@Celestial-body-NOS's banner p

Celestial-body-NOS

Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC 

				
User ID: 290


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Celestial-body-NOS


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 290


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I propose a pithier definition: any organisation set up by the government and not meaningfully accountable to the government.




In other words, something the government called up that they can not put down?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


So, I do think that Roof has made a lasting impact on public consciousness.




Don't forget setting off a hyperstitious cascade against Confederate symbols....


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Denali sounds like an Indian festival.




You're thinking of Diwali. Denali are a kind of Roman coin.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


the particular Inuit language it's called that in




Koyukon Athabaskan, not Inuit. It's related to Navajo.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


imposition of rules on the outgroup




During the arguments over same-sex marriage in the aughts, the common metaphor was 'telling me that I may not eat cake because you happen to be on a diet'.




What makes woke particularly insufferable is the rule creation mechanism. It doesn’t come from a canonical text, but rather, it’s an ever growing list of words or actions that were previously done by bad people.




Many fundamentalist soi-disant Christians phrased that mechanism as "Abstain from every appearance of evil", which apparently meant




Do not wear pants with punk rock patches. Also beware the bottles of sparkling grape juice with the foil tops, they might appear to be alcohol and stay away from video rental stores, someone might think you’re there renting a movie rated PG-13




along with avoiding




drinking root beer from dark bottles, wire-rimmed glasses, facial hair, clothing designed by gay guys, any hair style ever worn by any rock group anywhere, and anything that looks like it might be enjoyed by Billy Graham, his followers, or their household pets.




(Stuff Fundies Like, March 2009)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


So what did Fauci and Hunter get pardoned for then?




Loosely translated from Politicianese to English, "whatever malarkey the incoming administration manages to pull out from where the sun don't shine."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I don't think he has any meaningful political philosophy




...other than 'getting humanity to Mars'.




A man whose allegiance






is ruled by expedience.






Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown;






"Nazi, Schmazi" says Wernher von Braun




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No, I was referring to Mr Chaplin.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Maybe if he'd combined it with a bowler hat...?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I shudder to think what that would mean for Vance's actions, given that Harrison's successor, John Tyler, later became the only U. S. president to openly swear allegiance to a polity firing on U. S. troops....


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


No one's ever had such big numbers before!




By magnitude, or by font size? (Late Show with Stephen Colbert, April 2016)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


At some point it becomes more useful to model it as a form of tithing than con artistry. The people buying this junk must be getting some form of utility out of it, even if it confounds the sophisticated mind.




During the 2021 short squeeze of GameStop, some people bought stock not caring whether they came out ahead, considering the entire amount they had spent on it to be a fair price to strike back at the Wall Street investors whom they blamed for 2008. ("It's not about the money; it's about sending a message.")


Someone who feels ill-used by the Very Serious People in establishment politics might very well purchase the items in question thinking not "This has a good chance of being profitable." so much as "You bastards ruined my life and then had the gall to blame me and say I deserved it. F%*# you, I'll give money to the guy you hate."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It varies by region, per Ig Nobel laureate S. J. Newman.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It might [be] too early to celebrate the death of wokeness




If/when the estate of Dr. Seuss returns On Beyond Zebra and McElligott's Pool to print, I will consider wokism to have expired, gone to meet its maker, run down the final curtain, and joined the choir invisible.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Homeless people aren't birthed into this world as penniless drug users at a corner in the business district.




No, but they are birthed into this world as human beings, made according to the image of God, and bearing the inalienable right to be treated as an end in themselves, rather than as an inconvenient obstacle. (There, but for the grace of God, go I....)




They chose to occupy that premium real estate because it affords them some other benefit. Typically the easy ability to harass people for money and targets for retail theft. He always had the option of staying where he is from where people know him and would let him use the bathroom. Or going to a shelter for the homeless and using that bathroom.






The important reframe of modern homelessness that will help just about understand what we are talking about is this: They are on premium real estate, and there is no right to use some of the best, most expensive land in the country in whatever way you desire. I cannot go to Lincoln Park and start a hot dog stand next to the lion's exhibit.




But if you start declaring parts of a city as 'no poors allowed', you're opening Pandora's Jar; homeless people not allowed in 'premium' areas --> more areas adopting the same policy --> poor people confined to 'Sanctuary Districts' like in that Star Trek episode with the Bell Riots --> razor-wire fences, mass graves, and U. N. investigations.




There is no reason a homeless fellow should be able to occupy the same space and fill it with stink and feces




No, they should do their $euphemism in a toilet; however, this requires that they be allowed to! If there are free-at-the-point-of-use toilets nearby, and a homeless person chooses to befoul the ground, it is justified to prosecute them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
From the bottom of the ladder, the difference between 'direct harm' and 'indirect harm' looks rather academic.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Is it coercive to forbid someone from taking a No. 2 on the pavement?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I don't think that's a real thing ... The only real indignity is starving, plus maybe not having a (small) roof over your head.




'Existence worthy of human dignity' is how it is described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, meaning more than mere survival. Living in a bare closet, eating tasteless gruel, dressed in rags, and staring at a blank wall when not working or sleeping, would not be 'worthy of human dignity' even if it isn't 'starving'.




So essentially, you admit there's full employment, yet there's still no way to get you to accept that workers have agency/they aren't raped when they have sex with their boss? Only if there's a new system, full communism or something.




