I am deeply sorry to hear that happened to you. I completely agree that a possibly positive encounter with a stranger is not worth the potential of assault--verbal or otherwise. I sometimes feel limited by this, but it ultimately feels worth it to help avoid some monstrous people.
I wonder if this is a issue with the person or in what part of the world you're in? I've only briefly been in North America (not the US) but otherwise spend my time in South America, East Asia or Europe, and never once have I've been assaulted (verbally or otherwise) from 1000+ encounters where I've talked with strangers.
Which makes me very weird to read some of the responses here. What is the difference and why am I not experiencing the same where I go? I'm not muscular, have a pretty weak stance/look in general so I'm not intimidating enough for people to be scared of me exactly.
To provide an additional example. Unelected ex-senator Kelly Loeffler's husband is chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. She made trades using non-public information. How is this sort of conflict of interest legal?
I've always been a big Monokai fan. Usually Monokai Night now. I did try out this theme recently and really enjoyed it with the caveat that my @emotion/core CSS template literals weren't being highlighted correctly.
I notice some themes have more robust syntax highlighting out of the box. Is that something I can tweak easily?
As someone that just stopped lurking, it's clear downvoting is used primarily as a "disagree" button. Case in point, this comment I'm replying to. I believe they're making a meaningful contribution to this discussion. Yet the downvotes have already commenced.
No the problem is that he makes accusations that are not backed up by any data and this is contrary to the guidelines.
I consider myself more of a leftist than your typical hn user and when I have been abnormally downvoted I never felt it was because of my opinion but rather because I was too hot headed or too ignorant about what I was talking about.
So I am very concerned by those claims but without any data about presumed tolerance to bigotry stuff, they are of no value too anyone. Anybody could feel sore and angry about how some social online gathering is not as X as he wish he was. Heck, that's my life on Reddit.
Gimme data, gimme sources, I'll vote you up.
The person you're replying to is shadowbanned, and their post actually got vouched for, but still (I think) starts off at a deficit.
Looking at your comment history, it looks like you enjoy wading into political conversations with strongly-held opinions. Food for thought, I'd have downvoted some of your comments that I agree with because they bring down the quality of the conversation.
Just remember that that will only give the part of the story which is linked to that one username.
Commenters who post grand narratives about why they were banned typically have a long string of past banned accounts. The giveaway is that they never link to them. That would let readers make up their own minds about why they'd gotten banned, and how accurate their story really is.
You seem to know a lot about this subject! Years ago, an acquaintance of mine told me of their idea to use railguns to remove space junk. Is this a remotely feasible solution?
From space, maybe. A railgun on the surface of Earth that was trying to slow down a piece of space junk would, by necessity, be aimed at a low angle. Getting a projectile a couple hundred kilometers up while launching at such angle would make this railgun be something between a window-shattering nuisance and a weapon of mass destruction, depending on muzzle velocity and the size of the projectile.
The problem is, of course, the atmosphere. That thick soup of gas that's at its densest near the surface, and has the annoying tendency of engulfing hypersonic projectiles in a thick ball of screaming-hot plasma.
Excellent point! Seems like some are more interested in pushing their own beliefs and morality on others rather than examining the evidence of what makes effective (or ineffective) public policy.
Sex is something hardwired into people. Basting in this example? Not so much.
Like just replace the word basting with the word sex in your example.
"The government tried outright banning sex"--sounds pretty ludicrous! Has any government even tried such a thing in all of history?
Personally, I welcome the prospect of my tax dollars being used to help people rather than kill and maim them. The amount each individual has to contribute for such a thing is likely incredibly low as well.
Well, I was sort of thinking of drugs when I made the analogy, but the government policy response is similar (i.e. the government wants to reach into my wallet to subsidize free syringes, drug purity tests, etc.)
> Sex is something hardwired into people
This is an appeal to nature. We naturally want to do it, therefore we shouldn't try to resist it? There are many counter examples: violence, incest, tribalism, and other undesirable evolutionary behaviors are hardwired into people (and animals) too, yet our efforts to reduce/temper their influence and emergence can be quite effective (though not 100% effective). Why is sex any different? I think we could temper sexual activity with the right messaging (and more importantly, leading by example) to youth.
