ApplesauceIrishCream
No bio...
User ID: 882
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
Identity is, by definition, an inner feeling.
I realize that this is a popular claim on the left. I reject it, and this is one of the central points of debate between the woke left and everyone else. You do not get to assume your preferred conclusion and get away with it.
Certainly, everyone has a self-conception, which generally is highly colored by feelings. But everyone also has a social identity, which is separate. The claim on the left is that this social identity is subordinate to self-conception--that you have some right to dictate how you are perceived by others. You do not. You may, through your actions, influence how others see you--and everyone does this--but that identity is...socially constructed.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
That was one of the saddest AAQCs I've read. I thought what the judge was doing was pretty cool and reasonably obvious...and the rest of the post was all about how thoroughly he missed the point--all a mystery! Who could predict!
ApplesauceIrishCream
3mo ago
A couple of months ago, @zeke5123 started a discussion about secession and the right to self-determination, and suggested that such a right was likely contingent, rather than absolute. In response, I wrote an analysis of the most famous writing on the topic of secession...and then posted it just after the following week's CW thread went live, which was very poor planning on my part. I hope the following is sufficiently interesting to justify a repost.
I've remarked before that I think the American Revolution should be more properly understood as an example of secession, not revolution. After all, the most famous document promulgating and defending the American position is the Declaration of Independence, and the choice of title is appropriate.
The part that comes before the famous "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." is the following:
"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
This is a document about secession and self-determination. Next is the really famous bit (I'm adding numbers in brackets to highlight an internal list):
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, [1] that all men are created equal, [2] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [3] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
A clear statement of fundamental principles, but one key point later on is that Jefferson isn't claiming that these principles are a departure from English tradition, but that the Crown has been egregiously violating English tradition. The list doesn't end at three items:
"[4]--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, [5] --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
"Alter or abolish" covers many potential approaches, from reform to secession to complete revolution. Which approach is justified in which cases?
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
This, I think, is the start of the answer to your question--the right of self-determination in terms of fully reforming/seceding/revolting must reach a threshold of severity in terms of provocation. The reasons matter, and the weight of tradition matters. "Light and transient causes" are not enough, and so:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
When there is a longstanding pattern of abuse aimed at fundamental liberties, some variation of reform/secession/revolution is justified, and even morally compulsory. Note that Jefferson is not merely concerned with rejecting the old, abusive system, but also the necessity of replacing the old system with a new government that will properly "secure these rights." He is justifying a transition from a very bad system to a better system--tearing down the old and stopping at anarchy is not acceptable.
"--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world...."
What follows is a bill of particulars, listing the offenses of the British Crown according to Jefferson, which amount to "a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinc[ing] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism...." The details of this list are instructive, but outside the scope of this comment. After the list, Jefferson argues that the leadership of the American States has done its due diligence, and tried to fix the situation by attempts at reform, before proceeding to secession:
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
"Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."
We have appealed to both the Crown and the British People for redress; neither provided it. As a result, we're walking away from this toxic relationship, but we're not going to kill your cat out of spite--we just want to go our own way. Note that Jefferson doesn't merely say that the behavior of the British Crown has been grievously bad, but that the American representatives have been particularly patient and prudent--there's an implied standard of conduct for the secessionists that continues in the final paragraph:
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Jefferson wraps up with the final requirement for secessionists who are doing things correctly--you need to make your case. Not just that the suffered abuses have been so terrible, but also that you've tried lesser means and are only escalating when those means have failed, and that your judgment and restraint are being offered for consideration to both "the Supreme Judge of the world" and "the opinions of mankind." Are your reasons sufficient, or just "light and transient causes"? Do you have a plan for self-government, such that you can responsibly join the community of "Independent States"? Have you "Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms" and are you confident in the "rectitude of [y]our intentions"?
Any secessionist or revolutionary worth their salt will answer yes to those questions with confidence--such is human nature. But Jefferson clearly isn't claiming that 'we've investigated our own motives, and found them acceptable,' he's appealing to God and man to be his judges.
In my view, Jefferson adequately makes his case as to the justice of the American secession from Britain. I think other secessionary movements are a mixed bag--some meet the various thresholds of behavior and others do not. In this framework, there isn't an unfettered "right to self determination" by a given identifiable subgroup of a larger political unit, but extreme cases may present a duty to reform an abusive government, or seceed from it, or overthrow it.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
Putin is indeed a quasi-dictator whose control of Russia is based in substantial part on his control of the Russian security state. However, it's important to remember that these structures are made up of actual people, who in fact might choose not to cooperate given the right circumstances, causing that control structure to melt away entirely.