'Full employment' in the economic-statistical sense is necessary but not sufficient for the concept I am attempting to point to.


If Alice wants an employee who will provide sexual favours/stand up for hours on end doing tasks that can be done sitting down/not eat rice on Tuesdays, and Bob wants a steady pay-cheque without involving genitals/allowing him to sit down if he can still get his work done/letting him eat whatever he feels like on whatever day he pleases,


    

  1. how often will Alice blink first, and how often will Bob blink first?
    2. 

  2. if they cannot come to an agreement, how hard will it be for Bob to find employment under his conditions, and how hard will it be for Alice to find an employee willing to accept her conditions?
    3. 



The thing I am trying to point to is 'economic conditions in which Bob does not almost always yield first, and, in the absence of agreement, Bob's future is not vastly harder than Alice's'. It can be present in some circumstances while simultaneously absent in others; thus it is not adequately captured by a single figure, although it is more common with lower unemployment.




I think achieving the lack of any real unemployment in a society (like the current 4% in the US) is of primary importance, and a great boost to the agency, bargaining power, and psychological health of workers. So I'm very sceptical of any attempts to help workers that could increase unemployment (raising minimum wage, anti-firing legislation, etc). What they gain in salary or security, they lose in bargaining power - that's not a good trade over the long term.




The other direction is not a good trade either -- a worker deserves a living wage (in the FDR sense, adjusted for the material progress of broader society) and security from being fired arbitrarily or for un-justifiable reasons and the ability to set reasonable boundaries. This is not an impossible trilemma unless one imposes the constraint that neither Alice's profit margin nor privileged social position be in any way inconvenienced.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Why doesn't it apply to doing the task for which he was hired?




Because that is a reasonable expectation.


If you are looking for a meta-level principle that will determine what is and isn't reasonable for Alice to demand, without having to think about the object-level details, I'm afraid that There Is No Royal Road To Geometry.




Certainly, in a wage dispute, Alice's ability to hold out longer is equally if not moreso present.




Which is why we have unions and minimum-wage laws.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


"If you don't do this, we will take some money from you at gunpoint" is making people do it.




"If you don't do this, we will shut down your business at gunpoint" is making people do it. Regarding the issue at hand, laws that require retail businesses to offer restroom access to non-customers would count as 'making' someone do something.


The plan I am suggesting is (to quote the Rightful Caliph) a Something Sort Of Like Left-Libertarianism-ist alternative to more coercive measures.


(A Something Sort Of Like Left-Libertarianism-ist Manifesto, Slate Star Codex, December 2013)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Heaven hath no rage like love to hatred turned






nor hell hath any fury like a woman scorned.




-- William Congreve


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


An that's why I always say the best anti-rape policy is to lower the minimum wage




But then you have the problem of people who work full-time who still can't afford the costs of an existence worthy of human dignity.




and fight the unions.




That goes in the wrong direction; unions are an attempt to solve the very problem I am alluding to, namely the gross imbalance of power between Alice and Bob!




Doesn't the US have full employment already, therefore Bob was not raped?




Perhaps 'full employment' was not the exactly correct term; I am referring to the balance of power between management and labour, and economic circumstances in which the lack of an agreement has similar costs to both sides.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Does this apply to all aspects of employment contracts, or only to sexual favors? Is Bob bound by anything in his employment contract, or can he break it as he sees fit because he is being held hostage by reality?




It applies to unreasonable provisions, i. e. ones Bob only accepts because Alice can afford to hold out longer.


It doesn't apply to 'doing the task for which he was hired, to a reasonable standard'.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If it turns out that political considerations keep you from doing those strong measures




...there will still be less excreta on the pavement, because some of the people previously doing their business there will now be using toilets. Even if it isn't a complete solution, we're still better off.




Part one: hurt people by making them do X, part 2: ameloriate the harm from part 1




My proposal isn't making anyone do anything. If you want to reserve your business's toilets to paying customers, I am not proposing to forbid that course of action!


Under the status quo, businesses are in a position isomorphic to the prisoners' dilemma:


    

  • if all businesses offer public toilets, I am better off than if none of them do, because there are fewer bowel movements on the ground.
    • 

  • However, if all the other businesses offer public toilets, it is in my financial interest to reserve the toilets in my business to paying customers, and thus spend less on maintenance.
    • 

  • If none of the other businesses offer public toilets, it is also in my financial interest to reserve the toilets in my business to paying customers.
    • 



Under my proposal, the extra taxes paid by businesses not offering public WCs would be reserved for the exclusive purpose of either directly providing facilities, or subsidising other businesses' provision thereof. (I apologise if that part wasn't clear.)




it's easy to say you'll do part 2 without actually doing it.




Hence the specific tax, from which businesses can make themselves exempt if they provide restrooms one can use without spending anything.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Why not simply relinquish the silly ban on paid public toilets and enforce the law as it exists?




Because I am trying to come up with a solution for the problem of 'providing restroom facilities to people who cannot pay for them'.


It is generally considered unacceptable (at least in the West) to put someone in a position in which they have no choice but to violate the law, and then punish them for doing so. As people do not cease to have bodily functions when they cannot legally perform them, there needs to exist places in which someone can exercise the Greater and Lesser Conveniences, even if they cannot pay to do so.


(I suppose one could allow private businesses to operate paid toilets, subject to taxation used to fund the free-at-point-of-use facilities....)