I like that this lady gives IBM the benefit of the doubt
is this a possible way to save the earth?
this place seems worth trying
Consider this your primer for Sichuan food. I've tried everything except the chicken, which is apparently specific to this restaurant. And this is probably more specifically useful as this is my back yard. Or rather than braving the Asian restaurant lingo, we can try making this.
I want this person's life
did you know there's a camera watching you while you sleep?
Responses
1. Heavens, you think someday we will earn as little as $118,200/year? *gasp*
Still, that would be quite disappointing if the welfare state includes people making that much money. As a taxpayer potentially supporting such new initiatives, it didn't make me feel very good that the guy who won the lottery just moved from one apartment to another. It's as if the city thought, well he shouldn't have to live like that but it's ok if the next tenant who lives in his old apartment will. Even the most liberal people realize that rent control is not a solution. It's a very expensive way to solve the problem for 1% of the population that needs help.
2. Maybe I'm douchey but this didn't seem too douchey to me? Or maybe it's normal for women to discuss their clothing in this esoteric, rich person way even when the women themselves aren't rich. Or maybe I read too much Gwyneth Paltrow. And Esquire.
In any case, I know Bear is not doing anything wrong! He looks great and he shops at Brooks Brothers!
3. All I can say is I'm quite surprised that I'm getting my information on the color of the year from you. My fashion bona fides may be slipping.
4. I think this article raises a good point in that shaming others for niceties is eroding our society much more than failing to pass emergency gun legislation ever could. Like saying there's no worth in sympathy cards, kind gestures or even *gasp* meaningful changes to one's Facebook profile picture. I guess the gym is the last bastion of community we have left!
5. I think gym as community is a good thing. I think gym as religion is slightly weird. I also think the gender disparity is very interesting. Boutique fitness classes are the new Curves. I feel like this might lead to something insidious in the future - maybe fat shaming? women with no disposable income? - but I can't see anything too negative about this trend currently.
6. This is very interesting and I applaud Zuckerberg for trying something new. Some people see it as greed but I see it as innovation that could ultimately really help people and spur more people to invest in charity in the future.
R2R
3. I figured you'd agree with her =P but I thought it was interesting that she said that INTJs always marry ENFPs. That's not exactly us but it's very close. =P We were destined!
4. It's the logical extension of privilege in my mind. Privilege is this idea that life is just super easy for some people and super hard for others. And if life is super hard for a kid - they are very small and have no money - then maybe we should make accommodations for them in life so that their lives are easier. We can start by accepting explanations of their lack of privilege as answers on a test. So instead of x=3, we would accept, I'm poor.
Even so, I thought it was a very cute joke.
6. My bear really is around the corner!
R2R2R
1. Are you sure that if 100 people die in China, the media will report it? That seems like something we should very much not be sure of.
But I guess the point is, I see these stories in small articles in Western papers. Maybe people don't care because China is not part of Europe. But it's a little jarring to see the big headlines for 14 people killed in San Bernadino, next to a tiny article about 100 people being killed in a mine in China.
R2R2R2R
1. True. If you're against bullying, you should be against all forms of bullying, no matter the victim or the bully.
R2R2R2R2R
I think we are ultimately on the same page here. I feel like I should write a similarly lengthy response but I think we are on the same page. We just need more empathy all around when it comes to dating. I know Pauline was very fixed mindset for awhile about whom she wanted to marry and she ended up with Justin, who fulfills just a few of those traits (male, Christian, Asian). But they seem very happy. So even though she was legendarily picky, she came around, as I kinda knew she would.
In a related-to-empathy but kinda-tangential note, I just clicked on one of those ubiquitour "she had the greatest reply to someone who said this" articles. And I am always looking for wit but it always turns out to be a mean retort and a mean reply. I need to stop clicking on these articles because they're just empathy holes. And they're not witty.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Spoiler Alert
This doesn't seem like the best deployment of scarce resources, even if we could one day stand to benefit.
This is classic Skadden. It also makes me think I'm doing something way wrong...
Get your paint cans ready.
I thought this was a nice response to the anti-prayer folks out there.
I like the term "sweat equity" to describe this.
Mark Zuckerberg's big donation of his stock is a bit different from the usual mode of philanthropy.
Responses:
1. That's not that morbid. It recalls the no-zero-days mindset.
2. I might be able to tolerate that flight. :P
3. I can identify with what she said.
4. How does it relate to privilege?
5. The first one describes my schools from pre-school to 12th grade (at least the use of fear). The second one is fantastic.
6. Your bear is around the corner, bunny!
R2R:
1. I suspect if 100 people die in China, somewhere in China someone picks up the story. That said, I've never read Chinese media, so maybe not.
R2R2R:
5. Yes!
R2R2R2R:
1. I am not pro-bank. But I'm also not anti-bank, and I suspect that there are many people out there who would say, "Maybe that was unfair, but they had it coming." In the same way that I would object to the IRS or DOJ jerking an individual around for no reason, I object to the CFPB or the Fed jerking a bank around for no reason. The bank - indeed, any corporation - is just people. To be sure, I would also object to a bank jerking around an individual for no reason, although my objections would look different since it wouldn't be government abuse of power.
R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R:
1. The last statement proves too little or too much. For starters, it's not about judging other people. It's about observing the world and coming to conclusions about what works and what doesn't, for your own benefit and for the benefit of the people in the world with whom you interact. Yes, there is a harm principle element that governs when we do judge people (e.g. if you slap me for no reason, I judge you insofar as I tell you that your actions are inappropriate). But as much as I make fun of Swan for her position on what it means to be a Christian, I do so not because I think it's inappropriate for her to say that to her friends, but rather because she's wrong on the merits.
