• 2 Posts
  • 63 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 8th, 2023

help-circle
  • I’m stating my opinions just as you are.

    Nobody is putting words into your mouth. I’m responding to the words you have said.

    I’ve been trying to understand how you could hold such opinions in the face of both facts and your own stated understatings.

    Seems willful ignorance is where we landed.

    From your other responses elsewhere in the thread it seems this isn’t isolated to just this exchange.

    For the record, I do not appreciate your opinion on this as it lacks merit or substance.

    If you are unwilling or unable to defend your opinions, a public forum is unlikely to be a good experience for you.

    I’d suggest a blog, with the comments turned off.


  • Do you think anyone (regardless of race) should have received that level of response in that situation ? As with any dispute, both parties can always strive for more, but I try to put myself in the cop’s situation. How long is long enough before you have to pull somebody who is clearly not cooperating from their car? Not following a lawful order during a traffic stop is a misdemeanor, which means you may be exiting your vehicle whether you like it or not.

    That’s not an answer to the question, that’s a reiteration of your previous stance.

    Do you think anyone (regardless of race) would have received that level of response in that situation ? I am positive racism plays a part in policing. But I didn’t see anything in this that leads me to believe Tyreek’s skin color affected his outcome.

    Given that answer i go back to my previous question of :

    If you understand racism plays a part in policing, what makes you think this is the exception ?

    I’m a white dude and I easily see this happening to me if I did what he did.

    You are entitled to your opinion, but the overall statistics disagree with you.

    Not in an individual instance sense, but in an overall sense. You might very well have this same thing happen, but it’s statistically much less likely.

    I’d personally view that as two opposing viewpoints, either you think he had it coming or you’re sorry it happened.

    They are not opposing or mutually exclusive viewpoints. I can be sorry for someone for the outcome they have been dealt based on their own actions. I can be sorry for him but also unsurprised.

    Now this is interesting, i wouldn’t consider “they had it coming” to be the same as “I’m unsurprised this happened” , one is very much assigning blame and the other is more neutral.

    If you meant the latter, then sure, not mutually exclusive.

    “I can be sorry for someone for the outcome they have been dealt based on their own actions.” can easily be interpreted the same way as “I’m sorry he made the officer drag him out of his car but he totally deserved it”.

    Yes, I truly feel this way in these circumstances. Perhaps I’m a naive idiot, but I just didn’t sense that he was treated that unfairly given his actions.

    The point the article was making wasn’t that he was treated unfairly based on his actions, it was that the treatment he received was different (read: worse) because of his race.

    That the treatment he received could be considered unfair for the situation isn’t the point.


    A boy and a girl both steal an apple, they both get grounded, the boy is also banned from the shop.

    “Well the girl still got grounded” doesn’t negate that the punishment wasn’t equal.

    Same as “The boy deserved punishment” doesn’t negate that the punishment wasn’t equal.


    If you truly understand that racism is a large problem in all aspects of policing, that isn’t naivety that’s wilful ignorance.


  • It’s more the latter. I don’t argue that race disparity exists. I’m only arguing that Tyreek did not do any kind of favor to himself in how he handled the situation.

    Agreed, but “didn’t do the most optimal thing in a given situation” isn’t the same as “deserved to be dragged out of his car”

    Especially in a situation where it is known to be significantly more dangerous, regardless of behaviour, for someone of a more melanin-rich persuasion.

    This confusion is easily resolved though, let’s clarify with a couple questions.

    Do you think anyone (regardless of race) should have received that level of response in that situation ?

    Do you think anyone (regardless of race) would have received that level of response in that situation ?

    I’m sorry he got pulled from his car and cuffed, but my reaction to the video was that he had this coming.

    I’d personally view that as two opposing viewpoints, either you think he had it coming or you’re sorry it happened.

    Blatantly disobeying an officer’s requests and in a way that can lead the officer to feel unsure over his/her safety and perceived control of the situation is going to end poorly.

    And this is the crux of the issue, officers feeling unsafe and their level of perceived control is known to have a direct correlation to how reflective your skin is.

    That doesn’t even account for the officers with a blatant racial bias.

    So you can argue that point, but the threshold for where actions end up in poor outcomes is intrinsically linked to race, any argument you make is going need to account for that or it’s going to be perceived as missing a large chunk of the context.

    Which is what is happening here.

