@Gillitrut's banner p

Gillitrut

Reading from the golden book under bright red stars

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 14:49:23 UTC 

				
User ID: 863


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Gillitrut


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 14:49:23 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 863


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think the fact that the city could get out ahead of the video, in the sense of terminating and charging the officers involved, will do a lot to mute the response compared to Floyd. In Floyd's case the video was taken by bystanders and was publicly available online before the city had a chance to act. I think this, in part, created the impression that if there hadn't been bystander video Chauvin and the other officers would not have been terminated or charged which increased outrage about the situation. Here the city's actions were much more pro-active.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Can you give me literally any evidence that either Paul or DePape are gay? That DePape is a prostitute? That Paul had ever interacted with DePape before? This some kind of just-so story, but where is the evidence.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't really see how the video supports the gay prostitute hypothesis. If DePape was a gay prostitute Paul hired, why did DePape have to break into the house to get in? Why did Paul call 911? Why did DePape try to murder Paul with a hammer when the police showed up?


We also have DePape's own testimony about what he was doing there. If DePape was a prositute hired by Pelosi, why tell the police he was there to interrogate Nancy Pelosi and break her kneecaps?


However strange Paul's behavior is when answering the door I feel like the gay prostitute hypothesis is many times more absurd.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think I got my conversations crossed, my apologies. I was inferring (perhaps incorrectly) from arjin's post that they would support using state power to prevent this kind of outside interference.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


As an LGBT person how concerned should you be?




Probably pretty concerned.




Is it a different level of concern than you'd have if this group didn't exist and you believe that the banning of pride marches was not predicated on actual anti-LGBT bigotry so much as general prudishness?




The groups existence would make me more concerned than if it didn't exist.


I would think the things the group is advocating for are bad and I would be concerned that society was moving in that direction but I would not want the state to punish people who had done nothing more than convince other people to agree with them.


ETA:


Strikethrough unconnected aside about state power.


Replying to your edit, if the external powers successfully convince the local political players to adopt their positions, how aren't subsequent developments of local policies determined by what your fellow countrymen see as best? It almost seems to me like there's some posited injunction against interfering in a communities moral development by adding arguments they may not have considered.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I guess how stable is "somewhat stable"? In the United States over the 12 years between when sodomy was constitutionally protected and when gay marriage was constitutionally protected popular support for the latter increased from around 40% of the population to around 60%. Was that too fast of a change? Would it be a violation of this "compromise" if, a decade from now, Singapore has a substantial debate about legalizing gay marriage? What if popular support has changed similarly in that time?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Fair enough, I guess I'm reluctant to farm out the vindication of federal constitutional rights to state courts (though I recognize that has been common practice). I suppose state courts (at least in Texas) seem to have the benefit of issuing declaratory judgements.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


To me it's cosmic horror. I shudder at the thought there's someone out there that could describe such evil acts in such a lighthearted way. The only way I can consider Scott not-quite-past-redemption is to tell myself it's meant as a Halloween story, and was posted a few days late.




I think some of the tactics employed to try and convince the protagonist are impermissibly coercive, but otherwise am not seeing what evil acts are being described.




Not for all time, but wait at least a generation or two. The other issue is the "nobody", like I said I think Singaporeans can make whatever decisions they want, I take issue with people conspiring to change their mind.




Maybe this is another value difference. I do not see what is wrong with trying to change people's minds.




There certainly are differences, but none that I can see that are relevant to our conversation, or the argument I'm making.




I feel like one obvious difference is that state policies are coercive on other individuals in a way my neighbors preferences are not. Like, we're talking about legal coercion and punishment. That seems quite different to my neighbor having a preference for certain kinds of sex. Indeed, if my neighbors preference for sex involved coercing others (i.e. rape) I think it would become my business, in the same way the states coercion of individuals under the guise of the criminal law is my business. In a similar vein I think my values are universal. They are not just good for me, they are good simpliciter. My own values tell me there are impermissible ways of getting people to live according to my values (such as by coercion) but convincing people to have similar values to me is just good, in itself.




In this thread I'm mostly interested in the question of the conspiracy's existence. A lot these are very frustrating for people in my position, because over the long term, people who are opposed to my views end up adopting a "that's not happening, and it's a good thing that it is" stance. If we can agree that it's happening I'm already mostly happy.




