Bartender_Venator
No bio...
User ID: 2349
Bartender_Venator
23hr ago
I notice a strong correlation between sleeve tattoos and any particularly high-octane occupation - military, police, fire, EMS, extreme sports, etc. Part macho, part masochism.
Bartender_Venator
2d ago
Hoping to catch an edgelord grasping the nettle? Aristotle discusses this in his writing on slavery - he distinguishes "slaves by nature", i.e. people whose nature is such that they are incapable of maintaining their freedom, and "slaves by convention", i.e. those who are actually legal slaves. He was not a fan of the fact that not all those who are slaves by convention are slaves by nature (Plato himself did some time in chains), and he does not endorse the mass enslavement of natural slaves who are legally free (they are already enslaved, but enslaved to vices, to menial employment, to patrons, etc., such that enslaving them legally would be superfluous. In fact, some of those natural slaves are otherwise wealthy, strong men who would be practically impossible to enslave except through capture in war).
Furthermore, the actual legal institutions required to deal with the fact of natural slavishness are contingent, and there's no reason that a more prosperous society would need to use Greek-style slavery. One way to put it in a modern context would be that those who are dependent on the state to survive are de facto property of the state, and that modern states have largely chosen to bind themselves to take care of their human property, but this is likewise just an historical contingency. There is nothing, besides the choice of voters, stopping the US from repealing some constitutional amendments and making fentanyl addicts pick cotton (to pick the most extreme case of natural slavery in the modern day. The capacity for freedom of a drug addict would not change if we were legally to enslave him, except that he might luck into a kinder master). So, from an Aristotelian perspective, in the modern age, we can pick out a couple categories:
- Those who are for all intents and purposes the property of others, or the state, protected by some legal rights and more importantly a culture of kindness towards the vulnerable (the severely disabled, although transfers of legal guardianship are limited)
- Those who are for all intents and purposes the property of others, but who are protected by strong legal safeguards and to some extent can advocate for themselves (children, some mental illnesses necessitating legal guardianship)
- Those who are naturally slavish to an extent they're incapable of the most basic demands of freedom, and are legally free except when their behaviour inevitably violates the law (drug addicts, lowlife criminals)
- Those who are naturally slavish to an extent they cannot live without depending on others in a one-sided relationship, who are legally free but practically unfree, and are protected by an attitude of kindness the public has adopted (the hopelessly welfare-dependent)
- Those who are naturally slavish but capable of fulfilling the basic demands of life by developing two-way economic relationships with others in a free market (people working shitty jobs with messed-up lives, but still functioning. This is the point where I would call someone practically free, if one wants to introduce a middle category. They will be effectively somebody/something's property in some parts of their lives, such as their boss's, their partner's, or their liquor's, but they have spheres of real choice even if they choose not to take them.)
- Those who are naturally slavish, but who are enslaved to vices they can successfully fulfil by predating on others, and so remain practically free unless they're caught violating the law (successful criminals, blue and white collar)
- Those who are naturally slavish, but whose nature enslaves them to compulsions which are rewarded by society, including with greater freedom of action even though they remain internally unfree (e.g. a miser obsessed with money-making. Many celebrities.)
- Those who are naturally slavish, but whose nature is ordered such that it makes them genuinely happy (e.g. someone who feels compelled to enter a 24/7 BDSM relationship, and deeply enjoys it)
- The naturally free, who are able to choose and prefer through rational consideration, and moderate their appetites according to reason. In the modern Western world, these people no longer need or want slaves as property.
Incidentally, in an American context, that last "choose and prefer" is crucial. Natural rights of the type the Constitution enshrines are based on very simple human capacities, in particular the capacity to choose and prefer. The rationality or quality of that ability to choose doesn't enter into it. Hence why we have a system that is able to assign legal rights without reference to more complex aspects of the individual's nature, including inner slavishness/freedom. This certainly causes problems over time, as people forget that they need other methods to deal with the naturally slavish, like occasionally throwing a chamberpot at the town drunk, but is better-adapted to modern norms and technologies than Classical slavery. Even if some people are born to be property, that does not imply that legal slavery is the solution. Instead, let a free market and healthy social norms deal with them (I'll leave to the reader the question of whether achieving a free market and healthy social norms today would be easier or harder than reinstating slavery).
Bartender_Venator
2d ago
I don't mean to call small towns dysfunctional, just that one assumes people in smaller communities hear more of what the folks around are getting up to.
Bartender_Venator
3d ago
I suspect a lot of people here are a third case: they don't pay a ton of attention to the private lives of other people outside of a small circle of family and friends. I could tell 5-10 stories of this type (of varying degrees, not literal jail) just from college, and plenty more from being involved in an art scene with lots of gossip. Suspect that small towns can be similar, but I'd have to hear from a ruralposter on that one.
Bartender_Venator
3d ago
This does have a converse effect, in that most liberals arguing politics on the internet are completely marinated in liberal-aligned or more often liberal-only spaces, and that shapes their ability to discuss things. OP's use of "libtards" is telling - lib"tards" are not welcomed here, just as rightards or libertardians are not welcomed, because they're unable to follow the rules or live up to the standards of the space. And the process of marinating in homogenous spaces does turn an awfully large percentage of online liberals into "libtards" in that sense, people who don't know how to debate outside of the context of a front-page subreddit, college classroom, or similarly low-quality space. One reason why the few high-quality and highly-emotionally-regulated liberal posters have, for the most part, been greatly valued here.
Bartender_Venator
3d ago
My conviction that it happened comes from ketamine's unique(?) ability to synthesize many different understandings together into a comprehensible whole. It all fits and I could see that in a way I never had before.
I can confirm this as a reasonably common effect of ketamine on smart people who have done a lot of reading. Something about the dissociative effect unlocks creative synthesis, and allows you to really "feel" it instead of just assenting intellectually. I've had multiple realizations of this type which have all been of great value. Of course this can also oneshot people who aren't smart enough or who have read the wrong books, since the ultimate value comes from the value of the material you're synthesizing. Caveat emptor!
Bartender_Venator
4d ago
This is why the whole Elite Human Capital thing has already flashed in the pan and gone as a memetic trend. There's no register used by its proponents other than shallow antagonism towards broad swathes of (usually caricatured) outgroupers. Beyond Hanania's mild advocacy of orthodox liberal/libertarian economics, it's incredibly rare to find any positive platform whatsoever buried in all the mud-slinging - as shown on this forum by the complete confusion of many posters as to what positive ideas you actually believe. Out of politeness, I'll refrain from speculating on the psychological motives or personality types involved. But I suspect there just isn't any positive platform because, when people are motivated by one, they're usually excited to win others over, to learn how to convert with argument and rhetoric. If that's what you're trying to do, rather than sling insults because they feel good, then I suggest revising your approach.
On the other hand, if you're looking to antagonize people, here is a guide on how to do it while being as polite as possible.
Bartender_Venator
6d ago
Gwern has done the public service of archiving the old OKCupid data blog. Still the best resource online for how people actually use online dating, deleted for its honesty. You'll have to adapt that to swipe apps, of course, but a lot of food for thought.
I bought a Daylight Computer (review: it's fine, clearly an early adopter product, competitors look a lot more polished, screen reads great but android is a real pain), and I'm looking for a stand for it to prop it up while I write on a bluetooth keyboard. Any recs for a robust, lightweight, flat-foldable stand that will work with a 10x7" tablet?
More options
Context Copy link