If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

http://archive.is/EqrzN

New Hampshire, 94 Percent White, Asks: How Do You Diversify a Whole State?

New Hampshire, like its neighbors Vermont and Maine, is nearly all white. This has posed an array of problems for new arrivals, who often find themselves isolated and alone, without the comfort and support of a built-in community.

It has also posed problems for employers in these states, who find that their homogeneity can be a barrier to recruiting and retaining workers of different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds.

The issue prompted about 100 business leaders, government officials and members of nonprofit organizations to meet Thursday to search for ways that New Hampshire — which is 94 percent white — might lure other racial and ethnic groups, as well as younger people.

Unemployment rate, 5th lowest in the country. Median income, 5th highest in the country. Why can't those white people see the looming demographic crisis? They're just a stone's toss away from horrible working environment of Detroit, Baltimore, and St. Louis. Can't they see that diversity is the solution?

 

[rms]

Anyone listen to Harris' latest podcast? The openjng might be the most self serving and dishonest I've heard him, ever. "This kind of discussion on race is taboo" LOL. Wonder if he's selling out after seeing the success of Rubin, Shapiro and Peterson or his true colors are coming out. Haven't even heard the content yet and it's just like jeeeesus

 

[Dak]

gotta find your niche. because of the polarizing, I'm increasingly becoming appreciative of Joe Rogan, even if I don't really care to listen to his podcast. He is just so omnidimensional in his interviewees.

 

[The Ozzman]

gotta find your niche. because of the polarizing, I'm increasingly becoming appreciative of Joe Rogan, even if I don't really care to listen to his podcast. He is just so omnidimensional in his interviewees.

Yep, he doesn't seem to be biased towards any particular viewpoint and wants people to make their own impressions/decisions. I listened to the Ted Nugent one and part of another of his podcasts. Gleaning people I would like to hear on his podcast only and then listening to strictly those.

 

[rms]

Joe Rogan

i'm big on Rogan, but if you're a frequent listener the repitition does get annoying. and hearing him lecture any guest on any random topic they don't know is weird. not a conversation at that point. his mood ranges too much and maybe it's life/work/drugs/person -- who knows but yeah he's still the best. i'm about to just give up on anything but humor podcasts.

the start of this podcast is just as bad. Harris is sucking this dude's nuts worse than I would've thought.

 

[Dak]

i'm big on Rogan, but if you're a frequent listener the repitition does get annoying. and hearing him lecture any guest on any random topic they don't know is weird. not a conversation at that point. his mood ranges too much and maybe it's life/work/drugs/person -- who knows but yeah he's still the best. i'm about to just give up on anything but humor podcasts.

the start of this podcast is just as bad. Harris is sucking this dude's nuts worse than I would've thought.

I'm not big on podcasts in general, but I still listen to Jocko depending on the guest/topic. The "intellectual darkweb" is about tapped out at this point; nothing really new being discussed. Peterson is good for a re-listen every once in a while but mostly his old lecture recordings. Interviews with him aren't a great way to get the most usable stuff. I guess it depends on how long one has been tapped into that stuff. I burned out on Rubin pretty quick based on his guest list and his "wow how crazy is it we're doing this" schtick and Harris has such a limited topic range.

 

[rms]

The "intellectual darkweb" is about tapped out at this point; nothing really new being discussed.

think i'd argue they are all sell outs, now. the last Weinstein's podcast on JRE was good but Joe never meshes well with Eric. tired of this overly PC narrative. I hate seeing that Bari Weiss chick acting like she wasn't being a complete idiot when she messed up

I made it like 5 minutes into that Rubin and JRE last one..so dishonest and annoying. Reminded me of Crowder. Slimeball from what I can tell. And that Shapiro 'apology' article was horseshit too

 

[Dak]

think i'd argue they are all sell outs, now. the last Weinstein's podcast on JRE was good but Joe never meshes well with Eric. tired of this overly PC narrative. I hate seeing that Bari Weiss chick acting like she wasn't being a complete idiot when she messed up

I made it like 5 minutes into that Rubin and JRE last one..so dishonest and annoying. Reminded me of Crowder. Slimeball from what I can tell. And that Shapiro 'apology' article was horseshit too

I can't listen to Weinstein for any appreciable length of time. He's an intelligent guy based on his CV but I don't get anything useful from him.

 

[rms]

Eric or the bro? The one where his wife came with him was solid

 

[Dak]

Eric or the bro? The one where his wife came with him was solid

I was thinking of Eric but his brother is worse. Just whining about the shitty college he taught at.

 

[rms]

on that he sucks but his wife is a ev-biologist and the last one on Rogan she took over and had a good non-pc discussion for the most part...if I can trust my memory

 

[Dak]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791618301137?via=ihub

Background and objectives
Trigger warnings notify people of the distress that written, audiovisual, or other material may evoke, and were initially used to provide for the needs of those with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Since their inception, trigger warnings have become more widely applied throughout contemporary culture, sparking intense controversy in academia and beyond. Some argue that they empower vulnerable individuals by allowing them to psychologically prepare for or avoid disturbing content, whereas others argue that such warnings undermine resilience to stress and increase vulnerability to psychopathology while constraining academic freedom. The objective of our experiment was to investigate the psychological effects of issuing trigger warnings.