Something like "sex is something that should be reserved for a committed relationship, not a recreational activity you should do casually - the latter leads to a lot of problems in society. Nevertheless, the choice is up to you and here are the risks and things you need to know either way..." Obviously "accidents" would still happen, but the idea would be to address the root cause of sex-related issues in society instead of throwing your hands into the air and deciding to just treat the symptoms.
You could say it's special pleading on my part, but for the continuation of homo sapiens, sex is required (at least for now).
> violence, incest, tribalism, and other undesirable evolutionary behaviors
None of the explicitly mentioned things in this list are similarly essential to the continuation of humans and human civilization. Like violence may in reality be unavoidable, but that doesn't mean it's strictly necessary.
But I do agree that appeal to nature alone isn't very strong. Like to me, I guess it's moreso what seems like extreme impracticality in trying to control people's sexuality to a finer degree than is already in place.
> I guess it's moreso what seems like extreme impracticality in trying to control people's sexuality to a finer degree than is already in place.
I agree trying to "control" people's sexuality is extremely impractical. That's why I think it needs to be more a cultural value that we collectively decide is worth teaching to kids (and leading by example), not something the government forces on us. I think that would work because it worked for me and my extended family as far as I can tell (with a few exceptions).
Isn't this still a form of control? Like the idea here is to psychologically manipulate people to have different values? What happens when some people don't respond to this proposed conditioning?
I would like to believe I have somewhat of a unique perspective on this. I was raised with the exact cultural values you talk about, and I ultimately chose to reject them (at least partially).
However, I do want to acknowledge what seems like a destabilizing, negative effect "hookup culture" or the like has had on society. Dating apps are part of this whole issue as well.
My own position is that I want to be in a committed relationship but never married. So I guess you could peg me as a serial monogamist.
I don't want to impose the value on people that don't share it with me. I want to convince people to share the value with me first and rely on network effects to convince others to share the value until those that don't share it are in a minority.
The people specifically in the story? Probably not. Americans in general over a period of time? Maybe. I could see a "religious renaissance" happening at some point where religion goes on the rise again if/when people become disillusioned with secularism/nihilism/etc, a side effect of which would be people being "talked into monogamy"
School has limited influence on kids when compared to parents. If your parents don't see casual sex as a big deal, neither will you. If your mom got pregnant at 14, well, I guess it's not a big deal if you get pregnant at 14 either.
I grew up in a fairly wealthy little town where pretty much nobody was the child of a teen parent. It’s awfully facile, and to my own experience, to pretend the children of such parents are the only people having sex in high school.
I live in a part of Maryland with high teen pregnancy rates. Unsurprisingly, the pregnant teens are often the children of single moms who were also pregnant teens. Is this a coincidence? Even ignoring truancy problem, somehow I don't believe sending all these kids to wealthy gold-plated schools to get a "proper" sexual health education will fix the issue because my argument is that the messaging they receive at home through their parent(s) is 10x stronger and more influential than the school's messaging.
I would guess failure to use effective birth control methods could be correlated pretty well with income but I’d be pretty surprised to see any evidence that sexual activity was much lower in the tony towns. I’m also going to refer back to my memories of being a teenager to say that I often didn’t really put much stock in my parents’ values or wisdom, and hardly think I was alone in this.
Do you think I’m wrong to say that sex education courses, regardless of whether they’re abstinence-only or more modern, typically already include admonitions against promiscuous sex?
No, you are not wrong to say that... but that’s not what your parent comment was saying. Your comment was saying that messaging did not have much influence on your behavior later in life. I’m saying that just because it didn’t have much influence on your behavior does not mean it hasn’t had much influence on the behavior of others
Certainly some governments have attempted to criminalize extramarital sex. However 1) limited efficacy 2) creates an extremely regressive society I think few Americans would welcome
