nednobbins @ nednobbins @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

364

Joined

2 yr. ago

When we swap out sex ed for abstinence only we don’t get less sex. We get a surge in teen pregnancies.

I'm sure that a few, very dedicated, women are doing this.

It's unlikely to be widespread. Sex is one of the most powerful drives humans have. We generally have a terrible track record of trying to convince people to avoid or even delay sex. Even when people believe that their eternal soul is on the line they keep having sex. That's exactly why all the "abstinence only" policies fails so spectacularly.

There are cases where voluntarily giving up something important has led to change. Hunger strikes are the prime example of this. They can have the affect of drawing attention to a matter and raising sympathy.

I just read that law and it's far from clear that it requires any aid to Israel at all.

Section 1 just defines the title.
Section 2 provides a statement of findings.
Section 3 covers US policy towards Israel. This is the closest I could find to something requiring assistance. Policy statements don't bind the president. At best they serve as guidelines for future legislation.
Section 4 talks about actively defending Israel but brackets the whole thing in "should". That has a specific legal definition that includes, "but it's not required."
Section 5 simply extends some deadlines that were going to expire.
Section 6 mandates some reports.
Section 7 defines terms.

The language in the Leahy Act is considerably stronger and more explicit. "No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter..."

Fun fact, there’s a 2008

What law is that? I keep hearing about it but I can't find that law.

I did find several that prohibit the US from providing aid to countries that commit human rights violations but nothing that requires the US to give anyone any military hardware.

Floyd baby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox735RShneA

In other news, exponents make things big.

Any time you have an X>1 and a big n, X^n gets huge.

X=26 (if we ignore punctuation, spaces, and capitalization).
N=130,000

Not rude at all. The original question is why certain people behave in a certain way.

The first point addresses the direct reason why some voters would refuse to vote for Harris due to her stance on Israel. When people believe they are being harmed they tend to focus all their attention on the immediate harm. It's not a logical choice but people don't act logically in these circumstances.

As an example of this, I'd offer our response to 9/11. The entire nation came together to pass the PATRIOT act and start a war in Afghanistan. There's no logic in passing a bill that was so long that no one in congress could have read it before voting on it. It's hard to argue for the logic of invading Afghanistan. There wasn't really an objective (besides "get OBL", who we later ended up assassinating in an other country) and in retrospect it's certainly clear that it caused far more harm than good. But we were in an emotional state. The people watching their relatives getting bombed in Gaza are in a similarly emotional state.

The second point addresses why Democrats attempts to convince them are failing so spectacularly. Getting someone to vote for your preferred candidate is an exercise in persuasion. Much has been written about the art of persuasion and "insult your audience," isn't generally a recommended technique. One counterexample is "pickup artists". They theorize that by insulting or "negging" women they can motivate the woman to counter the insult by seeking the mans approval. While this does work on some small percentage of women, the vast majority are more motivated to find their mace.

2 reasons jump to mind.

1. When I listen to people who personally identify with the people of Gaza, it goes way beyond logic. They have a completely emotional reaction. Their choices are almost completely driven by the question of, "Who is doing what, right now?" Questions of, "Who will do what 6 months from now?" take a distant back seat.
2. Every time the topic comes up, Democrats dogpile on them and call them morons. People will often respond with something like, "Yeah but that's OK because they ARE morons." I won't argue if that's true or not but it's pretty obvious that line of reasoning won't win a lot of converts.

Were you thinking of the "fairness doctrine"?

https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/topic-guide/fairness-doctrine

It happens regularly.

I'd also add that I find everyday stories from real people to be vastly more engaging that the completely unbelievable stories I see on TV.

Do you consider yourself these people's friend?
If you're completely disinterested in their milestones, that sounds more like an acquaintance.

But to your question, yes. I actually care about these things for acquaintances and random people too. There are limits to how much I care but it's not zero.

I get the feeling of discomfort but it's basically the same feeling we get when someone breaks a pencil

There is no evidence that a mosquito is capable of feeling the kind of despair or horror that a human would feel in a similar situation. It's unlikely that mosquitos can form emotions at all.

