Listening further: I think you have to come to terms with how politics actually works. Would the Brady Bill have passed if Hinkley doesn’t shoot Reagan? For that matter, do the Civil Rights Bills get passed (or landing on the moon, for that matter) if JFK doesn’t get assassinated?
I hate it, too, but if we mean to see the world as it truly is, we have to consider how things we wanted to get done needed to leverage horrible events that don’t actually change the calculus on whether a policy is good or bad. I don’t know what the balance is, but as much as I gravitate towards Mr Spock, the rest of the world doesn’t.
Short answer - something would have happened on civil rights. It’s impossible to prove a counter factual, but the civil rights movement was gaining momentum before the assassination, with supporters in both major parties, and the core beliefs - segregation and Jim Crow bad - became a majority position by the middle to end of the 60s.
I know this is meant as a short answer, so we will just have to agree to disagree on what the reception was towards civil rights even after the bills were passed, and its passing alone confounds the issue (people may have changed their response once it was a fait accompli)
I largely agree with this 2022 article you read, but I have a friendly amendment to the thesis: it's true that the ideological motivation of a shooter doesn't provide enough evidence to confirm a trend or to justify legislation, etc., but I think it does provide *some* information about which types of ideologies are purist and extremist enough to attract lunies. When the crazy guy at the ice cream shop is picking his flavor of zeal, he might choose "jihad" or "white nationalist" or "anti-colonialist", but he will surely not pick "boring Clinton-era neoliberalism." I will eat my own shoe if somebody rampages a school and yells "we really need more means-testing in our safety net!" Thus, the fact that there are these unusual extremist events within some political groups but not others may indeed say something about the suitability of the political ideology for actual, complex human life. So when the other side makes political hay out of an extreme event, it's surely an overreaction, but there may be some justification for updating beliefs a little bit (much as a summer day over 110 degrees is *some* small evidence of warming, even if not conclusive evidence.)
I say leave the seismologists alone. Do you know what it does to a man (or woman) to have to think about the Cascadian Subduction Zone or the Yellowstone Caldera? And no, having cool names for apocalyptic geological phenomena doesn’t make it any easier, though it does supply material for budding standups at open mic night at the Tacoma Chuckle Factory and Singles Bar (“So we’re in the Cascadian Subduction Zone. More like the Cascadian Seduction Zone, amirite, fellas?”).
Is it just me or did this sound like it was recorded at 1,25x speed or are my ears getting slower? I kept checking the 1x tab to make sure I didn't accidentally touch it.
I didn't notice anything but at the beginning he always says "thiscopyrightexpiredsongiiiiiiis" very quickly so maybe that sets the stage for some to perceive the rest of his speaking as sped up
Listening further: I think you have to come to terms with how politics actually works. Would the Brady Bill have passed if Hinkley doesn’t shoot Reagan? For that matter, do the Civil Rights Bills get passed (or landing on the moon, for that matter) if JFK doesn’t get assassinated?
I hate it, too, but if we mean to see the world as it truly is, we have to consider how things we wanted to get done needed to leverage horrible events that don’t actually change the calculus on whether a policy is good or bad. I don’t know what the balance is, but as much as I gravitate towards Mr Spock, the rest of the world doesn’t.
Short answer - something would have happened on civil rights. It’s impossible to prove a counter factual, but the civil rights movement was gaining momentum before the assassination, with supporters in both major parties, and the core beliefs - segregation and Jim Crow bad - became a majority position by the middle to end of the 60s.
I know this is meant as a short answer, so we will just have to agree to disagree on what the reception was towards civil rights even after the bills were passed, and its passing alone confounds the issue (people may have changed their response once it was a fait accompli)
I largely agree with this 2022 article you read, but I have a friendly amendment to the thesis: it's true that the ideological motivation of a shooter doesn't provide enough evidence to confirm a trend or to justify legislation, etc., but I think it does provide *some* information about which types of ideologies are purist and extremist enough to attract lunies. When the crazy guy at the ice cream shop is picking his flavor of zeal, he might choose "jihad" or "white nationalist" or "anti-colonialist", but he will surely not pick "boring Clinton-era neoliberalism." I will eat my own shoe if somebody rampages a school and yells "we really need more means-testing in our safety net!" Thus, the fact that there are these unusual extremist events within some political groups but not others may indeed say something about the suitability of the political ideology for actual, complex human life. So when the other side makes political hay out of an extreme event, it's surely an overreaction, but there may be some justification for updating beliefs a little bit (much as a summer day over 110 degrees is *some* small evidence of warming, even if not conclusive evidence.)
I’m only two minutes in and so far:
- At this point, it’s director Jon Favreau (he even directed his breakthrough as an actor
- Your Will Smith rant is lefty reliever erasure
(Not to be confused with Gen-X erasure. Paul Rudd is a “boomer”!?!?! Nintendo, I hope your Switch 2 goes the way of the Wii U)
I say leave the seismologists alone. Do you know what it does to a man (or woman) to have to think about the Cascadian Subduction Zone or the Yellowstone Caldera? And no, having cool names for apocalyptic geological phenomena doesn’t make it any easier, though it does supply material for budding standups at open mic night at the Tacoma Chuckle Factory and Singles Bar (“So we’re in the Cascadian Subduction Zone. More like the Cascadian Seduction Zone, amirite, fellas?”).
Is it just me or did this sound like it was recorded at 1,25x speed or are my ears getting slower? I kept checking the 1x tab to make sure I didn't accidentally touch it.
It could be my ears.....
I didn't notice anything but at the beginning he always says "thiscopyrightexpiredsongiiiiiiis" very quickly so maybe that sets the stage for some to perceive the rest of his speaking as sped up
Yes I always chuckle when he does that.
It just seemed that he never slowed down after occasionally speeding up which he does throughout.
I need to get out more.....
Every time you mention Calvin Coolidge I mean to post this: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2pu0ft