a better one.

    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. 

    • Like 8
  8. 2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

    I haven't heard that either. I don't think they hate me for my skin, they want to change things that I don't think needs to be changed. 

    In David's post they talk about destroying the nuclear family and make them "villages". I don't think that's a good at all. 

     

    1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

    https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

    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.

    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.

    • Like 1
  9. 11 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    This isn’t much of a turf war.  China/India invading each other isn’t in either countries interests especially given everything else going on right now.  I also think it would take and egregious miscalculation for the US to get involved.  The NK/SK stuff is more unstable as far as we’re concerned, (which is also China related.)

    [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.

  10. 6 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    IMO, this doesn’t go past anything more than a skirmish.  The danger, as always, is some egregious miscalculation.

    So it won't be bad. But there is a danger it's bad. This is some top-notch analysis.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  11. 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.

    • Like 3
    • Fuck You 2
  12. 2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

    That’s not what he’s saying man. It’s a larger point that being conservative is considered, ipso facto, being a racist. Which is bullshit. If you want me to put on my “both sides” hat it’s the same thing people on the right do when they say if you vote for a Democrat it’s because you hate Jesus and freedom. 

    W was a stud in Africa. He ran on compassionate conservatism and I think he meant it. His education reform was written by Kennedy and called no child left behind and not “fuck you I got mine”. That’s the only GOP dude I’ve voted for at the top of the ticket. Trumpism showed more ugliness than I’m comfortable with in the party which is why I’m not voting except in minute small areas (Emmitt for Harris County judge, for example was my only 2018 GOP vote and that was by proxy through my wife) not stained by Trump, but if you don’t think there’s a bunch of groups on the left that similarly want bad things for people they disagree with you are as misinformed as I was when I saw everyone capitulate to Trump. 

    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. 

    • Like 4
  13. 1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

    The appropriate normal response would be to let them know you were applying graffiti on property that you owned and that it was just chalk.  Seems rather easy imo. 

    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.

    • Like 3
  14. 28 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

    I don’t think it’s the Spanish Inquisition I think it’s the French Revolution. 

    Im very very worried about the intolerance of dissenting ideas I see from liberals today. Once upon a time the idea was that we should hear every voice on the subject and that was the 60’s liberal mainline viewpoint. 

    Now, I’m the age of cancel culture, it seems to be that more people are interested in shouting down ideas they don’t agree with and canceling the speaker. 

    Has anyone been paying attention to the JK Rowling kerfuffle over her viewpoint on trans people?  She’s coming from it in a place of love for trans people (or at least clearly not hate) and critiquing from a very left wing position. However, she’s still being shouted down as a Terf and having people call for banning her books (and some burning them). 

    Its an honest disagreement of policy and conscience from a very liberal position and she’s being treated like an unperson. That’s just one of many examples I worry about.  

    The reason I’m worried about and talking about the liberals doing this is because 1) they are the most into cancel culture (that used to be an old guard regressive conservative position) and 2) it’s beyond clear (to me at least) that this is the group that will be running America for the foreseeable future.

    And an America without dissent is scary as hell to me. 

    Look, I know Trump is a buffoon. He’s a one off, last ditch effort to rage against the tide, that lucked out to run against the second least popular candidate ever and parlayed that into an electoral college win by winning three states by razor thin margins. It’s not really replicable. But this cancel culture seems to be really prevalent- if you don’t believe whatever the main group does you just get destroyed. That’s not the way I remember it as a kid going to UT. 

    Social media gonna kill us all. 

    Maybe I’m wrong. Biden did win the nomination after all, and he doesn’t represent that, but the energy on the left seems to be with those that want to stifle dissent. I hope that’s just a message board and Twitter thing (I’m not on twitter but that seems to be the consensus),  it real life, and I’m just acting like a nervous nelly bc I’m getting older and old people yell at the clouds and worry about the world their children will inherit. 

    Twicehorn already responded to part of your post, but I think you are being very myopic with your view of liberal intolerance. Who are the tolerant conservative voices? Who is there to react to? In the views of many, the conservative Congress and Senate essentially punished any tolerance from a policy-viewpoint, from reaction to Medical reform, Merrick Garland, etc. If there is no voice of reason in power, how can there be reason in response? That trickles down to social discussion. Hell maybe liberals started it, I don't know, but it's not just a lack of tolerance from liberals online.

    In terms of JK Rowling specifically you are again coming at this from your point of view, which is totally understandable and expected, but then assuming that it is the RIGHT point of view. She most certainly didn't come at her blog post from a place of love. I don't know that it came from a place of hate, but it certainly didn't come from love. It is her honest viewpoint to be sure, but it is coming down to a community that already feel marginalized and hurt. I don't fully agree with this response, but I would urge you to check out this Instagram post. I know, Instagram, but it is an annotated response that rationally discusses why her post was so hurtful and led to much of the reaction. I came upon this through news aggregation, otherwise would never have seen this, but found it really interesting. It starts not from Rowling not acceding to group think, but rather supporting someone who explicitly denies that Trans women are women. You may agree with that, or may not agree but think it is not a big deal, but I think you could at least agree that it is a big deal to that community, and therefore stirs up a whole mess of response and emotion.

