FeepingCreature
No bio...
User ID: 311

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 mean, I could turn around and say if you knew that somebody was planning something nefarious but couldn't prove it, "accidentally" releasing the passwords to the public is also a clever way to increase common knowledge of the attack vector, thus making it more likely that people will look in the right place during the investigation.
If twelve people agree that X and Y murdered Z and W, but they cannot by any means come to agree on whether X murdered Z and Y murdered W or converse, should they convict?
(Claude Opus says no, GPT-4 says yes.)
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.
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.
It had been previously established that it was entirely acceptable for mobs to declare themselves sovereign from local, state and federal law enforcement, and to enforce this claim by burning police stations and courthouses, denying access to the actual police, arming themselves with rifles and shooting people in the street.
I think there's still a big difference in kind between effectively micro-secessionism and fucking with the election. One is an attack on one area of a city, the other is an attack on the entire country.
Can you actually cite the evidence against, please?
To me it's not a matter of category but scale. And micro-secessionism does not affect the rest of the country, whereas fucking with the election does.
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.
Do immigrants actually support immigration? My intuition would be that immigrants are for it to the degree that they're in the social sphere that profits from immigration and start being against it as they accumulate wealth.
More options
Context Copy link