Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
No, because that pairing actually reflects reality rather than distorting it.
I don't see how this is true. According to PEW (as of 2017) 11% of interracial relationships in the US were white/black compared to 15% that are white/asian. Black men are twice as likely to have a white spouse as black women, while about 50% more asian women have a white spouse compared to asian men. That's 7% of all interracial marriages that are black man/white woman compared to 9% of interracial marriages that are white man/asian woman. Hardly a substantial difference.
Obviously not.
Why not? Surely it would be propaganda against race-mixing then.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2mo ago
Which platforms did not comply with the government's requests?
Most of them did not comply with the government's requests at least some of the time
What is more, the record shows that platforms routinely declined to remove content flagged by federal officials, yet neither respondents nor the Fifth Circuit suggested that any federal official imposed any sanction in retaliation for platforms’ refusal to act as the government requested. See, e.g., C.A. ROA 23,234-23,235, 23,240-23,243, 23,245-23,256 (emails declining to remove flagged content). Indeed, the district court cited testimony that the platforms rejected half of the FBI’s suggestions. Id. at 26,561; see App., infra, 107a, 191a. And Twitter entirely ceased enforcement of its COVID-19 misinformation policy in November 2022, yet suffered no retaliation. C.A. ROA 22,536.
What exactly do you think government is for?
The government does lots of things that are not directly coercive. I am sure you can come up with some examples.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
This argument does not seem intuitive to me because I do not feel any special love for my family qua family, let alone people who share my ethnicity. Definitely I do not think I have any special moral obligations towards my family or members of my ethnicity that I do not have for others.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
I mean, he's the one who publically committed to not banning that account. Nobody made him do that.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
At the time I was shocked at how this wasn't apparently a big story. It's trivial to scroll through the email exchanges and find examples of government agents reporting content to tech companies, who would then take the content down. There are obvious First Amendment issues that at the very least need to be publicly discussed, but most likely need to be prosecuted.
Why is it a violation of the First Amendment for the government to report content to a social media company which they believe violates that social media companies terms of service and for the company to subsequently remove the reported content after finding that it does? And what do you mean by "prosecuted"? What criminal laws have been violated?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Where did I claim that peer harassment could not be actionable? "Harassment" can, and often does, involve more than speech.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
Who on the left is willing to forgive Eps' crimes? Certainly not me. Citation on how the left acts for "everyone else?"
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
7mo ago
I think the problem is you're envisioning "drugging" someone as requiring use of, like, rohypnol or other illicit drugs. I would be willing to bet that, in California, "getting someone so drunk they lose consciousness" counts as "drugging."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Can you clarify how you intend to "shut that off" and "do the opposite" in a way that doesn't entail coercion?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
If it's only the outcome of online dating/social media norms, you could regulate their negative characteristics. If it's porn and vidya, same.
What does "regulat[ing] [the] negative characteristics" for dating, social norms, porn, or video games look like in a way that is compatible with liberalism?
There is a massive space between discussing solutions or giving empathy to people struggling and wanting to pass a "incels can enslave women" law.
I agree, but somehow I rarely see things in this space proposed and much more often see the "we need to take away women's rights" kind of solution.
But that runs afoul of the "nobody is owed a relationship" perspective; why is it that women who can't find the partners they want are given sympathy, but men who can't find the partners they want are monstrous?
I'm not sure I understand. I can be, and often am, sympathetic to men who have trouble finding someone to date them. Being sympathetic to someone in such a situation is quite distinct from thinking that this is a problem that demands a social or legal or political response. Where that sympathy ends is where those individuals advocate violating liberal principles to get what they want. I suspect women generally get more sympathy with their inability to find a partner because they are less likely to promote forcing society to provide one for them as a solution. Certainly less likely than similarly situated men are.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
I think this gets pretty centrally at the question of what we want from AI (from an ethical perspective) and how to get it. Do we want an AI that behaves how humans would behave (or have behaved), or do we want an AI that behaves in a more ethically idealistic way from how humans would behave (or have behaved)? As long as we're training AI on actual human behavior we are going to get the former. Judging it by the standards of the latter just gets us "humans have not behaved in a way I consider ideal" which, like, obviously? And if we already know how the AI ought to behave, why do we need it at all?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
And? The ban was done according to the rule against sharing people's location data, so what more do you want? It's a private company, after all.
