Juan Olguin Cabezaz and Hugo Streeter from a water collecting co-operative in Chanaral, northern Chile sit by a large fog collecting net. Local people, such as Hugo Streeter pictured , are able to use the fog water for agriculture and drinking. Farmers at a fog collection co-operative in Chanaral, northern Chile inspect aloe vera plants which they grow using the water from large fog collecting nets. The fog collectors are huge nets hung between two poles and are made of a polypropylene mesh that captures the droplets.
When the droplets gather together they then run into the storage tanks. The water is pure for drinking and can be used for agriculture, with a collective in the village of Chanaral use the water for small-scale aloe vera farming.
However, if the process was used on a larger scale the possibility to change the hostile desert environment is great. The water is pure enough to drink and can also be used for agriculture, helping to boost the local economy. The fog water condenses on the nets and is collected in large containers. With more investment the water could help revitalise the area. Nicolas Prado of the Universidad Catolica, Santiago checks the water level of a tank that stores water collected from fog catching nets at the Alto Patache fog Oasis.
The plants grown from water spilled during the process shows that there are a wide variety of seeds in the ground. Fog water has been used to transform once arid patches of desert into gardens. Currently water is piped to towns from hundreds of miles away in the Andes or driven by water trucks, so fog collection could prove to be a sustainable way to revitalise the area. Non-profit organisation FogQuest, who make collection nets, say that each cubic meter of fog contains 0.
Neil Hall is an award-winning corporate and editorial photographer based in London. He has photographed everyone from Amy Winehouse, to David Cameron. The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline. Friday, Sep 14th 5-Day Forecast. Jane Fonda declares that an 'avalanche' of sexual misconduct allegations are coming in the wake of Les Moonves' firing FEMA is evicting thousands of displaced Puerto Ricans from 'temporary' housing where they've lived since Hurricane Maria struck a year ago Earth's 'next door neighbor' could be home to WATER: Under fire with Harry the hero: American officer who fought the Taliban with the prince tells DailyMailTV how he was cool as a cucumber as missiles rained down — and refused to use his royal title Try the 3: If the shoe fits!
Sarah Jessica Parker is eviscerated by animal rights activists after they show up at her NYC shoe store opening and lambaste her for wearing fur SpaceX announces plans to send a tourist around the moon in its BFR rocket but Elon Musk's company is staying tight-lipped about who bought the ticket until next week!
Bringing the driest place in the world to life: Share this article Share. Share or comment on this article: Most watched News videos Body cam footage shows murderer being detained by taser cops 'Novichok tourist claim preposterous' says Salisbury MP Glen Shocking: Man tries to sneakily slit throat in a Harlem brawl Protestor heckles Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg's kids and nanny Part of the M5 closed after horrific multi-vehicle rush hour crash Gate attendant goes hysterical as driver tries to exit park Emotional moment Ryan Thomas is re-united with his daughter Drink driver U-turns then drives wrong way down M1 fast lane Salisbury Novichok's suspects say they are 'not agents' Kirstie Alley deems Roxanne Pallett's accusations a 'career destroyer' Shocking moment cliff collapses on Zante' beach in Greece Driver caught typing long text as she drives on dual carriageway.
Bizarre moment a shopkeeper's 'possessed' Tucker Carlson accuses 'creepy porn lawyer' Michael His Replacement was a Military Governor once more, Major Legge, who was despised by his own friends in the English court and sent off to Nova Scotia as a way of getting him out of town.
Major Legge was typical of the British military in his relation to the 'upstart' colonials and let them know at every turn how much he despised and looked down upon them. In fact Legge despised Francklin despite the fact that the Lt.
Governor was an English born merchant who had worked his way up to the post of Lt. Governor, or perhaps because he was very popular with the Americans and other colonists around Halifax.
He was also fluent in the Micmac Indian language and had excellent relations with the tribe, causing Legge to grow extremely jealous of his assistant and refuse to take council from him. George Washington Thus the quiet of the 14th colony was soon replaced with rebellion and behind the scenes sabotage. In the fall of a great hay stack in Halifax ready to be sent to Boston to help feed the horses of the British was set on fire and completely destroyed. In early August a group of Nova Scotian rebels traveled to the tiny town of Machias on the border of Maine, which was at that time a section of Massachusetts colony.
They were promised weapons and help from the Continental Army under George Washington in clearing the few remaining Redcoats from the two remaining garrisons in Nova Scotia. Receiving this request in his camp at Cambridge, Massachusetts George Washington sent the following letter back to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Camp at Cambridge, Aug 11, Gentlemen, I have considered the papers you left with me yesterday.
