Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
I think racial classification is often fraught for a few reasons.
One is that our racial classifications are a categorical classification overlayed on a much more continuous phenomena. Whether the phenomena in question is one's appearance (skin color, hair texture, morphology, etc) or genetic ancestry there is the possibility for considerable overlap in these features in a way that our racial categorizations do not account for. When drawing categorical boundaries around more continuous phenomena it seems intuitive to me that different people will draw the lines in different places. Imagine if we categorized everyone in the world by height into "short", "medium", and "tall" groups. There are underlying facts about what an individuals height actually is (the same way there are underlying facts about genetic ancestry or appearance) but I feel pretty confident that different people would draw the boundaries of different height categories in different places.
Another reason is, as you note, being part of a certain racial classification has been a status marker. Sometimes this is purely social (white supremacists regard people classified as "white" better than people not classified as "white") but other times it is also legal (consider Jim Crow laws in the United States). At various times and places ancestral groups have argued for their inclusion in various racial classifications due to the social or legal benefits that can flow from such a classification.
So we have this very simple categorization scheme that we have layered over more continuous phenomena and then imbued with social and sometimes legal significance.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
Bureaucracy is part of it, but part of it is also a very uneven demand for children. Contra the claims of adoption advocates infertile couples do not regard any child as better than no child. There is very high demand for young (infant) healthy children. There is very low demand for kids who are older, or have behavioral problems, or disabilities.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
I'm curious to hear what parts of the Singerian argument you take to be false that also imply the falsity of the Nussbaumian arguments. They proceed along quite different lines, to my understanding.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
I don't have much to add except that you may be interested in reading a related article from Aaron Ross Powell over at Reimagining Liberty. Powell is a libertarian who thinks the fusionist alliance between libertarians and conservatives was a big mistake for libertarianism. In the article above he develops a similar thesis as your comment. That conservatives often have preferences towards certain kinds of social and economic arrangements that are disrupted when people are free to develop and live out their own conception of the good, so that there is a tension between the idea of being a conservative and supporting ones liberty to lives ones life the way one wants.
In a world where most people accept or go along with the conservative’s preferences, he will see little reason to use the state to enforce his preferred patterns because they will be, in effect, self‐enforcing. This is why, for a time, fusionism looked like it might work. Conservatives were broadly in favor of markets and against regulation because greater wealth is good and because most people’s economic behavior and the resulting outcomes weren’t a threat to conservative preferences. Leftist big government, on the other hand, was a threat. This enabled conservatives and libertarians to find common ground on opposing big government, repealing regulations, and promoting free enterprise.
In a world where society’s contours and tastes largely align with a conservative’s values, he will support political and economic liberty because they bring recognizable benefits such as freedom for his religious practice, plentiful high‐paying jobs in places he wants to live, and so on. But in a state of freedom, the economy and culture are never static.
In contemporary America, secularism is on the rise while membership in organized religion declines. Women are spending more time pursuing education and careers, are earning more money, and so are having fewer children. The population of cities is growing, in large part because their economic and cultural dynamism make them attractive places to live. Immigrants are introducing new ideas, languages, aesthetic preferences, foods, and ways of living, and many of those are catching on in popular culture.
In other words, the conservative’s preferred patterns are being disrupted by liberty. Being free means people have the option to choose lives that are different, sometimes radically so, from what the conservative prefers. Freedom has increased wealth, making it easier for them to make those choices. And it has increased dynamism, upending old economic arrangements such as those which enabled middle‐class jobs in small towns.
In this changed world, political conservatism has two options. The first is to reject liberty. In recognizing that political and economic liberty have undermined their preferences, they’ll demand that the state restrict freedoms in order to incentivize or coerce people into returning to the conservative’s preferred way of life or to prevent them from continuing to do things that threaten it. In this case, political conservatism places this pattern above the liberty‐maximizing pattern, and so conservatism is no longer an ally with, or even compatible with, libertarianism.
