Total posts: 618
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I drove cabs for years. You keep gatorade bottles in your glove box. Shove them down your pants to avoid indecent exposure charges.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I've heard that the way the courts have been interpreting the law, the bathroom thing has been avoided.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
When I'm at home depot and the men's bathroom is closed for cleaning, I need to be able to gender identify as a woman so I can use the other one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Talking to girls online is like https://www.reddit.com/r/shitposting/comments/ltz2fr/g_r_o_o_v_i_n/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The problem with attempting to make discrimination illegal as far as it concerns "ugly" people, is how does one identify, much less quantify "ugly"?
Look at them and 1 to 10
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
won't be any functional reason to have one policy for men or one for women
Perfect. Actually I heard something about women and the IDF, that mixing men and women together would result in romance. When people are in combat romance can influence decisions and cause practical problems. People will overvalue the lives of their romantic interest and go bananas if he/she gets shot. I heard that this problem was a factor in a decision to remove women from combat roles, or something. Haven't fact checked what I heard.
Created:
Posted in:
I've wondered about those people that want to be slaves and live in dog cages or whatever because they get off to it. They seemed like they could be useful for exploiting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
She got 1st dose a few weeks prior to being infected? It's not fully effective until two weeks after the second dose.
At best it would be ~52% effective if it's only first dose.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hehe I meant before 2024 election
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
it's mostly a feel good thing to try to swoon the population
Do you have evidence?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I think he's going to drop dead from a heart attack from all the McDonalds
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yes, I'm familiar with the story. When I wrote this I think I had contemplated educational and financial success largely. I'm not really interested in forced equality. I'm more interested in equal opportunity, and sometimes it's hard to see how particular things are disadvantageous. Yet, with the advent of big data and studies, there is no evidence which shows that these characteristics tend to adversely outcomes. Parental socioeconomic status is such an obvious thing we have all policies designed to address it. And, if you look at this as a "foot in the door" situation - We are doing things to address the impact of class on opportunity - Why not these other things now that there's evidence of impacts on opportunity? This is my thinking.
Beauty and height - If you're interested it's called "lookism". It really is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookism#Empirical_support
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Parents
Yes, parents, by SES or otherwise, are a substantial factor. It's not something that's within the control of the child. Not really blaming society or asserting that society has any responsibility to level the playing field on the account of bad parents. Yet, I don't consider blame to be prerequisite for society doing something about it. I mean, the children are the people we're going to be living with in the future. We have a stake in their development.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Thanks. It does look like a good read. When I got enough spare time for the PDF
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm generally in agreement with you that character is a big, big factor in success in life. I mean, people are going to be successful despite their disadvantages if they have grit and ambition, persistence, etc. and especially if they got monetizable talents and are smart about how they apply themselves. Generally the people who I see have failed are the ones who did nothing.
Despite that, there is real disadvantage. I mean, consider the following:
individuals within the top family income quartile are 8 times more likely to obtain a bachelor’s degree by age 24 as compared to individuals from the lowest family income quartile
When we're looking at an 8-fold disparity in educational attainment, I don't see how that can be explained away by ambition variance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though success, certainly isn't wholly reliant upon wealth and status....Though more and more, we are unnecessarily, taught that it is.
Well, it's a substantial factor. I don't think it's necessary to teach it. People are going to learn about it growing up inevitably.
Created:
Posted in:
Life's a competition for the most part. We are each born with our respective advantages and disadvantages. One of the most substantial ones that everyone seems to agree on is the socioeconomic status of your parents. (i.e. class) We have implemented many policies aimed at providing people with the opportunity for success despite being born in to poverty. Largely this is has been public K-12 education and financal aid for higher education.
And, in thinking about this, let us talk about other forms of disadvantage people are faced with in life over which they have no control (e.g. race, height, beauty - whatever it is). If those disadvantages are substantial enough to be comparable to class, should we not implement policies aimed at mitigating those disadvantages? Would such policies be justifiable by the same reasoning?
This is what I've been thinking about lately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
LBGT are not covered under existing provisions for sexual discrimination?
"only covered employment and in many states LGBTQ people still lack non-discrimination protections in housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and jury service which would be covered under the Equality Act."
