Doubletree3
10d ago
Just a bit too pat and simplistic. Looking around, it seems to be precisely the illiberals of all stripes who cannot engage civilly.
if liberalism generates values diversity, then illiberalism has a symmetric failure mode whereby, due the illiberals' need to enforce cultural uniformity, tribal boundaries are formed along literally any cleavage site in value-space (no matter how close the groups' values may be in absolute terms), and are amplified until civil behavior becomes impossible. Indeed, some of the most horrific and bloody human conflicts have been between some of the most culturally similar tribes.
Doubletree3
12d ago
You don't have to leave home and go on a thirty-year career as a stranger everywhere you live
You don't have to, but you give up huge potential future earnings by not doing so. "Move to the big city for economic opportunity only to see your fertility plummet" has been a thing for as long as cities have existed.
Doubletree3
12d ago
Unlike climate change laws, I can easily ignore them.
"At least for now" is doing a heroic amount of legwork here. To the extent it is true, today (and in some parts of the country it is even now false), it is not for lack of demand or intent. It is due to a set of political norms that have so far prevented the social conservatives from taking away others' liberties for their own instrumental ends. However, those norms are being intentionally dismantled as we speak. If they succeed, then the entire conceit of your post will rapidly become false.
As to the global/local distinction well.. the same people who handwring about TFR certainly don't see it that way. It is highly relevant to this group /which/ subpopulations have which tfr (either high or low) at the global level. Indeed we are talking about subpopulations at the level of nation state or higher, hundreds of millions of people. The "just use your personal freedoms" argument is hardly convincing to me, let alone (likely) anyone who worries about great replacement topics.
but it's hard not to notice that they are all fundamentally cultural
The opportunity cost argument is not cultural, it's largely about economic incentives.
A single look into the lifestyle of the ultrafertile makes it clear that all the personal reasons seculars usually give are basically bullshit
There's no discrepancy here. "You can have more kids if you drive yourself into (relative) poverty" and "populations that face a lower opportunity cost for having kids have more kids" are just two sides of the same coin. The seculars' statement, "I need more income/resources to have kids and maintain my economic standing" is just the inside-view expression of that fact.
Doubletree3
13d ago
The answer is women's education reduces women's fertility, and there's no real way around this problem.
What's the evidence that this is the true root cause, over or relative to any other number of competing explanations?
Doubletree3
23d ago
The 2a is not even a complete sentence and is ungrammatical punctuated. In your own post you have insert assumed words and change punctuation just to make it grammatically correct. And yet you presume to claim that the plain text is so exactingly clear that there can be only a single valid interpretation (conveniently, yours).
This is both found in the conveyed language, for if diplomats who are here through the most rightful means (and who are not named in 14A!) are not under our jurisdiction, so much less then are illegal aliens not under our jurisdiction, and it is found as an axiomatic power in the prerogative of the sovereign.
This assertion is of course justified nowhere in the plain text of the 14th. Its just your opinion. The degree to which it is or is not true legally is certainly subject to a considerable degree of legal judgement. And the people who are constitutionally authorized to exercise that judgement seemed to have just come to the opposite conclusion.
Anyway, I find your continued claims that certain interpretations of the constitution text are unambiguous or axiomatic, when they just plainly ain't so, to be a sign. I don't think I will continue here. Happy 4th and may America have another great 250.
Doubletree3
23d ago
Curious objection. Bulverist arguments against the left/libs are basically their own subgenre of mottepost. In fact, specifically, excoriating the woke left for its victimhood obsession, or "oppression Olympics", is so common here we can all write that effort post in our heads. Yet I have never seen a conservative criticise another conservative's argument on these grounds.
No, I suspect the reason why magicalkittycats post was not highly upvoted (relative to the average aaqc), has nothing to do with the form of the argument. The answer is just that the motte is mainly populated by people who upvote (downvote) based on superficial criteria like "this post criticizes (praises) my outgroup or praises (criticizes) my in-group."
Doubletree3
26d ago
What's your ethnic background? What ethnicities would you include or exclude from the category of "true" American people?
Doubletree3
26d ago
It's going to be a different country anyway, even if you had a magical way to make it majority white. Change is not death. And anyway you are not the sole arbiter of what future trajectories constitutes death of the usa.
Yep. And "a well regulated militia" similarly modifies the following clause in much the same, equally unambiguous, way.
