- CMV: Most fat people are better off not trying to become “normal” weight. Instead, we should pursue fat acceptance and other ways of improving our health. : changemyview
I did a “Change My View.” Spoiler alert: My view wasn’t changed.
- One man’s mission to bring better ramen to the incarcerated
- A Professor says the 2nd amendment right to self-defense is necessary; is accused of racism; rebuked by his university president; there are many death threats and demands he be fired.
How strange that (as far as I could find) none of the prominent worriers about the “campus free speech crisis” wrote about this case. I wonder what was different?
- Ocasio-Cortez scored a victory — for well-designed campaign posters – The Washington Post
- Here’s Why This Mama Merganser Has More Than 50 Ducklings | Audubon
- Ocasio-Cortez’s Socialism Can Work in the Midwest
As long as it isn’t called “socialism.”
- I Was a Female Incel – Quillette
I certainly don’t endorse all of this essay, but I found it interesting.
- Free Speech for the Chattering Class Isn’t Free Speech for All | Noah Berlatsky on Patreon
- Abolish ICE? Medicare for all? Democrats are campaigning in poetry. – Vox
“An old saying about American politics holds that you campaign in poetry and govern in prose.”
- My cousin takes this pervert down for grabbing her ass. He is later arrested in front of his wife and 2 kids when the cops arrived. : JusticeServed
There’s video! I feel sorry for the kids, though. (But they’re not in the video). See also: Grabbing The Situation By The A** – notalwaysright.com (thanks to Mandolin for that link).
- Why the Migration or Importation Clause of the Constitution does not imply any general federal power to restrict immigration – The Washington Post
From an originalist perspective, it’s hard to see where the Constitution gives the Federal government the right to broadly restrict immigration. Of course, I’m not an originalist – but many of the people calling for stricter controls on immigration are, or say they are. ETA: Here’s an alternate link.
- BBC – Culture – Why these anatomical models are not disgusting
- Critics of the Sarah Sanders restaurant protest say MLK would never have been so “uncivil.” But in his day, King was savaged as the enemy of civility. – Vox
- Young Leftist Candidates Are Breathing New Radicalism Into Stale Climate Politics
- Easily Mused: Al Williamson’s “The Success Story”This six-page horror comic, created in the 1960s, is a wonderful tongue-in-cheek response to the longstanding comics tradition of successful cartoonists having work by unaccredited assistants. Also, really beautiful drawings by Al Williamson.
- Probe found FlORIDA police chief told officers to pin unsolved crimes on random black people: report | TheHill
- Conservatives As Moral Mutants | Thing of Things
“Of course, from a conservative perspective, I am an incomprehensible moral mutant.”
- There’s no such thing as a Trump Democrat – The Washington Post
- Letters of Note: Arkell v. Pressdram
I have no idea if anyone reading this would even want to watch a 40 minute video essay defending Disney’s “Hunchback of Notre Dame,” which is also about the original novel and the way stories are adapted to different times. But I found it very interesting.
Loved the Hunchback video.
Yup, the stage musical differs from the Disney movie, even if they share (some) music. After seeing the stage production, I was inspired to look up a synopsis of the original Hunchback of Notre Dame. And I was immediately reminded of when watching Les Miz had prompted me to look up a synopsis of Les Miserables. In short, I learned that Victor Hugo books are DENSE and CONVOLUTED—at least, as compared with adaptations of his work. From this, I draw three conclusions. 1) The people who create these adaptations are not just stenographers; they are real creative artists in their own right. 2) While I can feign an erudite concern for the integrity of the original works, in truth I would never have given two figs about the original works if I hadn’t seen the adaptations, so the concern would be kinda hypocritical. And 3) as far as I can tell (admittedly, based only on having read a synopsis), the adapted plots are better anyway.
For example: In the film, a major point of drama was whether the timid Quasi would screw up the courage to do something bold and wrong–such as defy his master and take a step outside the cathedral. In contrast, early in the book we observe Quasi trying to kidnap Esmeralda (the love interest) in the Parisian streets. So, yeah, we’re really talking about completely separate stories here—and it’s hard to conclude that the Disney people made a bad choice.
