4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
Why should that be? I can already think of the Conflict Theory explanation - but what would the Mistake Theory explanation for that be?
By "X theory explanation", do you mean "if you are an X theorist, you could explain it like this" or "if [your opponents who are responsible for this state of affairs] are X theorists, this is how they would justify their choice"?
Assuming it's the former, it doesn't seem like a hard exercise. I'd think that the mistake that camp pro-SJ does in this and many other scenarios is assuming that just because certain minorities have inferior SES nationally on average, they always and everywhere can not possibly be at a local advantage or have something to bestow withholding which on an ethnic basis can be unfair to individuals and ultimately to the detriment of all. Maybe there is a white or Asian teenager who grew up over in the neighbourhood of the black church, in a particular subcommunity where all his friends and social superiors are black. The only status that he would be feasibly placed to pursue in his life is status in his local community, which is significantly gatekept by the black church in question, and even if they aren't formally rejecting him, in practice he would obviously, visibily be out of place if he tried to join and participate.
The easiest way to make the mistake-theoriness of the view stark is to then treat both sides as sum utilitarians. If we compelled the black church to make an explicit effort to admit more people who look like him, would this on balance do more good by helping people like the hypothetical black-neighbourhood kid (or any number of other effects which I didn't address, such as the sense of civic belonging that may be fostered by everyone being subject to the same rules), or more bad by making the job of running a $disadvantaged_minority church even more onerous than it already is (and accordingly keeping the black-white SES gap greater, with all the disutility this entails)? Presumably the SJ utilitarian response is the latter, but are they right about this?
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
"If you behave like a rabid dog, don't be surprised if you get taken behind the shed and shot"
It is easy to mistake the leeriness of members of a society you find yourself opposing some key elements of for irredeemable, minus-infinity-level hostility that the only dignified response for you is to fight with all your might, but the natural consequence is then that every time you fight back against someone, more members get leery of you, until you are left standing alone against everyone. Sometimes dissidents who contain their righteous anger and try to work with those organs of society that are predisposed against them fail miserably anyway, but it seems quite clear that 100% of those that do not contain it do. Of course, it may be that you value a great chance of coming out looking more dignified to yourself in your loss higher than a small chance of not losing, but then forgive me if I don't want to participate in your particular rebellion and prefer one that is in it for victory rather than aesthetics.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
The problem is that in this metaphor, capturing (and, of course, exaggerating) the vast difference in institutional power, only you are the dog. A dog can see its fellow dogs getting kicked, dragged around by the leash and euthanised by "rabid" humans, but lashing out at its human owner when the human owner already thinks of it as a problem dog will lead to worse outcomes than, say, becoming the maximally instagrammable pomeranian that has trained its dog mommy so much that it's really not clear anymore who exactly owns whom.
"How curious that society bends over backwards to appease human-approved violence, but dog-approved violence is surely doomed to failure"
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
I think this is misreading the use of "defeat of democracy" in the Trump context. The progressive mainstream has been nursing a narrative somewhat along the lines of "If he can get away with it, Trump will abolish voting and proclaim himself emperor"; if you believe that, you don't need to require any esoteric beliefs on the true meaning of democracy to consider him becoming president a defeat for it, as the standard definition of democracy seems to assign some implicit weight to future generations that makes "overwhelming majority (of those who can vote now) elects eternal dictatorship" not count as a democratic choice. Conversely, dictatorially imposing democratic election processes in the future (by installing the unpopular leader that is seen as for maintaining them) would count as a "victory for democracy" even if it is not itself a democratic process, in the same way in which driving Germany's democratically elected leader to suicide in 1945 seems to be widely accepted as a victory for democracy.
Moreover, progressives believe that this belief of theirs must be obviously true to proponents of Trump as well, i.e. that they would be explicitly voting for the abolition of democracy. Considering noises about turnout rates in various elections across the world, I dare say even a 15% turnout or 85% spoiled ballots would also be labelled a "defeat of democracy".
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
I don't think those two things are at all alike in relevant aspects, though. If people in China invent an alternative internet or kiwifarms, I can't just run it on my own machine.
