Hey thanks for an actual link!
I am on mobile, have both bad vision and a fucked up wrist, scrolling through a huge thread is physically difficult for me.
sp3ctr4l
joined 5 months ago
Oh no, I totally botched that translation 😁 I meant this more in the sense of "I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man who had no feet". Like when 99% of the country is great but you're complaining about the 1% that isn't.
Hey, no worries!
I think my guesses were fairly close?
Either way, if English is not your first language, you speak it better than most Americans I know, and I appreciate you translating / conversing in it so well... I am of course your stereotypical American who only speaks English, lol.
As to general hatred of the poor... yeah, I know it occurs basically everywhere, to a sickening degree.
I've had many Eurozone online friends over the course of my life, and they've explained to me how in even the highly developed areas of Europe, each different country has their own fun flavor of social ostricization and bureaucratic mess of how assistance is qualified for.
As to the religious angle: I get the sense that we broadly agree, disagree on a few things, and some may be lost in translation.
I totally agree that religious extremism, religiously motivated acts of hatred and violence of all kinds are detestable.
I am an atheist myself, but uh, I realize that though I may disagree ultimately with whatever religion as an explanation for how the world works... many religious people are not extremists, and despise their own religion being tarnished by participating in horrific acts.
But at the same time yes, the absolutely insane irony of Israel, a state made for genocide victims... is now committing a genocide?
Fucking absurd.
Maddening.
...
Anyway, I am not sure that the rest of what I'm writing is necessary or relevant, you may already know some of it, but it is hopefully helpful additional context as to how politics and terminology surrounding Jews functions in the US:
In the US we have a term 'Secular Jew'.
Non-practicing Jew, Non-devout Jew, Irreligious Jew.
Terms like that.
What this basically means is, someone who is Jewish by culture, by heritage, who partakes in some level of Jewish customs or traditions... but they are really atheists or agnostics, they do not really believe that the Torah, the Old Testament, is more than an important piece of their history, they do not devoutly follow or study it.
It is quite common in the US that many Jews are this kind of irreligious, and they are often quite politically liberal or left.
Conversely, in the US, on the right wing of politics, we have many, many fundamentalist extremist Christians who believe strongly in an apocalyptic doomsday scenario that very much revolves around Israel, the state, Israel the land, Israel the Jews living in Israel.
So, you end up with this wacky nonsense world where... Jews, left of center, in the US, say 'Israel does not represent all Jews, their actions are very bad.'
And then the other side, the right of center US Christian extremists, say 'Israel does represent all Jews, to criticize Israel is to criticize Jews.'
They say this despite most of the actual Jews in the US saying and believing the opposite.
It is madness.
I get some sense that this also occurs in European countries, but I am not familiar with... to what extent this occurs, I am not familiar with to what extent it is a massive driver of politics in general.
Ok then, that is an actual source, or, at least a mention of one, thank you!
And what is your source on that?
I am again, genuienly asking for a source.
This is a recent event, I am not up to speed on the reporting on this, can you please provide a source that his target was the NFL?
I am being somewhat loose with terms because I am talking about a whole bunch of statistical data broadly, more specifically, the GSS survey data from the comment I am replying to, and also the other 3 studies that can be found either at or by following through the other links I've provided.
But uh sure, in terms of the GSS study, what is being looked at is currently more precisely defined as'female sex partners,' more specifically, since you've become 18 yo.
https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/variables/5060/vshow
So uh anyway, I thought that was fairly clearly obvious if you'd actually read even the first few paragraphs of the link in the comment I am replying to, that explains the methodology used to generate that graph.
I was trying to just summarize it for those less well versed in statistics.
...
Either way, my main critique is still valid.
The comment I am replying to seems to imply that because of the error bars on this particular way of presenting GSS data, that the whole idea of more and more males having less and less sex is somehow not credible...
... and this is not the case, there are many, many other studies, far more than just the 3 I've linked, that show that just broadly, young people are having less and less sex.
...
If you can actually find the actual, precise phrasing of what the GSS survey asked in 2018, heck I'd appreciate it, but uh yeah, it does seem to be the case that the GSS survey in 2018 does not expliclity and directly ask whether or not a respondent has had sex with how many people in the last whatever time period...
The whole problem here is that the questionairre itself is changing over time, and thus the methods of calculating whatever graph out of reverse engineering these changing questions is frought with complexity and error.
...
https://nuancepill.substack.com/p/2024-update-to-the-gss-sexlessness-graph
This is the same dataset, the GSS, being again teased in similar ways, with 2024 data.