The second option begins similarly, in that political and economic liberty cut against conservative values and preferences. But instead of fighting the tide, this conservative accepts it. It’s not ideal from a conservative perspective, but they recognize the need to respect everyone’s liberty to choose, even if their choices are distasteful. In this case, the conservative sees that liberty has disrupted his favored patterns, but he still sees the government’s role as maximizing liberty. But notice that, in taking this path, our conservative isn’t a political conservative at all, because now his political philosophy is aimed at maintaining maximum liberty. Thus there’s no need to make a case for the compatibility of conservatism and libertarianism, because the conservative and the libertarian are now both libertarians, though perhaps with different cultural tastes.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
I think that today, its easy to see the Singer&Co rationale in an article like this. But if the Motte-equivalent of 2100 is arguing about that, and everyone has heard stuff like the link in public school, and then someone tries explain how this was anticipated by the obscure philosoper Singer, I can imagine that going quite a lot worse.
It is not actually clear to me that Nussbaum's conclusions with respect to animal welfare follow from any Singerian premises, as opposed to having their own separate grounds. To the extent it would be hard in 100 years to argue that arguments like Nussbaums have their intellectual roots in Singer's writings, I think it is because that same task would be hard now.
Welcome to day 4 of the United States House of Representatives quest to choose a Speaker. Previous thread here. Not many developments over the course of the last few days. About 20 House Republicans have refused to vote for presumptive Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). Allegedly there has been progress on a deal between McCarthy and some Freedom Caucus member holdouts but we've heard that one before. Politico also reporting that more moderate members of the House Republican Conference might be in revolt against McCarthy depending on the exact terms of the deal he makes with those Freedom Caucus members. Looking at the last vote yesterday, I'm wondering if the votes for Hern (R-OK) and the votes for Donalds (R-FL) (recorded as Other) represent distinct anti-McCarthy factions. If so my impression is the Freedom Caucus faction is composed of the Donalds voters and the Hern voters are more Never-McCarthy. If this is correct any deal McCarthy makes with the Freedom Caucus will be insufficient to get him to a majority, though maybe it will get him to a plurality. Democrats remain united behind Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). After we passed 11 votes yesterday we are officially among the Top 5 most ballots needed to choose a Speaker in American History. The last time it took more than 11 ballots to choose a Speaker was in 1859, when it took 44 ballots.
ETA:
At the end of the twelfth ballot the results stand at:
McCarthy - 214
Jeffries - 211
Jordan - 4
Hern - 3
Other - 0
Present - 0
With two members (Trone (D-MD) and Hunt (R-TX)) not voting. Seems like McCarthy has finally locked up the Freedom Caucus members that could be reasoned with, and has passed Jeffries. On the assumption that the remaining members can't be moved to vote for McCarthy by concessions he can offer I'm not sure where we go from here. McCarthy needs three more votes for a majority to secure the Speakership. Potentially we move to a plurality vote as they did in 1855 but you need a majority vote to change the rule to switch to a plurality vote and not clear the Dems + holdouts would go along with it.
ETA 2:
At the end of the thirteenth ballot the results stand at:
McCarthy - 214
Jeffries - 212
Other - 6
Present - 0
McCarthy again short of the votes needed to become Speaker but gaining ground. McCarthy needs three of the holdout votes in order to become Speaker by my count. The deal McCarthy made with the Freedom Caucus hasn't been publicly announced but I've read reports that it includes (1) key committee appointments for Freedom Caucus members, (2) conditions on any raise in the US debt ceiling, and (3) potentially requiring a balanced budget. I like the view that US gov spending has of the federal budget since you can see the breakdown by various topics and can dig in for more details. I honestly don't see how you get to a balanced budget in the absence of cuts to any of (1) the military, (2) social security, or (3) medicaid/medicare. It seems to me like cuts to any of these would be deeply unpopular but we'll see how the situation develops.
ETA 3:
On a party line vote the House has voted to adjourn until 10pm tonight. McCarthy apparently attempting to get the two missing Republicans (Buck (R-CO) and Hunt (R-TX)) to come back and vote. Assuming they do McCarthy will only need two of the holdout Republican votes to become Speaker, rather than three.
ETA 4:
At the end of the fourteenth ballot the results stand at:
McCarthy - 216
Jeffries - 212
Other - 4
Present - 3
Gaetz and Boebert flip to voting Present. Kevin McCarthy yet fails to secure the Speakership of the House of Representatives, but we're getting closer.
ETA 5:
Republicans appear to change their mind mid motion to adjourn and the motion to adjourn fails 155-279.
