roscoe

He has a nuanced take on controversial issues and isn't afraid of voicing his opinions about them to push the conversation forward. I think he is taking a contrarian stance against what he perceives as a lack of nuance in response to his side of the conversation. I can understand being frustrated at tackling a complex issue imperfectly and simply being labeled a transphobe in response.

I don't think that's a good excuse in general, but for Chappelle specifically it definitely doesn't work.

If I remember correctly, when he walked away from his show is was partly due to the wrong people laughing for the wrong reasons. Bigots were laughing at his "nuanced takes" on the black community for their own racist reasons and missing the point.

Even if you think Chappelle isn't bigoted and he's trying to make some other point, after all this time it should be very clear to him bigots are missing the point and laughing for the wrong reasons.

He had the strength and conviction to walk away when it was the black community he thought he might be harming but not when it's trans people.

I didn't mean to suggest 90s rap was one-dimensional but it does seem like there is more variety now. But I wasn't in an environment where I could buy local/touring hip hop tapes out of the trunk of a car, where I was that sort of thing was mostly punk and metal, so I never experienced all there was to offer. Maybe what I perceive as an increase is just due to streaming services making discovery so much easier.

That's an interesting point about the accessibility of digital tools. Without a completely new way to craft a sound nothing could sound all that different.

Although I do like "real" country music (sorry about the gatekeeping) "pop country", Nashville pop, or whatever you want to call it, is the one genre of music I dislike the whole of. I guess it's different from other country but it's similar enough to generic pop I wouldn't consider it new.

I do agree about rap/hip-hop though. The artists I listen to now are very different than what I listened to in the 90s and there is a much wider variety of style. I wonder how much of that is due to how easy it is to discover new artists now. Back in the 90s learning about underground rap artists, or underground anything, wasn't easy.

Not Nirvana, wrong genre. But it wouldn't be out of place on one of my metal stations, but I don't have to wait for that because now I have a station based on them, thank you for that.

But Morbid Angel came up after a few songs (to be fair it was a more recent song) and that's kind of my point. Stations based on a 90s band will get me recent stuff and vice versa. If I make a Who station, Elvis doesn't come up. If I make a Joplin station, L7 doesn't come up. You usually get a pretty narrow time frame for anything pre-90s, after that it's anything goes.

That's not to say Igorrr sounds exactly like anyone from 30 years ago, but it's an evolution as opposed to a revolution.

Edit: several songs later I got NIN, Mr. Self Destruct, it doesn't get much more 90s than that.

I like today's music but it seems derivative. Maybe I'm full of shit, and feel free to tell me why, but it seems like music from my dad's youth (which I also like) was way different than mine, but nothing has changed that much since then.

You could take today's music and put it on a radio station in the 90s and it wouldn't seem out of place if you didn't know any better. I don't think the same is true for 90s music on a 60s or 70s station.

I've heard young Xers and old millennials called the Oregon Trail generation. Named that because we were the first ones to have computers growing up. We grew up as the tech matured and got to watch it become easier and more useful.

Normally you're right. It seems like every day there is a new revolutionary battery tech with no real estimate when it'll ever be in use. But in this case, according to the article, deliveries will start next month which means they're already in production.

What else do you want? There are numbers for short-term, long-term, actively looking, stopped looking, workforce participation, and underemployed both part-time who want full-time and full-time in a low paying job because they can't find anything in their field. They also have trends and more granular breakdowns in each category.

Enlighten me, what else should be reported? People who wait tables but dream of being a movie star or pro athlete?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said the data doesn't match reality. I'm saying the data is reality, or are least the best measure of it we have.

You're the one insisting that your experiences are the only measure of reality, and since the data doesn't agree, it must be bullshit, instead of the much more likely explanation that your experiences aren't typical.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with the "6 months" thing, but if you're talking about the inflation rate spiking, the data wasn't wrong, the interpretation was. The data showed inflation up, every month, but the Fed thought it was "transitory". Eventually they realized "oh shit" it's not transitory and took action to bring it down while trying not to cause a recession at the same time. I'm no fan of the Fed in general, but credit where it's due, it looks like they did a damn good job.

I'm well aware of all the various measures of unemployment, and they're very good. Both short and long term unemployment are below what used to be considered maximum employment, and have been for a while. Underemployment is historically low. And after controlling for boomers aging out, workforce participation is trending upward. More people are working, more people are working full time, in jobs they're trained for (as opposed to having to take jobs they're overqualified for), and their wages are growing faster than inflation.

No, I don't think there is a vast conspiracy of thousands of federal workers, normal career employees, not political appointees, publishing fake numbers. The raw data is public and so is the origin. No one disagrees on what the numbers are, just what spin to put on it. Often, for political reasons, people will try to put a bad spin on good numbers, or a good spin on shitty numbers, but the numbers themselves are not in question.

I think you've been taken in by someone who wants to put a bad spin on good numbers. Numbers so good, if you had told me you thought we'd be here a year ago I would have laughed in your face.

Maybe, just maybe, the people doing well aren't lying to you, there isn't a conspiracy of government workers, and things are as all available data suggests.

Maybe your experiences just aren't typical.

You keep saying that, but that's not what the data shows. It shows real wage growth is exceeding inflation. It's also starting to show deflation across several categories of goods.

It sucks your wages haven't kept up with inflation and maybe eggs at your grocery store aren't any cheaper, but the data shows that your experience isn't typical.

The typical experience is surprisingly good and getting better.

Yeah...we know. It's pretty clear wildginger was using it sarcastically and I was using the same words as them.

But things have changed, that's the point. While individual experiences vary, all the economic data this year has been pretty stellar.

Reducing inflation this fast without tanking the economy, and not just not tanking it, actually having pretty decent economic numbers is a major achievement.

When the Fed stated raising rates to curtail inflation almost everyone thought there was no way to do it without a recession, maybe a major one, and increasing unemployment 2-3X. The "soft landing" seemed like a naive hope. We're not all the way there yet but it looks like they actually did it. Inflation is almost down to targets and at the same time, unemployment is still low, GDP growth is good, real wage growth beats inflation, etc.

It's not all blowjobs and caviar for everyone but we were heading for a major disaster and it's been avoided.