They were both unannounced, but I expected Trump to do something like this - not right away, but soon. I had no idea Obama wanted to do that at all. I think that's the difference AM was trying to make.
No it doesn't? Vaccines take part of a pathogen (or a weakened version) and administer it at doses shown to be efficacious at preventing that pathogen from causing infections. Homeopathy takes something unrelated that happens to cause the same or similar symptoms, and then dilutes it to the point where there isn't any left. It's only the same logic if you take an overly reductionist approach.
Well, technically it's still a Godwin, but something can be a Godwin and be accurate at the same time. Godwin's Law just states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1". Some people use it as an auto-debate fail, but that's not really part of it.
And that's really the kicker. Most Americans want America to be great; everybody has somewhat different ideas about what "great" looks like, and what's the best way to get there.
That sort of depends where the jobs are coming from; if they're primarily construction jobs, that's all well and good (it is, of course vital work), but they're temporary. Should we expect these employment numbers to rise, be steady, or decline over the next few years? How many people does a normal solar facility employ compared to a conventional power generating station with the same output?
So we agree - Marx and Trump see real complaints, and have silly stupid ideas on how to address them. Although, I have to say, Trump seems to understand capitalism better than Marx ever did.
Killing a mouse is, by definition, not murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human, often with specific additional requirements added on (in various legal contexts, for instance).
The term you're looking for is beta cells. B cells are a different thing entirely; they're the immune cells that make antibodies. Beta cells are the cells in the pancreas that make insulin.
Yeah, there's no easy solution that I can see. Civic responsibility would help, sure, but ideally we'd be getting them back to work in some capacity, since that's better for them and better for us. Internet expansion might help a bit too; it'll at least make it easier for them to connect and learn new skills, potentially including some way to work from home. Of course, learning new skills isn't trivial, especially for older people (and through the internet at that) but I can't think of much else. More infrastructure spending would help some too, but that's not a permanent solution either.
It often is a critique of masculinity; it started out being what you defined it as, but most of the recent examples I've seen have been just normal masculine things, not anything that's toxic. I have literally never seen a mainstream feminist praise a man for bringing up normal male problems; from what I see, they praise men who echo what they see as the problems with being a man, but ignore or scoff at men who deviate from that perspective. They don't listen to the problems of masculine men who are fine with being masculine. Most sympathy goes towards men who are more feminine; again, they treat men like defective women and don't really try to understand masculinity. Don't get me wrong - it's great that those men get sympathy and help, they deserve it as much as anyone. But masculine men are human beings too.
Feminists defend the bullies too. They defend different bullies - people who are ostensibly on "their side". Randi Lee Harper, who doxxes people whilst proclaiming to be an anti-online abuse activist. Radfems who redefine rape so that it's not something a woman can do to a man. The vocal MRAs defend bullies like Milo too, don't get me wrong. But the silent majority of both feminists and MRAs can be pretty understanding and sympathetic; they just aren't the ones that get attention, and they largely aren't the ones who drive political change.
I think you're still confusing most MRAs with other groups; I haven't seen anyone who self-describes as an MRA say that women owe them sex. MGTOWs, PUAs, and the people at Return of Kings do that, sure. But those groups are all generally critical of MRAs.
As a side note, I really appreciate this discussion; I think most topics like these really get people going, and I'm glad this one has stayed pretty reasonable.
Huh, I assumed there would be some sort of barrier to getting/using food stamps in rural areas - too far to go, small town pride, etc. but I suppose if everyone else is in the same boat...
I think it's less that they don't want to move where jobs are (partly that though, yes) and more that they don't have the skills for those jobs and don't have the accumulated capital to move. Moving is expensive, especially if you're moving to a place like a city where the cost of living is substantially higher.
One of the things that is so amusing in today's age is that People tend to characterize anyone that disagrees with them as the farther fringe group they can come up with.
I've noticed this as well; few people have time for nuance any more. You're either a Muslim communist SJW or you're literally Hitler. It's ridiculous.
Yeah, Trump's quieter (saner) base has a lot of valid complaints; I just don't think he's going to be able to address them, especially not with - as you said - silly stupid things. Hillary could really have gotten farther if she'd done like Obama did and at least gave them some attention.
I've never actually seen anyone criticize these politicians (or academics or whatever) for being "not a real feminist" though, with the exception of criticizing TERFs.
I know what the movement's platform is; I'm saying they haven't done much to actually accomplish that part of it. I question how much "breaking down gender roles" is actually good for men; men shouldn't feel the need to be super "manly", I agree, but treating men like we're just defective women doesn't work either - that's one reason boys and men are doing worse in all levels of the educational system right now. Too much of the current rhetoric about breaking down gender roles - at least in the media, personal experiences may vary - involves demonizing men and masculine traits. People talk about "toxic masculinity" but "toxic femininity" is never mentioned; women are encouraged to embrace their aspects, while men are discouraged.
I think we should put less societal pressure to conform to stereotypes, certainly, but we should also say that it's okay to be manly or feminine if you want to be. Neither are inherently bad.
Milo is a whole other topic; I, too, will not be used by him. He's certainly on the "unreasonable" part of the scale.
I agree; he's doing quite a bit that a reasonable POTUS would want cooperation and support for, but he doesn't necessarily have it. The GOP is going to push back against him on trade issues (and frankly, I agree with them - his trade policies, as outlined so far, are terrible). He's been good at spinning things so far - at least to keep his image with his supporters - so I'm not super hopeful his support will go away. I do think that people who were on the fence or just too apathetic will be moved against him, though.
Something nobody is using isn't of use to the companies either. Especially if the government chips in for infrastructure (and makes sure the money is used for that), they aren't going to price it so high that nobody uses it.
Given how well his actions recently have matched his promises (to a shocking degree, really), I disagree with that. Right now at least, he wants a second term. The GOP is still shaken up by how he beat all of their traditionally more appealing candidates (to their base, at least) and Congress, despite appearances, is somewhat divided. Pence appeals to the GOP base, but isn't attractive to most of the country, and almost certainly wouldn't win a second term if Trump is impeached. I think they'll wait until midterm elections at least, unless he does something obviously terrible - which could be tomorrow for all we know.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot BuzzFeed.
They were both unannounced, but I expected Trump to do something like this - not right away, but soon. I had no idea Obama wanted to do that at all. I think that's the difference AM was trying to make.
So... they're getting rid of BuzzFeed and ~80% of Salon then?
No it doesn't? Vaccines take part of a pathogen (or a weakened version) and administer it at doses shown to be efficacious at preventing that pathogen from causing infections. Homeopathy takes something unrelated that happens to cause the same or similar symptoms, and then dilutes it to the point where there isn't any left. It's only the same logic if you take an overly reductionist approach.
Well, technically it's still a Godwin, but something can be a Godwin and be accurate at the same time. Godwin's Law just states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1". Some people use it as an auto-debate fail, but that's not really part of it.
And that's really the kicker. Most Americans want America to be great; everybody has somewhat different ideas about what "great" looks like, and what's the best way to get there.
That sort of depends where the jobs are coming from; if they're primarily construction jobs, that's all well and good (it is, of course vital work), but they're temporary. Should we expect these employment numbers to rise, be steady, or decline over the next few years? How many people does a normal solar facility employ compared to a conventional power generating station with the same output?
Yeah, that's probably accurate.
Cool story bro.
That would be a super useful feature. Which means /. will implement it in about ten years.
So we agree - Marx and Trump see real complaints, and have silly stupid ideas on how to address them. Although, I have to say, Trump seems to understand capitalism better than Marx ever did.
It's going to be the longest offshore wind farm in the US, not just Long Island.
Killing a mouse is, by definition, not murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human, often with specific additional requirements added on (in various legal contexts, for instance).
The term you're looking for is beta cells. B cells are a different thing entirely; they're the immune cells that make antibodies. Beta cells are the cells in the pancreas that make insulin.
Yeah, there's no easy solution that I can see. Civic responsibility would help, sure, but ideally we'd be getting them back to work in some capacity, since that's better for them and better for us. Internet expansion might help a bit too; it'll at least make it easier for them to connect and learn new skills, potentially including some way to work from home. Of course, learning new skills isn't trivial, especially for older people (and through the internet at that) but I can't think of much else. More infrastructure spending would help some too, but that's not a permanent solution either.
It often is a critique of masculinity; it started out being what you defined it as, but most of the recent examples I've seen have been just normal masculine things, not anything that's toxic. I have literally never seen a mainstream feminist praise a man for bringing up normal male problems; from what I see, they praise men who echo what they see as the problems with being a man, but ignore or scoff at men who deviate from that perspective. They don't listen to the problems of masculine men who are fine with being masculine. Most sympathy goes towards men who are more feminine; again, they treat men like defective women and don't really try to understand masculinity. Don't get me wrong - it's great that those men get sympathy and help, they deserve it as much as anyone. But masculine men are human beings too.
Feminists defend the bullies too. They defend different bullies - people who are ostensibly on "their side". Randi Lee Harper, who doxxes people whilst proclaiming to be an anti-online abuse activist. Radfems who redefine rape so that it's not something a woman can do to a man. The vocal MRAs defend bullies like Milo too, don't get me wrong. But the silent majority of both feminists and MRAs can be pretty understanding and sympathetic; they just aren't the ones that get attention, and they largely aren't the ones who drive political change.
I think you're still confusing most MRAs with other groups; I haven't seen anyone who self-describes as an MRA say that women owe them sex. MGTOWs, PUAs, and the people at Return of Kings do that, sure. But those groups are all generally critical of MRAs.
As a side note, I really appreciate this discussion; I think most topics like these really get people going, and I'm glad this one has stayed pretty reasonable.
Oh, I believed he was going to try and do most of what he said he would, I'm just surprised he's doing it so quickly.
Well, voting for him is at least some measure of support, even if it was to spite her.
I think it's less that they don't want to move where jobs are (partly that though, yes) and more that they don't have the skills for those jobs and don't have the accumulated capital to move. Moving is expensive, especially if you're moving to a place like a city where the cost of living is substantially higher.
One of the things that is so amusing in today's age is that People tend to characterize anyone that disagrees with them as the farther fringe group they can come up with.
I've noticed this as well; few people have time for nuance any more. You're either a Muslim communist SJW or you're literally Hitler. It's ridiculous.
Yeah, Trump's quieter (saner) base has a lot of valid complaints; I just don't think he's going to be able to address them, especially not with - as you said - silly stupid things. Hillary could really have gotten farther if she'd done like Obama did and at least gave them some attention.
I've never actually seen anyone criticize these politicians (or academics or whatever) for being "not a real feminist" though, with the exception of criticizing TERFs.
I know what the movement's platform is; I'm saying they haven't done much to actually accomplish that part of it. I question how much "breaking down gender roles" is actually good for men; men shouldn't feel the need to be super "manly", I agree, but treating men like we're just defective women doesn't work either - that's one reason boys and men are doing worse in all levels of the educational system right now. Too much of the current rhetoric about breaking down gender roles - at least in the media, personal experiences may vary - involves demonizing men and masculine traits. People talk about "toxic masculinity" but "toxic femininity" is never mentioned; women are encouraged to embrace their aspects, while men are discouraged.
I think we should put less societal pressure to conform to stereotypes, certainly, but we should also say that it's okay to be manly or feminine if you want to be. Neither are inherently bad.
Milo is a whole other topic; I, too, will not be used by him. He's certainly on the "unreasonable" part of the scale.
I agree; he's doing quite a bit that a reasonable POTUS would want cooperation and support for, but he doesn't necessarily have it. The GOP is going to push back against him on trade issues (and frankly, I agree with them - his trade policies, as outlined so far, are terrible). He's been good at spinning things so far - at least to keep his image with his supporters - so I'm not super hopeful his support will go away. I do think that people who were on the fence or just too apathetic will be moved against him, though.
He cares about power. He wants to retain power, so he'll do what he can to make his base happy so he has a shot in four years.
Something nobody is using isn't of use to the companies either. Especially if the government chips in for infrastructure (and makes sure the money is used for that), they aren't going to price it so high that nobody uses it.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Given how well his actions recently have matched his promises (to a shocking degree, really), I disagree with that. Right now at least, he wants a second term. The GOP is still shaken up by how he beat all of their traditionally more appealing candidates (to their base, at least) and Congress, despite appearances, is somewhat divided. Pence appeals to the GOP base, but isn't attractive to most of the country, and almost certainly wouldn't win a second term if Trump is impeached. I think they'll wait until midterm elections at least, unless he does something obviously terrible - which could be tomorrow for all we know.