It's so funny you say that. Was literally just chatting to my wife the other day about how mediocre weddings are. You spend $20-$50k basically LARPing as landed British gentry, and end up having less fun than the average 21st, Christmas or New Year's. So much more stress in planning too.
My wife and I are not party people. We would never host a part with 100 friends and family for any reason other than our wedding.
It felt really special to see all my friends and family out there in the audience supporting my wife and I sharing our vows to each other. I was grinning like an idiot the whole ceremony because I was just so happy.
I had always loved going to my cousin's weddings. No one in my family is religious anymore (my uncle was a priest but left the priesthood, I was raised atheist), but we all do take marriage pretty seriously. I have 10 cousins and 4 sets of aunts and uncles, and all of them are still married to their first spouse. It felt very special to join that club. I was the second to last cousin to get married (I am also the second to youngest).
All my cousins had amazing weddings, too. They were all big parties that we had a lot of fun at. I felt like it was my turn to host one, and it felt magical. We got married at the downtown library, which is a special place for us. We love taking our kids there and showing them where we were married.
Having spent that money hasn't really changed my life in any significant way. I don't think anything would be different if I had an extra $60k. For the price of a nice car, we got a magical night that we will never forget, wonderful memories, and a fantastic way to celebrate our commitment to each other. It was a once in a lifetime thing. Way more valuable to me than a nice car.
I don't know. If you had 50 friends, reserved space at a decent restaurant, and got a DJ you could totally have a good time for what's been solidly under $10k even until recently in most of the country. Outfits + photographer + rings add, but there's obviously a lot of latitude to have a really fun time in that price bracket depending on what you like. And there are all kinds of alternatives. We have some friends who went to Italy with a wedding party of about 8 people (family and close friends) and had a great time. I don't think it was cheap, but it was probably below the low end of the $20k if some of the wedding party paid their own way and they had a really fun Italian vacation. We also have friends who just borrowed someone's house, got a pile of food delivered and had basically a game night wedding thing.
I know the kinds of weddings you speak of, and it’s sad, and hard to disagree.
Even more sad that for $20-$50k you /could/ have a super unique, awesome and even low-stress wedding (ok that last part depending on parents/relatives may be impossible), yet so many are the same songs (you know them all), same venues (estate, banquet hall, rooftop, etc), same food.
We do pretty well, although it is expensive living in LA.
We had a little over 100 people, our wedding was at the downtown library, and we spent about $60k. It didn't really hurt our ability to buy a house a few years later, an extra $60k would not have changed our budget at all.
I think the point is to distinguish ‘political opinions that I am comfortable disagreeing with people about, and can still be friendly with people who strongly disagree with me’ and ‘morally unacceptable opinions that I will neither listen to nor associate with anyone who hold them’.
There are many political opinions that I strongly believe in that I am comfortable disagreeing with people on. I believe everyone has a right to health care, and that society should guarantee basic necessities for everyone. I even feel that belief is a morality based belief. However, I can accept people disagreeing with me, and can accept that there are some strong arguments against my belief, and that good people can disagree with my position.
On the other hand, if someone believes that certain races should not have the same rights, or that women should be given less agency than men, I will not entertain that argument or accept that it is just a political dispute. That is a fundamental moral issue, and is beyond JUST politics.
Affirmative action and similar policies are examples of those sorts of political opinions that I can happily debate, and I definitely don't think I have the perfect answers for how best to obtain the goal of equality.
As far as your particular question goes, I don't agree that believing that all races should have the same rights is inherently in conflict with the idea of affirmative action. In most implementations, there are no rights that are denied to anyone when affirmative action policies are implemented. The entire point and purpose is to counteract existing norms, institutions, and system structures that are actively denying rights to citizens in particular groups/races.
For example, take the original affirmative action order (from which the phrase was coined) signed by JFK in 1961. The text stated, "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin"
What rights are being denied if that is followed? The idea is that it is clear through observation that the criteria that was being used before was preferential to white Christian men, so they were instructed to proactively address that unfairness by changing their hiring process to attempt to eliminate those biases. How is that in any way denying rights to any group?
That JFK quote is not what it means. It means denying access to limited places in education based on race. Do you mean those aren't rights so denying them doesn't fall within you definition of intolerable ideas?
You don't need to explain what it's for because what what it's for doesn't change what it is. If I robbed somebody to use the money to cure cancer, it doesn't change the fact that I still robbed somebody.
That is literally where the term comes from. It isn't a quote, it was an executive order. That language is what it legally meant.
> It means denying access to limited places in education based on race.
Every person accepted is a denial to someone else. As you said, there are limited spaces. If you define it as a right to have a space at that school, then by definition you have to deny some people their rights, since you can't accept all of them.
Affirmative action means you are supposed to factor in the existing disadvantages that minorities face when deciding between two candidates. It doesn't mean accepting a less qualified candidate, it means acknowledging that our previous methods for choosing between candidates was inherently discriminatory already, and in order to counteract that, we need to take 'affirmative action' to make things more fair.
You can always argue about what criteria should be used to choose between two comparable candidates, there is no such thing as a perfectly 'objective' evaluation. Even if you chose to base everything on a test score, you still have to decide what goes on the test and how the questions are worded. There is no way to do that that is perfectly fair for everyone, even if we accepted the premise that test scores are an accurate and fair measure for choosing who to accept to a school.