The inclusion of the clause is unambiguous that not all those born in the United States are subject to its jurisdiction
Given the style in which the constitution was written, it's not clear to me that this is true. Phrasing, punctuation are clearly not modern. is not clear to me, just based on the text itself, if "and" is intended to be something more like a boolean union vs a logical AND.
even if you are correct about the logical parsing of the sentence, it could be the case that the category of "born here but not subject to jurisdiction" does not include categories like "child of mexican immigrant" but more things like "child of foreign ambassador" or "denizen of sovereign native American tribe". Illegal immigrants can definitely be tried in American courts for American crimes and then put in American jails so they definitely are subject to American jurisdiction to some degree.
Your confidence in what is or is not ambiguous is unearned imo.
Doubletree3
4mo ago
you can't explain why a bunch of engineers dumped on a desert island with no tools will produce fewer automobiles than an identical cohort released inside a tesla factory. Building capital
Sure I can. The factory is an artifact of prior people's value added labor and technology. In your view "Capital" would seem to be simply an accounting method for tracking the accumulated value-add of those two forces.
It's the seeds of a very murderous and incorrect ideology
Oh no! Wrongthink!
Doubletree3
4mo ago
Capital investment (or deciding what and what not to invest in) is part of the optimization algorithm, which I already mentioned. The people who build the steam engines are the laborers, using machines.
Still, without labor or technology, any sort of of capital investment still doesn't do anything. You cannot obtain any non-zero-sum return on that investment without the labor or tech.
You can overcome these problems with systems other than allowing people to own property and freely enter into employment contracts but most other attempted systems have broadly done worse.
This is fair, and I think I might even agree, but doesn't really address my (admittedly narrow) point.
systematically underappreciated: it's one of the only wealth-generation mechanisms in human history that is even structurally capable of being positive-sum
This doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean but as far as I can figure there are two things which produce positive sum value:
-
Labor (I spend my labor to grow corn which adds value that didn't exist before)
-
Technology (I combine existing widgets in new ways to increase my labor productivity)
Capitalism and technology development might be synergistic but they aren't the same thing. If you take away the above two things then capitalism becomes just as zero-sum as any other system. Every market exchange is zero sum to within an epsilon. Every asset has its corresponding debt. Every privately owned object is a thing no one else can use. Etc.
No, I think what capitalism does excellently, better than any other system, is being an optimization algorithm for organizing the above two features. But an optimization algorithm needs an objective function, and I think the pro-capitalist crowd under-appreciates the possibility that this objective function can go off the rails, such that the thing capitalism is optimizing for is no longer "the common good".
Doubletree3
4mo ago
Then I congratulate you sincerely on being principled on this matter. However I still believe that this war is not being prosecuted on women's behalf, and whether or not the women of Iran will be better or worse off is a highly uncertain question. It would not be the first time America's regime-change efforts in the middle east resulted in an even more backwards/regressive Islamic rule.
It isn't, it's calling a spade a spade.
I'm confident it's a cheap rhetorical trick, because if the form of the argument were used against you, you would call it out as a low grade gotcha. "If you care about X, and Y is bad for X, then you should in all cases oppose Y and support any action whatsoever that harms Y" is obvious nonsense of the highest order. Just substitute "children" for X and imagine all of the policy positions that would result.
The alliance between Western feminist progressives and Islamic fundamentalists was always completely psychotic under any ideological framework other than "they just hate the West and don't believe any of their own bullshit
Uncharitable at best. Failure to model your opponents at worst. I think there's definitely an aspect of hypocrisy here but characterizing the situation as psychotic is not true. There are mechanisistic reasons we see this play out. It does have its own internal logic.
Rubbing their noses in it and taking the opportunity to diminish the extent that anyone takes progressive feminists seriously is points fairly scored.
Ahh. So it is just arguments as soldiers then.
Gonna have to bow out here, I don't see any further exchange between us on this topic being productive.
Doubletree3
4mo ago
Probably because it's transparently a bad faith argument. I'm guessing neither you nor trump care that much how $arbitrary_regime treats women and even if you did, would never advocate for starting military action on any nation that basis. if you did care about the women, starting a war is obviously not the most productive way to fix that, nor is there any guarantee that the women will be better off afterwards.
So this war is not about the women and your attempt to collapse the whole issue into "better or worse for women" is a cheap rhetorical trick to paint your adversaries as hypocrites for opposing it.
Then you haven't looked well enough.
Incorrect. I lurk more than I post and the motte has been in a downward turn towards low effort partisan bickering. What you are describing is few and far between. I will trust my own judgment on this.
I'm not really attempting to "rise above" anyone. Im comporting myself in manner which is well within the standards of decorum here.