"A failed war" is one of the biggest potential causes for subordinates to question the competence of their superiors. A terror-infused security state is likely to hold together somewhat longer than other structures, as the penalties for being the first to step out of line are much higher, but it's also more brittle--once that preference cascade starts, it moves with blinding speed and totality.
Will that preference cascade be what brings down Putin? Maybe; it's up there with "randomly dies of non-window causes" and "resigns peacefully" as potential endgames. Will it happen any time soon? No idea.
Your comment looks confused to me, and not particularly related to what I wrote.
A person has what might be termed a "true identity." This is an objective list of that person's qualities, experiences, associations, everything. Examples are hard because objective accuracy is hard.
He also has a "self-conception." This is his own perspective of his true identity, and usually is flawed in various aspects--perfect self-knowledge isn't really a thing people do well, though some self-conceptions are closer to truth than others.
He also has a "social identity." This is an aggregate of what other people think his qualities, experiences, associations, etc. are--it is literally a social construct. It can and does vary by context--my family have a particular view of me derived from years of personal interaction, but the posters on The Motte likely have a different view of me derived from the posts that I've written.
Nothing that I've written here has anything to do with "how others must respond." I am not conflating anything; I am distinguishing various aspects of what someone might mean when he's talking about a person's "identity."
Edit to add: It only occurred to me after posting, but there's a local term for what I'm doing here--"tabooing your words." In this case, I'm tabooing "identity" in order to tease apart the various mottes and baileys people use around the word. I am trying to rigorously define terms. If you don't like my definitions, propose your own.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
If it helps, a bit of information about MIT's Science Core, which is one of the graduation requirements for every undergraduate, regardless of major--two semesters of Calculus (single and multivariable), two semesters of Physics (mechanics and electricity/magnetism), one semester of Chemistry, and one semester of Biology. Also, if you have not completed every class on that list by the end of your freshman year, something has gone wrong.
As one example from the list, the course summary for 18.02 (Multivariable Calculus) is as follows, from MIT's Course Catalog:
"Calculus of several variables. Vector algebra in 3-space, determinants, matrices. Vector-valued functions of one variable, space motion. Scalar functions of several variables: partial differentiation, gradient, optimization techniques. Double integrals and line integrals in the plane; exact differentials and conservative fields; Green's theorem and applications, triple integrals, line and surface integrals in space, Divergence theorem, Stokes' theorem; applications."
I assume that you and a number of people on this board would have no trouble passing these classes, particularly when you were college-age, but the Admissions Office shouldn't be in the business of approving candidates that can't pass hard graduation requirements, and you need a bit of a pushed IQ to get through that material.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
The death penalty exists because horrific crimes exist where any lesser punishment is obviously insufficient. Those horrific crimes are...not as rare as anyone would prefer, and blood cries out for justice.
Vigilante justice is a form of justice. It's...not great, but nearly always available. It has significant problems with consistency, proportionality, accuracy, etc. all of which organized forms of justice can (and do) improve on, which is the underlying social contract. No vigilante justice, so long as organized justice provides better value in aggregate.
But organized justice needs to do the work, and the work suuuuuucks. When organized justice flinches away from the messy business of punishment, it violates the social contract that gives it legitimacy. Enough of that, and the system loses credibility, and people turn to vigilante justice instead. (This is bad. Vigilante justice is the second-worst outcome.)
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
If those quotes are said every day, they are monstrous, because they are setting up an expectation that students should be active collaborators in shielding teacher behavior from parental oversight. Teachers that undermine parental relationships with their children are abusing both their own authority and their students.
As an isolated incident, that sort of "off-hand gag" is in poor taste. If it becomes time-worn, it is abusive.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
Not to mention that "gerrymandering," both the term and the practice, predate the founding of the Republican Party by several decades. Elbridge Gerry, the politician that the term was named for during his lifetime, was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and later Vice President under James Madison. The Republican Party wasn't founded for fifty years after Gerry's death. Ironically in this case, Gerry was a member of the precursor to the Democratic Party.
It's tedious when people get so worked up over gerrymandering. The practice is universal and has been for literally centuries. It's also better than the alternatives, because those either rely on myths like "actors outside the political system" or reduce accountability to the electorate, or both. Gerrymandering is aesthetically ugly, but better that than moving to systems more prone to capture.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
But now they're submerged in Ukrainian immigrants. It's not the end of it either.
