tobetrained

I think it's important to remember the love and lust responses are different in the brain. Here's a link I tried to find quickly: [think before following links] https://neurosciencenews.com/hormones-sexual-behavior-neuroscience-29459/ So, there's conversational-speak and sciencey-speak (love vs sex/lust). But, importantly, a person can love asexually and have great sex without love and everything in between. It's also the foundational logic as to why discrimination against gays is ludicrous, a rationale our broader community has kinda forgotten -- a Millennial/GenZ trait. There's nothing wrong with two men or two women loving each other, but in such a pairing natural reproduction is impossible. But reproduction, an outcome driven by the lust/sexual impulse, is not love. Equally, there's nothing wrong with an asexual person but being so makes reproduction tough. Again, reproduction is not love. "Making love," it seems, was an invented phrase to allow "having sex" to sound more meaningful.

@SDCumPup I couldn't find / remember the exact source for this added bit but I think it's this text/series: [think before following links] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-global-migrations/urban-migration-and-gender-diversity-in-eurasia-16001800/E1D1625A6CFA61DCFA3A7557BBAF27ED Along with the book above, it details the genders and other roles of migration over time. Importantly to this context, earlier colonists tended to be (very) male. The Spanish and Portuguese were equally or more likely to make families in their New World colonies vs. bring them along. The British in N America were distinctly different, prior they did not mix with natives as much as their Iberian piers and after 1700-ish migrants were much more evenly divided (by gender) from Britain - as civilian families/couples came together.

I think we're getting stuck on details. There's no doubt about established settlements -- but what's lost is for what purpose, and where and when. I can suggest this book and this online content (which I could quickly find). The latter is of both North and South America. Roughly 40% of European migrants were Spanish/Portuguese, with half before 1700 and a large amount of those settlers returning with most to S/C Americas. Much of the long standing settlements were either military and/or missionary settlements. In total, the British are about 50% of migrants from Europe -- outpacing the above -- and ~75%+ of this was after 1700. The vast majority was to (what became) the US with very little returning and almost all remaining were civilians. A Population History of the United States, H. Klein [think before following links] https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/european-migrations-american-colonies-1492-1820 Where we agree is very significant. The Spanish were VERY willing to mingle and mix with native populations. Part of this was the attempt and success at religious conversion as part of the Catholic faith. But therein lies the difference with Protestant British settlers -- again, those were mainly in US/Canada -- and the issue with the original video. Those people were NOT open and willing to mix either with natives nor would they have been open to others, if greater amounts of non-Protestant populations were willing to come. But in saying that I need to repeat: just because that issue existed back then means nothing for what we do now. That's the flaw in the Heritage folks. But following that manipulation with the one proposed in the video, equally flawed.

Sorry to beat a dead horse. But this article came out which is both interesting for its purpose but relevant in the excerpt I'm copying below: [think before following links] https://www.politico.eu/article/united-states-of-europe-online-propaganda-social-media-memes/ The point of the article is a growing pan-Euro/Federalist Euro endeavor among the young of Europe. But a small point which indirectly discusses what I wrote above, re: Protestant migration to US and relative/proportional lack of same for Catholics. It's not the point of the article, but gets to the varied rationale people had for either migrating to what became the US as well as those that didn't. "...Indeed, federalists are far from being a politically homogenous group. Several meme warriors told me that there is an ideological battle ongoing in the dank recesses of federalist Reddit subgroups and chatrooms between broadly centrist people who believe in boosting the power of existing Brussels institutions, and far-right people who hate Brussels but nonetheless want Europe to assert itself on the world stage. The big divider is identity politics and migration policy: far-right groups tend to envision Europe as a culturally and ethnically homogenous “empire” — read, white and Christian, preferably Catholic — that keeps foreigners out..." But, again, regardless of the freedoms were seeking -- and WHY -- by migrating to the US so long ago, there's no directive we need to accommodate that now. Regardless of this convo, the article is very interesting for the (different) topic it covers.

