If the person wants to sue him civilly, and his wealth factors into the decision of that case, that is fine. Also, if the UFC wants to punitively punish him for behavior that violates his contract, that is also fine.

However, I am not sure it is appropriate for a government to have a punishment based sliding scale based on someone's means for a criminal charge.

The article actually mentions that McGregor had already made some sort of civil payment to the victim, which I assume was much much much much much much much much higher than it would have been if McGregor was an Uber driver.

Well thats nice of him. But lets say some rich person in general gets fined for something, like a parking ticket or whatever it may be. The purpose of monetary punishment is to condition people, and if it doesnt sting then the gouvernement loses its ability to do that.

An interesting situation where white flight seems to have contributed somewhat to a school district receiving worse and worse grades from the state. It does have a semi happy ending that the ISD was able to turn themselves around and get a B grade from the state.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/11...source=twitter

Welcome to how LAUSD (and probably many other large school districts in CA) operate. The current thing is there is a big political fight over Charter schools, whereas parents want them because it is way better for the kids who are admitted, but the teachers unions and their political advocates oppose them, because they result in less kids (especially high performing ones) in normal public schools, which impacts funding and scoring.

This seems pretty bad

https://abc7.com/hispanic-man-says-h...crime/5670872/

A breakdown of the Oberlin food incident and how it played into the 'student panic industrial complex'

Basically a student journalist pitched the idea that the foods in the cafeteria didn't match up to what they were called, the banh mi wasn't banh mi it was just some meat on a bun, the sushi wasn't sushi, etc.

Your pretty basic "Our cafeteria is serving sub par food" story. The story ran and Oberlin agreed to, you know, make the food match how it was described.

The New York Post, a Rupert Murdoc newspaper, then took a hold of the story, gave it a sensationalist headline

From there the right wing created a story of far left activists complaining that cafeteria food was appropriation and then the responsible liberal centrists had to tut tut the students for their "far left activism"

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/...mpus-diversity

That happened in 2015. I never even heard of that incident, although it is possible I heard about it 5 years ago and just forgot. And I consume way more "sensational right wing" media than 99% of the population. Seems to me having to go all the way back to 2015 for a nothing burger story underscores how weak the author's argument really is.

It's not a nothingburger. That doesn't underscore how weak the author's argument really is.

So yesterday I got Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration.

Just your standard academic book by an economist. Except it's written as a graphic novel, with illustrations (and some text?) by the guy that does Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. So I bought it because, first of all, it's nice to have an academic book written on my level. But it's also a really interesting and enjoyable read. I highly recommend it.

I took some photos to hopefully convene something of the feel. These are from a chapter on the economics, but there are other chapters on various moral arguments, arguments about cultural change, and so on.

I read all the cartoons. All the arguments are reliant on the premise that quality of life for natives is actually improving. Yet, everything I have heard (from the left and right) is that quality of life is decreasing for native non educated elites, both economically and socially. In fact, I can’t think of a single metric to suggest quality of life isn’t lowering for the majority of native Americans.

So how am I supposed to reconcile the premise of these cartoons and everything I hear/read about reality?

The author provides citations for various claims about the economic benefits of immigration, so you could look at those. One of the citations is to this report from the National Academy of Sciences. I don't really know enough about what you've heard to respond. It seems like you're misunderstanding the argument though. The book is not arguing that the status quo is improving the lives of natives. It's arguing that increased immigration would be beneficial over the status quo.

In any case, the argument the book makes depends heavily on evaluating the economic benefits of immigration as positive. As far as I know those claims are not really that contentious among economists. But if you think those claims are wrong then you'll reach other conclusions, at least about economics, if not about ethics.

Mostly, I didn't link it here in order to say that it proves some conclusion definitively, although I'm sympathetic to the conclusion. I linked it here because I think it's definitely worth a read. I'm sure I'm not competent to say whether Caplan gets everything exactly right. I'm also quite interested in the way the book was done. It's interesting to see policy arguments put forward in a more consumable way (while still making concrete arguments supported by research).

The capitalists steal the excess value faster than the extra immigrants can generate it.

Alabama rigged their public education system back in 2013 so every year the State calculates data and then deems some amount of poor, majority-black schools failures. It’s unavoidable. No matter what any of the schools do, some of them are declared failures publicly by the state.

The law is probably doing exactly as republicans intended. Tax-payer funded perverse marketing for private schools with a bonus signal for racists like a cherry on top.

You probably missed the last student panic that lefty students were dumb and calling all sorts of food and yoga cultural appropriation and are on the current one that college students are illiberal authoritarians who don't want to have an open debate.

But have the same underlying logic of over blowing the situation, focusing on a small amount of students, bad faith right wing media, and liberal centrists determined to be Very Serious People but tut tuting them.

Ironically, Oberlin college has actually been in the right wing news A LOT the last year, but I guess the more timely story didn't fit the authors narrative, so he declined to bring it up.

If an honest actor was going to write a story about right wing news media blowing up a Oberlin story, they certainly would have used the more recent scandal, which I guarantee has had 100X the exposure of the nothing burger one from 2015. But we clearly are not dealing with an honest actor, so here we are.

I don't know. The Vox article is linking to the Colleges Are Losing Control of Their Story. The Banh-Mi Affair at Oberlin Shows How article on The Chronicle of Higher Education which does cover the latest blow up scandal as well.

Kind of funny that there are multiple generations of right wing media reporting in bad faith

Writing about that incident in 2019 is of course LOL. This is true for Vox and The Chronicle of Higher Education (which I have never even heard of).

However, I looked at the article and it is interesting all the "bad faith right wing media" that commented on this incident at the time (2015), which include such right wing stalwarts as Newsweek, NYT, Atlantic, Washington Post, The Independent, and Seventeen magazine.

It looks like you and the Vox author are actually the ones reporting on this in bad faith by pretending this was a right wing media story. Even though I don't remember it, apparently it was very mainstream sensational at the time.

David Pakman mentioned this app called Newsvoice on his program, everyone should get it he says. Its some type of crowdsourced news site made by a former google engineer, the purpose is to not let the big news corps decide whats important.

Epic "Ok boomer" moment.

Us millennials would not have the cohonas to come up with this meme against our parents ourselves, but we'll sure as hell adopt it.

If only we had known such a legendary weapon existed in these two magical words, that when separate, carry little value, but together, holds unfathomable power. One could only imagine what we could have accomplished had we known sooner. Could the financial crisis have been avoided? Could we have stopped climate change dead in it's tracks?

The world may never know.

Enjoyed Trump Jr. on the view. Not a republican but that was hilarious! Those ladies were in way over their heads.

Don jr: Lemme tell you about character and values!

Also Don jr: *brings mistress with him on show*

So whoopi defended Polanski. "it wasn't rape, rape." And the other lady dressed up in blackface.

If you google image whoopi blackface you'll see some pretty woke behavior. That was her enjoying her boyfriends costume. The tolerant left, folks!

Yeah the View is really bad for the left

You, uh, really want to play a game of things Don Jr. has defended vs. things Whoopi has defended?