Not immigrants; refugees. There is a difference, and the Ukrainian new-arrivals to Poland are legitimately refugees.
The context is comprehensively different from Merkel's third-world invasion. From my reading, the biggest difference is that support for Ukrainian refugees is massively popular in Poland--not just right-to-left along a generic political axis, but importantly, top-to-bottom from the Polish elite to the grassroots.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
For the purposes of my analysis, I'm bucketing together two outcomes that are different, but I think are sufficiently similar for our purposes--"dissatisfied elements within Putin's regime kill him" and "dissatisfied elements within Putin's regime force him into retirement." In both cases, Putin is no longer in power due to losing control of the Russian security state, and the loss of control came from within the Russian security state. (I'm also agnostic on whether the dissatisfied elements reject what they see as Putin's military overreach or Putin's insufficient resolve--those each lead to very different futures, but share the "Putin is no longer in charge" aspect.)
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
The right's "nobody wants to overturn Roe v. Wade you hysterical pansies" pivot is a good example of the same thing coming from the other side, and it's no less infuriating to deal with.
Wait, what? The effort to overturn RvW was conducted very much in public over five decades! I cannot imagine how anyone missed this!
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
Counterpoint #1--Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies. Was it a 100% shot-for-shot take on the books? No, certainly not, but most of the liberties that Jackson took were adequately justified by the translation in medium. Arwen didn't rescue Frodo in Fellowship--that was supposed to be Glorfindel--but Arwen is much more central to later plot in ways that Glorfindel is not, so tightening the cast there made sense. It's well established in interviews with Jackson and everyone else involved that they tried hard to center Tolkien's vision and leave every other agenda out. The result is really, really good.
Counterpoint #2--The RoP marketing department pulled the same nerd-baiting shit Hollywood has done since Ghostbusters 2016--"the old, male/pale/stale fans are *ist and hate this take, don't be low status like them, give us money." Interviews with the showrunners and actors generate claims that Middle Earth should be "a reflection of the world we live in" in defense of woke casting, or that adding an original character who is the sister of Elendil "brings a feminine energy" to his line. The changes are strictly modern-agenda based, and add nothing in terms of storytelling efficiency or consistency.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
Well, then, I was referring more or less to what you call "self-identity,"
Best guess is you meant to say "self-conception"? Because "self-identity" is not one of the terms I laid out.
which others here seem to think does not exist.
Got any links to support this? That's a pretty extreme claim.
However, I don’t agree that it is helpful to say that people can be "wrong" about that. What group a given person identifies with is an empirical fact.
"I think of myself as [x]" can be a true statement for any value of x. "I am [x]" may be true or false, in various cases. Generally speaking, when someone says, "I identify as [x]" they are playing motte and bailey between the two.
A comedian does not need to "identify as" funny. He's funny; it's his job; people give him money for it. A liar may be self-deceptive enough to think he's an honest man, but that doesn't change the underlying reality.
So, a person may think of himself as part of a particular group; that belief is an empirical fact. He may also be a part of that particular group; that is also an empirical fact. Those are two separate facts, however, no matter whether anyone thinks it is "helpful" to conflate them.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
Ok, now do "punch the Nazis" in a social context where it's clear that Republicans are basically Nazis. Or when the discussion is whether "punch the Nazis" is even an adequate response, since killing the vermin is obviously morally superior.
ApplesauceIrishCream
8mo ago
I think a related suggestion might be plausible, but there's a complication.
In the US, the bulk of the pro-life movement is religious, specifically Christian. There are certainly many individual exceptions, but the major organizing groups are either church-affiliated or formally secular but largely staffed by Christians. Where abortion is concerned, the Catholic part of the movement and the Evangelical Protestant part are entirely on the same page, but there is no similar agreement on birth control. Opposing birth control is part of Catholic dogma, while Evangelicals generally have no moral problem with contraceptives, so long as they are used within the context of otherwise proper sexual ethics.
That said, Evangelicals very much support the right of Catholics to follow their consciences on the issue, even if they differ on the object-level question. Catholic opposition to taxpayer-funded contraceptives is a given, and Evangelicals usually have other ideological reasons for opposing "free" stuff. So you'd likely have very minimal organized Christian support for taxpayer-funded contraceptives.