I agree with the broader sentiment. But here, it would just be guests willing to tell the whole story and not a one-sided or selective version...they just didn't have to pick a side. @tallslenderguy, you commented on the guest's Swedish fellow statement. The Swedish gentleman is an anecdote that's even on wikipedia. He could have rounded out the anecdote with the more-relevant statement: most Swedes who migrated did so to avoid the restrictions being placed on their religious practices -- in Sweden by the Lutheran Church of Sweden (state church). They left for the freedom of worship offered in the US along with the rest of the freedoms. This happened before and after Sweden in other countries, notably England during American colonial times, as state religious institutions (in Europe) tried to moderate practices during and after centuries of religious wars -- see: European Wars of Religion. At least as far as Protestant states were concerned. In that, the anecdote isn't wrong but it's so incomplete as to be misleading. Catholics were a different story...it was generally the more moderate adherents who crossed the pond but in relatively small numbers until the late 19th century. Catholic states did not try to populate the Americas (see: France, Spain, Portugal) with civilian settlements. The Americas were merely resource development / commerce. There are a whole host of reasons I won't go into to avoid a book. There's plenty "out there." It's for similar reasons as to why China never bothered to cross the Pacific...even though ocean currents are more favorable linked to island-hoping along The Aleutians -- of which China had been aware (The Aleutians). China, in the early 15th century, had arguable the strongest navy in the world. But the Ming effectively disbanded it both do to cost and to cultural change it brought domestically. Their motives were driven by conservative Confucianism practices tied to ancestor worship -- short of it: they did not want to leave their homeland (i.e., the harm it would bring their ancestors in the afterlife) and they wanted their homeland to stay as-is. Likewise, as China "looked" to the ancestors, Catholics look to the Vatican as a religious home. Most Christians gave up the idea of "controlling" Jerusalem centuries ago. Catholic civilian interest is moving away from that physical space was limited -- Protestants had no such physical connection to place. All of this is covered in Western Civ classes -- or, at least, good ones. The course I referenced above on Eastern Empires and others on China, re: The Great Courses, cover that as well as a multitude of books. I can't stress enough how great and eye-opening the course Barbarians of the Steppes is to understand the world from 200 BCE to ~1500 CE -- specifically: WHY people thought what they did -- from their vantage point and not our vantage point -- and how that culminated into the setup of more modern times. The now-retired academic did convert the course into a book, Empires of the Steppes, somewhat recently...I have not read but assume it covers the same stuff. But I'm unsure if the dryness of text is as impactful as a lecture.

The last 15 mins was the philosophical issue....absence of null. I noted one omission at the 20' mark. Another in the last 30 mins, in the context of the 1924 legislation. When I watched I mentally noted others as well...Stewart's questions of role of religion being explicitly avoided. That includes one instance which he even makes a comment on their silence.

...after a few days, part of this video really bothered me. For the rest of you, I reached out privately to @tallslenderguy about that yesterday. The short of it, Jon Stewart's guests provided a biased view which is making its way through left-leaning circles. But it has it's own history. I want to be clear: I make NO negative claim about the intention of @tallslenderguy whatsoever. In fact, I fully appreciate and believe in what he continues to do on this site by providing perspectives. That's why I'm happy to spend time engaging with him (and others) in those perspectives. Then, as if by some divine force -- none of which I believe in -- Politico posted this article just this morning. [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/12/13/woodard-immigration-00679254 The author is Colin Woodward. He wrote a book a decade ago I've mentioned on this site before, American Nations. It's a great book and the article demonstrates that. But back to the beginning of this post and the biased view presented. Stewart asks his guests about religion's role repeated. They deflect each time. This is part of a response-movement on the left in today's culture...to the political right. In the article, Woodward states: "On one side are ethnonationalists who assert that only the people with the right lineage and faith can belong to America. On the other is the civic nationalist tradition where anyone who shares the universal ideas about human freedom in the Declaration of Independence is a potential American." But, in the linked video, failure by omission or failure by selective facts are both manipulation. They -- Stewart's guests and NOT @tallslenderguy -- are participating in a form of ideological purity control -- as are the Heritage folks. But you can't counter a manipulation of facts with one of your own. For myself, I have no interest in religion at all. But I fully respect those that do. But the failure to acknowledge its role is bias. Simultaneously, that doesn't mean it has to continue as a driving force. After all, Christianity itself, as well as most other religions, wouldn't exist if spiritual thought had to be held stagnant.