    • Like 1
  15. 23 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

    Reddit and 4chan misoginist groups exploded on her the day it happened and amplified the social media stuff. They weren't the only ones for sure, but a big part of it.  I don't think he's part of those groups, at least as far as I'm aware, but those groups are definitely aligned with him in promoting his victimhood and vilifying the woman.  I'm not saying the incel bullying is totally on the asian guy - except for what I've already expressed with him playing a big part of the altercation (escalating the dialogue, filming, refusing to answer normal questions, being a dick neighbor, posting online and whining about victimhood, etc.).  When you take the step to vilify someone online,  that is the type of shit you direct at that person

    I think you have a lot of redundancy there, and not all of it makes sense. I think (in your mind), escalating the dialogue, refusing to answer normal questions, and being a dick neighbor are all the same thing, right? She asked for information from a nominal neighbor, and he didn't provide it.

    Keep in mind one thing: he lived there, she didn't. She represented herself as being in the neighborhood and being a neighbor, but she wasn't. If she actually was a neighbor, and therefore if he actually recognized her as such, his reaction may have been completely different. In other words, you can't blame him for  being a dick neighbor to someone who was not actually a neighbor! 

    Also, is filming bad behavior? If I am a minority (and to be clear, I am not, I am lily-white) and two older white people come up to me asking questions, am I escalating by filming with my phone? I don't think so, do you think that is inherently bad?

    Finally, posting online and whining about victomhood. What in your mind is the appropriate response to strangers coming to me and accusing me of being a vandal? How much whining did he do? Was it a single post to illustrate the level of expectation that white people have for minorities to answer their questions? Did he suggest tracking her down and making her miserable? These last two questions are not rhetorical, as I don't know. If it was a single post, then holy crap I think you are overreacting. If it was multiple posts going on and on (like in this forum) :) then I would lean towards agreeing with you.

    • Like 3
  16. I agree with several statements above, paraphrased (I hope not too poorly) below:

    - Discussion of actual political policy has been very poor in last few years for several reasons, including lack of good-faith arguments and lack of any philosophical or consistent policy-based argument by current administration (e.g. what we think today has no bearing on what we thought yesterday or will think tomorrow).

    - Those that would be primary drivers of discussion above include @Ghost of LL, @longhornmatt, and potentially @Brisketexan (only mentioning potentially because I think he started becoming less conservative before this administration, for right or wrong). These voices have become stridently anti-current administration, so not much debate there. Other "true believes", including Swam4Texas, @EMAWesome, @markstanco, @TahoeHorn (and his acknowledged sock @MixtyMotions), are part of that latter group of drive-by comments, lack of follow through on discussion, etc. i can only think of one conservative poster who genuinely seems to want to have conversation (@Wulaw Horn). @Anastasis doesn't count here as he hates both sides. 

    - That leaves primary discussion being either "How bad were things today" or discussion over issues that are fact-based, not belief-based. Here there is certainly a grey area as difference between fact and implication of fact is not always as clear as it may seem, but I refer to things like legal or political rationale with Mueller Report and Flynn Hearing. Not discussion over whether behavior is wrong or right, but about what the basis for certain court rulings, committee reports, etc. I personally have enjoyed following these conversations, although I have not contributed.

    What does that leave us? There have been cool discussion on philosophy, existence of God, etc., but I don't see how there can be any actual policy-based discussion in CR without actual policy to debate. The Columbus discussion (and I understand that this is only an example for you) should not be CR-bound, and is going to necessarily get smaller viewership (and therefore discussion) because of its presence in CR. That could easily be in DT, except for it would get sidetracked with Trump this and Trump that. Our national discourse is so broken that everything is viewed through policy, and so it comes back to lack of consistent policy to use to formulate arguments.

    That's a lot of words, and it probably looks like I'm saying it's all the other guys's fault. And it's true, both for us guys as well as the other guys. This is a symptom, not a casual factor. I think I need that ledge now. Any scotch left?

    • Like 7
  17. 8 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

    Are you under the impression that I think she was perfect? She was cringey with being overly nice - that set off the incels for sure. It was inappropriate and abnormal for her to lie.  There were two flawed individuals in that encounter and the asian dude carries the bulk of that flaw IMO, as I've shared. If the extent of your logic hinges on what you feel he "OWED" her, then there isn't much else to discuss on such a shallow level.  

    It's weird that you keep bringing up incels. Did he specifically target her with the incel community (assuming there is one, I am vaguely familiar with redpill etc.,but not an expert)? Or did he simply post the encounter? It sounds like you are saying he used incels to amplify his grievances. Is that correct? If so, that's really shitty of him. If, instead, he posted the video but this community then took it to further chase after the woman, that sucks but it's not on him.