ETA 6:
At the end of the fifteenth ballot the results stand at:
McCarthy - 216
Jeffries - 212
Other - 0
Present - 6
And Kevin McCarthy is elected Speaker of the United States House of Representatives for the 188th Congress on the fifteenth ballot.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
I feel like you underestimate the degree of social upheaval from deaths alone. According to the CDC some 50M Americans have received an updated Bivalent booster. Predicting a 25% mortality rate among such a group over a decade is 12.5M extra deaths over that decade, or 1.25M deaths per year (amortized). That's a 33% increase in total deaths per year compared to 2020 and would make the vaccine the leading cause of death, causing about double the current leading cause of death (heart disease).
As for what might happen to those involved in the vaccine's development it is probably worth comparing to previous situations where drugs were approved and caused a lot of harm. Thalidomide is probably the obvious comparison (though this would be much worse by scale).
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
Thanks, corrected.
I wonder if this will be enough to get McCarthy to a majority. Last I had heard it wouldn't.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
That would be pretty neat, like a Turing test analog for art. I suspect any AI-art detector would, similar to adversarial attacks against AI classifiers, not be picking up anything that was visible to the human eye. It'd be some weird stuff like unnatural statistical patterns in the bits or something.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
Somewhat related but I was reading just yesterday about GPTZero which is an AI model designed to determine whether a body of text was generated by an AI. Apparently it used GPT-2 to train. Would be interesting to see if someone could develop something similar for identifying if an image was AI generated.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
I mean, Jeffries is the clear plurality winner in every vote taken so far. The Reps should just vote for him!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
According to a Fox News interview with Scott Perry (head of the Freedom Caucus) there has been no deal and he accused McCarthy of leaking information to his benefit.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
I know the whole premise of longtermism is in thinking about the far future but it seems to me the degree of uncertainty involved with respect to what it will be like makes it impossible to take them seriously. Making decisions today about what you expect things to be like in 11 generations, in a sociological or technological sense, is not rational, it is irrational.
Take the Collins example (that you rightly call crazy). How long is 11 generations? Assuming each of their kids has kids between the ages of 20-30 (for simpler math) it means their 11 generations is going to take between 220 and 330 years to realize. What was our own world like 220 to 330 years ago? Well 220 years ago would have been circa 1803. This is before the founding of Mormonism, indeed a few years before Joseph Smith's birth. The United States was still in the grip of a fierce debate over slavery. This was before the development of the ideology of communism by Marx and Engels. If you take the longer end, 330 years, that puts you at around 1693. So now we're back before the founding of the United States. This is around the time the Amish are founded in Switzerland and just a few years after Locke publishes his Treatises.
There is nothing "just" about 11 generations! Making decisions today on the assumption that your kids, and their kids, and so on up to 8 billion people will keep your ideology over the course of centuries is making decisions on the basis of a false assumption.
Even leaving aside this one family, how have various religious or ethnic organizations managed to hold their beliefs across this length of time? My impression is not very well. Firstly, many such organizations that are prominent today have not even *existed * that long. Secondly, among those that have, how many of the versions of these organizations from 11 generations ago would even recognize their modern incarnations? How much is the Catholic church today like the Catholic church of 1803? Of 1693? How much has the LDS church changed, since it's founding by Smith, in a much shorter time?
Welcome to day three in the United States House of Representatives quest to choose a speaker. Previous thread here. Yesterday ended a little abruptly, with the House reconvening at 8 pm only to immediately adjourn until noon today. Word on the street is the Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was worried someone was going to nominate Steve Scalise (R-LA) for the Speakership and that Scalise would be a compromise candidate who could defeat McCarthy. Allegedly a deal was reached overnight that will bring some 10 or so dissenters to McCarthy's side but, unfortunately for him, that will still not be enough for him to win. In order to get an outright majority (assuming all members vote) McCarthy needs to get 17 of the 21 Republicans not currently voting for him.
Interestingly it seems some of these Republicans are not even looking for rule changes, they are just Never-McCarthy. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), for example, told the news yesterday that he was prepared to vote "every hour, every day, every week, but never for [McCarthy]". If four other Republicans feel similarly I believe that will be enough to deny McCarthy the Speakership in perpetuity. Having other McCarthy supporters vote "Present" to decrease the total needed doesn't work because McCarthy loses votes faster than the threshold decreases. The "Present" voters would need to either be among the five opposed to McCarthy or among Democrats, both of which seem unlikely to me.