When's the last time you spent any time tone policing your tribal fellows? Or are you subjecting me to a selective demand for rigor?
Kyle Rittenhouse was the guy who decided it would be a good idea to open carry at a protest, as if that would help anything. The results were predictable.
You might think thats justified behavior given the circumstances but so do most people who escalate. It's not very convincing in and of itself. If there's a thing that makes the left "the baddies" and the right not, it can't be because only the left ever "creates situations that cause escalation" because that's false.
However low you think the MAGA-right is, you are at eye level.
I'd agree to be less contemptuous if I saw anyone take their own side to task in this area.
Doubletree3
6mo ago
No, The 2nd amendment folks support Trump because they inhabitant the same object level political space. Thats it. In reality, the right's tendency to power-worshipping and love of armed agents of the state (LEO) means that the 2nd amendment types are as likely to be fighting on the side of the tyrants as against them.
Doubletree3
6mo ago
The protestors (from “our” point of view) want violence and want shootings, because they perceive this as a win condition. We’re quite simply not going to give them the win anymore.
Is this a typo? ICE just killed a man. Seems like, if that's what they want, then you did in, fact, just give it to them.
"ICE needs to stop deporting illegal immigrants from Minnesota because some protestors are getting hurt"
No I don't think that's really the logic at all. The logic is that they perceive some injustice and protesting is the only tool in many of these people's toolbox.
Are actively going out of their way to create situations that can cause escalation. That makes them, in my opinion which is shared by others with similar worldviews, the baddies
Note that you will not hear the right say this about Kyle Rittenhouse, Proud Boys, the guys who killed Ahmaud Arbery, George Zimmerman, the deploymentment of national guard units for transparently political purposes, or any of Trump's intentionally inflammatory rhetoric over the last decade.
Thanks for the additional insight on the MAGA-right. It mostly demonstrates an inability to model the worldview of your opponents ("they want death and violence" lol), and a lack of objective standards for conduct.
This is just condoning being low agency and having low commitment to objectivity.
Im generally sympathetic to people with low agency but let's not act like it righteous in any way
Doubletree3
6mo ago
Seems like pretty much a fact that much of the anti-immigrant right wants America to be a nation of whites, or at least a white majority. NYTreader said as much explicitly elsewhere in the thread.
So I don't know what point you're making. Also lots of ice agents probably are dumb yeah.
Doubletree3
10mo ago
He made statements to police indicating that he attacked the pelosis because they were Democrats and he believed they stole the election from trump.
Doubletree3
10mo ago
Thanks for doing the legwork here. Too often political discussion proceeds purely on narrative/subjective grounds and so the effort to at least attempt to inject some objectivity is greatly appreciated!
The fundamental problem is that most modern right wing violence is an accident of ideology committed by a fringe with little support. Condemnations are widespread, the people engaging it have been mostly grossly mentally ill, no leading figures are calling for it, no mainstream institutions are calling for it or supporting it (at least up until current events).
The claim here is obviously false. There is plenty of institutonal and cultural support for violence among the right. Take, for example, conservative fascination with firearms as a political tool. Or greater suport for state sanctioned killing to achieve policy goals, like the death penalty. And, while this is less true now but was certainly true in the very recent past that conservatives were very likey to prioritize violence as a solution to foreign policy as well ("turn the whole country to glass").
The acceptance of violence, or the tendency to see the use physical force as a acceptable or effective solution to problems, seems to be so pervasive among the right that it has become "baked in" to the point where it doesn't even register, like a fish in water.
I am not claiming that the left does not have problems with violence, it clearly does (especially and perhaps exclusively the woke illiberal left), but this thing I keep seeing where conservatives are casting themselves as constitutionally cherubic peaceniks against the bloodthirsty violent and demonic left is just flatly wrong.
Does it seem that way? I don't think I gave any indication that I believe only liberals can be civil. Illiberals of a tribe can often be civil to illiberal members of the same tribe.
As for the rest of your questions, they come across as an antagonist gishgallop. Instead of subjecting me to a barrage of questions that clearly veil some point you are trying to make, you would do well to simply state your point clearly.
Now it is you who are begging the question.
If your idea of "too different in values" applies to two groups of Arab muslims who have the same genetics, same language, same religion, same basic economic modes, who disagree over point of theological authority, then your conception of distance in value space is hardly meaningful and not useful as a predictor of conflict. It's probably borderline tautology, for obviously any conflict arises over some difference or another.
More options
Context Copy link