Fruck

Lacks all conviction

2 followers follows 0 users joined 2022 September 06 21:19:04 UTC

Fruck is just this guy, you know?

User ID: 889

‎

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 28, 2025

Fruck Lacks all conviction 7hr ago

And also most people (like me, and I think, in practice, you too) would just close their fist, despite the gangster not having to put much more effort into it than you would - which violates your principle of "I own my body, and I can exclude you from control of it, as a pure matter of fact, for all practical purposes."

But isn't it just WAY SIMPLER for us to agree "yeah I control my body, you control yours" without overphilosiphizing it.

For your contrived example, yes. In practice, there is just no incentive for anyone to threaten deadly violence to make someone close their fist. And I'm happy to accept that everyone has the negative right not to have their fist closed without consent.

But if we are going to step out of philisophical thought experiments, then "yeah I control my body, you control yours" is not really that simple. There are a lot of non-silly situations where someone is just, on an intuitive level, "controlling their body", and in doing so causing harm to society:

Refusing to be vaccinated

There it is! When I read the first paragraph I quoted here I was confused. I actually know full well that at least I am capable of not capitulating to threats, and it is crazy to assert, 5 years after covid, that no one would use the threat of deadly force to make someone 'close their fist' - aka give up bodily autonomy in a trivial way. That is not a convoluted thought experiment, it's actually slightly less crazy than what many governments in the world tried to do to their citizens. But you wanted to paint the people who refused to capitulate to the abrogation of their bodily autonomy as the ones harming society.

Context

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 28, 2025

Fruck Lacks all conviction 9hr ago

Actually that would provide negative equilibrium, and it is the default I expect people would go to so I'm stepping in quick, because the equilibrium I'm looking for is in emotional valence. Too nice/too mean would solidify the manichean premise that one side are being 'good' while the other are being 'bad' and I think we see enough of that already. Some republicans might revel in the cruelty, but that's just the lizardman constant, some number of people are always doing that no matter the side. Republicans need a way to defuse that angle, and I think naive is a strong response - to the point without being too insulting.