Here's another example. Here it's more a controlled scenario where FIFA has set World Cup ticket prices very high in non-market conditions. [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c80x38e04yro The cheapest ticket for the Final is current;y >$4,000. But FIFA can do this as people still come. People still watch. I'm choosing to skip tuning in after watching religiously since 1986.

I was able to get through this one @tallslenderguy! I didn't start to rant at my screen until the last 15 minutes of so...once the convo went out of their self-admitted depth and it became more a philosophical chat. 😀 To that part, I wish they revisited the many many schools of thought in Eastern traditions as well as ancient Greek philosophies. They completely missed Plato in the discussion and Platonism's use in the Heritage movement's thinking. The participant's view was somewhat contradictory to varied philosophies. Just from ancient Greek thought are stoicism, epicureanism, skepticism, cynicism, etc. And I've only scratched the surface with Eastern thought. The common theme among some of these ideas, the thing the linked speakers derided, was "accepting the null." Earlier, they did talk about manifest destiny but didn't apply it to the thinking. I was unsure if that was bias. Clearly, throughout the 19th century (+/-) we shoved Natives out. We had no intention of including everybody...not that it was correct. In that, their convo smacked of modern elitism. And here, I don't think they setup the mindset of the 17th-19th century world -- and not just here but everywhere around the world. With that, different conclusions could be drawn. If you'd like some examples as to why, there are excellent lecture series in The Great Courses Signature Series -- each series is between 20 and 50 30-minute lectures from academics around the world. I subscribe via Apple but assume it's available elsewhere. They do have a stand-alone site, which I've not used. Very good background: Barbarians of the Steppes -- by the end, you'll get a good understanding of why "the West" was what is was but more so how much had happened elsewhere, specifically Central Asia. We, the US, came into the world at just the right time... they even talk about how people in the 18th and 19th century talked about that. But those people didn't know by how much, as the history of the Steppes and Central Asia had been lost. Academic understanding is more modern rediscovery and still only partial. Eastern Civilization -- a small part of this includes a starters' guide to various Eastern thought and philosophies but mostly on why there was little migration to what is not the US from this region, therefore, people here in the 18th to 19th centuries were little burdened. A History of Eastern Europe -- includes the local history of Nationalism in the 19th century, it's impact missed in the video -- both in that time and place and, through implication, the modern far-right movements. It also highlights why some of these people called themselves "not white" -- as discussed in the linked video -- as well as highlights the Eastern Orthodox segment of Christianity, itself derived from Greek Orthodox/The Byzantine Empire aka Eastern Roman Empire. It never hurts to do a History of Western CIv class -- they have two lecture series...I think only one is available at any one time on Apple though. The most important thing they discussed was paradoxically a bit of a null argument to the topic. That "the founders" and those in the 18th and 19th century didn't have the same conditions we have now. Or, you can just watch the South Park episode Goobacks (from like 2003 or 2004), re: migration culminating in a big gay sex pile orgy.