A sufficiently general interpretation of the argument ("people were calling X resistant to regulation but it turned out to not be, so if people call Y resistant to regulation, it will also turn out to not be") proves way too much though; the exercise of finding historical patterns that were broken is trivial.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
It seems to me that to attain anything resembling Ukraine's maximalist goals (that is, retaking all of its original territory), a collapse of the current Russian government is an almost unavoidable precondition - the territories Russia conquered since the start of the war are one thing, but the war on the Donbass front seems to be largely fought by separatist forces who are much more highly motivated and have their backs to the wall, Crimea is nominally actually under the Russian nuclear umbrella in a way that I doubt either Ukraine or its Western backers are particularly interested in testing, and both have local populations that are likely highly hostile to the Kiev government and could probably not be pacified while Russia's promise of support remains credible. In that regard, hastening such a collapse (which would also make the actual job of reconquest significantly easier) seems like it would be a natural objective of the counteroffensive. Clear victories would of course do this, but so would baiting the Russians into making self-defeating mistakes such as general mobilisation. For the latter purpose, in particular, it seems that it would make sense to maintain the impression of steadily increasing operational intensity even if this comes at a high cost and achieves few tactical objectives. Every victory evokes a feeling of "if we couldn't hold this village now, what's going to happen next week?", and makes it just this much more likely that Putin or a critical mass of members of his inner circle will blink.
(Regarding mistakes that Russia could be baited into, I've also been curious for a while if there are any non-public "red lines" that the American alliance has communicated to Russia. There are a number of seemingly sensible actions that they seem to markedly refuse to take, including, to the dismay of Russian milbloggers, attacks on bridges (outside of that one particular one near Odessa) and power plants in the Ukrainian rear, and (to my own greater incomprehension) a WWII-style dumb carpetbombing of Avdeevka which seems to continue punching way above its moral weight in pinning down the DNR. Perhaps there is a tacit agreement to leave the bridges in Ukrainian cities intact in return for the Crimea bridge, but I could also see that such actions would motivate greater Western engagement. Of course, in that case, baiting Russia into performing them is another way to get the necessary footbullets.)
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
This only works because cryptocurrency mining has minimal margins (so top-of-the-line mining hardware is barely profitable, and slightly gimped top-of-the-line hardware is not profitable at all). ML computations are ultimately similar enough to general-purpose computing that you couldn't intentionally cripple them by more than some small constant factor without also crippling games (I've written an ML paper myself where we accelerated the training using graphics-only stone age shader operations, because the deadline was near and we couldn't get our hands on modern GPUs fast enough), but universities and tech giants with 10x faster hardware don't categorically win against a horde of tech-savvy internet users with the 1x version.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
The Russian view is that there are no Russian-controlled cities with a significant number of pro-Ukrainian civilians (as any such civilians evacuated westward shortly before or after the beginning of the war), and so Ukraine would not have any particular compunctions. I think this is plausibly true except for Kherson and maybe Berdyansk, which does call into doubt the seriousness of the counteroffensive in taking the former. Some Russians including Strelkov have been claiming that the Kherson front is a distraction to enable another offensive (the NPP or Izyum) and doing little told-you-so dances when a push against the latter commenced today.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
I don't know how much combat deaths will actually matter demographically at the current mode of warfare. Losses are still counted in (tens of) thousands, whereas the populations of the DNR (Ukraine) are counted in (tens of) millions, and, well, there isn't a lot of human capital in that entire region anyway. Both parties are still squarely in the "spend materiel, preserve people" phase of systemic warfare, where on the margin being willing to preserve people a bit less benefits you because it lets you spend your remaining materiel much more effectively.
I think the collapse of Russian war effort and probably government can come with little fanfare and forewarning, certainly no nuclear option.
Anything could happen, of course, but the likelihood of this strikes me as grossly overstated. I don't think that nukes are likely in absolute terms, but my modal expectation of the situation in a year is an uneasy stalemate on a frontline that doesn't look too different from the current one, not the ideas of widespread collapse of any organised externally-directed violence that seem to be based on a Western conception that Russians will wake up and realise how their narrative is largely wrong and the Western one is obviously correct any moment now.
On this note, what do you think about Kadyrov's retirement announcement?