Fair enough! I think the "pro-spiracy" others have mentioned is probably a better conception. There are people in powerful positions that share a certain set of values and want others to also share those values. I'm not sure how much is literal conspiracy (surely some) but I think the pro-spiracy aspect is the dominant one.




What do you think about peer pressure? Cults? Using PUA mind-tricks to get a woman to say "yes" to sex, so it's technically with consent? None of these can ever count as coercion?




I do think these things can be impermissibly coercive, but I'm going to need some evidence that this is what actually happened in particular cases.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's why I said "practically if not explicitly." The only entities SCOTUS allowed the pre-enforcement challenge to go ahead for were a set of state licensing officials. No injunction on them would actually have any impact on the civil suits that are at the core of SB8.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The way she framed it conservatives in Singapore made a deal: "ok, we'll give you decriminalization, but we want to make sure it doesn't go further than that" (to that end they even "fortified" marriage in law). She makes it sound like it's an obstacle to overcome, not a compromise to be honored.




I mean, yea, from her perspective it is. I'm curious how you think this compromise works. It seems like your perception of it entails that, since the sodomy law is repealed, nobody is ever allowed to argue for the legalization of gay marriage for all time. This seems like a strange perspective to me, and certainly is not how I understand it. The compromise is about particular legislation happening now. Not about some commitment to never ever changing laws or advocating they be changed in the future.




Yes, it's like expressing a preference on what kind of food your neighbor eats, or how often they have sex. It's none of your business, and it's creepy to poke your nose into it.




I think there are many relevant moral differences between states and individuals and between state policies and individual preferences that make this comparison inapt.




Do you see some creepy aspect in the story about American Evangelicals spreading their views on homosexuality in Ghana? Or is your only problem with it that you disagree with them?




The second one. I think evangelicals spreading their views in Ghana is bad, because I think the views being spread are bad. I have no particular issue with people trying to convince others of their viewpoints more generally.




There was a literal international conspiracy to get them to stop. It didn't not involve direct force, but these people did not recognize they're putting their nose somewhere it doesn't belong. Also, keep in mind when I brought up experimenting with different setups, I explicitly mentioned marriage, not sodomy laws.




If the conspiracy doesn't involve means or ends that I think are objectionable I struggle to see why I should object to its existence.




They explicitly talk about coordinating to change sentiments within countries as well. This is something they should not be allowed to do, in my opinion.




How would you even stop this? Should Singapore not be allowed to participate in the global internet, because maybe they'd see things that would change their views on LGBT people? Does the Singaporean internet need to be censored to ensure their present social values are maintained forever and ever? Is it bad to show people ads depicting LGBT people as normal people if such ads convince people that bans on sodomy are wrong?




Mostly yes. Especially if it involves conspiring to use corporations, NGOs, the country's own youth, infiltrating their media, in order to "convince" those countries to change their laws.




I don't understand why "convince" is in scare quotes, what methods were employed that aren't covered by that label? I guess I just disagree that convincing people to change their ways by argument is wrong.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It isn't obvious that supporting some leftist, in this case legalization of sodomy, inherently implies supporting a policy even further to the left, gay marriage.




I mean, this seems obvious. Singapore got rid of sodomy laws and strengthened laws against gay marriage at the same time. Maybe (I think likely) Singapore eventually legalizes gay marriage. If so it will almost certainly be because it's people and politicians have been convinced it's a good idea. What's wrong with that?




Arjin in the part writes how non-Singaporeans attempt to put pressure on Singapore to codify man-man marriage into law.




Perhaps my opinion would change with more specification but, at the level of abstraction in the comment, none of it strikes me as particularly objectionable.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
They definitely ruled that there was no available pre-enforcement relief, practically if not explicitly, which is all I'm contending.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Generally the way this gets equalized is that some state or federal agency is empowered to press civil claims on behalf of individuals who've been injured. The SEC, for example, has the power to bring civil actions against entities for securities fraud so that injured parties, who may not have the resources to bring such suits, don't have to. It isn't really clear who would be in this position with respect to States passing laws like SB8. The federal government argued, in United States v. Texas, that they are empowered to sue states to vindicate their citizens constitutional rights but we didn't really get a definitive ruling. A district court granted an injunction, the Fifth Circuit stayed that injunction, SCOTUS granted cert then dismissed the grant of cert as improvidently granted (so, without reaching any merits). The United States then voluntarily dismissed the case this August (presumably it was moot post-Dobbs).


