Haven’t read the book, but the article linked (and a lot of political neuroscience in general) makes it appear the author believes there are only 2 ideologies; liberal and conservative which is itself a wild idealogy… Can anyone who has read it or other work by her confirm/deny that?
Y’all look at the date… This tool isn’t standing up for anyone or anything, he’s doing an elaborate April fools joke
You’re spot on… I might argue that that moral fiber has pretty much never existed. But do you have any insight on how one even begins to restore that moral fiber?
The science behind DNA profiling is grossly overstated. it doesn’t sequence a full genome and is often using partial/degraded samples and relies entirely on statistical differences. In probability games, there’s no such thing as certainty…
In addition since 2010 anyone using “standard molecular biology techniques such as PCR, molecular cloning, and recently developed whole genome amplification (WGA), enable anyone with basic equipment and know-how to produce practically unlimited amounts of in vitro synthesized (artificial) DNA with any desired genetic profile.” and there have been a plethora of new tools/techniques which make doing that even easier…
You can’t treat any existing mental health issues while people are living on the street developing new ones.
I used to have that issue, the secret for me was that I needed to explicitly look for wide shoes (Xw as in 10.5w) my current shoes are going on 2 years now :D
Which was 3 pages long and 2 paragraphs…
Correlation vs. causation.
A lot of things which impact “intelligence” can also have varying impacts on speech/articulation/communication skills. However it is important to note that the correlation isn’t strongly positive or negative (IE savant syndrome).
So while some disorders may have some common correlations with specific speech/articulation patterns they (usually) are not good diagnostic criteria and extremely broad generalizations like the one above are particularly bad.
One look at that website should be pretty obvious it’s an incredibly biased and low effort source. I don’t doubt the general outline of the article as this seems like pretty standard colonizer/empire shit, but it also isn’t the “gotcha” you seem to think it is…
Another aspect to consider is whether you anticipate inflation to exceed interest. With all the threats of major tariff wars it might make sense not to pay them/resist paying for as long as possible for that reason alone.
Walmart, Kroger, etc.'s entire business model is to undercut other local stores to drive them out and become local monopolies. If they exist in a location there likely aren’t many, if any, local stores remaining…
Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and then the house and Senate approve or deny the nomination. The current justices were nominated by Democrat majorities.
Kamala Harris is actively campaigning with Dick Cheney.
Electoral districts are drawn via bipartisan committee.
This is ultimately the problem with metaphors… What specifically are you looking for to confirm or deny?
Are Democrats holding a gun to your head?
Yes. They are called police, the gun isn’t figurative.
But if you want to change metaphors:
“if you leave him alone with your stuff he’s going to steal it, you better leave me alone with your stuff as I won’t steal it.”
They then invite the other guy over and help them steal it, but blame it on the other guy and say “we tried to stop it”. Who would you be more angry with?
Holding a gun to your head is “not doing anything”?
Yes, dictatorships and monarchies sometimes have a petition process, but they tend only to pay lip service. Not because they care, they will do as they please becaue they have the power-- hence a dictatorship.
You’re so close to getting it…
So if one person is holding you at gunpoint while another rummages through your pockets, you should definitely only be mad at the one going through your pockets right?
The promise is that Harris is essentially a continuation of Biden so with that in mind comparing to your list above:
Similarities ✓ the “Muslim Ban” on air travel, employing white nationalists as staffers, packing the supreme court with extreme conservative justices, giving permanent tax cuts to the rich, expanding the presence of immigrant concentration camps, cozying up to foreign dictators, directly pursuing strikes and assassination attempts against middle-Eastern military generals and diplomats, trying to start a trade war with China, discrediting his chief medical advisor on factual statements about Covid, saying Black Lives Matter protestors were “burning down cities”, wanting to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization, declaring “far left radical lunatics” part of his “enemy from within”, sexually assaulting over a dozen women and underage girls, being a generally abusive sleazebag, also funding a genocide (Israel has always been ethnically displacing Palestinians), also building the wall, also not implementing healthcare reform (and being against what we have), also not protecting abortion rights, and also denigrating anti-genocide protestors (but not as harshly since he wasn’t the one in charge when it happened)
Differences: X Popularizing the idea of the wall in the first place, calling illegal immigrants “murderers and rapists”, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, being an avowed friend of Epstein, stating he wanted generals like Adolf Hitler’s behind closed doors when his own generals refused to nuke North Korea and blame it on someone else, egging on a far-right insurrection attempt, calling climate change a Chinese hoax, calling Covid the “China virus”
They are faaaarrrr more similar than they are different as honestly some of the “differences” I’ve noted are just because the exact quotes aren’t the same, even if some similiarly spirit quotes have been said.
Okay, nobody I can vote for will change the process. Now what?
Also dictatorships, monarchies, etc. pretty universally have some form of petition process as well, so not actually a difference…
The history of that phrase and how it re-entered modern English is fascinating though!
A good tool/exercise for analyzing your (and other’s) beliefs is logic trees, with the goal of taking any complex belief and determined what your core axioms are, being on the lookout for tautologies (God is real -> because the Bible says so -> because God is real…) and axioms that don’t hold up to scrutiny.
If you do the exercise correctly then you should find that most of those “beliefs that can’t be objectively proven or disproven” have belief dependencies that can be objectively (and often easily) proven/disproven.