No opinion; I've only seen it filtered through so many non-neutral intermediaries that I couldn't discern whether it was really made, let alone any subtleties about how it was made if it was.
people believe they are 'young' as long as possible to milk money out of them on frivolous consumerism
This strikes me as an observation from another planet. The young people I know (including myself) have large savings, rent cheap apartments and only spend money on budget travel where they couchsurf or stay in hostels. The adults in my parent generation did things like buying Gucci handbags, fancy cars or taking out a [4x monthly income] loan to buy a designer sofa, and all of these things were specifically because they believed that as adults they have to prove their socioeconomic status by way of ostentatious consumption. At least in my cultural neighbourhood, imposing the "adult" societal role would be by far the most efficient way to get people to engage in frivolous consumerism.
30 and Miscarrying
Rate of miscarriage does not seem to really pick up until 38 or so, and I'd be interested to know how that correlates with number of prior pregnancies and lifestyle choices.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
American police more effective
Here is a study that suggests the US has among the lowest homicide resolution rates among the first-world countries at 65%, well behind Italy which went from 67% to 78%, though obviously there is a wall of confounders (some of which the referenced paper discusses itself).
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
Eh, the "nobody can tell" part is subtle given that it also appears to be considered virtuous to be particularly bad at telling. I've had progressive acquaintances react with what seemed like genuine surprise and apprehension when I referred to third parties who in my eyes obviously did not pass as trans (in a non-hostile context; we were having a completely non-adversarial discussion about diversity metrics at our university). When pressed on this, they insisted that they really didn't know and reacted to my reasoning (masculine voice, height many SD above the biological female mean, large hands, impractically feminine presentation (like frilly skirt in a hardware shop setting), uncommon and conspicuously feminine name) in an "wtf, you caused me disutility by planting this pattern in my head" way. It seems to be more akin "passing" as in "passing a college course" - meeting a standard that is itself up to debate, and generally at least in an American setting understood to be ideally determined according to a principle like "as low as we can get away with without causing too many problems".
LW has sensible prescriptions for the use of language as a tool for reasoning, with the ultimate goal of enabling yourself to make better predictions about the future and choose utility-maximising actions to perform. However, this is not the only capacity in which humans use language, and arguably not the one that progressive activists or transitioners care about here - in fact, for the vast majority of people, it is probably not even the main one. Language is also used to communicate information, induce emotional states in the recipient, as a surprisingly difficult to falsify signal of certain aspects of the mental state and disposition of the speaker - and, as a weird consequence of the last two, to induce emotional states in the speaker. (Why make kids and soldiers speak pledges of allegiance? The language-for-reasoning view has no explanation of this.)
From the last few aspects, a fairly relevant "newcombian" aspect of language use also follows - by consistently referring to X as Y, you really do degrade (in a publicly attested way) your ability to treat X as not-Y.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
Solution 1: Abort all but the top 20% (per mildly futuristic machine-learned polygenic score) of men. Gender balance in numbers evolved in a setting greatly different from modern industrial societies; maybe having a gender balance of 1:5 is actually more stable now.
Solution 2: If it's really about absolute quality rather than relative (i.e. women don't actually grade men on a curve), just have full male-side eugenics and make 5 clones of each of the top 20% instead of sampling male embryos from the general population. No gender imbalance, but of course this would lead to further increases in gender pay gap and performance which could destabilise society in other ways.
Solution 0: If quality-based eugenics is so unpalatable, just use abortion or chemicals in the water to shift the gender ratio of children to 1:5. We can change reptilian gender ratios by shifting environmental temperature; perhaps we will find something that works for mammals too.
The quote you produced is disinformation all right for the "it's a QAnon reference" framing, but referring to people running "drag kids" events as "groomers" does seem like a serious accusation that deserves a bit more justification than the pointing and invoking of disgust reflexes that it is. The standard interpretation of "grooming", as I understand it, is gradual manipulation of the underage and otherwise mentally inadequate with the purpose of normalising the idea that they will be sexually abused or exploited by their adult handlers. I doubt that most people running or supporting those events are doing so with the intention of entering sexual relations with the kids that attend them themselves (and if "encouraging the target enter sexual relations I want to see more of with someone else" is sufficient to meet the definition of grooming, then it seems that a lot of things in our culture since times immemorial would count!), and if their right-wing detractors believe otherwise, the burden of proof surely should be on them. If they detractors do believe that all these progressives are actually in it because they hope to have sex with the ten year olds that they are teaching about drag queens and non-binary gender, protestations to the contrary and seemingly low rate of such sex actually happening notwithstanding, then yes, they are in fact entertaining a conspiracy theory (as there would need to be a conspiracy to conceal widespread pedophilic tendencies and/or actions).