Why shouldn't the pervasive, clear, and systemic racism and discrimination that many minorities face be used as a factor when determining school acceptance? How is ignoring that reality 'more fair', and how is acknowledging and compensating for that reality a 'denial of rights' to anyone? Wouldn't it be a worse denial of rights to ignore the discrimination and racism, and making decisions as if the world wasn't the way it is?
> That is literally where the term comes from. It isn't a quote, it was an executive order. That language is what it legally meant.
It doesn't matter what the history is - we both know that is not what it means in practice today. Continuing to lean on this incorrect definition is dishonest. If that's really what you mean, then I completely agree with you, but you've shown that it's not what you really mean.
> then by definition you have to deny some people their rights, since you can't accept all of them.
Yes but you can do that without using their race as a factor.
You are still literally justifying denying rights to people because of their race. You have some reason for it but as I said, the reason doesn't change the fact that it's still denying rights because of race.
To show why it's wrong, imagine you're a black immigrant from a black country and you've never suffered any of this discrimination you talk about. You now get preferential access to tops universities because some other people who aren't you did suffer discrimination. That really just entrenches the unfairness.
Do you also favor a Jew tax because Jews are rich? That's the logic you're using. Treating individuals according to their group's characteristics. It's also the core of modern leftism (wokism) which why I suggested leftists would hate you for your ideas.
> It doesn't matter what the history is - we both know that is not what it means in practice today.
That isn't true. The sort of affirmative action I am talking about is still used in the world today. People who are against any sort of action to counter systemic racism have chosen to pretend that all affirmative action is the "racial quota" type that you are talking about and that has been illegal for quite some time. Continuing to pretend that is what affirmative action proponents are talking about is how opponents are attempting to get rid of fair and reasonable affirmative action by treating it all as the illegal kind.
The 'Jew tax' example is completely disingenuous. This is not applying any rule or law to a specific race, ethnicity, or religion; it is simply taking into account the effect that discrimination and racism has had on people when evaluating candidates for limited positions. It is not the same at all.
Your black immigrant example also is quite the reach. For one thing, that immigrant is facing racism and discrimination the moment they step into the country.
You say you are worried about unfairness being entrenched, but this has already happened and is what we are trying to fix. Racial discrimination against minorities is CURRENTLY entrenched in our institutions, and affirmative action is the attempt to overcome some of it.
I find it very interesting that you are so concerned about any advantages that might become entrenched for minorities, but are completely fine allowing the entrenched advantages for the majority to persist. You are more worried about hypothetical future advantages rather than actual present advantages.
The whole point of affirmative action is action is to acknowledge that if two candidates are equal or close to equal in qualifications, the one that has had more disadvantages is probably the better candidate and should be chosen.
"if two candidates are equal or close to equal in qualifications, the one [whose race] has had more disadvantages is probably the better candidate and should be chosen."
Now that I've changed it to say what you actually believe and have stated before, you can see why it's controversial.
You are really struggling with the idea that race-based discrimination is something you actually favor even though society has told you you're supposed to be intolerant of it. It's leading you into all these contradictions and justifications. Modern leftists have resolved these contradictions by not making such bold simple claims as you did.
I'll just leave you with an example from my own country. It's a kind of quota (100% for a specific race) so you might not like it or maybe you will. I have no idea because your idea is so inconsistent.
Is there a point where enough (per capita) wealth has been created? Where there is enough pie to go around for everyone, and we have no need to create more pies?
I am sure we can all argue about where that point is, but I wonder if we agree that there is such a point? Or do we have to keep increasing our wealth forever?
LittleSnitch isn't for ad blocking (only), it is for tracking/blocking/allowing ALL connections from various processes. PiHole only blocks DNS requests to known ad servers.
Some books rely on plot and an interesting premise for their entire appeal. Some people like/don’t mind books that are weak in prose and lack vividness in detail, and will stay for the interesting plot.
It sounds like he has a lot of general skills, too. I guess we all have different priorities, but I would work whatever job to not have to leave my kid for that long.
Kid will be fine, mom will be fine, dad will be fine — a month does sound long, but it depends more on what attention you provide when you are with your partner and kids.
Sounds like he is in there 24/7 most likely spending more time than you or me with his kid over the course of the year (if you are in a regular 9-5 type of role with limited PTO) — or he'd not even mention missing a month with his 2yo.
Except no, you aren't paying the full capacity of using all of your limits every time. The subscription cost is less than it would take to actually pay for the capacity of the limits. That is how these sorts of subscriptions work.
You can pay for the capacity, using the per token price.
It's funny because I feel like I am both. Sometimes I am in it for the code itself, and the process of writing it. I see how the code will perfectly fit what I want to do, and I am so excited to make that happen. I want to make that thing.
Other times, I have something specific I want to accomplish, but I dread the amount of time it will take to make it happen.
Now, it is never that I don't know HOW to make it happen, it is that I know how, and I know how many steps it is and how many components there are to build to even get the simplest version running and I just dread it. I want the thing, but I don't want to spend the time to make the thing.
I have had so much fun recently making so many things that I have never gotten around to over the years, because I just couldn't justify the time.
I also have the time to tell the AI to add all the nice to haves, and handle all the edge cases that weren't worth the time before, etc.
I am having a blast. I still stop to write the fun bits when I want to, though. It is great because I only have to code the bits I want, that are fun.
