I was banned for life for pointing out how the Tuttle Twins choice of pricing $14.88 and $88.88 for their children's book bundle sale could be perceived as hate speech.
We are in the realm of opinion, so I want to offer a contrasting one. We had a great time with it, and yes, it was a one-off thing. The scenarios are about $15 a pop which compared to taking the same group of friends to a movie is a bargain. (and MUCH more engaging, imo) It is like a multi-player point and click adventure with light roleplaying elements. I don't know if it should have won the SDJ, but then again, it didn't. :)
EDIT: added more specific description of what I liked about it, in an attempt to up the quality of my comment.
I don't think movies are good benchmark. You go to movies relatively rarely and basically because someone I group really want to see the movie or to be able to talk around watercooler if movie is really popular.
Most people dont go for movies outside those constraints if ever. Movie is rather expensive choice people normally don't do.
With all the current attempted and actual dismantling of the factors you mention, perhaps his predictions just need to be time shifted a few decades. Obviously, I hope not.
Im sure those snake oil supplements he peddles on there make you smarter too. /s =P
EDIT: I was just halfway joking when I made this comment (I vaguely knew that he sold supplements for body building)... However, I had no idea about the "Alpha Brain" supplement that he sells. And yes, the punchline is that he claims it provides "cognitive enhancement". And No.. there is no solid science behind it and certainly no doubleblind clinical trials. I only know to care about stuff like this from listening to other podcasts such as "This week in microbiology" and "Skeptoid" that perhaps did make me smarter. (at least I don't fall for supplement scams)
The GOP continues to be impregnated with racism thanks to the southern strategy.[0] If you don't think out in the open racist culture is alive, well and considered normal in the rural south, you are fooling yourself.
I think there are overt racists, but they are in a minority and certainly not exclusive to any political party.
Though this is a hard conversation to have meaningfully since different people mean different things by racism. The context here is a Northern European visiting the U.S. I think it would be a bit of a stretch to say they'll have a hard time in the rural south. I'd say (accented) rural Southerners would have a harder time in NYC than Scandanavian visitors would have in Mobile.
Accented rural southerners would have no trouble whatsoever in NYC. This is one of those analogies that sounds like it should be true, but has no basis in fact.
It's also a super weird comparison. Southern intolerance is subtextually about animus towards African Americans and Latinos. Nobody is arguing that a Scandinavian would have any trouble in Mobile.
Further: Mobile is a weird choice for a comparison as well, since it's comparatively urban and well-educated. Mobile is more diverse than many parts of Chicago. When we talk about Southern racism, we're generally not talking about the urban south.
Finally, and I want to make this point gingerly, but if we want to drag US political parties into this discussion, the Republican party is almost mathematically determined to be more racist than the Democratic party, which is a coalition of labor, minorities, and liberal whites. It's also just empirically true that the Republican party harbors more overt racists, but we don't have to dive into a lot of value judgements about conservatism and nationalism to conclude that; we can just observe that the Democrats have African American and Latino voters as one of the foundations of their constituency.
>almost mathematically determined to be more racist than the Democratic party, which is a coalition of labor, minorities, and liberal whites
The assumption you build this on is that those groups are not more racist than the groups in the Republican party. The only way you could even make that kind of jump is if you subscribe to the definition of racism where you can't be racist if you are systematically oppressed in some regard. Is that the case?
If not, then you will definitely need some data showing that blue collar workers, minorities, etc have lower rates of racism.
The vast majority of racism I hear (assuming the definition based on race discrimination) comes from uneducated people, regardless of political affiliation.
I'm making a pretty simple demographic point and not really interested in hacking my way through this briar patch of value judgements and careful parsing. Substitute whatever term you like --- maybe "anti-black anti-Latino racism" --- for the simple one I used.
Ok. That's still not backed up by sound reasoning though. Just because one party has more white people does not correlate with anti-Latino racism. Why would you think that's the case?
Living in the bay area, I've encountered more anti-black racism from Chinese people than any white people. Should I take that to presume whichever party has more asians is automatically racist against black people?
Just because a party has more people of a specific skin color than another says nothing about racist behavior. Anything else would imply that the Bernie Sanders crowd is the most racist group of them all (skews very heavily white).
This is pretty silly. Less than 30% of Latinos and less than 5% of African Americans are Republicans. The balance are Democrats. The Democratic party simply can't be institutionally bigoted against those groups and survive as a party; those groups are core parts of the Democratic coalition; the Democrats in a real way simply are the Latino and African American vote.
That's all I'm saying. I am not psychoanalyzing Republicans in general. Most Republicans probably aren't racist. That's not my point.
I'm really not interested in what you think Chinese Americans think, sorry.
>The Democratic party simply can't be institutionally bigoted against those groups and survive as a party; those groups are core parts of the Democratic coalition; the Democrats in a real way simply are the Latino and African American vote.
Of course it can be bigoted. Those minorities do not make up a majority of the party and as long as they feel the goals of the party overall help them more than Republicans they will put up with whatever racist crap that comes from Democrats (e.g. "tell em you're a Muslim" Pelosi).
It's all about tradeoffs, a party that offers racist policies in your favor and/or the refusal to enforce laws that affect many of your people is better than a party with no favors offered, even if the former is filled with bigoted morons.
>I'm really not interested in what you think Chinese Americans think
And I never offered you what I thought they think, so go attack some other strawman to attempt to gain some moral high ground.
I have a southern accent, have visited NYC, currently live in Chicago. People in both cities are just as friendly as people anywhere else. What you're saying simply isn't true.
People in rural areas seem to think of "city people" as brash, always in a hurry, always on their cell phones, etc. whereas they themselves are courteous, friendly, would give you the shirt off their back, etc. I grew up in a small town in the south and heard this sort of thing a lot, but it's bullshit. It's just one parochial stereotype among many.
The Republican party contains more overt racists than the Democratic party, but the formulation in your comment is tendentious and hugely oversimplifies the situation.
I wasn't aware of the formulation in my comment when I made it. I was trying to rebut a comment that I felt had a little bit of denial running through it. I am clumsy with words though.
You're absolutely correct. I should have been clearer.
When I mentioned the >2km 'elevation' I meant in an airplane, which typically cruises around 10km ... but are pressurised, as you note. Unfortunately they're pressured to be around 2.4km (effective). Some newer planes will pressurise to around 1.8km but these are uncommon.
In any case, water boils at '2.4km effective' at around 92C ... and therein lies the problem.