As to the expedition proposed against Nova Scotia by the inhabitants of Machias, I cannot but applaud their spirit and zeal, but I apprehend such an enterprise to be inconsistent with the principle on which the Colonies have proceeded. That province has not acceded, it is true, to the measures of the Congress, but it has not commenced hostilities against them nor are any to be apprehended. To attack it therefore is a measure of conquest rather than defense, and may be attended with very dangerous consequences.
It might be easy with the force proposed to make an incursion into the province and over-awe those of the inhabitants who are inimical to our cause, but to produce a lasting effect the same force must continue. And our situation as to ammunition absolutely our sending a single ounce of it out of the camp at present. Nova Scotia Colony had not sent representatives to the Continental Congress Studying this letter with the historical perspective we can see something which General Washington couldn't, or wouldn't see.
The assembly of the Nova Scotia Colony had not sent representatives to the Continental Congress because they were surrounded by Redcoats and imperial Sailors and any such attempt would be learned of and quashed aborning.
The 14th colony was under Martial Law with every ships Captain ready, willing, and able to act as a hanging judge at the first hint of open rebellion. Therefore while the Assembly of Nova Scotia had not sent representatives to Philadelphia for either the First or Second Continental Congress it was not from lack of will, but rather fear of retaliation, as was demonstrated in many of the acts of Sabotage preformed in Halifax. They were rumored to be set in play by current or former members of the Nova Scotian assembly, spurred forward in great part by the petty tyrant Governor Legge, who was paranoid to the point of seeing Rebels under every bed.
This paranoia bred security measures that in turn lead to Sabotage, which fed the paranoia and led to tighter measures. Seeing where this path must inevitably lead Lt.
Governor Francklin sent a delegation to London in January pleading for a new Governor before Legge managed to turn every local settler into a Rebel. Unfortunately for the United States and the peoples of Nova Scotia Colony Francklin was successful and a startled London ordered Legge back to England, with a 1, pound per year salary as Governor still in effect to keep him happy. His departure from Halifax was a memorable event, the entire town turned out to boo him and as he passed them by shouted curses were exchanged in both directions as the Frigate bearing the Governor pulled out of the harbor.
In revenge Governor Legge managed to get Francklin removed from his post as well and Mariot Arbuthnot a naval officer was appointed to replace him. Unfortunately for the 14th colony Arbuthnot was a man who pretty much let the colonials be.
Governor Francklin, a dedicated Loyalist, operated quietly behind the scenes to cool tempers and strengthen citizen support for the Loyalist side in the war. Then to make matters even worse in March of General Howe returned to Halifax, pulling the Army and Fleet out of Boston and flooding the 14th colony with not only Military forces but also with every Loyalist they could cram aboard their fleet, rich and poor, honest or criminal. These retches descended on tiny Halifax like a plague of Locusts and devoured every morsel of food and occupied every room and then every inch of ground with their tents, driving prices through the ceiling and causing great hardship to the local population.
While the Loyalist's were greeted with less than enthusiasm and then down right hostility they in turn resented loosing everything and then being put on minimum rations so that everyone would get enough to eat.
They soon began calling Nova Scotia Nova Scarcity and like the unexpected guest that doesn't know when to leave they fomented anger and rebellion just by existing. Some relief came in the fall of for when the Royal Navy attacked and the Redcoats invaded New York the wealthy Loyalists moved to Manhattan Island where they remained until The poorer loyalists however were left in Halifax to fend for themselves and it was quickly discovered that little could be done for them because little was available to share out.
Even so far as food and shelter were concerned. Given these few options some of the Loyalist men began to form Loyalist regiments in hopes of securing food, shelter and revenge upon the Rebels whom they had fled in New England. From March when the first of the refugees arrived right through when the terms of the Treaty ending the war were announced and the fearful Loyalists in New York colony fled en masse to Halifax the town was continually filled up with Refugees whose attitude was sour and whose means were few or non-existent.
One incident that befell the a local civilian caused further ill wishes towards the Redcoats and in part lead to a serious uprising in the fall of when the military forces withdrew to New York.
During the summer of a contingent of Redcoats improving a road between forts guarding the land approaches to Halifax decided to tear down the low fieldstone fences across a nearby pasture that a farmer named Chris Schlegal had built to keep animals out of his crops. He strenuously objected and attempted to stop the Redcoats who promptly killed him for his efforts and went on tearing the fences down for fill.
Three Redcoats were put on trial for the murder and promptly released by the Military court. When the army pulled out Rebellion broke out anew, partly because of the hardships caused by the arrival of the Loyalists and partly due to the harsh Martial Law they had so long endured such as the Schlegal murder and many less fatal incidents.
Only two areas had organized military forces remaining, Halifax itself and Fort Cumberland on the isthmus connecting current day Nova Scotia and New Brunswick provinces in Canada. Realizing how weak this left him the Governor sent recruiters throughout the colony but they returned empty handed.
The Loyalist refugees so inclined had already been organized and the older colonists were reported to be either neutral or openly hostile. Rebels in the Cumberland region revolted in the fall and laid siege to Fort Cumberland, which was the only position preventing the Continental Army from crossing through the wilderness and attacking the settled area of Nova Scotia overland. Once again the Continental Army failed to appear but the Nova Scotians pressed their attack and had nearly succeeded in storming the fort when reinforcements arrived in the form of every Redcoat and Marine from Halifax, which was left totally undefended.
Unfortunately several Rebel leaders were captured and carried back to Halifax for trial. Loyalist feeling in Halifax demanded that they be hung immediately but secret patriot's managed to let them escape back into the wilderness. The Loyalists demanded that the Provost Marshall be fired for the escape and got their way.
After the new marshall was appointed several Patriot merchants were hauled before the council to answer charges of sedition. One notable to be charged was Reverend Seccombe, a fiery Preacher who sermonized frequently on the rights of man. He was convicted and jailed for his outspoken and unwavering stance. The third element throughout the Revolutionary war in the 14th colony were the Micmac indians which had been long allied with the French before the French and Indian war and who had conducted scalping raids even through the 's.
While the Redcoats terrorized the colonists in town the Micmac's terrified them if they got too far out of town. Washington attempted to make allies of the Micmac's who occupied the unsettled areas of Nova Scotia including the vast woodlands of what is now New Brunswick but here he was thwarted by the former Lt.
Francklin was fluent in their language after having lived among them in his first few years in Nova Scotia and they regarded him as a good and true friend.
In despite Washington's gifts and promises they made a permanent peace with the British, politely returning Washington's gifts they agreed to accept the rule of King George III. In November while making treaty arrangements with several Micmac chiefs in his office the 62 year old Francklin collapsed and died, exhausted by the long struggle to keep Nova Scotia British but in the end successful in his work.
The sight of indians following his coffin through the streets of Halifax with faces painted black and keening in mourning was the final cement that fixed the fate of the 14th colony. The following spring the last gasp of the revolution guttered and died when a group of rebels unfurled the Stars and Stripes and entreated the indians to help them throw off the British yoke.
Meanwhile the cult, by appropriate rites, must keep alive the memory of those ancient ways and shadow forth the prophecy of their return. Our local verbose Jewish cult leader used the metaphor and we liked it because it conveyed the right aliefs. LessWrong using Azathoth for evolution also sounds super-dumb and lowers my respect for those who do it. He considered the English — not Europeans in general — the fount from which all of modern civilization emerged.
That at least makes some sense, given that Azathoth is supposed to be kind of a metaphor for the blind purposelessness of the universe. If you read Moldbug at all you would know he spends a lot of time working out an attempt to explain why it is there. The skeleton of the theory is quite simple: When mass belief is considered the root of the moral legitimacy to wield power and use force, mass belief will be hacked.
A society based on consent will be eaten by consent generating factories. A current contention is that academia and academic culture outside the hard sciences is systematically compromised and biased in this direction. And articles calling for an end to academic freedom for insufficiently leftist research today. Actually, abortion was illegal in Ireland at the time. I believe the death penalty is a bad idea. Changing the law by shunning one possible dinner partner, mostly works if that one partner has a lot of political power, and you have some sort of power over zim.
Are you implying those same extreme feminists are okay with , er, hooking up with trans men? But if its a social thing, surely there are some cis men not part of the power structure? That seems like a qualitatively different thing. I think your writing does a good job by specifically bringing up examples which run contrary to the more contrarian feminist tendency: I was under the impression that liberal feminism was quickly becoming the most relevant strain.
I like your magazine! Today somebody told me that I needed to see a psychiatrist for being against feminism, and I was going to link him to your article on people who say that, but I decided on second thought that would just make the problem worse.
To the first approximation Liberal feminism is not so terrible and wrong, radical feminism is terrible and correct. These are the things that make me flinch: What makes you feel like this is worth any of your time and attention, let alone praise? This is still somehow troubling from Scott.
His general pathological niceness does not feel like an indulgence for even remotely tolerating such ugliness. This might be hypocritical of us. If you believe atheism is correct, there is an obvious example. If you believe gender equality is correct, there is another obvious example.
What property does this civilization have that suggests that it is an exception? But hypothesis space is big, there are only so many keystrokes in a lifetime, and this horse has been exhaustively beaten. Also metaphors are hard. I have only read two articles in Radish, this one condemning people who treat conservativism as a mental disease and informing me that propranolol treats racism which is fascinating , and this one which I find informative and hilarious.
I have been told by enough people now that all their other articles are horrible that I am inclined to believe it, and will check to see if the other articles are as bad as everyone says before praising them in the future. This is a statement which, by its nature, cannot be proved with logic or a scientific experiment.
Obviously it is inconsistent with the feminist narrative. You would have to temporarily drop the one in order to try out the other. The conduct of the American Civil War and especially its aftermath was absurdly soft on the treasonous slavers.
I agree, it would have made the ensuing fracas less bad. I… I was being sarcastic. I do not endorse genocide. I am generally opposed to most forms of mass murder. I just wanted to highlight how not all heritages are considered equal. I have greatly enjoyed this blog ever since I started reading.
This post reminded me of the Less Wrong quote which I think I also first read on a different post on this blog: Does not get bullet. Never ever never for ever. My parents came here when I was one because this was a better place to live and do science and raise kids. Thus you get things like asymmetric warfare, where the weaker side wears down the stronger by just existing. Niceness can be seen as a prevention of that failure mode when the stronger side, and ensuring survival when the weaker.
Sometimes I miss the good old days, when men were men and wore Vibrams. I kid, I kid. Funny how that happens. I think we can survive some cultural drift. The core stuff is basically the cognitive bias literature and the Sequences. And some sort of shared spirit: I do see more progressive ideas as a good thing if it leads to rationalists extracting and assimilating whatever useful insights into psychology and social structures they contain.
Dealing directly with politics is obviously pretty dangerous for individuals. But look at Scott — he engages, battles, comes out clean, and still maintains an attitude of basic benevolence.
And a community of liberal-ish writers talking about the importance of reason and discourse, and becoming the most lively intellectual culture around?
In my mind, the Sequences were, if not exactly preaching feminism all along, then definitely laying a very strong foundation for many feminist arguments that are just a few inferential steps away. Certainly this was my own impression initially wading into LW. The question then becomes, what does that actually cash out to? And on the object level it cashes out to largely agreeing with feminist positions.
In a lot of ways the feminist bubble seems to me a rather more sensible place than the outside world. And yet despite that I no longer call myself a feminist.
And feminists in my experience try to get you to agree to the more extreme forms by a sort of guilt-laden equivocation — you agree with these basic things, right? So, you also accept these more extreme positions… right?
But men are considered suspicious. There was a recent hubbub on the internet over this article. My reaction to this was laughter — oh, now some of the women in the feminist movement are being treated like men in the feminist movement always have been! Yes, one of the insidious things about the feminist movement is the way they frame things such that the presumption is that all good and decent people agree with them.
This gives them offensive power their pronouncements are not just their own, but the pronouncements of all good and decent people as well as defensive power that you would disagree with them marks you as evil and indecent and why should we listen to what you have to say. In several comments on this post you seem to be defining feminism rather nonstandardly.
For instance, compare my comment:. Therefore, third-wave ideology focuses on a more post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality. But if you take a moment to steelman it, there seem to be rather clear connections to the bits in the Sequences that I mentioned. The clearest example of this is actually a piece that Scott wrote: Those are some serious tools of feminist analysis right there: Among the useful terms feminists have appropriated from post- structuralism are […] deconstructtion.
The method consists of two related steps; the reversal and displacement of binary oppositions. This double process reveals the interdependence of seemingly dichotomous terms and their meaning relative to a particular history. It shows them to be not natural but constructed oppositions, constructed for particular purposes in particular contexts.
The literary critic Barbara Johnson describes deconstruction as crucially dependent on difference: The differences between entities … are shown to be based on a repression of differences within entities, ways in which an entity differs from itself….
And it is very similar to, for example, this bit from the WP article on queer theory:. For all important decisions, the terms should probably be tabood and replaced with the relevant attributes. I can think of groups that would hold this view. I think the paragraph you quote is itself confusing map and territory — the language of binary distinctions with the actuality of them. For example, a common MRA refrain is that divorce courts are sexist against men, but what gender runs nearly all courts?
Feminism tries to break down these gendered stereotypes and let people interact with each other on their own terms. I encountered it first from anti-feminists as you describe but I did not update because they seemed to be speaking from hate.
I have a bunch of heuristics that usually protect me from that, but maybe they failed here. So can you recommend any good feminist blogs? Ones that take the consequences of what they advocate seriously? I really would like some. If you can provide links, I promise to give them a fair change and subscribe to any that meet these standards.
Third wave feminism has literally been the mainstream kind of feminism for twenty years. What about if an apparently neutral interview procedure leads to hiring disproportionately one gender or the other? On top of that women could be just as capable at everything as men and have the same interests and it still would be a terrible idea to have an equally mixed workforce because men and women make incredibly inefficient teams.
Evolution dictates that people will take work orders of magnitude less seriously than mating. Funny, because I a straight male worked with multiple attractive females my own age without things ever becoming complicated.
Or even wanting to mate with them, more than the average amount of male noticing-attractiveness. Even though several of them were my direct subordinates and I could have mated with them without any adverse consequences to myself. And I know dozens of men and women who have been in the same situation without mating. This is the thing that baffles me about evo-psych: It reduces humans to, well, this: This anecdotal, I admit data even fits in a framework of looking at behavior through a lens of evolutionary theory, but if you expand it with the following observation: Making evolution work requires more than eating and mating.
Especially in humans, where getting the next generation to produce a next generation requires a lot of work to feed and shelter and clothe. Double especially modern humans, with infrastructure that takes a lot of effort to maintain.
Your model says one thing but the data says another — which one is more likely to have a problem? Also, as a military-type myself, I have been batting around ways to connect the nontraditional viewpoints discussed in these circles to certain modern military issues. Growing up as almost all of us have after two Total Wars and several conventional wars limited only by fear of nuclear escalation, pre-modern warfare seems quaint. Then I realized that democracy is essentially the same thing; armies show up, get counted, and leave.
It is bloodless combat. Reading Hoppe and a few others really put this into perspective for me. The role of ideology and nation-states as a path from this sort of warfare towards modern total wars of annihilation is something I had never considered. I think classifying groups of people into nations and then people within those nations as enemies is indeed one of the reasons wars got so bloody. Then again, it could just be the massively higher population density.
There have been some pretty bloody wars in history. Obvious example being the Mongol conquests, which tended to act upon a city that resisted them much like an atom bomb might, only with more actual blood and less tidy incineration. The Romans were pretty ugly at times, too. Consider what they did to finally end their problem of recurring Jewish rebellions, or the eventual fate of Carthage. Chapter 3B of Book 8 War Plans deals with that question extensively, too much for me to quote the whole thing, and seems to come down pretty heavily on the politics side.
The executive had become completely unified and represented the state in its foreign relations. Armies were paid from the treasury, which rulers treated almost as their privy purse or at least as the property of the government, not of the people.
Apart from a few commercial matters, relations with other states did not concern the people but only the treasury or the government. That at least was the general attitude.
A government behaved as though it owned and maintained a great estate that it constantly endeavored to enlarge — an effort in which the inhabitants were not expected to show any particular interest.
War thus became solely the concern of the government to the extent that governments parted company with their peoples and behaved as if they were the state.
Their means of waging war came to consist of the money in their coffers and of such idle vagabonds as they could lay their hands on either at home or abroad. War was thus deprived of its most dangerous feature — its tendency towards the extreme, and of the whole chain of unknown possibilities which would follow.
No great expansion was feasible at the outbreak of war. Safe from the threat of extremes, it was no longer necessary to go to extremes. Necessity was no longer an incentive to do so, and the only impulse could come from courage and ambition. These, on the other hand, were strongly curbed by the prevailing conditions of the state. Even a royal commander had to use his army with a minimum of risk.
If the army was pulverized, he could not raise another, and behind the army there was nothing. That enjoined the greatest prudence in all operations. Only if a decisive advantage seemed possible could the precious instrument be used, and to bring things to that point was a feat of the highest generalship. Not only in its means, therefore, but also in its aims, war increasingly became limited only to the fighting force itself.
Armies, with their fortresses and prepared positions, came to form a state within a state, in which violence gradually faded away. All Europe rejoiced at this development. It was seen as a logical outcome of enlightenment. This was a misconception. This was the state of affairs at the outbreak of the French Revolution.
Suddenly war again became the business of the people — a people of thirty millions, all of whom considered themselves to be citizens. The resources and efforts now available for use surpassed all conventional limits; nothing now impeded the vigour with which war could be waged, and consequently the enemies of France faced the utmost peril.
The effects of this innovation did not become evident or fully felt until the end of the revolutionary wars. Once these imperfections were corrected by Bonaparte, this juggernaught of war, based on the strength of an entire people, began its pulverizing course through Europe. Just in time, the reaction set in. The Spanish War [origin of the Guerrilla and Guerrilla warfare] spontaneously became a concern of the people. In the Austrian government made an unprecedented effort with reserves and militia; it came within sight of success and surpassed everything Austria had earlier considered possible.
In Russia took Spain and Austria as models; her immense spaces permitted her measures [i. The result was brilliant. In Germany, Prussia was the first to rise. She made war a concern of the people, and with half of her former population, without money or credit, she mobilized a force twice as large as she had in The result was that in and Germany [the various Germanic peoples; this was pre-unification] and Russia put about a million men in the field against France — counting all who fought and fell in the two campaigns.
There seemed no end to the resources which could be mobilized; all limits disappeared in the vigour and enthusiasm shown by governments and their subjects. Various factors powerfully increased that vigour; the vastness of available resources, the ample field of opportunity, and the depth of feeling generally aroused. The sole aim of war was to overthrow the opponent. Not until he was prostrate was it considered possible to pause and reconcile the opposing interests.
That closes out his historical analysis, but I just wanted to put the paragraph immediately following the last here because it really tugs my heartstrings. For context, On War was published in From now on will every war in Europe be waged with the full resources of the state, and therefore be fought only over major issues that affect the people?
Or will we again see a gradual separation taking place between governments and people? Such questions are difficult to answer, and we are the last to dare to do so. At least when major interests are at stake, mutual hostility will express itself in the same manner as it has in our own day. I am not willing to condemn him for that. That quote feels to me like a trap. Respond to it, and the debate goes too meta, beyond the interest and inferential reach of many readers.
And Scott could be forced to rewrite the entire Sequences, which would cost him too much time and a part of audience. It is better to just ignore it. To stay on the object level, where good examples can engage our moral intuitions. To reach people outside of the LW circle, make it extremely obvious what are you trying to protect.
Rationally explained; but also strongly connected to the Earth. If someone announces themselves to be a Dark Arts practitioner, you better not engage them in a territory where they would have a natural advantage: This paragraph could probably use a blog post of its own. Why was nonviolence a good plan in Burma but not Bosnia? May I suggest some Moldbug? More Right also lightly touched on the issue here. Both can be true simultaneously, of course.
Either position is easily falsified in its strong form, but most movements do seem to profit from a diversity of tactics. I think it has to do with relative power differential and consequences. In the case of the Civil Rights movement, remember all the cases where the threat of overwhelming force was used against segregationist memes — federal marshals escorting James Meredith around Ole Miss, Army troops walking the Little Rock Nine to school, federal intervention during the Freedom Rides… The segregationists were restrained by needing to keep the good opinion of the North, because the President could, if the North was outraged enough, send in the military to crack heads.
Not sure the Romans would have respected it either. I feel like it set the movement back. Wipe that cheeto dust off your fedora and go back to reddit! Why be so rude with the spoiler? Being a bright guy, he comes up with some novel ways to do this — ideas that are way outside the norms of debate, but which are actually pretty much in line with what people are actually gesturing towards in their debate tactics. In this, he is suffering from classic smart-person compartmentalization failure , the same kind of thing that leads to New Atheists, existential risk researchers, and Muslim engineers becoming terrorists.
I think scott is sort of approaching an important meta ideology of the western world which has been developing further and further into modernity.
Or I could be totally wrong. Or to put it another way, Liberalism is all about playing Dominion and anti-liberalism is more about playing Risk. Sometimes liberalism sees traditional Christianity building a Gardens deck so it buys up the Gardens just to spite it. Gardens decks are full of junk, which correspond to… poor or otherwise downtrodden people?
I think his analogy was limited to a gardens deck being pursuing their own strategy and not trying to out compete. This works until groups and memes evolve to produce externalities that are not accounted for under the original rules.
Example from the left: Example from the right: Maybe you think they are useful superstitions? Recent example probable mind-killer for lots of people here, but what can you do? Travyon Martin was an early stage career criminal. He had brain and liver damage from being a codeine abuser. One day he runs into George Zimmerman and under some set of circumstances, winds up bashing his head into a concrete pavement — not nice behavior, no?
In fact, people seem quite angry that Zimmerman killed someone who was acting in a very not nice way and would have been much happier if he was killed or just left brain damaged by Trayvon Martin judging by the number of incidents that are routinely ignored that end in the more usual way — with the nice person being brain damaged or dead and the not nice person walking away.
Trayvon Martin was a liberal soldier. Liberals protect uncivilized people from the forces of civilized people so that they can terrorize civilized people who are the enemies of liberals. This might prove to be a harder problem to solve than the mere disagreement regarding the sequence of events. The liver weighs grams and presents a brown, smooth, glistening surface.
Focal patchy yellow discoloration, due to mild fatty metamorphosis, is present. A fatty liver is the most common cause of abnormal liver tests when no disease is present.
Fatty liver can be caused by certain chemicals, diet problems, or by family heredity. Drugs and chemicals that can cause fatty liver include alcohol, tetracycline, methotrexate, valproic acid, cortisone and cortisone-like medications, carbon tetrachloride, and other solvents. Of these, alcohol is by far the most common cause. Liver inflammation may come from exposure to these toxins and is responsible for the symptoms of fever, tiredness, and yellow skin.
People who do not drink and have a fatty liver are classified as having Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Most people with this also have what is known as the Metabolic Syndrome. The scalp is intact without contusions or lacerations. The calvarium is likewise intact without bony abnormalities or fractures. The brain weighs grams and presents moderate congestion of the leptomeninges. Trayvon declined to name the friend.
Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation. Lo and behold, the reported crime rate drops radically and the police tout their success. Your model of me is of someone who genuinely wants lower-status black humans to kill upper-status white humans, as a matter of general principle?
Why neighborhood watchman in particular? What matters is whether you predictably support that principle in practice. Probably either to humanize him simply as an extra detail or to make it that much less likely one assumes he offered sufficient provocation for the fight.
If you disagree on facts, then progress is possible if unlikely. This is not to say that studies on political topics are usually unbiased, but if they are biased — then you can at least look at the methodological design to figure out why instead of setting your filter to: Now I feel guilty. I assumed you were being sneaky, when you were just assuming the most literal interpretation. Thank you for reversing your interpretation of my motives so quickly.
The leptomeninges are membranes that lie between the skull and the brain. Congestion is consistent with postmortem blood pooling at the back of the skull. Fructose consumption may be a factor; Martin had a sweet tooth, judging by the tea and skittles.
What are the possible motives? High status whites live their lives in such a way that they never encounter black thugs. They live in doorman buildings and their black neighbors are carefully screened affirmative action types. They live in suburbs where blacks are priced out.
Thug-like blacks assault the wrong kind of white people — white people who have to be around black people. Very well, I phrased that poorly and used an unfounded social model. Let me rephrase more generally:. When the group that is awarded this treatment has an average IQ of 85 and is violently impulsive you get worldstar hiphop and rap music.
If an enemy group of progressives treated a progressive pet group in the same way permitted and encouraged private, non-state violence against them progressives would sure as hell assume that the treatment was deliberate. The black lumpenproletariat in modern America is universally shown to suffer savage oppression. For instance, not only do blacks routinely receive harsher sentencing than whites for the same crime , employers prefer white convicts to blacks with NO criminal record!
Most of these babies are very much wanted by the mothers and fathers alike. What better legacy for a sixteen-year-old slinger who expects to be dead or in prison by age twenty? What greater personal justification for a teenaged girl thirsting for the unequivocal love of another being? To outsiders, the babies are mistakes to be calculated in terms of social cost, as ward-of-the-state harbingers of yet another generation destined to spin through the cycle of poverty.
For the child-fathers, the future is guns and vials and broken pavement; for the child-mothers, it is life as a twenty-two-year-old welfare mother, barefoot on the rowhouse steps, with the toddlers stumbling around her. And what, other than six years, is the substantive difference between a sixteen-year-old and a twenty-two-year-old welfare mother? That the government pays something is helpful, of course. At this level, the conservative impulse to snatch at the purse seems beside the point: Check or no check, the babies will come.
That we, as outsiders, know better is hardly the point. That we know the young fathers will give up and wander off means little, because on some level, the girls themselves know this too. They know from the get-go that the relationship is emotionally finite and they quickly reap what they can in status, gratification, and babies, then let the boys wander. Once again, we know only what it is that works in our world, and so we talk welfare reform, devising middle-class solutions for a middleclass society.
But, as they have with drugs and the drug trade itself, the men and women of the corner have judged our moral code useless under the circumstances. And they are right. As every fiend on Fayette Street knows that his place is at the point of a needle, so, too, does every teenager find some meaning in the obstetrics ward at University or the birthing rooms at Sinai. There, a girl acquires some womanhood; she is, for one dependent soul at least, the center of the universe.
The father, a morbid and fatalistic boy, gives the infant his name and measures his doomed self to be one shade less mortal. Instead, these children have concluded that bringing about life—any life whatsoever—is a legitimate, plausible ambition in a world where plausible ambitions are hard to come by. This they can do. To do anything more than dream is to invite a crushing emotional defeat. For instance, not only do blacks routinely receive harsher sentencing than whites for the same crime.
Blacks are a more criminal, more violently impulsive group. If you look at members of two groups chosen at random from the population of accused criminals the black defendant is likely to have more prior convictions, be suspected of a more heinous crime, and being lower IQ less likely to have covered it up and have used a weapon and be a member of a gang and have used more violence, etc.
In their study, they take advantage of the fact that the criminal justice system randomly assigns cases to judges. The study is actually worse than I suspected initially on just reading your summary. Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. They never control for this, they simply assume it there goes that crimestop again. The conclusion was that some judges are racist against blacks. The evidence is that there is a sentencing disparity between judges.
That would account for the results just as well. The reality is that blacks are weapons being wielded by progressives to hurt people. Judges are lawyers — a class more progressive than the general population — but some judges are more progressive than others. What are the odds that a black without a criminal record will commit a future crime? He observes things like pride and happiness and projects motives of staving off nihilism because he sees the outcome in advance and he considers it a failure.
What makes you think the objects of his pity see the world the same way and are trying and failing to live like David Simon? The owner of the house was about His house was disgusting; no electricity or running water, trash everywhere, roaches scattering at our approach, holes rotted through the floor, buckets full of urine and feces in the kitchen.
I get free food. I get free money. If I want crack, I let a dealer use my house to deal from, and he gives me free crack. If I want sex, I let a crack whore stay here and she lets me have sex with her. I have no stress at all. Are you trying to make a better discussion or a worse one?
That might be a good time to use them. Additionally, your categories may be a bit too broad. You may also be interested in this study ; incarceration of young people, even for minor crimes, strongly increases their chances of recidivism later in life. This is a very uncharitable representation of the progressive position on a mindkilling topic. Also, progressivism and liberalism are not the same thing — in fact progressivism is often illiberal just read what some social justice people write.
This is an exquisite takedown. Arthur only sees the struggles of his own side and attributes malice to anyone who opposes his cause, whereas the reality is much more complicated.
Although one of them did cite an article claiming that , young women are trafficked in the US every SuperBowl. Imagine how careful those people would be with their rationality if they were as terrified of being called out for base rate neglect as they are about being called out for using the wrong pronouns. Like having something shitty you wrote as a teenager come up , apologizing for it, then realizing that that has done nothing to stem the tide of death threats seriously, someone sent her a picture of her house?
It deserves an apology, and if it happens a lot, perhaps one should look into being more careful. My impression is that the feminist movement is less good at keeping its house in order than others. I like it, very clever portman-whatever-its-called. This is excellent, but I disagree on a few points. No honor required, strictly speaking; 3 Honor, niceness and benevolent neutrality are social constructs themselves, always context-specific, and sometimes hard to twist against the status quo that created them.
Sometimes violence is required to break out of such false paradigms, and niceness can be a red herring mediating a bad choice. Gay marriage has made tremendous progress from being outside the Overton window in to being widely accepted today.
Who are the violent bad cops who made this possible? At least, this is what reactionaries seem to revile; there must be something in it. Though my phrase does sound like it should mean something more interesting, perhaps in Jane Austen. Aris, the Stonewall Riots would be the most prominent aspect.
Still, it is a valid point: They are widely considered to constitute the single most important event leading to the gay liberation movement and the modern fight for gay and lesbian rights in the United States.
They had a few weeks of violence and made significant gains, but nowhere near full equality. My first thought is that pre-Stonewall gay rights activism was stomped by extremely uncivilized anti-gay forces and Stonewell broke the machinery there, making civilized discourse possible. One wonders if anything other than violence could have served that purpose.
Civilized tactics have not worked ever since with every gay rights submovement: How about child labor reform? Does it matter whether the oppressed do the violence — or just steadfastly endure it with the whole world watching? The Suffragettes were violently force-fed after physically provoking it by hunger strikes. The Civil Rights marchers were violently attacked by dogs and clubs after defying orders about where and when to march. Which would you rather have someone threaten you with: Remember that you are under no obligation to offer them violence — you can render the latter threat moot with no effort at all.
I think the bit about transgender tolerance is the strongest part of this article, after thinking about it for a bit. The fear that I might be wrong is a greater spur to charity than any acausal unsigned implicit contract. Of course if you think incorrectly that transgender people are silly, then it is entirely appropriate to be polite to them, as one is polite to various kinds of silliness.
Likewise any other x, where x is something you have a good faith belief is silly. But people who advocate not tolerating transexuals, and those who advocate not tolerating transphobes, do not believe that their targets are silly, they believe that their targets are harmful. And abstracting from the correctness or lack thereof of the object-level beliefs at play, this is an entirely appropriate attitude. I think what Scott wants is for people of good faith never to attack each other.
Aug 23, · Suggested Essay Topics. What elements does Wilson employ to give the audience a sense that time has passed and characters have changed during the course of the play?
While looking to buy the book Fences by August Wilson this item came up and I thought it was the actual book due to the fact that what is prominent in this cover are the title and the author's name.
A list of all the characters in Fences. The Fences characters covered include: Troy Maxson, Cory Maxson, Rose Maxson, Gabriel Maxson, Jim Bono, Lyons Maxson. Mahatma Gandhi In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in a clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness.
Write a five-paragraph essay about your project. Identify the aspects of your culture you have recorded and exposed. Meeting August Wilson. August Wilson’s play Fences highlights a difficult chapter in African American culture. Use the “About the Author” section on the next page to introduce August Wilson to your students. There are. Travel essay by Brandon Wilson describing the St. Olav's Way, a pilgrimage hike from Oslo to Trondheim, Norway.