However, Evangelicals (and many American conservatives in general) have supported a related measure for pretty much the exact reasoning you lay out above--rescheduling oral contraceptives from prescription-based to over-the-counter. I would not expect Catholic support for this type of measure, but at least it doesn't raise the same conscience issues as direct subsidy.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
Possibly because socialism is extremely common and extremely successful on the very small scale. As a general rule, this is how families work, and sometimes extremely tight-knit groups with very high in-group loyalty, like cults. The problem is that it doesn't scale up, and this is a massive problem when you're talking about organizing a society.
The insight of incentives, free markets, etc. is that you can have net-positive interactions without the reinforcement of high in-group loyalty to control defection. The "problem" is that this type of interaction doesn't scale down--it would be a bit ridiculous to run a family on a barter system: infants don't have anything of value to trade for food and diapers beyond weaponized cuteness. This is an illusory problem, though, when you're applying a system to the matching scale of its competence--socialism for family structures, markets for societies.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
Trans communities have a vested interest in avoiding dysphoria.
What does being trans have to do with dysphoria? This sounds like transmedicalism; the truscum lost that internal conflict.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
I am completely confused about the foundation of your claim of gaslighting. Who ever made the claim that "nobody wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade you hysterical pansies," and to the extent that anyone ever made that claim, why would anyone take that person seriously?
There was a national movement, involving millions of people, over five decades, all with the explicit purpose of overturning RvW. This was not a secret.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
It's pretending a black guy could be nobility in a white majority place and nobody would even bat an eye, let alone raise objections.
Amusingly, I can think of a major space opera that does exactly this (ok, black girl as queen) and the author is 100% not woke or blank-slatist. The difference is that it's explained in plot and supports larger themes in the story. It's the opposite of "this village hasn't seen an outsider in generations, but might as well be a United Colors of Benetton ad."
Similarly, waif-fu occasionally works--Buffy the Vampire Slayer and River Tam, IMO--but Whedon did the work to explain his special cases. I think this points out one of the central problems with woke in a creative context--all too often, it's intellectually lazy. The blank slate means you don't have to justify casting choices in terms of logic, genetics, population dynamics, etc. So for an audience with even an instinctual grasp of all that--"people who are related to each other tend to look more like each other!"--you lose verisimilitude and immersion in the story.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
The degree to which "Biden is not in control" satisfies the ingroup narrative criteria for "too good to check" is extreme.
This looks to me like a rather cavalier dismissal of a substantial amount of evidence, some of which was provided in this thread.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
Biden's first day in the Oval Office, he's got a bunch of press with cameras and a huge stack of executive orders in those leather folders. Staff have been talking to everyone who will listen about how Biden's planning to reverse a bunch of Trump's executive decisions immediately--while the point was pushed a bit aggressively, this is par for the course when you get a change of administrations across parties.
At one point when Biden's working his way through the stack, he pauses and says, "What am I signing?" and an off-camera voice responds, "Just sign it." And so he does--the first of many instances in office where the strings were uncomfortably visible.
According to NBC, a few months ago:
Biden was furious that his remarks were being seen as unreliable, arguing that he speaks genuinely and reminding his staff that he’s the one who is president.
If they need the reminder, it sounds like this is an open question.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
Come on, this is ridiculous. Are there books that meet that description? Unfortunately, yes. But there are many quality female authors, both classic and modern, who are perfectly capable of writing competent plots and characters with agency. I've read romances that defeat your description in detail. Random example--no exploration of the mystery genre is complete without hitting Agatha Christie.
I can't guarantee you'd like any book or author I'd recommend, but your tastes are extremely narrow if no female author would qualify.
ApplesauceIrishCream
1yr ago
When it comes to the idea of Russians barreling to Finland Ukraine-style, I would much rather put my trust to the Finnish army than to civilians with guns to hinder the onslaught.
I realize that as a Finnish person, you are confronting this reality far more closely than I, but my immediate reaction is por que no los dos? In your shoes, I would like to have an army, an armed populace, many allies, and space lasers if I could get them, or at least as many of those as possible!
Indeed--there was only one victim, and he didn't even die!
One fascinating aspect of the sovereign citizen "movement" is that, while it is certainly fringe, it's wildly all over place in terms of "nearest point of more mainstream thought." You get people that would otherwise be considered extreme libertarians, extreme leftists, extreme traditionalists, whatever, that have all decided to pick up this particular collection of unusual beliefs. One example is the Moorish sovereign citizens, if you prefer the black-separatist flavor.
More options
Context Copy link