Indeed, it appears that much of what people love about Hunchback has derived not from the book itself, but from its myriad faithless adaptations—including adaptations by Victor Hugo himself. This should allay purist’s fears about impinging on the author’s integrity. (This is part of the video’s thesis.)
Let me take exception to one aspect of the video: The analyst repeatedly decries the role of the silly gargoyles in the film as creating a jarring conflict with the somber tone of the rest of the show. But when you see the stage production of Hunchback (which lacks gargoyles, but has somewhat more somber saints), you notice something: IT’S REALLY GRIM. (Hell, there isn’t even any music during curtain calls.) I didn’t have the same reaction to seeing Les Miz. And then it hit me: Les Miz has the Master of the House and his wife constantly popping up to provide comic relief. That was the function of the gargoyles in the Hunchback movie—a function that is conspicuously lacking in the stage production.
Last thought: How do you make giant bells for a stage production? Answer: Plastic trash cans, flipped over, widened at the mouth, and covered with metallic spray paint. Just a handy tip.
Re: #3 – Interesting case. As I’ve noted before here, among the first “Jim Crow” laws passed were ones that restricted the 2nd Amendment rights of blacks. I’m personally all for black Americans exercising their right to keep and bear arms, and to advocate that other black Americans should do so.
– Robert A. Heinlein
Re: #11 – I’d love to comment but it’s behind a paywall and I can’t read the article. Can you summarize?
Ron – Here’s an alternate link.
It seems to me that the professor of #3 made some rather careless statements that were interpreted as a call for a race war and/or violence against the police by some (also in the context of other things he said). He certainly seems to advocate for something akin to the Black Panthers, which again leaves room for interpretation, as they engaged in legal resistance, but also not so legal behavior.
Anyway, I think that the radical left has a tendency to talk in a way that makes it hard for outsiders (and perhaps even many insiders) to understand what the limits are of the radicalism that is proposed.
Yay! A Heinlein quote. That really lends weight to your position in my estimation.
#3 filibusters for paragraphs and paragraphs until letting us know what exactly the professor said. It’s telling that the author had to generate a thick cocoon of sympathy before letting the reader know why everyone is so mad at the guy.
Maybe I’m being overly literal, but if this is the quote that got Curry in trouble, I’m not sure why it’s so upsetting:
I mean, the deaths of white in order to liberated black people has already already happened once before, and it “may” happen again, possibly in the context of home defense, or possibly something more revolutionary. This argument sounds much like the one made by libertarians: “We need a second amendment because the time may come when our liberty depends on violently other-throwing the government.” If one is offensive, so is the other.
In both cases, I want to know how we decide it’s time to start killing people, because obviously there exists a possible future where it may be necessary. I’ll wait to pass judgement until I know.
EDIT: I’m really surprised Reason.com isn’t covering his case. They’ve argued that the 2nd amendment is crucial for minority rights for at least a decade now.
Indeed not, and they are also intentionally eroticized (as were live models) and, beyond the lecture hall, were publicly exhibited to sexually stimulate lookers-on, often to the point of controversy and “reform” as the historical record attests.
So, then, with regards to #11:
To summarize the article, the power of Congress to regulate immigration is reputed to rest on Art. I, § 9, Cl 1 of the Constitution:
The author’s refutation of the concept that this confers the power on Congress to control immigration rests on citing a couple of Founders’ comments that this was meant to mean the importation of slaves, not the migration of Europeans, but because of political realities and the obvious conflict with the Declaration of Independence assertions of personal liberties they didn’t wish to name “slavery” explicitly in the Constitution. The concept is that since this was clearly their intent, an originalist interpretation of the Constitution would be that since the issue of slavery is now moot this means that Congress’ powers don’t apply to regulating actual voluntary immigration.
I challenge this last on a couple of points. First, while the intent of the Founders is of course very important in interpreting the Constitution, the foundation of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution is to base it on what the words in it meant when it was written. Clearly the Founders knew that regulating the immigration of all persons, not just slaves, were encompassed by the word “migration”. The chief citations are given in the article. First, from Federalist Paper 42, we see:
In interpreting this it’s important to understand that the purpose of the Federalist Papers was to answer critics of the Constitution that were seeking to block its adoption. It seems to me that the idea here was not to assert that the clause did not give Congress the power to block immigration of Europeans. It seems to me to assert that, while the power would exist, it would not be actually used in that fashion. Not for legal reasons (i.e., not because the clause did not mean that), but for political ones; the conditions of the United States in 1788/89 were such that it would have been strongly against the interests of the U.S. to do so; we were very short of labor, and the Constitution’s opponents were engaging in misdirection by claiming the Constitution would be used in a fashion that a sensible person would know it would not be.
