@FeepingCreature's banner p

FeepingCreature


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:42:25 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 311

FeepingCreature


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:42:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 311

Verified Email

Seems a lot to pull from a single correlation.

Sure, and if someone went ahead and actually threatened to burn politicians' and election workers' cars and houses, rather than undirected violence, I'd fully expect the state to absolutely destroy them.

Those criteria are guided by my understanding of culpability in German law, where I live. Particularly the idea of a plausible model is founded in § 23 of the criminal law, where the presence of a crime requires that the particulars are suited to lead to success in principle. For instance, you are committing a crime by shooting at a plane flying overhead even if your gun is fundamentally too weak to shoot bullets that high, but not by attempting to curse the plane down via strategically buried nailclippings.

edit: Reread, correction: it is a crime but may go unpunished or be punished leniently.

I'm not sure how a judge would decide "burning a car leads to Bush not being elected", but I see it as more an expression of powerlessness, a substitutive behavior that is more an expression of psychological defeat than particular criminal intent aimed at overturning the election. In other words, the J6 protesters had hope of an outcome that favored them; an anti-Bush protester did not.

I'm not sure if the current approaches result in better outcomes? My proposed approach is only half the puzzle; it can remove hindrances but can't solve lack of availability or interest.

Might it just be that your aesthetic preference is different? Ie. you're judging the outcome by your own aesthetics rather than by the badness with which parent would perceive the outcome in this case?

I don't think the category is meaningless! Certainly, men and women overwhelmingly exist. However, as the tomboys and the androgynous and crossdressers already sufficiently demonstrate, some traits of the category have more separational power than others. And the intersex - but the intersex are much more rare than those! I would not look at genetics first if I wanted to demonstrate definitional issues of gender. And showing that the category is broken in some cases even on genetic grounds strengthens, not weakens, my case.

I think the phrasing "have to go" implies that we either have rigorously separated men and women or we cannot have men and women at all. I reject this line of thinking anyways. A group doesn't have to be total to be useful. I'm sure there are people who argue like that; I don't count myself among them.

It's much harder to see how transpeople as a class are given that there is no concrete definition

Oh, I'll be the first to agree that the vacuous nature of the term weakens the trans case! This is only a problem for non-exclusive leftist politics though. I'm entirely willing to accept that there are people who claim that they are trans but aren't, "in fact", trans under any meaningfully objective definition. This does not however disprove the existence of trans people; it just shows the category is fuzzy - as should be expected of a category defined as category-crossing. A sphere is inherently easier to define than a concave lens.

But none of this invalidates the point that you can't argue for group membership on the circular basis of a criterion. I think trans people have shared traits and interests that justify - make useful - the existence of the group term. I think the trans movement often fails to make this case, or make it convincingly; that doesn't make "mtf are men because I put them into that category" any better; it just shows the error is widespread and not limited to any side.

That seems unrelated: there's a difference between a partner and a victim.

Long before you put paedophiles in jail, you should argue for the much cheaper approach of a special arm of the police whose job it is to surveil every house for child abuse. You could probably even farm most of it out to AI. So since we don't even do this, it's not just that society accepts the current level of child abuse in trade for not having to put an unknown fraction of the populace in jail, it accepts the current level of child abuse in trade for not providing every household with a Child Abuse Safety Siri, which is much lower. We don't even do this with schools or churches! In other words, just the cost of implicitly accusing every member of society of being a potential child molester is already too high to be worth stopping the vast majority of abuse that happens. In conclusion, society seriously does not care very much about the background noise of child suffering.

Once you've invested sufficiently in military build-up, you need to somehow translate that buildup into some sort of gain for yourself, or you've wasted a lot of money for nothing. Armies have inertia.

Though of course, hopefully the Scientologists had gone to prison as well. If they hadn't, I'd be getting increasingly sympathetic to the building-burners.

But being a big-breasted female-presenting tiefling with a futa cock and dude voice? Feels like a strange midpoint. If you live in a world of magic and this can be done easily with a finger snap or a procured service, why wouldn't you go all in one way or the other? I'll admit to a possible failure of imagination on my end, but it just comes off as kink and fetishism.

If you live in a world of magic and this can be done easily with a finger snap, why wouldn't you go for kink and fetishism?

I mean, you'd want it to know where its infrastructure is so you can train it to protect that infrastructure. That does make some sense.

Yeah, I'm beginning to come around to the possibility that I did have a vastly different experience of the pandemic.

I mean, to my knowledge nobody actually got lynched. Of course, I don't have a control genocide to see if the actual rhetoric would be different.

No. Nobody checks. Easily, apparently. No, they're just doing their jobs.

I mean, isn't that a good sign for the acquisition? (If a bad sign for the public internet.) If toxicity is how Twitter farms ad impressions, then Musk leaning into the toxicity promises that eyeballs may remain high, or at least won't be depressed by a prosocial attempt to reduce drama.

I think the arguments about insect welfare at least deserve consideration.

I guess it depends on how used you are to ordering online? A lot of the risk area is shops.

If you're living somewhere with lots of foot traffic you also can't go anywhere, though that wasn't the case for me.

I sort of agree, but this is mostly because we don't draw a clean mental distinction between principles and prices. It's the same function, differently parameterized, I guess.

Not sure how to handle that rhetorically though.

This is funny to me because Christians have been and still are guilty of doing all of those things: cut off parts of genitals, "sterilization", and IMO teaching eternal punishment in hell is at least as bad as convincing them their parents are trying to commit genocide.

And of course the child grooming.

A secular humanist could maybe make this argument. A christian should attend to the beam in their own eye.

  • -17

Can you actually cite the evidence against, please?

I think vaccinations are good, but sadly there's no vaccination for tribalism and hysteria. From what you're describing what happened to you has less to do with vax vs antivax on the medical merits and everything with vaccination the memeplex. Which tbf the government is only limitedly responsible for. I think you're mixing up a bunch of different causes and effects that are only topically related.

Well, then let's ask it outright:

How do we (as a society) socialize women to pursue nonsexual value? How do we create opportunities for this to occur?

Personally I think it has to look like absolutely bringing a hammer down on workplace relations, while also pursuing sex-blinded hiring/promotion policies. But that only addresses (if at all) the workplace situation, it does nothing for early socialization, social groups, etc. I have no idea how you'd do it for non-workplace groups.

Conversely, I've always interpreted coordination around medical emergencies, such as lockdowns, as one of the basic reasons to have a government to begin with.

Oh, but the german army was full of such honorable, patriotic men. They had made an oath, and they had a duty to their state and people. And by God they carried it out.

Personal opinion, no particular historical knowledge: the German army could have been so much worse. Consider the ordinary execution of genocides in history. The Holocaust was unique in organization and sheer scale of suffering, but at least the suffering it caused was, mostly, incidental and not the goal. If I'm de facto going to be the victim of a genocidal campaign, to be quite honest, there are worse options than the Nazis. There are even worse options in German history than the Nazis! Make my captor and executioner an honorable patriotic career soldier any day.

I mean, it would lead to endless tit-for-tat only as long as supplies of crimes last. I mean, you could make it last a long time by changing laws, but you'd have to put a bunch of additional work in. Absent a new wave of ex-post-facto laws or blatant procedure prosecutions, honestly my first reaction is "yes, good." Let justice reign, etc.