Methods
We randomly assigned online participants to receive (n = 133) or not receive (n = 137) trigger warnings prior to reading literary passages that varied in potentially disturbing content.

Results
Participants in the trigger warning group believed themselves and people in general to be more emotionally vulnerable if they were to experience trauma. Participants receiving warnings reported greater anxiety in response to reading potentially distressing passages, but only if they believed that words can cause harm. Warnings did not affect participants' implicit self-identification as vulnerable, or subsequent anxiety response to less distressing content.

Limitations
The sample included only non-traumatized participants; the observed effects may differ for a traumatized population.

Conclusions
Trigger warnings may inadvertently undermine some aspects of emotional resilience. Further research is needed on the generalizability of our findings, especially to collegiate populations and to those with trauma histories.

 

[Einherjar86]

Moved from pics:

LGBT (the specific acronym on the meme) is not merely limited to those letters anymore though. The meme isn't well done, it left off a critical portion of the acronym to better make its point (aside from the priest thing); "Q+" is widely accepted at this point and the + is infinite, and all of it is encapsulating sexually non-normative populations: both in sexual practice and/or identification. This includes paedophiles by default.

re: The "paedophilia requires a victim" argument. This is an increasingly difficult argument for the left as they have been recently arguing for more autonomy of children both sexually and politically, just not specifically in the area of consenting to sex with adults. These arguments won't be difficult to turn to other purposes.

This comment invokes a bunch of contradictions within identity politics that I take issue with, but ultimately I still think there's a qualitative distinction to be made between a) individuals of all ages making choices that define themselves personally and involve how they conceptualize themselves metaphysically (regardless of the actual existence any such metaphysical substance) and express/perform themselves bodily, and b) individuals whose behavior is a compulsion toward other people that they have difficulty controlling. It's possible for individuals to express a certain identity without engaging in the sexual behaviors typically associated with that identity (where I diverge has to do with the ontology of that identity, the quality of its actual existence).

Queer identity may involve an attraction to those of a particular gender (or it may not), but it doesn't involve a compulsion to sexually assault other human beings. That's not queerness, that's just a rapist (taking the shortcut here, clearly not all sexual assault equals rape). Likewise, someone who experiences an attraction toward children isn't a problem as long as they don't act on that attraction and seek help to control it and diminish it. As soon as the compulsion is uncontrollable, then an individual needs extra care and institutionalization (hopefully in a medical prison).

Finally, I think there's a difference between granting children autonomy when it comes to personal expression and autonomy to decide their role in sexual relationships. As I said above, an eight-year-old doesn't necessarily understand all the political, cultural, and psychological implications of expressing themselves as queer; being able to do so is part of working through the process. In this case, they aren't affecting anyone else's personal choices or sense of embodiment. As soon as you enter a sexual relationship, however, you've entered into a contract involving the choices of another person. Just as the child may not fully understand their gender decision at age eight, they also don't understand the dynamics and psychological effects of sexuality. The former is at least their own personal experience; the latter is a shared experience. They're very different things.

 

[Dak]

This comment invokes a bunch of contradictions within identity politics that I take issue with, but ultimately I still think there's a qualitative distinction to be made between a) individuals of all ages making choices that define themselves personally and involve how they conceptualize themselves metaphysically (regardless of the actual existence any such metaphysical substance) and express/perform themselves bodily, and b) individuals whose behavior is a compulsion toward other people that they have difficulty controlling. It's possible for individuals to express a certain identity without engaging in the sexual behaviors typically associated with that identity (where I diverge has to do with the ontology of that identity, the quality of its actual existence).

Queer identity may involve an attraction to those of a particular gender (or it may not), but it doesn't involve a compulsion to sexually assault other human beings. That's not queerness, that's just a rapist (taking the shortcut here, clearly not all sexual assault equals rape). Likewise, someone who experiences an attraction toward children isn't a problem as long as they don't act on that attraction and seek help to control it and diminish it. As soon as the compulsion is uncontrollable, then an individual needs extra care and institutionalization (hopefully in a medical prison).

I agree that there is a difference between self-conceptualization and difficulty with managing certain compulsions. It is true that one can be sexually attracted to those younger than legal age and not act on those impulses. But I think that is missing the point. The left cannot simply just continue to assume that "sex with minors is rape" because their tactics and arguments in other areas are undermining this.