Another reference gives a statement by Madison:
Unfortunately this is given with no manner of citation, so I cannot look at the whole statement and it’s context. But from what we have here it seems Madison clearly realized that “others might apply the same term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country.” – without stating that this was an erroneous or invalid interpretation of the clause!
Again, an originalist interpretation of the Constitution’s text is to read it from the viewpoint of what the terms meant when it was written. The citations show that while the wording was meant to encompass giving Congress control of importing slaves, it also encompassed giving Congress control of immigration of non-slaves as well. The Founders may not have liked that; it may not have been the primary reason for it; it may have given opponents of the Constitution ammunition for raising more opposition to it. But I don’t see where they said that it did not in fact encompass that and was invalid for that purpose.
An interesting podcast with Chris Hayes and Nikole Hannah-Jones talking about school desegregation, if you have an hour to spare: https://art19.com/shows/why-is-this-happening-with-chris-hayes/episodes/9330cb2a-8257-4e11-b389-e644a99c5d09
From Amp’s Tweets:
Miles’s father had abandoned his family—or so he thought. Transported back to 1977, he and Hurley encounter Miles’s father. Hurley suggests that this would be Miles’s one opportunity to achieve some reconciliation with the man. Miles says that Hurley is stupid—an opinion that is reinforced when Miles realizes that Hurley has been painstakingly re-writing and re-editing the script of The Empire Strikes Back that he hopes to mail to George Lucus.
Hurley isn’t defensive, but philosophical. He notes that Star Wars had just been released, and Empire was just getting started. And regarding Miles’s attitude:
“Some Like It Hoth,” Lost Season 5, episode 13.
Time travel: What is it good for? Absolutely somethin’….
A propos of nothing:
Long ago, Bob Hayes exhorted people to join LinkedIn, and I took the bait. Now, each week I get an e-mail from LinkedIn saying “You appeared in X searches this week.” And the searchers are always IT firms. Even my own employer’s IT division searched my LinkedIn profile.
I don’t work in IT. What’s up with that?
And some feminists continue to claim with a straight face feminism isn’t anti-nerd:
“If I see someone in a Batman T-shirt, I no longer assume they’re a sensitive soul. Instead, I wonder if they harassed women during Gamergate or hang out on incel message boards talking about how Elliot Rodger was right to kill “blonde sorority sluts.” The most realistic part of “Revenge of the Nerds” now seems to be the creepy scene where the nerd protagonist tricks a woman into sex.”
Michael, I’m not sure you can easily refer to feminism as a monolithic object. But you could say things like “middle of the road feminism” or something. In any case without trying to definitely pinpoint how common that concept is, it’s interesting that it relies on the exact same type of stereotyping that nastily attacks black people—take high profile examples of anti social behavior and project them onto whole groups of people without any apparent interest in frequency.
Michael, if it’s fair to judge all feminists by that one annoying hot take, whey is it unfair for her to judge all nerds based on a few examples? (Or by the existence of sizable nerd groups like gamergate, sad and rabid puppies, and comicsgate)?
Although I think that hot take, as a whole, is a master class in cherry-picking, the paragraph you pulled out isn’t annoying to me because it’s wrong. It’s annoying to me because that op-ed is condescending coming from someone who (judging from that editorial) doesn’t themselves identify as a nerd. And because it (and the whole editorial) implicitly assumes nerds are men.
But truthfully, she’s saying the same thing a lot of nerd women have been saying. Felicia Day – who you can’t possibly claim is anti-nerd – wrote this in a tumblr post, during the height of gamergate:
(In the same post, Day talked about her fear of being doxxed; after she posted it, she was doxxed.)
Hundreds of asshole, misogynistic nerds have been working for years to try and change the atmosphere around nerddom. To some extent, they’ve succeeded, and a lot of nerd women – and apparently some non-nerd women, if that article you linked is representative – now find nerddom less welcoming and safe. Acknowledging this happened is not anti-nerd.