This isn't about judgment as much as it is about forming opinions. It seems inappropriate to go up to a stranger and explain to him why he's living his life incorrectly, but how is that different from proselytizing? In my view, the primary difference is the merits. But more to the point, the differences between being judgmental and having and expressing opinions are humility and empathy. It's the humility to consider that the world from someone else's perspective might look different, as well as the empathy to try to put yourself in the person's shoes. So if you encounter a non-believer, you don't walk up to him and say, "You're going to hell if you don't do what I, oh and I guess God and Jesus, say." You instead find a way to understand what he is about (i.e. empathy), and you find a way to overcome his reasonable skepticism about the implicit notion that somehow you have the answers and he does not (i.e. humility).
Returning to the issue regarding idiosyncratic dating preferences, it certainly makes sense as an initial matter to assume that people structure their behavior in the face of information and a worldview that is formed by their experiences, and thus to presume that the decision to date or not to date a person because of some quirk is not necessarily wrong. But you would stop there, and I don't think that makes sense. We have the ability to make observations about the rationale of a person's decision, as well as to consider the all-too-true fact that many people have only a partial understanding of their own decision-making. We also have the ability to place the decision into our worldview, as well as place our decisions into theirs. We can reasonably evaluate these decisions even if we don't have all the information, as long as we reasonably investigate and remember that we don't have all the information (to the extent that we don't). And we can reasonably form conclusions about all of this, whether or not we think it prudent to share such opinions with the parties whose decisions we are evaluating.
As to whether a racist person should be more open-minded about his dating choices, I think the answer has to be yes because that means he is being less of a racist. I would not conclude that sincerely harboring racist feelings and nonetheless dating a person whom you hold in contempt for racist reasons counts as being less of a racist. But maybe the answer for that person is to take a step back from the question of whether he should keep dating approved-race people while he works through his racism and instead try to deal with the question of how to understand his feelings of hate, contempt, etc., for a whole class of people and how such hate juxtaposes with his alleged feelings of love towards the approved-race people. But I don't agree with the implicit idea that we should treat racist people as though they have a fixed mindset, or even assume that the only way to conclude that racism makes sense is if you have evil in your heart. I think that in itself is an unfair judgment without more.
So yes, I agree with the sentiment of your last sentence (indeed, in my previous post, I said, "...I think it's important that we acknowledge that we should not sit in judgment of others..."), but the belief that someone has made a bad decision is not judgmental without more.
B
This is classic Skadden. It also makes me think I'm doing something way wrong...
Get your paint cans ready.
I thought this was a nice response to the anti-prayer folks out there.
I like the term "sweat equity" to describe this.
Mark Zuckerberg's big donation of his stock is a bit different from the usual mode of philanthropy.
Responses:
1. That's not that morbid. It recalls the no-zero-days mindset.
2. I might be able to tolerate that flight. :P
3. I can identify with what she said.
4. How does it relate to privilege?
5. The first one describes my schools from pre-school to 12th grade (at least the use of fear). The second one is fantastic.
6. Your bear is around the corner, bunny!
R2R:
1. I suspect if 100 people die in China, somewhere in China someone picks up the story. That said, I've never read Chinese media, so maybe not.
R2R2R:
5. Yes!
R2R2R2R:
1. I am not pro-bank. But I'm also not anti-bank, and I suspect that there are many people out there who would say, "Maybe that was unfair, but they had it coming." In the same way that I would object to the IRS or DOJ jerking an individual around for no reason, I object to the CFPB or the Fed jerking a bank around for no reason. The bank - indeed, any corporation - is just people. To be sure, I would also object to a bank jerking around an individual for no reason, although my objections would look different since it wouldn't be government abuse of power.
R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R:
1. The last statement proves too little or too much. For starters, it's not about judging other people. It's about observing the world and coming to conclusions about what works and what doesn't, for your own benefit and for the benefit of the people in the world with whom you interact. Yes, there is a harm principle element that governs when we do judge people (e.g. if you slap me for no reason, I judge you insofar as I tell you that your actions are inappropriate). But as much as I make fun of Swan for her position on what it means to be a Christian, I do so not because I think it's inappropriate for her to say that to her friends, but rather because she's wrong on the merits.
This isn't about judgment as much as it is about forming opinions. It seems inappropriate to go up to a stranger and explain to him why he's living his life incorrectly, but how is that different from proselytizing? In my view, the primary difference is the merits. But more to the point, the differences between being judgmental and having and expressing opinions are humility and empathy. It's the humility to consider that the world from someone else's perspective might look different, as well as the empathy to try to put yourself in the person's shoes. So if you encounter a non-believer, you don't walk up to him and say, "You're going to hell if you don't do what I, oh and I guess God and Jesus, say." You instead find a way to understand what he is about (i.e. empathy), and you find a way to overcome his reasonable skepticism about the implicit notion that somehow you have the answers and he does not (i.e. humility).
Returning to the issue regarding idiosyncratic dating preferences, it certainly makes sense as an initial matter to assume that people structure their behavior in the face of information and a worldview that is formed by their experiences, and thus to presume that the decision to date or not to date a person because of some quirk is not necessarily wrong. But you would stop there, and I don't think that makes sense. We have the ability to make observations about the rationale of a person's decision, as well as to consider the all-too-true fact that many people have only a partial understanding of their own decision-making. We also have the ability to place the decision into our worldview, as well as place our decisions into theirs. We can reasonably evaluate these decisions even if we don't have all the information, as long as we reasonably investigate and remember that we don't have all the information (to the extent that we don't). And we can reasonably form conclusions about all of this, whether or not we think it prudent to share such opinions with the parties whose decisions we are evaluating.
As to whether a racist person should be more open-minded about his dating choices, I think the answer has to be yes because that means he is being less of a racist. I would not conclude that sincerely harboring racist feelings and nonetheless dating a person whom you hold in contempt for racist reasons counts as being less of a racist. But maybe the answer for that person is to take a step back from the question of whether he should keep dating approved-race people while he works through his racism and instead try to deal with the question of how to understand his feelings of hate, contempt, etc., for a whole class of people and how such hate juxtaposes with his alleged feelings of love towards the approved-race people. But I don't agree with the implicit idea that we should treat racist people as though they have a fixed mindset, or even assume that the only way to conclude that racism makes sense is if you have evil in your heart. I think that in itself is an unfair judgment without more.