Finally, I think there's a difference between granting children autonomy when it comes to personal expression and autonomy to decide their role in sexual relationships. As I said above, an eight-year-old doesn't necessarily understand all the political, cultural, and psychological implications of expressing themselves as queer; being able to do so is part of working through the process. In this case, they aren't affecting anyone else's personal choices or sense of embodiment. As soon as you enter a sexual relationship, however, you've entered into a contract involving the choices of another person. Just as the child may not fully understand their gender decision at age eight, they also don't understand the dynamics and psychological effects of sexuality. The former is at least their own personal experience; the latter is a shared experience. They're very different things.

I wouldn't say that an 8 year old behaving queerly isn't affecting anyone, but we can assume they aren't coercing anyone to do anything, which I know is what is really meant. It is also true that there's a difference between personal individual performances and conceptualization, and those with another person. However, the vulnerability the left has exposed itself to involves arguments of degree and supporting sexual behaviors of the non-statutory kind, and voting rights for children.

What I mean by arguments of degree (and there's probably a better term that I simply am not aware of) is, for example, where one argues that two people who were dating and in a sexual relationship while both under eighteen, shouldn't have to end the sexual relationship because one of them turned 18. These are marginal cases. But then you have an opening to pry at here along with supporting non-statutory sexual behaviors in minors thrown in for further ambiguity. Is it that the 16 year old can't consent with an 18 year old or can't consent at all? Is it the age? The age gap? Are we talking about chronological age vs some estimation of maturity or pre-frontal development? Can two 8 year olds give each other consent ("playing doctor" is an old euphemism here)? And so on.

Then separately after the Parkland shooting there was this blitz of calls for child voting. This was one of the more extreme examples (most called for a drop only to 16):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ar-olds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.45fdc1f02dbc

Giving young people the vote isn’t just the right thing to do — it’s also the best way to ensure our democratic future is strong. Some worry that this year’s toxic election is scaring away young people from the institutions that underpin our democracy. That may seem like a good reason to shield them from politics. But the answer to our deteriorating political institutions isn’t less democracy — it’s more. Giving young people the vote is the best civics lesson imaginable. When Takoma Park became the first city in America to lower the voting age to 16 just three years ago, 16- and 17-year-olds voted at twice the rate of the rest of the voting population. And studies show that the younger you are when cast your first vote, the more likely you are to make it a regular habit.

So what’s the best way forward? Perhaps in an ideal world we would let children vote when they felt they were ready, but political exigencies won’t allow a law like that anytime soon. Even my preferred starting age — 13 — would be a stretch. But the success of Takoma Park’s historic expansion of voting rights tells us that slowly lowering the voting age could work in America. Some proposals, while imperfect, might serve as workable compromises that allow us to go even further. A popular one is Demeny voting, which allows parents and guardians to vote on behalf of their children. Germany, Hungary, and Japan have all seriously considered this. Another option, based on a 2004 amendment proposition in California: ease young Americans into voting with a fractional, escalating system, in which children amass 1/10th of a vote every year between the ages 8 and 18. This arrangement would make voting both a near-universal right and a taught skill — a habit that’s learned and expanded over time.

Whatever the method, finding a way to enfranchise more young people is the right thing to do for children, for adults, and for our democracy. “Won’t somebody think of the children?” has become a cliche of our political discourse. But maybe we should stop thinking for them, and let them think — and speak — for themselves.

Substitute "voting" with something along the lines of "engaging in consensual sex without age limitations" and it maps on pretty well. If you're old enough to make serious political decisions, why aren't you old enough to decide who you want to engage with sexually, regardless of age or age difference?

 

[CiG]

Relativism at its finest. They're not illiterate, they're bilingual!

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Meh, I code switch quite a bit. It's efficient and useful to learn. There's nothing wrong with bringing it up to students in the appropriate setting, though I'm pretty sure those situations are pretty rare. They'll figure it out or they won't, but I don't think they're necessarily any better or worse off either way. Take that relativism.

 

[Dak]

Bein' sho' bow' shi' don' do' shi' bu' be' sho' bo' shi'.

 

[Einherjar86]

View attachment 15376

Relativism at its finest. They're not illiterate, they're bilingual!

Being illiterate and being able to communicate via speech are two different things. Teaching students literacy doesn't mean teaching them language.

 

[CiG]

I have no problem with the practice (I grew up on hip hop, I get it) but she's telling teachers not to correct students when they do it in a class context because... culture?

Being illiterate and being able to communicate via speech are two different things. Teaching students literacy doesn't mean teaching them language.

I actually knew someone was going to make this point but I decided to make the comment anyway.

 

[CiG]

Eric or the bro? The one where his wife came with him was solid

on that he sucks but his wife is a ev-biologist and the last one on Rogan she took over and had a good non-pc discussion for the most part...if I can trust my memory

Have you watched this yet? I've got it queued up in my Youtube watchlist. While I do actually enjoy the Weinstein brothers, I agree that Bret's wife is at least as interesting and engaging as the brothers if not more so.

I think I prefer to listen to women talk in general, easier on the ears or something? Maybe an example of women's supposed advantage over men when it comes to communication or simply my own heterosexual bias? Note sure lmao.