But it’s not just one annoying hot take. You yourself have admitted that the neckbeard stereotype is common. Look at what Arthur Chu wrote :
“To paraphrase Martin Luther King, straight white middle-class dudes who are “nerds” are people who’ve been negatively judged on the content of their character.”
Find me ONE feminist that denounced that article the same way they would have “a slut is a woman who was been negatively judged on the content of her character”.
These articles are criticizing nerds in general. Not merely gamergate or sad puppies or comicsgate.
As for the argument that judging all feminists on the basis of a few is the same as judging all nerds on the basis of a few, the difference is that a nerd can mean a guy who likes comics or a guy who’s socially awkward or a guy who’s a virgin. None of these are POLITICAL CHOICES. Calling oneself a feminist is a political choice, like calling oneself a Republican. So saying “Republicans are racist” doesn’t mean that all Republicans are racist, it means that Republicans, as a movement, are racist.
As for your argument that acknowledging women feel less safe around nerds because of Gamergaters isn’t anti-nerd, for example, how would you feel about the following argument? “Blacks are statistically far more likely to commit murder than whites. As a result, many whites feel unsafe around black men and even cross to the other side of the street around them. Acknowledging this is not anti-black.” You’d probably consider it racist. And you’d be right.
Selective acknowledgment can create and/or perpetuate stereotypes. Furthermore, your defense of stereotypes can easily be turned around. Do you still support it when I change your words to?:
Hundreds of asshole, misandrist feminists have been working for years to try and change the atmosphere around feminists. To some extent, they’ve succeeded, and a lot of men – and apparently some women, if that article you linked is representative – now find feminism less welcoming and safe. Acknowledging this happened is not anti-feminist.
It seems to me that your argument can be used to defend othering of any group, yet I doubt that you would be so eager to justify it for many other groups.
The sad fact is that doxxing and other such shenanigans seem commonplace on the Internet. I think that it is quite unfair for nerds and/or gamers to be singled out for this. Note that some gamergaters tried to fight harassment with the ‘GamerGate Harassment Patrol.’
GamerGaters and/or men got some serious harassment. One gamergater got a knife sent to his house with a death threat. Bomb threats were made. Many got doxxed.
The interesting thing is that AFAIK no prominent gamergater engaged in or advocated these things, while many of the anti-gamergaters did. Arthur Chu and Leigh Alexander advocated doxxing. Zoe Quinn retweeted (and thus signal boosted) at least two doxxings. Sam Biddle advocated bullying.
Pingback: Does the Constitution give Congress the Power to Regulate Immigration? | Foggy Bottom Line
I didnt want to link to it while the only sources I could find were sketchy, but now that the Washington Post is reporting on antifa harassment of reporters it seems likely that it was real.
This is germane to the ‘punch a Nazi’ discussion we had a while back. It seems like evidence for the idea that part of the problem with even ‘justifiable’ violence in political settings is that once you open it up, people don’t stick to the justifiable cases and aren’t super careful to make sure they are just attacking real Nazis.
So now there are at least two different reports that DNC Deputy Chair Rep. Keith Ellison, who is running for Minnesota Attorney General, has abused women. I’m a “innocent until proven guilty” guy even in the case of people whose politics I despise. The timing is a little suspicious, too, and I have to wonder why this didn’t come out in his previous campaigns. OTOH, simple allegations of this sort have deep-sixed multiple politician’s careers, and some group called “ultraviolet” is calling from him to withdraw from the campaign and resign from Congress. I find this statement problematical:
Seems to me that if you are going to accuse someone of a crime (physical abuse is alleged) you should expect to have to prove your story if you want to be believed.
What do you all think of this?
Sebastian, it’s not just harassment of reporters that has been reported. There are multiple reports that water bottles, eggs and fireworks were tossed or shot at police. I’m especially sensitive to the latter as my brother-in-law once nearly lost an eye to a simple bottle rocket – he had to have an operation at the University of Chicago Medical Center (one of the best in the world) to save his eye, and his vision was permanently affected. The police showed admirable restraint.
Also, from @14:
Well, he can easily DO it. But it’s not accurate. Nor is it accurate to refer to blacks, gays, lesbians, whites, Hispanics, etc. in such a fashion, although commentators and activists across the political spectra love to do so.