So yes, I agree with the sentiment of your last sentence (indeed, in my previous post, I said, "...I think it's important that we acknowledge that we should not sit in judgment of others..."), but the belief that someone has made a bad decision is not judgmental without more.
B
Monday, December 7, 2015
Birthday Bear YLT
morbid
perhaps it'll be awhile before we head to paris, but when we do, this seems like a good option
Penelope Trunk is an ENTJ too. makes sense.
Perhaps this is the logical extension of "privilege" but I would be completely charmed with this response.
What do you think of these quotes?:
“I think the big mistake in schools is trying to teach children anything, and by using fear as the basic motivation. Fear of getting failing grades, fear of not staying with your class, etc. Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker.” —Stanley Kubrick (via psych-facts)
“Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.” —Robert Frost (via purplebuddhaproject)
a bunny waiting for her bear
Responses
1. I can definitely relate to the author's sentiments. Perhaps we shouldn't treat people differently, but there's no way we can. We are going to prefer people we know over people we don't and people like us over people not like us. Of course, "people like us" doesn't have to exclusively be "race." I always feel bad for accidents that kill people in China - not because they're Chinese, but because it just seems like there are so many people in China that no one cares. If 1 miner dies in America, it's big news, but in china, 100 could die and it's just a byline. Another thing that is "unjust" is why people killed in these mass shootings can so much more sympathy than random people killed as bystanders or in car accidents. Those people also don't get donations, the way the friends and family of Paris' victims will. But there are many people who die every year and we have to be somewhat discriminating in how many tears we are willing to cry for all of them.
2. I guess it's good that we go to UVA, because it wasn't named after Thomas Jefferson. =P I can see certain people's monuments getting torn down - Hitler comes to mind - but most people are a mix of good and bad as most people don't exterminate people. Also, I don't think you have to be a good person to get a building named after you - you just have to donate money. I'm not sure anyone has ever vetted a person's moral bona fides before accepting their money, so why should Woodrow Wilson be any different? I think it would be a big problem to gain donors if students could revoke your naming of a building somewhere down the line without requiring a refund to the donor.
3. Mac and cheese seems like a natural thing to have at carb-heavy Thanksgiving.
4. That yoga-teacher is impressively calm. It's very sad that they had to shut down a free class that was really helpful for a disadvantaged population. If you were really mean and a little creative, you could use this logic to shut down all sorts of enjoyable and enriching activities for any populations you despised.
R2R
1. I honestly just posted that for the title. However, I am not going to be buying almonds for awhile....
2. Wouldn't put it past him. He doesn't have that many endorsements.And Special-K is solid. Back in my dieting years - something like 8-10, I ate a lot of Special-K.
3. I believe some people are very open-minded when it comes to looks. (Some people might also be desperate). But I'm sure it works best when the person doesn't look like a prune. Still, maybe it's something one can add to their repertoire like the pickup artist routine. Say what you will about pickup artists, but they seem to be a growth-mindset bunch.
5. Should I repost it in a few weeks?
R2R2R
1. You might be becoming too pro-bank... Meh, I find myself defending Big Pharma too. High-five!
4. I mean maybe it was for settlement talks though I'm not sure there's a hard and fast rule on that. I would imagine that these kids maybe had too much going for them - what with their lives and property being threatened and going to school and whatnot - to be able to contact a lawyer and get the process going.
R2R2R2R
4. I feel apprehensive before I go biking but I usually am very pleased after my bike ride. Getting started is such a difficult thing. It's really more than half the battle.
R2R2R2R2R
4. Well their spoiled children would care about the quality of their toys.
R2R2R2R2R2R
1. I think I would try as much as possible to defer to people's own idiosyncracies. I mean, it's bad for you to be racist, but if you're the one that's marrying the person, maybe marriage isn't the place where you should learn that people are people. Maybe you should take baby steps. Of course, we are definitely not going to be friends with these people.
I don't want to judge other people's choices in significant others because I know I wouldn't want to be judged on mine.
perhaps it'll be awhile before we head to paris, but when we do, this seems like a good option
Penelope Trunk is an ENTJ too. makes sense.
Perhaps this is the logical extension of "privilege" but I would be completely charmed with this response.
What do you think of these quotes?:
“I think the big mistake in schools is trying to teach children anything, and by using fear as the basic motivation. Fear of getting failing grades, fear of not staying with your class, etc. Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker.” —Stanley Kubrick (via psych-facts)
“Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.” —Robert Frost (via purplebuddhaproject)
a bunny waiting for her bear
Responses
1. I can definitely relate to the author's sentiments. Perhaps we shouldn't treat people differently, but there's no way we can. We are going to prefer people we know over people we don't and people like us over people not like us. Of course, "people like us" doesn't have to exclusively be "race." I always feel bad for accidents that kill people in China - not because they're Chinese, but because it just seems like there are so many people in China that no one cares. If 1 miner dies in America, it's big news, but in china, 100 could die and it's just a byline. Another thing that is "unjust" is why people killed in these mass shootings can so much more sympathy than random people killed as bystanders or in car accidents. Those people also don't get donations, the way the friends and family of Paris' victims will. But there are many people who die every year and we have to be somewhat discriminating in how many tears we are willing to cry for all of them.
2. I guess it's good that we go to UVA, because it wasn't named after Thomas Jefferson. =P I can see certain people's monuments getting torn down - Hitler comes to mind - but most people are a mix of good and bad as most people don't exterminate people. Also, I don't think you have to be a good person to get a building named after you - you just have to donate money. I'm not sure anyone has ever vetted a person's moral bona fides before accepting their money, so why should Woodrow Wilson be any different? I think it would be a big problem to gain donors if students could revoke your naming of a building somewhere down the line without requiring a refund to the donor.
3. Mac and cheese seems like a natural thing to have at carb-heavy Thanksgiving.
4. That yoga-teacher is impressively calm. It's very sad that they had to shut down a free class that was really helpful for a disadvantaged population. If you were really mean and a little creative, you could use this logic to shut down all sorts of enjoyable and enriching activities for any populations you despised.