  18. 12 minutes ago, CfRhTxStBobcats said:

    I like to think I'm up on my history, given my DAR award and all I received in high school. Lol. But I realize now that so many historical figures are more controversial than I ever learned in my history classes. I just believe if back in January if you would have asked students on campus who Jim Hogg was you may have gotten a former governor of Texas from a few, but how many knew he was racist? Hell, I didn't even know, but now that I do it doesn't surprise me.  I just learned from reading a post by randolphduke that Sul Ross was a real piece of shit confederate general. Why  they ever named a university after him I have no idea. Everyone of course knows of Robert E Lee and his statue may belong in a museum somewhere but not on a university campus or even public park. Bottom line is I think most of us agree everyone should feel comfortable on campus and I was sincere when I said change the names and take down the statues. What I meant by it changes nothing is it won't keep racist or bad cops from killing an innocent man or keep someone from hiring a person because of the color of their skin.  I guess every journey starts with a first step. I don't think we're too far apart on how we think about this issue, except for possibly donations to BLM. I said in a previous post have more scholarships for black students instead. I think that would be money better spent and less likely to line someone's pockets.

    Damn, I mention R. D. in my post and there he is.

     

    And by the way I saw you were the spelling Nazi when someone spelled a lot allot, it's apologize, not apologise. Just messing with you. If we all spent time correcting everyone's spelling nothing would get posted. I know I've had my share of misspellings.

    All good friend, but I was not the spelling Nazi. Even for me, that splinter in my eye is too big, so that was someone else. :)

  19. 7 minutes ago, CfRhTxStBobcats said:

    Actually, nowhere did I post anything about knowing how black athletes feel and that it doesn't bother them. Show me now or stfu. I said I doubt most students and student athletes probably didn't  know much about who the buildings were named after until recently. Could I be wrong about that, absolutely, but I doubt it.  Then I proceeded to say change the names, take down the statues, change the words, but don't donate to BLM because it's  basicly extortion. 

    I apologise, I misremembered your words. I agree that you did not claim to know black or athlete student feelings.

    I will note that you said you were sure they didn't know the history, so my question is still what makes you think that? I don't know if this was a topic of conversation or not, but if there was conversation, I could easily see it being pretty internal given the general lack of public discourse at the time. In other words it seems like the starting point was something like "it wasn't brought up by me or my social circle therefore it didn't exist". I personally think that this is the default perception for any majority in any country, which includes me. I do the same at times, but am trying to be more conscious of it when I do.

     Again apologies for attributing the statement about knowing their feelings to you.

  20. 12 minutes ago, Apex73 said:

    I would say you can say "I can hear what you're saying" and still not agree with the demands completely.  In a sense you're right.  I have no idea what their minds are like.  Im sure it even differs amongst them. In the same way, you don't know what my mind or the other posters you mentioned are like 100 percent.  I already said earlier I think they will walk away from this thinking they did a good job while not really accomplishing much in the bigger picture.  It sets up a weird precedent where every time something happens that's bad you run in with a list of demands on the University to make change even though the University didn't have anything to do with the crime.  And if you disagree with the demands then you apparently don't care about the players which is absurd.  

    Oh for crying out loud, of course I do not know your mind, or others. I have not claimed to, and explicitly said that I don't. It's like this concept is foreign to you.

    You are the one who has, however, by saying this will not make them feel better. Why do you think that? In the post below this you say this is trivial. How can you say what is trivial to someone else, particularly when they have specifically said that this is not trivial but has caused and continues to cause hurt? That is the arrogance that just blows my mind.

    And I do agree with you that you do not necessarily have to agree on actions or next step but dismissal comes from a weird place to me.

  21. 2 minutes ago, CfRhTxStBobcats said:

    I'll ask you this. I was responding to a post that said its amazing the change these athletes can accomplish with the power they hold or something to that effect. What makes you so sure these symbolic changes will really make a difference. I'm not arguing these changes shouldn't happen, there should be no statues of racists or buildings named after racists on campus. My argument is it's not going to bring about significant change in the long run. My question is how far is everyone willing to go. Is Red McCombs next on the hit list for saying Charlie Strong would only make a good coordinator at UT, he's not head coach material. There was a lot of racism claims thrown at Red around here or Shaggy I guess. No one will dare say anything before he kicks the bucket, gotta get some of his $$$ when he goes.

    I will answer you, as I answered the question you asked me in your previous reply. It's simple: I don't know that. I am not proclaiming that this will solve any issues at all. However, I do think that we should listen and even take people at their word when they say something bothers them. Not even saying we have to take action, but at least believe them.

    Now will you answer the question I have asked over and over? Why are you sure that the present situation DOESN"T bother them, especially when they have said it does? That was your claim, that you knew their minds and feelings.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...