Imagine thinking those quoted people are "experts in the field" instead of woke virtue signalers.
It's not an opinion, it's an objective fact. They're using grade school level rhetoric: "Well, the background checking system doesn't have all the predators in there, so these background checks are effectively useless!"
They're using the exact same rhetoric that pro-gun advocates use to push for the removal of background checks for purchasing firearms.
> Imagine thinking those quoted people are "experts in the field" instead of woke virtue signalers.
I mean... you'd think that a "doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan studying gender and sexual violence with an emphasis on college sexual violence" has insightful opinion on the topic at hand.
Furthermore, this is not the only argument but I'm guessing you've read only the first half of the article. The second one being that "victims of domestic violence who engage in self-defense are often punished in the criminal justice system for those acts", and therefore are present on those lists while not belonging there.
>you'd think that a "doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan studying gender and sexual violence with an emphasis on college sexual violence" has insightful opinion on the topic at hand.
Grievance study majors absolutely do not have insightful opinions on the topic at hand. Their opinion is hilariously predictable.
>The second one being that "victims of domestic violence who engage in self-defense are often punished in the criminal justice system for those acts", and therefore are present on those lists while not belonging there.
Press F to doubt. Unless there's a well regarded study that gives some actual numbers, this number can be considered zero or statistically insignificant noise.
At this point I'm convinced you're not willing to argue in good faith.
> this number can be considered zero or statistically insignificant noise
Fair enough. According to the ACLU[1], "many incarcerated women—nearly 60% of female state prisoners nation-wide and as many as 94% of certain female prison populations have a history of physical or sexual abuse".
I am not going to answer your next comment, because you just can't be argued with.
>At this point I'm convinced you're not willing to argue in good faith.
Translation: "You're right and I know it, you used facts, logic, and reason and reality agrees with you, so I'm just going to say you're arguing in bad faith because I have no retort."
>Fair enough. According to the ACLU[1], ...
Except that statistic has absolutely nothing to do with the original claim. The original claim was "victims of domestic violence who engage in self-defense are often punished in the criminal justice system for those acts." The ACLU article says nothing about the percent of women that are in jail due defending themselves from sexual/domestic abuse. It's just the total percent of women in jail that have been abused.
>I am not going to answer your next comment
Thanks for admitting defeat. I win.
>because you just can't be argued with.
It's hard/impossible to argue against facts, logic, and reality.
You're here defending the future abuse of women because it's woke to do so. Maybe you should stop and ask yourself "are we the baddies?"
The blog post is about allotment so not a fair comparison. However, its supply and demand, extremely high demand and influx of people who want to live in Toronto.
There are places outside of Toronto, Canada which are affordable and have better price to comfort ratio. London Ontario, Gatineau Quebec, Regina Sask, Calgary Alberta are quite affordable and have all the modern life style options available.
That's true of essentially everywhere. The Bay Area is something of an outlier--partly because of geography--but there are a number of large expensive metros that you can still get to pretty affordable housing by driving an hour or two. (Or even taking a commuter rail in some cases.) To say nothing of the many metros that aren't especially expensive.
London is better than Toronto, but I'm not sure I'd call it affordable anymore. Real estate prices for a basic detached home have more than doubled in the last 5 years.
But if you have a not-terrible job, you'd be able to get that much in a loan to repay over a few years. At that point, as long as it's below rent level, you're winning.
They are no doubt kids in age, but from reading a little about the girl, she's been making very adult decisions with real consequences for awhile now. And watching the video of the 12yr old in court, he's vacant and zero emotions.
Honestly, I feel bad that they obviously have had rough start to life but they need real consequences. They need to be out of the juvenile system and in the real courts to have real consequences before they do kill someone. Hopefully that includes lots of therapy but also real jail to protect everyone. They were already in a home for troubled kids because of the juvenile system and it obviously doesn't work for them.
BTW -- I'm not advocating (at this point) they be tried as adults and wind up life in prison etc, just that they are not allowed back into the child offender system where they get put in places which are insecure and unable to deal with them.
Yes. I watched the documentary. I don’t expect to agree 100%, but that doesn’t mean have I to keel over laughing at its chasms.
In regards to Iraq, his opinion that Gertrude Bell’s influence led NATO to give tribal sheiks disproportionate power in the new Iraq was a hilarious simplification. It’s just an absurd narrative chasm, that ignored so much about what happened then.
An in regards to the civil war in Iraq, that didn’t boil over because NATO stopped paying the militias off. There was so much at play.
The China stuff was interesting, but uncontroversial. That stuff is quite an accessible history. The archive footage was fun though.
It just felt like I was watching a number of different documentaries. One about race relations and trans rights; and one about China.
It all just would have been better as standalone works. He could have even edited things differently, each episode covering a certain subject. He maybe could have had a concluding thesis that was better than “China: it’s not all that it’s cracked up to be”.
I agree.
I lapped up alot of his stuff, without a second thought.
After watching a deconstruction video of hypernormalisation I was left thinking I had been suckered again "loose change style"
I was recommeded to watch his lastest release (of which the full 8.something hours is available directly on Curtis' own you tube channel)
I watched the first 20 / 30 minutes and turned off. It felt like how I imagine brain-washing works. Lots of weird (and jarring) footage un-related to the voice over, werid music (not required for what is supposed to be a documentary IMO) and jumped from topic to topic without any cohesive thread or reason. No longer a fan.
I suppose you could also be 10x everyone else you work with by deliberately sabotaging the rest of your team...