R2R
1. I honestly just posted that for the title. However, I am not going to be buying almonds for awhile....
2. Wouldn't put it past him. He doesn't have that many endorsements.And Special-K is solid. Back in my dieting years - something like 8-10, I ate a lot of Special-K.
3. I believe some people are very open-minded when it comes to looks. (Some people might also be desperate). But I'm sure it works best when the person doesn't look like a prune. Still, maybe it's something one can add to their repertoire like the pickup artist routine. Say what you will about pickup artists, but they seem to be a growth-mindset bunch.
5. Should I repost it in a few weeks?
R2R2R
1. You might be becoming too pro-bank... Meh, I find myself defending Big Pharma too. High-five!
4. I mean maybe it was for settlement talks though I'm not sure there's a hard and fast rule on that. I would imagine that these kids maybe had too much going for them - what with their lives and property being threatened and going to school and whatnot - to be able to contact a lawyer and get the process going.
R2R2R2R
4. I feel apprehensive before I go biking but I usually am very pleased after my bike ride. Getting started is such a difficult thing. It's really more than half the battle.
R2R2R2R2R
4. Well their spoiled children would care about the quality of their toys.
R2R2R2R2R2R
1. I think I would try as much as possible to defer to people's own idiosyncracies. I mean, it's bad for you to be racist, but if you're the one that's marrying the person, maybe marriage isn't the place where you should learn that people are people. Maybe you should take baby steps. Of course, we are definitely not going to be friends with these people.
I don't want to judge other people's choices in significant others because I know I wouldn't want to be judged on mine.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Weird Times
There's been some blowback against the outpouring of support from the world to Paris somehow, but I think it's hard for people to make coherent arguments for why they feel a certain way to rebut the charge of racism. I think this is a successful attempt at explaining why many feel for Paris more than Beirut, or Kenya, or other places.
Princeton is getting into the immature protesting nonsense fun.
I always wondered why people from other parts of the country never mentioned mac and cheese for Thanksgiving.
Apparently doing yoga (unless you are Indian) makes you a Western-centric imperialist.
Responses:
1. The fervor of the various "ignorant hipsters" that their food of choice is so much better than yours is matched only by the intensity of their wrongness 18 months later. It's a hilarious cycle.
2. Does this mean we should expect J.J. Watt to endorse Special-K soon?
3. I remember hearing about this last year or the year before. It's a neat idea, but I wonder how long it lasts, as well as how it weighs against the other factors (e.g. physical appearance) that we consider.
4. I could go for that apple crisp. I enjoy apple turnovers, but I wonder about using applesauce instead of apples - I wonder if I'd miss the texture.
5. Maybe we can make this one our year-end posts.
R2R:
1. I mean that Ally Financial has to pay money based on this. Maybe you are less sympathetic, but we've represented this bank and clients like it, and I would hate to have to tell my clients that this was happening to them.
4. I suspect that there were some initial negotiations, first internal to the frat, and then with Rolling Stone. They also probably wanted this to take place after the spectacle of the scandal had died down so that Rolling Stone would be more amenable to a settlement. You know more about litigation than I do, but I imagine that when issues are heated, it's harder to negotiate.
6. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And yes, these protesters seem to have an answer for everything and everyone. If you are white, then you are blinded by privilege, and if you are not, then you are a traitor and a sellout.
R2R2R:
3. It's such an easy setting involving people who typically know each other (Jerry Seinfeld and whichever guest he invites), and they talk about common interests and experiences in a humanizing way. I like reading Chuck Klosterman because he's good at making me care about stuff in a different way or care about stuff I didn't previously care about. I don't think pop stars are universally loathsome, but I attach a presumption because I don't trust most people to survive what pop stars have to survive with their normal social skills intact, and I am skeptical of the kind of people who want to become pop stars generally.
4. I like the way this guy thinks. The Gold's Gym in Rosslyn had a poster on the door that said "half of the battle is showing up." And I think that's true - not because showing up twice will equal a full workout, but because once you get yourself going, once you get started, that inertia makes it so much easier to finish. I don't think I've ever quit in the middle of a workout because it was too hard, but I've definitely decided not to go at all because I was tired/sore/busy/hungry/depressed. And every time I've gone when I've felt like staying home, I've finished and felt better for it. I like this mantra.
R2R2R2R:
4. We live in a world where people tried to boycott Chick-fil-A. Also, do you think these boycotters care about the quality of their kids' toys over the self-righteous stand du jour?
R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R:
1. I agree, but some people decide to hide behind idiosyncrasy or quirkiness because they want to rationalize laziness, prejudice, or worse. Also, there is a difference between a dealbreaker, a quirk, an annoying habit, or just a thing that is not common between two people. I notice that you put in parentheses that the guy was bad at everything. While his lack of skill at bowling may have been symbolic for you, I tend to think that you would not have broken up with him over bowling if he was an otherwise competent person who just didn't bowl or didn't like bowling.
But more to the point, we as individuals in a society evaluate the decisions that other people make all the time, if only to affirm or question the decisions that we make ourselves. This is especially true when we consume media. Most people would think it odd to respond to Chandler or Seinfeld breaking up with someone over some triviality by saying, "It's his life, and I don't have an opinion - he can do what he wants," at least in part because the character is fictitious, but also because one big thing we all do is decide whether what the character did was good, bad, or otherwise. Some people may not object to the move, but they would instead say, "I think it's fine that he broke up with her because that was important to him," while others would call the character petty or shallow.
With real people, I think it's important that we acknowledge that we should not sit in judgment of others, but that is true in that we accept our friends and the autonomy of strangers. We shouldn't stop being friends with people because they break up with their significant others for petty reasons, but we can certainly think for ourselves whether that was good or bad based on the information we have, and we should certainly talk to our friends about their and our decisions, since that's one way to be smarter about living life. If I had a friend like Chandler, I would almost certainly call him out on his pettiness in dating. And as for my example with the cats, while it was meant in jest, I think it's also somewhat symbolic (based on male acquaintances I have who have or like cats), and I would never advise anyone to make a decision based solely on that fact.