Personally I think both permitting the federal government to sue states to vindicate individuals constitutional rights and expanding In Re Young to permit federal courts to enjoin state courts from hearing those suits that violate constitutional rights are good ideas.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I agree that SB8 was not the first law to place civil liability on some third party behavior, but I think it was one that was very blatant in going after what was (at the time) constitutionally protected behavior. It's not clear to me what similar constitutional rights one has that are violated by ADA accommodations, or civil rights laws.


I'm also not saying all such laws ought to be unconstitutional, merely that the status quo of lacking a pre-enforcement mechanism permits state legislatures to chill constitutionally protected behavior with impunity. I'm confident that ADA accommodations and civil rights laws would withstand such a pre-enforcement challenge. I'm much less confident the Louisiana law in question would.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"Nothing in common" is probably too strong, but I think they need much less in common than is commonly supposed. As for "do not understand each other's worldview" I think it is already the case the most members of most groups in our present society do not understand the worldview of most other members of that society, depending on what resolution of understanding we're looking for. Our society still seems pretty viable to me.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is why SCOTUS should have taken the opportunity to craft a remedy for pre-enforcement challenges of laws that create civil liability. As it is now even if MindGeek thought the law was unconstitutional (I think they'd have a good case) they can't do anything about it until someone attempts to bring an enforcement action. Post SB-8 legislatures can just create these legal Swords of Damocles to hold over the heads of people engaged in constitutionally protected activity that they have no way to proactively remove.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It's entirely possible to chalk a lot of this up to liberal democracy, or, perhaps, the wealth and freedom this brings to the average citizen.




How does this square with the fact that China's TFR is only ~80% of the Untied States' TFR? If birth rate collapse = national collapse seems authoritarian China is ahead of liberal democratic United States on that front.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It seems to me the description on your first paragraph is already broadly the case? Certainly I am part of conversational communities (like this one) that have substantial jargon incomprehensible to people not in those communities. I do not think any society-wide problems require intra-subgroup communication on, like, Twitter or Facebook or something.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It is not clear to me why this is going to "end badly." I suspect the most likely development is people more aggressively round off interlocutors they disagree with as bots or trolls and block them, which seems like something lots of people I follow on Twitter do already.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Granting that the "deep state" specifically wanted to get rid of Nixon because they thought he was going to do something they wouldn't like to them, why does this make Nixon's corruption acceptable? Is your argument that Nixon should have been allowed to corruptly abuse his office because other Presidents had gotten away with corruptly abusing the office?




I'm curious what is your opinion of the CIA?




Generally negative. But this hardly means the CIA is incapable of doing good things.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Ok, granting that the correct narrative of Watergate is one of relatively more corrupt executive branch employees exposing the corruption of a relatively less corrupt President it seems to me the correct conclusion is "more people should have been prosecuted for corruption" not "Nixon wasn't corrupt."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I am not sure why I should care about Nixon's state of mind. I am sure lots of people who corruptly obstructed federal investigations thought they were doing the right thing. What matters is what was actually the case. Had Cox actually gone rogue? What, specifically, were the "myths" in Dean's testimony? As far as I can tell Nixon's replacement pick for Special Prosecutor (Leon Jaworski) picked up exactly where Cox left off, subpoenaing Nixon for his taped conversations in the Oval Office.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Note that this isn't the first time something like this has happened either. In 2018 a Neo-Nazi named Arthur Jones was the Republican Party candidate in Illinois's 3rd Congressional District. A district that is also heavily blue-leaning. Jones ran unopposed in the primary because the state party couldn't find anyone to run against him. Who wants to run a primary race against someone just to get to a general election you're almost certain to lose? I suspect in general you can find more out-there candidates running in races where they don't have any realistic prospect of victory (as seems to have happened with Peña).


This seems like an obvious failure mode of a situation where the party doesn't centrally control who can run on that party's ballot and it's difficult to recruit more traditional candidates (due to remote chances of victory).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This does not seem to be the case from the OP. They write:




Following from this example, I assert that we should have craft a law to maximally punish everyone who was involved in COVID leaking from a lab (implying this dominant theory is indeed true).




The actions being punished are explicitly referenced in the past tense, as things that have already happened. Similarly the Nuremberg trials, which are referenced, involved retroactive illegality.