Created:
Posted in:
From a utilitarian persepctive I see it as balancing the interests of people getting what they want (i.e. they want to discriminate for whatever reason) against the interests of the people being discriminated against. I'm generally in favor of the small owner exceptions (e.g. the cake nonsense) because there are a lot of small business owners. The interests balance differently with a large business entity where a single person or a small group of people can use their power to adversely affect large swaths of the population.
Republicans have a problem with the bill because their voters have a problem with it. There's not really any justification for it. They just "don't like it". I don't personally see any difference, morally, from the various types of discrimination that aren't related to legitimate business purposes. There's pretty rampant discrimination against ugly people, short people, left handed (not so much in this culture) people, etc. that is all just the same to me as racial discrimination but is legal for the most part.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I hate lots of people.This is just a flippant, throwaway remark.Hate and Love are words we overuse when we can't come up with any better words
Jumping to conclusions is what stupid people do. If you knew me well enough then you’d know that you are wrong. You can be incredulous, but you don’t know.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How will we protect the millions of people who are hated for bad reasons?
I don’t know. My reputation isn’t really that important to me. I think my credit reports are important. I don’t really monetize my reputation.
Controlling defamation has to be balanced with free-speech interest. The best way I think it’s probably to foster a culture of truth seeking, fact-checking, incredulity and skepticism to prevent rumors from spreading through the population like viruses.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you able to explain why?
It isn't relevant.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is there ever a good reason to hate?
I think so. I hate lots of people.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your public reputation is your most valuable asset. [...] there should be laws that keep people from saying mean things about each other in public. [...] they should not be allowed to speak publicly on the matter without facing steep fines and penalties.
There's already laws for this stuff. (e.g. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/map-states-criminal-laws-against-defamation ) I don't think any of the laws prohibit speaking publicly about people one hates. That goes too far because people who are hated for good reasons would be able to use a law like that to muzzle their haters.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thought crime is at an all time high.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The rent thing was pretty favorable to tenants. It is extremely difficult to evict right now in California. Your pay rent or quit notice has to be 15 days and include some declaration form where all they do is fill out the paper and send it back to you then you can't evict them. They can live there rent free and don't have to give you a dime until June 30th, and even then they only have to pony up 25% of the back rent to avoid being evicted. It's a shit show for landlords, and particularly unfair to the small landlords who barely profit even when the rent is paid on time and in full. There are a lot of people like that who move away from their home for a new job and rent out the house they left behind and still have to make the mortgage payments and are responsible for maintenance, taxes, and insurance. That there was no exception for the little guys was pretty lame.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why?California and New York have been at the top consistently for 50 years.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can only take so much from the rich before they move to 0% income tax states. it’s so easy to move within the United States. If there are national borders then those are harder to cross. This is really the flaw you’re thinking, and even the national border doesn’t matter so much because there are 2 million illegals in CA.
A lot of the poverty in California is in the eastern part of the state and central valley. It’s a lot of rural farms with poor farmhands. A lot of poor people go in the big cities for the opportunity. I think the wage difference is more of a draw if you’re poor. It was for me.
You’re looking at results and blaming the state, but that’s not how blame goes. Judge by conduct, not consequences.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You ever think that poor people are there because they chose to be there?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I usually look at GINI coefficients when talking about wealth and income inequality. I mean, I've never really harbored outrage at particular states based on data like that. There aren't borders between states. People can go from one to the next, and that's not within the state's power to control where people are living unless they're wards of the state somehow. Outrage would be more directed at what those states actually do.
EDIT: I do know that California and New York have failed to address the housing crisis. Housing costs in NYC the SF bay area are insane.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, the homelessness thing is more complicated than you’re making it out to be. It’s not a direct comparative measure of compassion. That the homeless are there may be a sign that the local government tolerates them compared to citites that put in place policies designed to drive them out. They go wherever they want. If one state starts giving away lots of free housing that state will get swamped with an influx of homeless and have to pay. The solution has to be at the federal level to avoid that. There aren’t borders between states like there are between countries.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
HRRP implementation was not significantly associated with an increase in mortality within 45 days of admission, relative to pre-HRRP trends.