B
Princeton is getting into the immature protesting nonsense fun.
I always wondered why people from other parts of the country never mentioned mac and cheese for Thanksgiving.
Apparently doing yoga (unless you are Indian) makes you a Western-centric imperialist.
Responses:
1. The fervor of the various "ignorant hipsters" that their food of choice is so much better than yours is matched only by the intensity of their wrongness 18 months later. It's a hilarious cycle.
2. Does this mean we should expect J.J. Watt to endorse Special-K soon?
3. I remember hearing about this last year or the year before. It's a neat idea, but I wonder how long it lasts, as well as how it weighs against the other factors (e.g. physical appearance) that we consider.
4. I could go for that apple crisp. I enjoy apple turnovers, but I wonder about using applesauce instead of apples - I wonder if I'd miss the texture.
5. Maybe we can make this one our year-end posts.
R2R:
1. I mean that Ally Financial has to pay money based on this. Maybe you are less sympathetic, but we've represented this bank and clients like it, and I would hate to have to tell my clients that this was happening to them.
4. I suspect that there were some initial negotiations, first internal to the frat, and then with Rolling Stone. They also probably wanted this to take place after the spectacle of the scandal had died down so that Rolling Stone would be more amenable to a settlement. You know more about litigation than I do, but I imagine that when issues are heated, it's harder to negotiate.
6. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And yes, these protesters seem to have an answer for everything and everyone. If you are white, then you are blinded by privilege, and if you are not, then you are a traitor and a sellout.
R2R2R:
3. It's such an easy setting involving people who typically know each other (Jerry Seinfeld and whichever guest he invites), and they talk about common interests and experiences in a humanizing way. I like reading Chuck Klosterman because he's good at making me care about stuff in a different way or care about stuff I didn't previously care about. I don't think pop stars are universally loathsome, but I attach a presumption because I don't trust most people to survive what pop stars have to survive with their normal social skills intact, and I am skeptical of the kind of people who want to become pop stars generally.
4. I like the way this guy thinks. The Gold's Gym in Rosslyn had a poster on the door that said "half of the battle is showing up." And I think that's true - not because showing up twice will equal a full workout, but because once you get yourself going, once you get started, that inertia makes it so much easier to finish. I don't think I've ever quit in the middle of a workout because it was too hard, but I've definitely decided not to go at all because I was tired/sore/busy/hungry/depressed. And every time I've gone when I've felt like staying home, I've finished and felt better for it. I like this mantra.
R2R2R2R:
4. We live in a world where people tried to boycott Chick-fil-A. Also, do you think these boycotters care about the quality of their kids' toys over the self-righteous stand du jour?
R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R:
1. I agree, but some people decide to hide behind idiosyncrasy or quirkiness because they want to rationalize laziness, prejudice, or worse. Also, there is a difference between a dealbreaker, a quirk, an annoying habit, or just a thing that is not common between two people. I notice that you put in parentheses that the guy was bad at everything. While his lack of skill at bowling may have been symbolic for you, I tend to think that you would not have broken up with him over bowling if he was an otherwise competent person who just didn't bowl or didn't like bowling.
But more to the point, we as individuals in a society evaluate the decisions that other people make all the time, if only to affirm or question the decisions that we make ourselves. This is especially true when we consume media. Most people would think it odd to respond to Chandler or Seinfeld breaking up with someone over some triviality by saying, "It's his life, and I don't have an opinion - he can do what he wants," at least in part because the character is fictitious, but also because one big thing we all do is decide whether what the character did was good, bad, or otherwise. Some people may not object to the move, but they would instead say, "I think it's fine that he broke up with her because that was important to him," while others would call the character petty or shallow.
With real people, I think it's important that we acknowledge that we should not sit in judgment of others, but that is true in that we accept our friends and the autonomy of strangers. We shouldn't stop being friends with people because they break up with their significant others for petty reasons, but we can certainly think for ourselves whether that was good or bad based on the information we have, and we should certainly talk to our friends about their and our decisions, since that's one way to be smarter about living life. If I had a friend like Chandler, I would almost certainly call him out on his pettiness in dating. And as for my example with the cats, while it was meant in jest, I think it's also somewhat symbolic (based on male acquaintances I have who have or like cats), and I would never advise anyone to make a decision based solely on that fact.
B
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Lay off the Almond Milk, You Ignorant Hipsters!
Lay Off the Almond Milk, You Ignorant Hipsters
Eat more deliciously - eat like a man!
Let's be intimate
yum fall!
Looking forward to looking back
Responses
1. I assume by that you mean, pay money as customers so that the bank can pay back money it allegedly owes minorities to people who may or may not be minorities, correct?
2. I had read this article as well and it's chilling. The Black Lives Matter movement is likely causing more black deaths - but at least they're at the hands of other black people!
3. I can understand. It's like my mixed feelings of the Billfold. Except the Billfold is not well written, researched or edited and they don't pay the writers well. =P
4. Do we know why it took so long? Is it guilt?
5. That dean has a hard job.
6. Wapo had an outlook piece defending the protesters (of course it did) but it didn't make an argument beyond the usual "feel our pain" and I guess "this is justified payback for the media not covering our news in the way that we would have liked."
I saw one article that gave the students a pass for not knowing the law, but I don't think that's acceptable. You are over 18 - you better know the law. These aren't children.
I guess it's a sidenote that the photographer is not a person who can claim "white privilege" but I'm not sure what to make of that. If he were black, I guess he'd be called a traitor.
R2R
3. Why does "Comedians Getting Coffee" make you soft? Also, why are all pop stars loathsome? I have no negative feelings towards Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, Mandy Moore, Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift and Jessica Simpson (except for perhaps the latter's music). And we do love Party in the USA. I guess that leaves Katy Perry and Selena Gomez, both of whom I'm tired of, but overall I'm pop-star-positive.
4. Link is fixed!
5. This is not a complete solution but it would work in moderate temperature areas to help some people. I guess it just gives us hope that people can make things happen.