I'm not sure there's anything I "want" as such. I'm just amused by Elon's quick 180 on his own free speech commitments.
Can you point to an instance of you being upset about a non-leftist account being banned? Why do you care about this one?
I'm not sure I could point to an instance of my being outraged at a leftist account being banned, tbh. I care about this one because of its plain demonstration of Elon's lie about being committed to freedom of speech on Twitter.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
What is the evidence that this was the case? How does the issuance of a warrant give us any insight into the reason for the theft?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2mo ago
What adverse action did the government take against those platforms that did not comply with its requests? More generally when a friend or family says to you that it would be good for you to do X or that they would like you to do X, do you understand them to be threatening to coerce you to do X? Apparently in this case we are to understand that the government coerced social media companies to do X even when the government took no adverse action when the social media companies did not obey and we do not ordinarily understand the forms of communication the government used as carrying the threat of coercion. Remarkable!
Aguinaga is actually more conciliant in response than what I believe - yes, when the FBI reaches out to you and says, "we think it would be good if you did X", it is always coercive. The nature of the FBI is that it does not have the ability to merely encourage - every single thing that comes as a "suggestion" from the FBI is inherently coercive to a private party. Thinking otherwise seems like an example of someone that is so lawbrained that they're unable to relate to the experience of a private individual interacting with a powerful federal agency.
I assume this extends to requests by the government? If so I think I'd be alright with it but SCOTUS will never go for it. Abolishing the notion of a consensual search for Fourth Amendment purposes would be quite radical.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2mo ago
I'm not sure why another country is necessary for this comparison. It's not like the Civil Rights Act is some long-defunct law under which no one actually brings suit. To the best of my understanding the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, various Department of Justice entities, and private plaintiffs all still bring suit under it and win. This suggests that, by the terms of the law, racial discrimination is happening in America today. Surely there are some people on the margin who would discriminate if it was legal but won't discriminate if it isn't. This seems at least empirically true. The amount of racial discrimination today is almost surely lower now than it was before the Civil Rights Act.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
But Eps didn't escape a federal criminal conviction. He pleaded guilty to federal charges. My understanding is judges have a pretty wide latitude to consider a defendant's circumstances at sentencing, so nothing explicitly prevents a judge considering these factors.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
7mo ago
If Trump thought the assessors value was low the correct thing to do is hire an appraiser, get an actual value, and use that. As best the lawsuit seems to indicate Trump just made numbers up!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
8mo ago
It seems fine to me. If you want to enjoy the legal benefits of limited liability or operating as a corporation rather than a natural person the government wants to know to whom those benefits are actually accruing. Incorporation and limited liability are ultimately creations of the government. What's the counter argument? That there's a natural right to be able to operate a legally distinct entity in a way that shields you from liability of that entity's operations? I'm skeptical.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Ok. Even through a lens of self-sabotage I think people are almost never justified in coercing someone else to do something because, in the judgment of the individual doing the coercing, it would be in the coerced individuals best interest.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
He can't do anything to increase the number of marriageable women, can he?
Sure he can. He can change his standards. There's no, like, Law Of Nature that makes it impossible to marry women with the characteristics you describe in the first half of your post. Indeed, I imagine a large number of women in those categories (lesbians excepted) end up married to men at some point in their life. I don't understand why this complaint isn't isomorphic to a conventionally unattractive woman complaining about how she can't get a 6/6/6 man to settle down with her. If you have set your standards such that no one whom you would date would also date you, that seems like a you problem.
The average woman is pickier than ever while bringing fewer things 'to the table' for the male than ever.
A natural result of women's improved social and economic standing. As their alternative to being in a relationship improves some people are going to choose that option instead of forming a relationship they may otherwise have. When one's negotiating position is better, one can get a better deal.
It's also kind of amusing to me to complain about women's pickiness given the acknowledgement in this comment that your own criteria would exclude a large number of women from your marriage pool.