(edit: Per something I found out downthread, there is in fact a legal definition of grooming in the US, which markedly does not cover "introducing children to icky and widely taken to be age-inappropriate sexual activity" on its own)
It reminds me of when "cultural Marxism" became an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory"
Seems like a good riddance to me, because the term was a massive footbullet. The term "cultural marxists" will be resolved correctly by (1) people on your side already and (2) actual cultural marxists, who are in the know about the academic definition drift of "Marxism"; to everyone else, and in particular garden-variety classical liberals who really ought to have been enlisted in the anti-woke coalition much earlier, it just looks like holding up a sign like "actually the main issue I have with my outgroup is that they are dirty commies who want to put limitations on megacorps".
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
Well, how close to the American Right are your political sympathies? There's a whole cluster of memes that primes people like me towards the interpretation I suggested, but they are all fairly left-associated: US right-wingers are approximately seen as the tribe of Big Tobacco/scammy door-to-door salesmen/pouring toxins into the environment/exorbitant medical bills on the one hand and Jesus Camp and creationism in school on the other, and perceived to immediately decry any attempt to make the US more like a "normal civilised European country" in those regards as creeping communism.
(To be clear, I'm well aware of your definition and think it makes sense - after all, that's basically how the academic drivers of the ideology interpret it themselves. It's just that I really don't think the optics work, because for a lot of would-be allies "fighting against Marxism" sounds like standard code for "fighting against a large number of things that I strongly wish for")
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
This is at least a very noncentral example of sexual exploitation, and by implication of grooming. The modal example that the term evokes, and that makes it work as a rhetorical superweapon, is something along the lines of "kid is made to watch as parents engage in 'swinging' and eventually 'invited' to participate" or recently "40 year old creep baits kids on Roblox into sending him nudes and eventually convinces them to meet up offline, keeping it a secret from their parents". If you can have "sexual exploitation" without the "exploiter" deriving a direct personal sexual benefit from it, then the tropey staple chill grandpa who tells the kids of a straight-laced household where in the attic to find the porn stash of his youth is also a groomer.
I understand that "groomer" is an effective rhetorical weapon, but I really don't think it lives up to the standards of discussion we were supposed to be striving for as a community.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
In A Brave New World there is a comment about encouraging kids to play sexual games with each other as a normal part of schooling. Would you consider this grooming, even though the adults performing the encouragement are not the ones getting sexual pleasure? Would an adult standing over two five year olds, helping them get undressed, telling them where to put their hands on the other, be grooming?
Not if it's not for their own pleasure, as I see it. I've seen something like this rule mentioned in the past in the context of advice for parents who are unsure if it's socially acceptable to do this thing or another (I think the example was "father applying lotion on female baby") - formulated as "if you do it for the kid, it's okay, if you do it for yourself, it's not".
I think most people regard any outside encouragement for kids to have more and riskier sex to be a Bad Thing, and the more severe and direct examples ought to be criminal. Absent any other criminal terminology, people use the word Grooming, regardless of who is getting sexual pleasure.
No, I don't think it's standard to use the word "grooming" for this, and before the current CW battle, I've not seen it used outside of the contexts I mentioned. This was even though culture warring about "encouragement for kids to have more and riskier sex" is something that has been going on for decades now.
And yes, technically any adult helping any kid gain access to porn is grooming.
"Technically" according to what technicality exactly?
It is illegal to show porn to minors. Do people forget this?
How is that a pertinent argument? It is also illegal to not pay your taxes, but that doesn't mean that tax evasion is an instance of grooming.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
You are the one who brought up a grandpa showing pornography to minors as if it was something socially accepted and reasonable.
Yes, it came up in a popular comic, which is probably as good an n=1 argument for it having been considered a reasonably common thing by some nontrivial set of people in the past as it gets.
The rest
There is no mention of "grooming" in the "harmful to minor laws" article you linked, nor in the "child advocacy groups" one. Conversely, the "abusers may also show..." article does not argue that each of the things mentioned on their own already amount to "grooming". Just because something is often used in the process of grooming does not mean that it amounts to grooming: Discord DMs and more generally one-on-one chats are also frequently used in the process of grooming, but most people would not use this to conclude that DMing a minor constitutes grooming.
Outside of education, which the law allows for, showing porn to minors will be considered grooming behavior.