I’m starting to think that “antifa” = “anti-American fascists”.
The one thing I like about Antifa in the US, right now, is the name.
The masks, the ideology, the sound bytes, the tactics – they are all wrong.
That they clash with reporters is understandable. They were equipped and prepped for trouble, they were feeling anonymous, and they had no one to brawl with. All of these were tactical mistakes, and the results were understandable.
The biggest problem of the post-Marx development of communist ideology is that they do not understand the trap intrinsic to “social progress through violence”. They should think about who will float to the top, and how much he will look forward to relinquishing power.
Interesting blog post on heritability and genetics from a researcher in the field.
When we are talking about the “they” who assaults reporters, we’re talking about how many people I wonder? It can’t be many.
Considering the sheer number of counter-protesters out over the weekend, I’m pretty impressed with how little violence there was. I also think that the DC police did an excellent job keeping the violence to a minimum.
I’ve never talked to anyone associated with antifa. Antifa doesn’t really have a single set of tenets, right? My understanding is that it’s a conglomerate of all kinds of smaller groups. Is “it’s ok to punch people engaged in nazi messaging” generally accepted among those who call themselves antifa? Anyone close enough to the movement to take a guess?
I’m sorry, but that’s nuts. It is not at all understandable. That they would come to protest against those marchers is understandable. Showing up masked, equipped and prepped for violence is not. Not at all. You’re telling me that these people’s feelings about politics and social policy is so overriding that they cannot control themselves. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it comes close to blaming the victim. Hell, the Tea Party groups had members that would show up to rallies with firearms and violence was non-existent at their rallies.
“Showing up masked, equipped and prepped for violence is not.”
The whole point of Antifa is to be prepped for violence. That’s what they do. Which in theory may even be appropriate. But it is instructive that they find violence even when the Fascists they are organized around fighting, don’t fight them.
I did not say it was excusable. I said that because they came masked, equipped, and poised to do violence, there was a good chance that they would commit violence, whether there was a worthy target, or not. This is why I said all three were tactical mistakes.
And no, they do not all come to protest. Some of those morons come to physically prevent ‘fascists’ from marching. And say so.
Well, it is a fact that they can’t control themselves, isn’t it? I mean probability one, and all that.
Being drunk on righteousness is a dangerous thing. The mask reduces inhibition. The equipment, no matter how risible, gives a feeling of power. Knowing you came all this way, wasting time and money, and there isn’t a Nazi to fight pushes you into escalation (similar, but not equivalent to the sunk cost fallacy)
Hell, if you wanted to set them up for discrediting themselves, you could not arrange it better.
Where the hell did I blame anyone but Antifa? Which part of “I do not like anything about them but the name” was unclear?
Much better planning. Firearms make you intimidating, having your face visible makes you more responsible, and the rallies were not specifically organized to prevent someone from exercising legal rights.
Antifa starts from a position that is arguably untenable, and definitely unstable. They need rules of engagement, and the ability to enforce them within the ranks. Considering who they are, it is not going to happen.
I see your point(s). But:
No, it’s not a fact. They can control themselves. They choose not to, and attempt to wrap themselves in self-righteous “Social Justice Warrior” rationales to justify it. I have little patience for people who try to claim that their emotions or feelings about something robbed them of their ability to control themselves, regardless of whether it ends up with them acting like fascists or like rapists (e.g., “she was wearing provocative clothing, she was asking for it”).
I don’t think this is right. I’m trying to understand Antifa more, so I’ve been doing a little reading and a little listening since yesterday. I don’t know much, but I do know that “SJW” and “anti-fascism” are distinct even if their interests may align at times. When I hear “SJW” I’m picturing someone who’s influenced by critical race and gender theories. When I hear people within the movement explain anti-fascism it goes something more like this: “historically, defeating fascism requires confrontation, stopping it before it spreads requires action beyond politics and speech” Those who condone violence believe that the ends justify the means.
I point out this distinction because I think you can find advocates for SJ issues who are critical of the kinds of tactics Antifa has become known for, and I’m not sure why you’d want to alienate these people. Political discussions, including protests must be free of violence such that everyone feels safe expressing themselves. Many on the SJ left realize that minorities will suffer the most if this norm breaks down, so let’s try to make it a big tent issue.