At the same time, a huge portion of human-animal interactions involve the human controlling the animal in ways that they animal can't even comprehend. A dog has no idea you're doing operant conditioning to change their behavior. Pigs have no idea they're being fed just so they and their children can be eaten.

The only way to avoid this kind of thing is to turn off your big human brain and go back to ape tier. We might need to go farther down the tier list than that though https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

I just read that list. As near as I can tell they put a lot of words in that don't actually promise anything helpful. Maybe I'm wrong.

Let's make it as easy as possible to show this plan in a good light. Instead of finding one bad bullet point in that list and tearing it up, let's see if we can find one good one.

Out of that entire list, which bullet point do you think has the best chance to actually "counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hate?"

edit: grammar

I'm also offended by Israeli war crimes but I don't think that's an accurate assessment.

As far as I can tell, the Israeli military is very good at violence. They're extremely well equipped, they have superb training, and their military personnel tend to be dedicated to their cause.

The main problem isn't their ability to kill and destroy, it's their indiscriminate use of that ability.

It's a valid question and I'm sure the Harris campaign has spent considerable resources trying to get a good estimate of that number.

It's pretty insane that the Democratic party officials have to say, "We'd love to stop funding a genocide but our members won't vote for us if we do that."

There's quite a lot of disagreements between historians on why there's an electoral college https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/k5hv2m/what_was_the_founders_purpose_in_creating_the/

We have a lot of laws that protect people from government. The complement to such a policy is that we reduce the amount of protection government has from people.

If you assume that your government is bad or that it will inevitably become bad then this is a great policy to reduce bad government. The flip side is that if we expect government to protect us from individual bad citizens who have gained a lot of power it's harder.

edit: grammar

That seems unlikely, since the constitution doesn't really include safeguards against someone like Trump.

The founding fathers were afraid of a King (at least some of them were). They put all kinds of limits on the power of the executive but they assumed people would follow those rules. They never really considered the possibility of a private citizens gaining so much power that they can ignore government.

The glaring difference between the two is our level of active involvement.

Solidarity is one thing. Actually doing something about Sudan would require some sort of deliberate intervention.

In the case of Gaza we could likely make a huge difference if we just stopped arming the aggressors.

We don't send arms to Sudan. We don't send arms to Putin. We don't send arms to the Sri Lankan military. We don't send arms to Boko Haram. We don't send arms to Myanmar.

Charity is about who benefits, not about who decides how to provide that benefit.

The idea of choosing a charity based on the donor's will of how it will get spent describes almost all types of charity. If someone donates to any charity at all, they have made a choice on how to allocate their resources and they just take it on faith that that's the people who need it the most.

Furthermore, any given dollar of his can only be spent once. The money he spent on himself enriches himself. It's a considerable amount of money but it's a tiny fraction of the money he controls. Any dollar he gives away can't be spent to enrich himself.

Finally, Buffet has donated over $57 billion. How is he supposed to distribute that? Fly a plane around the country and dump cash out the window? Send a huge check to the IRS? Give it all to your favorite charity? The obvious answer is that he sets up an organization that will analyze existing charities for need and effectiveness and then distributes his assets accordingly.

I've been thinking about this exact question recently.

My Austrian grandmother and her sister were working class teenagers during the war. They couldn't realistically have done anything to stop the Nazis. They didn't really do much to help but since they were seamstresses they secretly snuck the Jewish family in the building some sewing supplies. It wasn't much and they stopped when they were told that someone had reported them to the Gestapo. Their experience during the war was dodging bombs and trying to find something to eat.

None of that matters. When I was a kid growing up in the US people regularly made Nazi jokes as soon as they found out about my heritage. Nobody was willing to entertain any ideas that maybe those civilians shouldn't have been held accountable.

History judged all of Germany and Austria harshly. It judged the civilians harshly and it judged their descendants harshly.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1144717
The world is watching.