By whom? I think this is what Wikipedia calls "weasel words". I looked this up, and it turns up that there is actually a legal definition of grooming in the US, which does not appear to cover showing porn to minors as written:
(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
Clearly, the best solution for Russia is the removal of Putin. His successor might still be able to cut a deal with the West that allows them de facto control of Crimea (for example, via a Hong Kong-style lease agreement, accompanied by a clever financial 'reparations package' that involves minimal pain on all sides). That will not begin to ameliorate the damage this idiotic war has caused to Russia and Ukraine, but at this point it is the least bad option. The only question now is how Russia can best ensure a relatively fast recovery from the self-inflicted harm it has created.
I don't see the clarity of this. It is not clear if there is an alternative with broad-based support in waiting, and a transition without internal fragmentation or echoes of civil war would be possible, and it is not clear why the West would just stop and offer that deal in that situation, as opposed to moving in for the kill. Even if the scenario you describe were the overwhelmingly most likely one, it is not clear to me that a better outcome for them than that is not on the table by staying on the battlefield, such as at least one that entails keeping (much of) what they have of the Donbass. Presumably, a large part of the economic isolation that Russia is subjected to at the moment would continue anyway, because the West would be foolish to trust any leader that could unite Russia as it is behind him to not immediately start plotting for a rematch of one form or another - and a Russia that changed leaders may actually be a Russia that is capable from learning from its mistakes, which could give it a rather better shot at it.
explicitly to use the Zaporizhzhia plant as a hostage
Like what, say "we'll make it meltdown unless you do X"? Seems to have all the downsides of tactical nukes plus the downside that they only get one choice of location to irradiate, which is a location they currently control.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
I meant the removal of Putin (in the current situation/short term). I think you are probably right in that all other things equal, in any given scenario with s/Putin/some other leader/, the expected value of a West/Russia peace treaty for Russia would be higher, but the "all other things equal" does a lot of work here. The current expected cost of suing for peace is surely not "unconditional surrender"; a sufficiently weak leader presiding over a sufficiently fractured Russia, though, might wind up having a negotiating position that gets arbitrarily close to that. (...and I think that sufficient weakening as a result of the power transition is more than likely, in no small part by Putin's own design.)
All in all, I still don't see a good way out for Russia - and especially not for Russian-Ukrainians except for those that had the clairvoyance to conspicuously commit to the Western horse early on - that does not depend on contingencies ranging from the very optimistic to major miracles. It seems to me that modulo high-variance paths like political transition, tactical nukes or Kesslering low earth orbit, and generic changes the feasibility of which we outsiders can not begin to estimate ("reform the military to use drones more effectively"), their best strategy really is hoping for a low-probability event, and perhaps maneuvering into a position where more distinct redeeming low-probability events become possible. To that end, what they are doing in terms of grand strategy seems basically correct: hold out for the European economy to crash and/or antiglobalist parties to come to power, reach out to China presumably urging it to accelerate its Taiwan schedule, hunker down and defend rather than engaging in any large-scale advances, ...
shit on the carpet option
I guess that one is in fact somewhat plausible. I would think that in Western media, the blame for any incident at the plant would be laid squarely at Russia's feet no matter what anyway (even in the land of Putinverstehers itself, I could only find one major newspaper that would not routinely give >=equal weight to the Ukrainian shitposts claiming that the Russians are shelling themselves at the plant!), but considering everything they've gotten up to so far I would also not put it beyond them to actually delude themselves into thinking it will be not so. (Perhaps, on the other hand, all that actually matters is that the rest of the New Second World can keep its population believing that it is not so clear-cut.)
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity
Is masturbating to pornography not sexual activity any more?
You cut off the sentence at a convenient point so as to change its meaning. It's "...any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense". I'm not aware that you can be charged with a criminal offense in the US for masturbating to (generally legal) pornography. (Also, let's not forget that we were originally talking about "watch drag queens", not "watch porn". If you think the kids will wank to drag queens, you seem to have a surprisingly high opinion of the attractiveness of drag queens.)
And showing porn to kids is something "for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense?"
Perhaps it is, but in that case the law as written would apparently apply to someone who is enticing kids to show porn to [other?] kids. (Even if it is illegal for adults to show porn to kids, is it also illegal for kids to show porn to kids? Not that I went to school in the US, but if it is then TIL that this primary school classmate of mine would have broken US law multiple times.)