OK. Let's try it this way. @Room4ustwo you're reply to rawfuckingonly's comment added two false statements in and of his comment itself. One, to dismiss him you added the MAGA/Trump part to your replay. In his comment, although clearly angry in tone, he did not make a pro-Trump/MAGA point. His comment was against socialism. And socialism is not the answer to Trump or MAGA. Two, to emphasize your point you added the false-narrative of the 2026 mid-terms. No election in any democracy is definitive let alone a mid-term election. And to the point in the NBC News video, Democrats would likely do better without the socialist rhetoric and policies. In his way, that was also rawfuckingonly's point, from a conservative perspective (my assumption on that). To your own "winter is coming" comment, politics and electoral outcomes are cyclical. There's no point in using such a statement when the very next election can throw eggs in your face. Also, it wasn't ->19%.

This is merely an attempt to calm a convo. It might be fruitless. This just to demonstrates how multiple things can be simultaneous true and contradictory. Here are the summarized data which support the NBC News analysis in the video. The analysis in the video helps to connect the dots (which I'm implying). Tennessee special election - Dec. 2nd, count as of Dec. 7th District results shown by 5 groups of counties, Davidson (Nashville), Montgomery (Clarksville), South Suburbs (Williamson), West Suburbs (Cheatham+Dickson), and Rural (rest of district). Davidson: 24% of the vote, D56pp margin, ->D19pp shift vs. 2024* Montgomery: 24%, R8, ->D12 South Suburbs: 15%, R23, ->D10 West Suburbs: 14%, R37, ->D8 Rural Counties: 23%, R50, ->D6 How to read: Davidson was 24% of the district-wide vote. In it, the Dem won by 56%-points (pp), 78% vs. 22%. This was a shift in favor of Democrats by 19% vs. 2024 when they won this portion of the county by 37pp, 67% vs. 30%... so the shift, ->D19pp, is the 2025 margin (56pp) less the 2024 margin (37pp). [think before following links] https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/steve-kornacki-how-democrats-missed-the-mother-of-all-upsets-in-tennessee-253608005609

Here's a live example to continue to price issue: Netflix to buy studio/steaming of Warner Bros Discovery, incl HBO Max. [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce91x2jm5pjo Here's the relevant snippet on how corporations, across industries chase lower prices: "Netflix estimates it will find $2-3bn in savings, mostly through eliminating overlaps in the support and technology areas of the businesses." Also know as firing people. So, what is the likely outcome? Will people say enough is enough and cancel both services as they're tired of big companies and profit and dividends? Or will they think, "Great, I can get almost 2-for-1 if Max gets combined with Netflix (or, at least, discounted)?"

What do you mean? No one, left, right, or center is under any illusion or disillusion? The sitting President's party has lost the mid-terms in 10 of the last 11 elections, since 1980. The only exception being 2002, post-9/11.

Agree to this, conceptually, as well as the detail you mention for pharma. But then "we" (a.k.a. society) fight over which social values... to abort or not to abort, for instance. Pharma, in detail, is a bit outta my comfort zone beyond what I shared in the other convo. The number you ref above, 13.8% vs 7.7% are generally in-line with that. but it's all perspective too. The difference with Pharma vs other industries is that the product lifecycle is riddled with failures, 80%-90% of tested drugs do not come to market (shared previously), and the very short time window before generic versions become available. Those two issues change relationships of acceptable profitability greatly. For instance, think what Google would have been -- or, really, Yahoo before it -- if Internet search had to be made "free" (to advertisers) or generic after something like 10 years. How much more would Google (etc) have had to charged advertisers -- or even users -- for their services in those first few years? Would they even have existed in any serious way? But you touch on something -- the scientists in the development chain -- and getting financially rewarded for their services. Absolutely agree. But that isn't just from industry. It's also from the Universities...who take the lion's share of revenue from any patented work. The last I read -- most institutions take like 75%+, but do not quote me on that number. Our higher education system is so messed up, re financing. What the scientists don't get should go back to the pot for future funding to lower taxpayer burden for new research (federal tax revenue allocation to research grants) and not to these failing institutions. I made other similar points on these topics in the "Independent" thread. No reason to repeat!

I don't have an issue with AI stories. The human guidance is what makes it good. But AI images and video are boring. It's basically just animation...and there's already animation. I like people and their flaws.