With all that said, I’m saddened at the frequency I encounter apologists for political violence, and I think Trump in office has a lot to do with it
The can’t/won’t debate is beside the point on a lot of levels. Either way they don’t. When you normalize political violence it doesn’t in fact get contained to the ‘proper’ subjects.
The SJW/Antifa confluence is similar but they aren’t the same. Maybe they draw from overlapping pools of people? The former focus on doxing techniques on the bad side/transperancy on the good side. I tend to think that many of them cultivate a lack of sense of proportion, but Antifa is a different thing. Antifa believes something like “if we escalate the violence now, fascists will be afraid to act”.
The way the poster interprets the table is naive to the point of being useless.
Basically, the argument is “if one has very high BMI and embraces all four healthy habits, one’s chance of health disasters won’t be much worse than those of person with normal or high BMI who also embrace all four habits”
No shit, Sherlock. Athletes from most sports hover between overweight and obese. When I was kickboxing semi-professionally, I would exit the obese category only for about one week before my fights, and go back in a couple of days. Absolutely no one in the club was ‘normal’ BMI, and kickboxing is not the only sport that favors short people with a lot of muscle. Now I’m older, I have lost at least ten pounds of muscle mass, and am barely ‘overweight’ according to BMI. Will you look at that!
I lost weight and am less healthy (of course I am, I’m older)
That table says nothing about how many of the very high BMI health nuts are spherical, and how many of them are ridiculously fit. It says nothing about how many of the lower BMI people have lost weight due to health problems, how people’s weight changes because of aging, how health effects of stored fat vary with age, etc.
For all we know, everyone in that very high BMI health nut category is an athlete, and every single person with low BMI and a critical health failure is a tall scrawny 90 year old who lacks the minimum fat to keep joints and heart functioning right from a purely mechanical point of view. Or that some people think that moving their legs while a motor rolls a carpet underneath is exercise.
Exercising, eating easily digested and filtered foods, keeping alcohol consumption low, and keeping inhaled poisons to a minimum WILL make you healthier. Even saying that very high BMI does not matter if you maintain a healthy lifestyle is A-OK.
But saying that as long as they follow four health habits, people with 30 cm of fat around the hearts are as healthy as those with with 2 cm? That’s neither supported by the presented evidence, nor constructive.
That’s part of the argument. But, to quote from the post: “More importantly, we can see that fat people who practice all four healthy habits, benefit enormously, in terms of their mortality risk reduction.” The point is that fat people who are concerned about their health may have more realistic and achievable strategies available to them than major weight loss.
Since the data comes from a representative sample of Americans, it seems implausible that the majority of people in any of the categories are “ridiculously” fit.
I mean, sure, Chris Helmsworth probably is obese by BMI standards. But there’s no reason to think that body type is more than a tiny percentage of Americans with high BMIs.
I’m also struck by your implied definition of “health nuts.” At least mild exercise a few times a week, eating some fruits and veggies with your meals, not smoking, and not being a heavy drinker doesn’t make anyone a “health nut.” These aren’t uncommon behaviors.
88% of the lowest BMI category in the sample was under age 65. (Also, by “critical health failure,” do you mean death? The study measured mortality.)
You’re saying that walking on a treadmill is not exercise? That seems eccentric, to say the least.
And if people are reporting having exercised, but actually haven’t, that makes it seem like an astounding coincidence that reporting having exercised was associated with lower mortality.
It’s weird that in the entire post, this is the one thing you seized on.
My post said that as long as they follow four healthy habits, fat people are only a little more likely to die than their thin counterparts; but that’s really not a central point. The much more important takeaway from that study, for fat people who want to improve their health, is that fat people who follow those habits have (on average) much lower mortality than fat people who follow fewer healthy habits. So there are constructive ways for many fat people to improve their health, if that’s what they want, aside from major weight loss.
Here’a a couple more examples of masked (and in the first case, armed) anti-American fascists assaulting peaceful citizens:
Had to be Boston Common – I wouldn’t advise them trying this in Southie or Dorchester.
I repeat my prediction – if this keeps up and the police allow it to become normalized, one of these days one of these masked mauraders is going to get shot.