So there's a relatively small pool of marriageable woman who are what would be considered 'wife material', and every single male, from ages 18-50, is competing for this pool.
I think this overstates the degree of agreement on what constitutes "wife material" among men aged 18-50. I suspect many men in this group will end up happily married to women who don't fit your described criteria of "wife material."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
The social and the economic defy such simple modeling. What is the good life is socially mediated, if that conception includes kids I can't really say the woman is getting the worse deal, if it doesn't then it is a bad deal. Seeing as women can't really directly the compare the two experiences they need to rely on the stories society tells to inform them, and society does not seem to be trying very hard to sell parenthood.
Fair enough. What I mean to convey is the idea that our economic conditions to some extent determine which social narratives we find compelling. The idea is that ~everyone is presented with competing social narratives that explain their present (or future) life situation. What narratives we find compelling is, in part, a product of our actual experience. As the actual facts about individuals experience shift, so too do their decisions about what narratives are convincing explanations. Historically the nature of labor made it easy to accept the social narrative that regarded men as the productive worker and women as the child carer or homemaker. As economic conditions have shifted, so too have the narratives women (and men!) have found compelling.
The group that does this, or at least advertises they'd be willing to do this, is having significantly less children than the group that doesn't put any effort into advertising this.
I think this fact is due to other causal factors than this attitude, but fair enough.
And, frankly, the meme that men aren't pulling their weight in domestic tasks doesn't ring true to me at all, it seems like just an empty grievance from centuries past that only persists because of the women are wonderful effect.
Can you back up this "seems" with data? According to Gallup both men and women agree that women generally shoulder more of the burden with respect to domestic duties and child care.
Men seem to be pulling their weight and the domestic tasks besides the ones directly involved with caring for the baby take only a handful of hours a week to maintain.
I would know, I personally do nearly all of them each week while working from home just during calls.
I am a little confused. In another comment you say you are "working on" becoming a father, or pumping out babies. Do you currently have children? My impression (admittedly from my brother rather than personal experience) is that babies take much more than "a handful of hours a weeK" in care.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
This is still on the mundane side, because I also agree with gay marriage, but it raises red flags when you compare it to the western culture war. Many people already had their suspicions, but the pretty explicit “we'll get you next time” that the Singaporeans get to hear if they're paying attention, raises some interesting questions about the seamless transition from gay marriage to trans issues in the west, and about taking any future assurances about social reforms in good faith. Other then that, coming back to the point about singletons, even though I'm personally for gay marriage, different definitions of marriage are one of the central examples of what I think different cultures should be allowed to experiment with.
I am confused by this paragraph. Is it surprising that people who think sodomy should be legal also think gay marriage should be legal? I'm not really seeing how there is an "explicit" "we'll get you next time" either. They're mentioning that they think its progress that Singapore has legalized sodomy but wished Singapore had gone farther and legalized gay marriage, or at least not added a constitutional amendment against it. Is it nefarious to express preferences about the laws and rules of other countries? On a panel dedicated to discussing exactly those kinds of rule and policy changes in other countries?
It's also not clear to me how Singapore was not "allowed to experiment with" laws against gay marriage or sodomy. As best I can tell there is no external actor coercing them to go one way or the other, it seems to me driven by changing sentiment within the country. Should countries be obliged to maintain laws they think are bad for the purpose of maintaining some kind of global viewpoint diversity? Is it wrong to try and convince countries to change their laws by reason and argument if not many countries have similar laws?
The solution is simple. If the state wants women to give up their careers, their education, their financial independence so that they will have and raise children then the state needs to adequately compensate those women for what it is asking them to give up. No state on earth is prepared, or could afford, to do this, which is why functionally all efforts to increase fertility fail.
We might further ask: why can't states do this? The answer here is also simple. Women's work outside the home generates a lot of economic value. The issue at the heart of raising fertility by having women work less is that society will be poorer, which people are generally opposed to.
Why could this work historically? Partially because much more of women's labor was needed inside the home (and so unavailable for work outside the home) and partially because there were actual legal restrictions on the work women (especially married women) could do outside the home.
More options
Context Copy link