R2R2R
4. But who would boycott Legos? Then you'd have to give your kid those cheapo blocks that don't work.
R2R2R2R
4. I guess it goes towards "what does it mean to be bad in bed?" And I think you're bad in bed if you're not communicating or if you don't care. Of course, I understand that the woman in this article seems like the type of person who would be upset if the man wasn't perfect from the get-go.
R2R2R2R2R
2. That seems to be the argument we have with respect to every liberal argument. I stipulate that the problem exists and is important but your method of solving it is nonsensical.
R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R
1. I think you can make choices in dating that seem flimsy to other people but are extremely important to you or that you interpret as being meaningful in a larger sense, whereas other people wouldn't. For instance, a man with cats to you is a yellow flag, but for me, it's immaterial. I would find it hard to date someone who loved the NY Giants/the Olive Garden/California or someone who went to Tech. I dumped a guy because he was bad at bowling (also, he was bad at everything). People are idiosyncratic and I don't think that's necessarily bad. I think it's bad when you dismiss people based on societal norms that typically exclude certain types of people (race, baldness, height, weight, occupation, education, wealth).
Eat more deliciously - eat like a man!
Let's be intimate
yum fall!
Looking forward to looking back
Responses
1. I assume by that you mean, pay money as customers so that the bank can pay back money it allegedly owes minorities to people who may or may not be minorities, correct?
2. I had read this article as well and it's chilling. The Black Lives Matter movement is likely causing more black deaths - but at least they're at the hands of other black people!
3. I can understand. It's like my mixed feelings of the Billfold. Except the Billfold is not well written, researched or edited and they don't pay the writers well. =P
4. Do we know why it took so long? Is it guilt?
5. That dean has a hard job.
6. Wapo had an outlook piece defending the protesters (of course it did) but it didn't make an argument beyond the usual "feel our pain" and I guess "this is justified payback for the media not covering our news in the way that we would have liked."
I saw one article that gave the students a pass for not knowing the law, but I don't think that's acceptable. You are over 18 - you better know the law. These aren't children.
I guess it's a sidenote that the photographer is not a person who can claim "white privilege" but I'm not sure what to make of that. If he were black, I guess he'd be called a traitor.
R2R
3. Why does "Comedians Getting Coffee" make you soft? Also, why are all pop stars loathsome? I have no negative feelings towards Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, Mandy Moore, Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift and Jessica Simpson (except for perhaps the latter's music). And we do love Party in the USA. I guess that leaves Katy Perry and Selena Gomez, both of whom I'm tired of, but overall I'm pop-star-positive.
4. Link is fixed!
5. This is not a complete solution but it would work in moderate temperature areas to help some people. I guess it just gives us hope that people can make things happen.
R2R2R
4. But who would boycott Legos? Then you'd have to give your kid those cheapo blocks that don't work.
R2R2R2R
4. I guess it goes towards "what does it mean to be bad in bed?" And I think you're bad in bed if you're not communicating or if you don't care. Of course, I understand that the woman in this article seems like the type of person who would be upset if the man wasn't perfect from the get-go.
R2R2R2R2R
2. That seems to be the argument we have with respect to every liberal argument. I stipulate that the problem exists and is important but your method of solving it is nonsensical.
R2R2R2R2R2R2R2R
1. I think you can make choices in dating that seem flimsy to other people but are extremely important to you or that you interpret as being meaningful in a larger sense, whereas other people wouldn't. For instance, a man with cats to you is a yellow flag, but for me, it's immaterial. I would find it hard to date someone who loved the NY Giants/the Olive Garden/California or someone who went to Tech. I dumped a guy because he was bad at bowling (also, he was bad at everything). People are idiosyncratic and I don't think that's necessarily bad. I think it's bad when you dismiss people based on societal norms that typically exclude certain types of people (race, baldness, height, weight, occupation, education, wealth).
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Social Studies
I can't believe that they have to pay money based on this flimsy... everything, really.
Perhaps social media is deadlier than we previously thought.
This comes a bit closer to describing my mixed but definitely positive feelings towards Grantland.
There it is.
These kids are horrible.
As are these kids.
Responses:
1. I guess this is why marketing is a thing.
2. People do say that being present is the way to increase happiness. I guess this is another way of saying that, and with science.
3. She seems like an interesting enough person with a reasonably good head on her shoulders. I think stories like this make me move her out of the category of "loathsome pop star" (which is where I assume most pop stars reside) and into the category of "possibly undamaged successful celebrity." I've been watching a lot of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee recently, though, so maybe I'm going soft.
4. I think this link is broken.
5. Lots of people have suggested that affordable housing is something that only the government can fix, but solutions like this one make me think that they are wrong.
R2R:
4. The fact that people will associate Legos with his expressive art in my view allows Lego to decline the bulk sale, even if they won't stand in the way of his acquisition of Lego materials through alternative (and more difficult) means. I would feel differently if we weren't currently in the middle of a boycott craze where people seek to punish people with whose views they disagree.
R2R2R:
1. It was funny as a picture, but it would be lame as an actual costume.
4. I'm not sure that saying you're cut off if you're bad in bed is good as a first position, if only because people get better with practice, but there's no way to get better without communication. I think men who have an attitude of wanting to figure it out to get better have the right attitude, but I suspect that trial and error will get you only so far without some input from the woman. As awkward as it is to have to talk about it, though, I think it's more awkward to be lying there afterwards feeling disappointed and frustrated.