Apparently we are now up to roughly 27% of 18-29 yo men and 20% of 18-29 yo women having had no sex in the past year, and apparently, the actual wording of the question in the 2024 survey was:
'About how often did you have sex during the last 12 months?’.
So that would be all inclusive, but also:
In 2012, PARTNERS was used (a variable excluded from the most recent survey), as SEXFREQ was only asked to people who had had one or more sexual partners on this year.
...
This is the kind of shit that makes using this GSS survey to look at this issue less statistically valid... you're not actually looking at the same answer to the same question, calculated 8n the same way, over the whole time period that is displayed in these meme graphs.
This is what is meant by "lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Again, the whole point of my comment is that yes, the original graph here is a dumb graph because of how it in particular is constructed, but that it is also dumb to then conclude this whole concept of young people having less sex is bullshit.
There are other, better, more statstically valid studies, graphs and datasets that exist which do a better job of showing the trend/issue people are talking about, and do show that it is a real thing that is happening.
This is what spammers, scammers, identity thieves, 'pig-butcherers', credit collections do.
It absolutely works.
Corporations lie blatantly all the fucking time.
Its just that they lie in ways that usually are not able to be legally defined as some kind of a legally actionable version of a lie.
They are usually more worried with ever having outwardly admitting something that they could be sued over, than they are with any kind of human to human sense of accountability or believability.
Every, single, thing they are mass releasing or designing as an official stance has gone through some kind of legal team, or a team under a legal team that follow's guidelines from a legal team.
This is just how megacorps work.
They are not people, they are a sociopathic machine, operated by people who very much tend to be sociopaths.
Here's the summarized version:
Be Polite.
Act as if you only understand 'the effects', have a nebulous notion of 'the cause'.
Act like you know little other than this, and insist they explain it to you like you are a five year old.
Waste as much of their time as possible, without becoming hotheaded, instead become sad-confused.
"I'm not so much angry, as I am disappointed" type of vibe / energy.
And if possible, be genuinely kind to the low level, actual people you talk to, they literally do not make the rules.
Yeah, so far this basically sounds to me like if the guy from Falling Down walked into the building Patrick Bateman works at.
At worst, from a tactical effectiveness standpoint.
If it actually was a more or less specifically targeted attack, it would absolutely make sense that this would be massively underplayed and misconstrued by the broad media...
Because the last thing the broad media wants, is a lot of pissed off, suicidal, heavily armed Americans realizing that this can actually be a shockingly effective tactic, for those with nothing left to lose, ready to meet God or w/e.
The broader media being basically a totally corporate owned affair, that really, really would prefer it not become normalized that ... (semi?) random corpos just start getting gun downed in roughly the American version of insurgent suicide tactics, who are to a great extent capable of acting totally solo and are thus impossible to completely prevent at scale.
Call it the 'final form' of 'I'd like to speak with your manager'.
Genuinely, what is your source that he had 'the wrong floor'?
To have 'the wrong floor' implies there was a 'correct floor', which implies either a premeditated set person or set of persons as a target, or a known location associated with some kind of organization or something.
If it was a random 'just hurt people' type of mass shooting, there cannot really be a 'wrong floor', beyond maybe a comparison between overall target rich snd target sparse environments...
Or perhaps it was 'the wrong floor' in the sense of 'the correct floor' being one that worked with some kind of egress, escape plan?
Seriously, what do you mean by 'the wrong floor?'
She made her money running a company that removes 61,000 homes from the market as available for normal people to buy as their primary home.
vs
EDIT: want to be clear that she didn't deserve to die for the work she did,
...
What would Spok say?
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
...
61,000 homes x bare minimum 2.6 avg household size = 158,600.
Homelessness rate in the US is now at least 3% of the total population.
158,600 x 0.03 = 4,758.
Homelessness is an extremely dangerous, life-threatening, often fatal condition.
In summary, nah, she absolutely deserved to die for the work she did, regardless of whatever the actual specifics of this incident are.
1 life vs almost 5k likely deaths?
This math ain't as hard as people seem to think.
If she ran a company that knowingly, intentionally, poisoned that many people's food or water, distributed that many HIV contaminated needles, sold that many defective airbags or brakepads...
...if the process wasn't so abstracted with so many steps, the moral judgement would be a lot easier for a lot more people to make.
Keep in mind: Her job was to literally operate and maintain the abstraction.
I have negative pity for this exploitative cancer formely emobodied in the form of a living human being.
Completely agree.
We are very rapidly heading toward full on cyberpunk dystopia.
Get your EM grenades ready, rofl.