That’s what the cited study says. (HRRP is the Obamacare thing) BTW no claimed impact in number of lives and this particular facet of Obamacare is low impact and I don’t have an opinion on it.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Your belief formation process sucks because you believe whatever you feel like believing and evidence carries little weight.i don't believe it
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I also want to know how they came to that conclusion in the study
It's not really that complicated. They don't have insurance because they can't afford the premiums. What happens to you when you need vascular surgery or cancer treatment and you're poor without insurance? You don't get treatment, and then you may die for lack thereof. That there would be disparities in health care outcomes in states where the poor get insurance and those states where the poor don't get insurance shouldn't be unexpected.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The data suggest that both groups are equally compassionate, but feelings take a back seat to actual policies. GoP is generally opposed to social services for the poor and those policies have consequences, as my source has shown.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Just let the poor die. It’s what the GoP does:
Created:
Posted in:
Uh oh someone said the N word on the internet better dox him and ruin his life.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The Constitution requires that “when the President is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside...”The President is not being tried, so [the constitution does not require the Chief Justice to preside.]
Fixed. Also most impeachments haven't been of presidents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#List_of_formal_impeachments I don't understand the reasoning.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
I don't see that the senate has a constitutional obligation to try impeachments. Who said that?
Trump is not the president of the United States anymore than Bill Clinton is.When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I would rather look at what the Democrats did not say during all the destructive riots all over the country last summer.
How's that whataboutism working out?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hehe well then you'd have to pay.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ah well, you'll like this loophole then. Start a business in California, build it up for many years, then move to a state with no state income tax and sell the business. You'll pay no state income on the appreciation of the business because interests in business are generally intangible personal property which is subject to the income tax based on the owner's state of residency at the time of the sale. Better yet, start your business in one of those "opportunity zones" and pay no federal tax on the appreciation as well. https://www.wellsfargo.com/the-private-bank/insights/planning/wpu-qualified-opportunity-zones/
If you're a worker though, make sure you're paying your flat taxes on your wages. Double it if you file schedule C.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Smells like nitpicking and changing the subject to California. Presidents are involved in the legislative process. Whether or not a President signed a bill would be a factor, however slight. Recall that I did say "etc."
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
All one has to do is see who rich people donated to. People like Wall Street backed Biden. Wealthy areas voted for Biden. It’s pretty obvious
No, one would have to look at who made the loopholes and then who voted for them, which presidents signed the bills with them, etc. It’d be rather exhaustivng, especially since what is or isnt a loophole is rather difficult to definitively spell out. In light of that, the only evidence I have is the GoP’s historical support for tax cuts for the rich,’without anything else, makes it more probably that the GoP would be responsible for the lions share of tax loopholes benefitting the rich.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Skepticism intensifies
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re blind if you can’t tell that both sides do it
One far more than the other
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Here’s the problem with taxation. No matter how much you tax rich people in any bill, they’ll find loopholes around it with the help of their politician buddies. You never will make it easier to tax the rich cause they have connections everywhere. What you can do is help the lower class people pay less taxes.
You mean the GoP?
Created:
Because said inheritance is due to a snowball effect that came from earned profits via the enslaved work of blacks for that ancestor and said lack of inheritance for the blacks is inversely due to their ancestors being slaves. It's not as simple as inherited money necessarily being worked for.
Curious to what extent the contemporary racial wealth disparity is directly attributable to the slavery as opposed to racism and other factors in the intervening time period.
Created:
-->
@thett3
It's a lot harder to get ahead than it was before, that's true. Social mobility may improve from political changes, but I wouldn't count on it. New technologies will bring changes to the marketability of job skills. Automation in transportation, construction and other areas will result in more technological unemployment. People will need to be more adaptive to avoid becoming chronically poor welfare recipients. They will need to acquire the right skills and move to the right areas. Wealth and income will likely become more and more concentrated at the top, and the economy will shift more toward servicing the wealthy. That's what my crystal ball says anyway. Working your way in to wealth can be done, but not easily. It got to be work a lot + (side gig?) + investing well + tax planning. If it's a couple doing it together then they can do pretty well, but at the cost of delaying having children. I see a lot of people delaying kids by 5-10 years or so for wealth building. If they have kids when they're young, they seem to end up poor for life. Maybe we need free gamete or embryo cryopreservation, or something. Probably good for the genetics of the next generation, and that's good for everyone because we'll be sharing the country with those people.
Created: