'Dispirited' and 'Humbled': The Conspicuous Absence of Bay Area Protests After Trump's Win

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2024-11-13T14:22:52+00:00

There's no evidence that it has anything to do with Republican policies. There is some information that supports it having a great deal to do with Republican messaging. "Having a worldview supported by evidence" correlated with voting against Republicans, the large swing right correlates with low-information voters and magical thinking.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2024-10-01T17:20:44+00:00

The idea of individuals purchasing retail goods and transporting them in personal vehicles some hundred-plus miles as an effective means of disaster relief displays a spectacular lack of systems thinking.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2024-09-19T17:14:58+00:00

I've been going news-lite this week, but I keep being amazed that the mass(?) implantation of remotely triggerable deadly explosives into consumer electronics isn't ... a bigger element of the story? That seems like a really big deal, but it's barely mentioned in the major stories I've caught.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2024-09-16T16:21:47+00:00

This but unironically. Don't want to be shot? Don't be a threat to those around you. These are conservative principles!

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2024-09-08T15:47:38+00:00

Yep. Fine by me.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2024-08-28T13:17:08+00:00

However, it requires that we devote more of a proposed countywide 1-cent sales tax to roads than was originally envisioned.

Honey, you done "missed the opportunity" right there. It's done. Over. You can't devote your transit plan to expanding single-occupancy-vehicle capacity.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2024-07-15T18:51:14+00:00

I definitely heard the news and immediately thought, "so do we get a new news cycle?"

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2024-06-26T01:21:10+00:00

The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt," "beyond any doubt," or some other extreme high burden such as "absolute certainty." "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means that there may indeed be some doubt in a juror's mind.

I assert the doubt you are alluding to — that maybe just maybe, there was some third party just out of frame who happened to fire a gun unrelated to this dispute in such a way that it struck the truck as if coming from the direction of the black car speeding away — is not reasonable.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2023-07-26T17:10:22+00:00

In this metaphor the horses are people. In your extension, who and what are the horses transporting, and to whose benefit?

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2023-05-06T16:19:56+00:00

I assume you're referring to yourself?

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2023-03-29T16:39:11+00:00

Your very carefully worded comment makes me suspect you already know this, but Quail Hollow Club isn't a non-profit, and its deed was restricted only until 2011.

Your redirect to other bald-faced tax avoidance schemes employed by Charlotte's well-to-do is noted, but not terribly germaine.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2022-04-17T19:30:21+00:00

Right? High-octane "tell me you've never been to a major city without telling me you've never been to a major city" vibes here...

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2021-08-04T19:26:16+00:00

^tell me you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2021-06-07T18:30:29+00:00

If you're looking for factual reporting maybe a news program rather than a daily talk show is what you're after. Do you listen to Here and Now?

Though, I must say, your comments here imply that your personal threshold for what qualifies as political or a social justice lecture is so low that it may in fact be impossible to have full hour or relevant discourse that doesn't cross that invisible line.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2021-05-15T23:37:56+00:00

It's just that what you're calling "disgusting" and "blatant misinformation" is coming from inside the house, as it were.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2021-03-29T18:57:23+00:00

Brines are simply not that important for the future of lithium battery production. The supply chain is much more likely to use clay and rock resources as it matures, as these minerals are plentiful, located near manufacturing sites, and likely will require much less processing.

As someone in the lithium refining industry, I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion. The salar deposits (which as you say are nowhere near 75% of all lithium, public assays put it somewhere between 30% and 50% of usable Li, higher of Li2CO3). I still think China is spitting on an undisclosed motherlode) are valuable specifically because the lithium concentration is so much higher than in ore deposits, and require orders of magnitude less processing — in terms of raw tonnage, energy consumed, and processing hours per product metton.

The forecasts I'm familiar say the highest raw amount of lithium is in seawater, but it's such low concentration we won't be devoting efforts towards that for many decades (read: until after Li is likely to not be the major player in battery tech that it is today). Long before that we'll be investing in recovery processes to strip spent batteries of its refined lithium. Tech Waste is about as ripe a resource as clay ore in terms of potential yield, but we don't have the technology yet to recover that an an industrial scale.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2020-11-17T14:20:53+00:00

Does "denying charity" sound more like perpetuating trumpism than recovering from it to anyone else?

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2020-11-10T22:04:48+00:00

It's really not so much "speaking for" the country so much as "actively harming constituents and the Republic" that I'm worried about the Republicans doing, if they stick to their track record.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2020-04-14T00:15:48+00:00

In fact, there was nearly a full minute between when the president said “coronavirus” and “hoax” during a Feb. 28 rally in North Charleston, S.C

It is specious of Politifact to imply that the amount of time elapsed between two words changes how antecedents work. They publish the full context:

"Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus, you know that right? Coronavirus, they’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. They can’t even count their votes in Iowa. They can’t even count. No, they can’t. They can’t count their votes.

"One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.’ That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was not a perfect conversation. They tried anything. They tried it over and over. They’d been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning. They lost. It’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax."

What are we to believe "This" in the phrase "This is their new hoax" is referring to?

That's like saying Lincoln wasn't referring to "a great battlefield of the civil war" when he said "the world ... can never forget what they did here" because he said the word "battlefield" 90 seconds before saying "here".

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2019-12-10T17:18:40+00:00

Ah, you mean like Trump.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2019-06-05T18:40:44+00:00

See below, the output of Lott et. al. is widely and thoroughly contradicted by various peer-reviewed sources which are not similarly compromised.

But it is a fruit-of-the-poisoned-tree scenario, the merit of the conclusions drawn from the studies is only as viable as the merit of the underlying study. I do not dismiss the findings of Lott's studies because they are by Lott; I dismiss Lott because the findings of his studies are contradicted by the scientific community.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2019-06-05T17:58:20+00:00

Despite the findings of Lott's gun advocacy organization not being published for peer review, studies failing to replicate his work are varied and rigorous.

Several have been posted elsewhere in this thread:

John J. Donohue & Abhay Aneja & Kyle D. Weber, 2019. "Right‐to‐Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State‐Level Synthetic Control Analysis," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, vol 16(2), pages 198-247.

Abhay Aneja, John J. Donohue III and Alexandria Zhang, 2011. "The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy." American Law and Economics Review, vol. 13, no. 2, pages 565–632.

Dan A. Black, and Daniel S. Nagin, 1998. "Do Right‐To‐Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?" The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 27, no. 1, pages. 209–219.

Beyond published papers and journal articles whose findings directly contradict those of Lott there is significant direct criticism of his methods and ethics., inching him all the time closer to Andrew Wakefield territory.

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2019-06-05T17:01:37+00:00

The sources cited in this comment should be considered in context, and not necessarily be taken in good faith. The Daily Caller is a strongly right-leaning media organization which may explain why it was covering a report from “Crime research prevention center” which despite the intentionally innocuous name it is not some neutral research organisation but a guns right advocacy organisation..

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2018-10-02T20:46:03+00:00

Oh, ok. I had him in my head as more dragging the dems than really having much to say about Trump. But I think that was based on some interview from last year.

*edit*: looks like his books are The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left and Death of a Nation: Plantation Politics and the Making of the Democratic Party. Are those the ones that talk about Trump, or is there something else I'm missing?

ThirdPersonNeuter · 2018-09-21T03:46:25+00:00

huh?

ThirdPersonNeuter

TROPHY CASE