    This could easily happen to a white person.

    That’s subjective but again, let’s clarify :

    In these exact same circumstances, you’d expect a white person to be treated in the exact same way ?


  • I don’t have any studies to hand, but isn’t the disparity between police responses to non-white vs white suspects a given at this point, in the US at least?

    But lets look at your argument both ways.

    On the one hand you’d be arguing that race disparity in police responses doesn’t exist at all and so wouldn’t apply here.

    Or

    Race disparity exists, but in this specific situation it doesn’t apply for some reason.

    If that’s the case , id be interested in hearing why you think it doesn’t apply in this specific circumstance?

    Neither of those sound plausible to me but i could be missing what your actual argument is entirely, in which case, would you mind explaining why it doesn’t fall in to the above categories?




  • The subjectiveness of it being a superior product aside.

    Brave is chromium under the hood and therefore contributes to the rendering engine homogeneity that leaves Google in control of web standards.

    Iirc they are keeping some support for manifest v2 , for now. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out for them both financially and from a technical upkeep point of view.

    I’d guess it doesn’t last long, but haven’t looked at it hard enough to have an informed opinion on it.



  • I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.

    Let’s try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.

    “I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are.”

    A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.

    If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn’t be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.

    The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.

    The whole point of having a women’s competition is to separate “men” from “women”, if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we’d be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.

    You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop “women” from competing in “men’s” competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.

    it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition.

    Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase

    “it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition.”

    This is not a good argument.

    As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.





  • I read your reply as stating that the only outcomes could be “argue and make things worse” or “don’t do that”, a negative and a neutral respectively.

    I perhaps read only the words and not the intent, I think we are may be saying the same thing.

    In case we are not :

    Not engaging actively frees someone up to do literally anything else, which could overall be more positive than just the prevention of the negative.

    In addition some people might consider the avoidance of the argument itself to be a positive rather than just maintaining a neutral position.




  • TL;DR;

    The rules might be considered a list of “immoral things” but in my experience it was treated more as a list of “distracting things”, YMMV.


    Then why is it on the list of horrible things?

    You mean the list specifically titled “precepts” ?

    It does indicate that it’s a list based on what is considered “moral conduct” so i suppose it could be considered a list of “Immoral” things.

    I personally read it as “Rules and Guidelines to prevent distraction during the process”.

    While i don’t personally prescribe to that kind of moral absolutism i was willing to adhere to the guidelines for a short period to experience the process in it’s intended form.

    Attendance isn’t mandatory so people will have to make that call for themselves if they are considering going.

    The list doesn’t mention communication, and in fact specifically prohibits lying. That suggests that speacking truly is permitted,

    The section titled “Noble Silence” 4 paragraphs down, specifically goes in to the details of the non-communication i was referencing.

    and this is a list of bad things

    Not sure what you mean here, but hopefully i’ve covered it above.

    That’s a list someone makes when they don’t approve of sex (or intoxicants, but that’s another conversation).

    Very possibly and i’d guess it comes from the Buddhist origins.

    I will state that my experience is that it wasn’t preachy at all, the video recordings do reference some Buddhist stories/teachings but only really to use them as examples for teaching the meditation process.

    Given that you aren’t supposed to be communicating in general there is very little leeway in which preaching could occur.


  • It’s not considered bad , but it is a distraction, there’s supposed to be no communication between attendees.

    It’s supposed to be full introspection, afaict.

    Don’t know if its the same in all places but men and women were completely separate in the one I went to.

    Even if you went with your wife you’d not really be there with her, you’d be two people in the same place at the same time, not communicating.

    It’s not really a relaxing holiday kind of place.


  • I genuinely have no idea if it’s an option for you or if it’d even help but for 10/11 days of relative isolation you could try vipassana

    Not sure what the northern US wait times are like, but you generally need to book ahead.

    It’s free, it works on a volunteer basis, no idea how if it works for people with no fixed abode but proof of residence was not required where i am.

    Do check if it’s suitable for you though, there are rules (albeit not many), they seem reasonable to me but might not be for you.

    Isolation wise, there is no communication between attendees, but there are group meditation sessions (though they are also non-talking).

    The three aspects that weren’t silent :

    • the meditation instruction, it was a one hour-ish video playback per day explaining the process.
    • the final day, discussion is allowed.
    • optional question time with an instructor.