You can't just cut up a paragraph and form some sort of gestalt interpretation based on the general shape and collection of words that come up in it; usually, the ordering and relation of words actually matters in law (and other domains of life).
It is not weird or purely waging a conflict for the word grooming to be used to describe persuasion, enticement, or cohesion to ingrain in children sexual politics their parents would not approve of (which is what schools are accused of.)
This interpretation strikes me as disingenuous. Someone grooming someone for higher office is not usually referred to as a "groomer", and the rhetoric around it is making it amply clear that the intended association really is "drag queen story hour = perverts wanting to fuck your kids".
I think the more salient commonality is that both seem to be very adjacent to a general US (and to a lesser degree more widely Western) tendency towards universalism. It is considered quite inappropriate to openly say that you want to live out your life pursuing some goals that are only supposed to bring utility to you or some bounded set of people around you, at least not unless you have come up with some particularly dank rationalisation for why this would actually serve the following; no, everything you do ultimately has to at least superficially be rationalised as being for the greater good of all of humanity, and every step you take has to be evaluated in the light of whether it brings you closer to that goal. This way of thinking is reinforced at every turn, from the superhero movies you watch at age 6 and ads about environmentalism that bombard you on public transport to admissions essays, research papers (especially in politically important topics such as AI) and grant applications.
EA, of course, is the culmination of this, attained by actually taking real steps to follow through on your declared beliefs, making you something like the universalist counterpart to the religious weirdo who actually concludes that screaming and pointing sharp objects at people to save them from hellfire is well worth it; but wokeness, too, is premised on "there should be a reasonable way to absolve myself from any responsibility for the plight of $minority forever" being off the table.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
1yr ago
I think we have radically different interpretations of "to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense." I really didn't think I was cutting it up, I was addressing two halves of a requirement seperately.
What are the two halves in question? "for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense" qualifies the sexual activity described: that is, the law is not to apply if you merely "persuade, induce, entice, or coerce" someone to engage in a sexual activity for which nobody can be charged with a criminal offense. As far as I know, masturbating to legal pornography is a sexual activity for which nobody can be charged with a criminal offense. Your statement "Is masturbating to pornography not sexual activity any more?" is therefore as relevant as if you had just said "...not an activity any more?", dropping yet another qualifier ("sexual").
Or does the law not apply to an adult having sex with a minor? The minor is not breaking any laws - it's the adult who's breaking the law.
In my reading, it does. How does that matter here? We were first talking about making minors watch drag queen story hour, which doesn't break any laws, and then about masturbating to pornography, which also doesn't break any laws.
"Any person can be charged with a criminal offence" - if any person in the event, child or groomer, is doing something which they could be charged a criminal offence for, it applies.
We haven't established that anyone is doing something which they could be charged with a criminal offense for yet. Are you trying to go for some sort of circular argument, like "showing pornography to minors is a criminal offense [per this law], therefore this law says showing pornography to minors is a criminal offense"? Also, you are again seemingly dropping the relations between the different clauses of the sentence. It is not sufficient that someone in the general vicinity of the event is doing something that is considered criminal; for this law to apply, the adult has to "persuade, induce, entice, or coerce" the minor to engage in an an action that the minor or someone else [participating in the same action? performing an identical action? this is not entirely clear] could be charged with a criminal offense for. It is not sufficient for the adult to also be doing something, even something sexual, that amounts to a criminal offense: for instance, an adult coercing a minor to buy candy while the adult is also indecently exposing himself would not run afoul of this particular law. On the other hand, an adult persuading a minor to have sex with another adult would run afoul of it, because (1) the adult is persuading the minor to (2) engage in an activity that someone (the other adult) can be charged with a criminal offense for. I imagine this is the case that the "any person" wording is intended to catch.
I'm here.
Shambled to see that the comments are still floating in a sea of whitespace. I'd try to come up with some fixed CSS myself, but the idea that I'm supposed to make a PR on Github (and hence either associate my name-linked Github account or jump through whatever hoops are necessary to make a new and unassociated one) is discouraging.
edit: I'm using the following custom CSS now to have a bit more sanity:
Unfortunately,
main.csshas a few!importants of its own enforcing padding (in particular on .comment .comment-body .comment-text) which I can't override.edit2: The markdown parser doubles newlines in the three-backtick code span.
More options
Context Copy link