R2R2R2R:
2. The problem is that most politicians don't understand how science should work, and most scientists don't understand how policy works. And most Americans don't understand how either works. The claim that climate change science is irrefutable is similar to the claim made by some liberals (especially during Supreme Court nomination hearings) that Roe v. Wade is "settled law." Each side wants to take something that is absolutely subject to change (subsequent peer review studies in the case of climate change, and a contrary holding in the case of Supreme Court jurisprudence) and claim, for political purposes, that it cannot change, and they use practically useful but philosophically arguable reasons (scientific community consensus in the case of climate change, super-stare decisis in the case of Roe) to beat back any attempt by newcomers to disrupt the status quo. There is no doubt in my mind that an overwhelming majority of the scientists who have studied climate change and answered that poll truly believe that the science backs up their conclusion that climate change is happening, and there is no doubt in my mind that the studies and experiments they have done or reviewed back up their conclusions (to the extent that such conclusions are narrowly tailored to the performed experiments), but that does not make the 97% number relevant as an argument in and of itself. Science isn't democracy. Moreover, even stipulating that the science is there, that does not therefore mean that the policy proposals put forth by those who agree with that 97% of scientists with respect to their scientific conclusions are necessarily appropriate, necessary, effective, or otherwise worthy of our support.
3. I guess some people just suck.
R2R2R2R2R2R:
1. Choosing the criteria by which we date people is of course fine. But when we think about things like morals and ethics, and when we think about what we want for ourselves, we of course have rules and judgments. Politically, I am often a libertarian when it comes to these things. But that doesn't mean I'm an existentialist. I would never advocate for any law or regulation requiring people to date some diversity of people or be polite at speed dating events by meeting with everyone. But there is a huge difference between saying that people have the right to choose a certain way and saying that that choice is good, whether with respect to that person or with respect to ourselves. I fully concede that people make dating choices based on sometimes flimsy criteria, and there is probably no way to stop that in the short or long term. But despite that, when people choose to date or not to date people on the basis of trivial characteristics, they are making bad choices, and while I do not feel the need to call them out on it or prevent them from making those bad choices, they are still bad choices.
To put it more simply by way of example, people may believe that activities such as recreational drug use, prostitution, gambling, or even abortion should be legal, but it does not follow from such belief that people think that their own participation in such activities is consistent with their moral codes.
B
Perhaps social media is deadlier than we previously thought.
This comes a bit closer to describing my mixed but definitely positive feelings towards Grantland.
There it is.
These kids are horrible.
As are these kids.
Responses:
1. I guess this is why marketing is a thing.
2. People do say that being present is the way to increase happiness. I guess this is another way of saying that, and with science.
3. She seems like an interesting enough person with a reasonably good head on her shoulders. I think stories like this make me move her out of the category of "loathsome pop star" (which is where I assume most pop stars reside) and into the category of "possibly undamaged successful celebrity." I've been watching a lot of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee recently, though, so maybe I'm going soft.
4. I think this link is broken.
5. Lots of people have suggested that affordable housing is something that only the government can fix, but solutions like this one make me think that they are wrong.
R2R:
4. The fact that people will associate Legos with his expressive art in my view allows Lego to decline the bulk sale, even if they won't stand in the way of his acquisition of Lego materials through alternative (and more difficult) means. I would feel differently if we weren't currently in the middle of a boycott craze where people seek to punish people with whose views they disagree.
R2R2R:
1. It was funny as a picture, but it would be lame as an actual costume.
4. I'm not sure that saying you're cut off if you're bad in bed is good as a first position, if only because people get better with practice, but there's no way to get better without communication. I think men who have an attitude of wanting to figure it out to get better have the right attitude, but I suspect that trial and error will get you only so far without some input from the woman. As awkward as it is to have to talk about it, though, I think it's more awkward to be lying there afterwards feeling disappointed and frustrated.
R2R2R2R:
2. The problem is that most politicians don't understand how science should work, and most scientists don't understand how policy works. And most Americans don't understand how either works. The claim that climate change science is irrefutable is similar to the claim made by some liberals (especially during Supreme Court nomination hearings) that Roe v. Wade is "settled law." Each side wants to take something that is absolutely subject to change (subsequent peer review studies in the case of climate change, and a contrary holding in the case of Supreme Court jurisprudence) and claim, for political purposes, that it cannot change, and they use practically useful but philosophically arguable reasons (scientific community consensus in the case of climate change, super-stare decisis in the case of Roe) to beat back any attempt by newcomers to disrupt the status quo. There is no doubt in my mind that an overwhelming majority of the scientists who have studied climate change and answered that poll truly believe that the science backs up their conclusion that climate change is happening, and there is no doubt in my mind that the studies and experiments they have done or reviewed back up their conclusions (to the extent that such conclusions are narrowly tailored to the performed experiments), but that does not make the 97% number relevant as an argument in and of itself. Science isn't democracy. Moreover, even stipulating that the science is there, that does not therefore mean that the policy proposals put forth by those who agree with that 97% of scientists with respect to their scientific conclusions are necessarily appropriate, necessary, effective, or otherwise worthy of our support.
3. I guess some people just suck.
R2R2R2R2R2R:
1. Choosing the criteria by which we date people is of course fine. But when we think about things like morals and ethics, and when we think about what we want for ourselves, we of course have rules and judgments. Politically, I am often a libertarian when it comes to these things. But that doesn't mean I'm an existentialist. I would never advocate for any law or regulation requiring people to date some diversity of people or be polite at speed dating events by meeting with everyone. But there is a huge difference between saying that people have the right to choose a certain way and saying that that choice is good, whether with respect to that person or with respect to ourselves. I fully concede that people make dating choices based on sometimes flimsy criteria, and there is probably no way to stop that in the short or long term. But despite that, when people choose to date or not to date people on the basis of trivial characteristics, they are making bad choices, and while I do not feel the need to call them out on it or prevent them from making those bad choices, they are still bad choices.
To put it more simply by way of example, people may believe that activities such as recreational drug use, prostitution, gambling, or even abortion should be legal, but it does not follow from such belief that people think that their own participation in such activities is consistent with their moral codes.
B
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Pretty Packaging
Michelle Obama, take notice. It feels a little bit like cheating but packaging is what sells the product.
Thinking about your own boring life is better than imagining a better one.
I don't think either of us has ever linked to a celebrity profile in a fashion magazine but here's a start. It helps that it's by Chuck Klosterman and I only learned about it because it was linked by Penelope Trunk in a career article.
I like this idea of non-zero days.
A cool (hot?) solution for housing woes in Bangkok
Responses
1. Ugh the death threats make this a sad story. It was a very happy story that this movie tanked. Maybe the next time they take over a beloved cartoon, they will incorporate some of the plot elements.
2. Ha!
3. A new way to fall asleep.
4. If Ai Wei Wei asked for some kind of discount for buying in bulk for his art, then I totally support Lego in saying no. I don't really see the problem selling the blocks to him at full price. Then again, I don't see why Lego should have to be associated with the art if it doesn't have to. It does not chill his speech and their blocks could be used to make something really atrocious that they have no control over and which they would be blamed for. Lego is in a hard position.
5. Gah I try not to think of them because another commercial jingle will just sneak its way in if I do.
6. I think you need a touch screen tv for this to be a large iphone. I do like the ability to use Siri to find things though.
R2R
1. You said it was funny here but then told me in person it was lame!
3. Pretty sure that if people read the weird things people post on social media, our jails would be even more overcrowded than they are already.
4. This is often the problem with modern feminism: they want men to solve the problems for them. The answer to the wage gap is for men to disclose their salaries. The answer to rape is for drunk men to stop for the benefit of drunk women. And so if she is unsatisfied in bed, the man has to figure that out and take the stand that she won't. (interesting that her knight in shining armor is an abstainer ("We won't have sex again because you're not satisfied!"), rather than a fixer ("I will figure it out and make it better!")). Why can't women just say, if you're bad in bed, we won't sleep with you again? Men would figure it out themselves and it wouldn't make women look so weak.
R2R2R
1. It seems like what James Taranto would put under his heading, "Fox Butterfield, is that you?" The headline would be: "More black male deaths by police officers despite more black men confrontations with police."
2. I just note the article because everything I've ever heard about global science is that the science is irrefutable and that every scientist in the world believes in nit.
3. I guess the GAL mother seemed like this. Incapable of really evaluating her actions or taking any responsibility. She said she was so upset that she couldn't find the baby's Halloween costume that she wouldn't let either of her children trick or treat. Did not seem to register that this might be incredibly disappointing to her children, who were already decked out in costume. Not saying she will pimp out her children later but it all starts somewhere.
4. I've never really partake of any of the incentives that stores bring to shop slower unless I'm already going to buy something (see: engagement ring shopping). The only exception is Barnes & Noble where I typically guilt buy stuff for all the time I spend browsing. But now that store is closing. =(
R2R2R2R
3. Keep sharing!
R2R2R2R2R
1. I guess if someone said some weird quirk their dating partner had, then the original person would seem too picky - just like Seinfeld. We want to believe we are better people and won't discount someone just for having a bigger head or man hands. But there isn't anything necessarily wrong with drawing the lines at weird places.
3. Crispy potatoes!
R2R2R2R2R2R2R
4. Still have not heard from Howard girl....Criticism is important for litigators. It's not exactly a soft industry.
Thinking about your own boring life is better than imagining a better one.
I don't think either of us has ever linked to a celebrity profile in a fashion magazine but here's a start. It helps that it's by Chuck Klosterman and I only learned about it because it was linked by Penelope Trunk in a career article.
I like this idea of non-zero days.
A cool (hot?) solution for housing woes in Bangkok
Responses
1. Ugh the death threats make this a sad story. It was a very happy story that this movie tanked. Maybe the next time they take over a beloved cartoon, they will incorporate some of the plot elements.
2. Ha!
3. A new way to fall asleep.
4. If Ai Wei Wei asked for some kind of discount for buying in bulk for his art, then I totally support Lego in saying no. I don't really see the problem selling the blocks to him at full price. Then again, I don't see why Lego should have to be associated with the art if it doesn't have to. It does not chill his speech and their blocks could be used to make something really atrocious that they have no control over and which they would be blamed for. Lego is in a hard position.
5. Gah I try not to think of them because another commercial jingle will just sneak its way in if I do.
6. I think you need a touch screen tv for this to be a large iphone. I do like the ability to use Siri to find things though.
R2R
1. You said it was funny here but then told me in person it was lame!
3. Pretty sure that if people read the weird things people post on social media, our jails would be even more overcrowded than they are already.
4. This is often the problem with modern feminism: they want men to solve the problems for them. The answer to the wage gap is for men to disclose their salaries. The answer to rape is for drunk men to stop for the benefit of drunk women. And so if she is unsatisfied in bed, the man has to figure that out and take the stand that she won't. (interesting that her knight in shining armor is an abstainer ("We won't have sex again because you're not satisfied!"), rather than a fixer ("I will figure it out and make it better!")). Why can't women just say, if you're bad in bed, we won't sleep with you again? Men would figure it out themselves and it wouldn't make women look so weak.
R2R2R
1. It seems like what James Taranto would put under his heading, "Fox Butterfield, is that you?" The headline would be: "More black male deaths by police officers despite more black men confrontations with police."
2. I just note the article because everything I've ever heard about global science is that the science is irrefutable and that every scientist in the world believes in nit.
3. I guess the GAL mother seemed like this. Incapable of really evaluating her actions or taking any responsibility. She said she was so upset that she couldn't find the baby's Halloween costume that she wouldn't let either of her children trick or treat. Did not seem to register that this might be incredibly disappointing to her children, who were already decked out in costume. Not saying she will pimp out her children later but it all starts somewhere.
4. I've never really partake of any of the incentives that stores bring to shop slower unless I'm already going to buy something (see: engagement ring shopping). The only exception is Barnes & Noble where I typically guilt buy stuff for all the time I spend browsing. But now that store is closing. =(
R2R2R2R
3. Keep sharing!
R2R2R2R2R
1. I guess if someone said some weird quirk their dating partner had, then the original person would seem too picky - just like Seinfeld. We want to believe we are better people and won't discount someone just for having a bigger head or man hands. But there isn't anything necessarily wrong with drawing the lines at weird places.
3. Crispy potatoes!
R2R2R2R2R2R2R
4. Still have not heard from Howard girl....Criticism is important for litigators. It's not exactly a soft industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)