ETA:
At the end of the seventh ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 201
Donalds - 19
Other - 1
Present - 1
Matt Gaetz was the Other vote and cast his vote for Donald John Trump. It seems the alleged compromise failed to actually move any of the dissenters against McCarthy, including Victoria Spartz (R-IN) who has voted Present in the last few ballots. Nor has anyone nominated Scalise yet. We're now looking at 4 ballots across two days with basically identical results. Well and truly in a stalemate.
ETA 2:
At the end of the eighth ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 201
Donalds - 17
Other - 3
Present - 1
Few more Other votes this time. Two for Kevin Hern (R-OK) and one for Trump again. Seems holdouts may not be sold on Donalds but aren't coming around to McCarthy. Wish we could skip the nominating speeches (who are not convincing anyone) and move to a speedier method of voting than this call and response. Heard rumors after the first vote that McCarthy wanted to adjourn but the Dems + holdouts probably wouldn't let them (need a majority to adjourn).
ETA 3:
According to a CNN reporter quoting Rep-Elect Michael Lawler (R-NY) the 18 Republican Members of the House that were elected in districts Biden won in 2020 are not moving from Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. So if these 18 won't vote for anyone other than McCarthy and at least 5 other members will never vote for McCarthy then it's impossible for the Republicans to get anyone over the majority line.
ETA 4:
At the end of the ninth ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 200
Donalds - 17
Hern - 3
Other - 0
Present - 1
Ken Buck (R-CO) did not vote. We've now passed the number of ballots the last time there were multiple ballots in a Speaker election. This is officially the longest Speaker selection by ballot count since 1859. That election took 44 ballots. Probably see adjournment after this though I'm unsure until when. Pretty convinced at this point there is nothing McCarthy can offer that's going to get the holdouts to vote for him and I'm unclear if there's a non-McCarthy candidate that could get a sufficient number of votes unless McCarthy himself drops out. Probably House adjourns after this for dinner although until when I could not say.
ETA 5:
At the end of the tenth ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 200
Donalds - 13
Hern - 7
Other - 0
Present - 1
Ken Buck (R-CO) did not vote. Kevin McCarthy fails to secure the Speakership for the 10th time. Looks like Republican dissenters might be migrating from Donaldson to Hern. No movement between any of the three coalitions (Dems/McCarthy/Other). Might be more votes depending on where the votes stand for adjournment.
ETA 6:
At the end of the eleventh ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 200
Hern - 7
Trump - 1
Other - 12
Present - 1
I think just about all the Other votes were for Donalds, not sure why no one re-nominated him. Something darkly amusing about back room deals going while these votes are counted because members need to be on the floor to vote and don't have the votes to adjourn, so they have to retire to their private meeting rooms in the brief period when they can.
ETA 7:
On a 219-213 vote, with one Republican joining the Democrats, the House is adjourned until noon tomorrow.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
I think that's unlikely. It would basically be an invitation to be primaried in the next election. "My opponent voted to hand Republicans control of the House of Representatives" attack ads would write themselves. Maybe if we made it long enough that the government was in danger of hitting the debt ceiling or something.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
I believe it is a reference to the Church Committee, also known as the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Though, this would be a House Select Committee rather than a Senate one.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
I would be interested to see somebody nominate Scalise and see how many votes he could pull off of McCarthy or Donalds.
Following up on my post from yesterday welcome to day 2 of the United States House of Representatives attempt to choose a Speaker. The current favorite is former House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) though he has been unable to gather the needed majority (or even plurality) of votes of members of the House needed to secure the Speakership. As of the third ballot yesterday there were some 20 Republican holdouts against McCarthy, of which he needs at least 13 in order to get more votes than Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) the Democratic Party nominee for speaker. The fourth ballot is currently underway and interestingly the Republican protestors seem to have changed their candidate from Jim Jordan (R-OH) to Byron Donalds (R-FL). Overnight it seems Trump has re-endorsed McCarthy for Speaker, we'll see if that moves the needle for the Republican holdouts. As of the time of this writing Donalds has acquired 7 votes, more than enough to keep McCarthy from acquiring the majority and likely guaranteeing a fifth ballot.
Assuming McCarthy eventually becomes Speaker (something I still think is the most likely outcome) how does he effectively run the House? The Republican majority is quite narrow (222-212) meaning the defection of only five Republicans can sink any legislation he wants to bring. Effectively this is a similar problem to the one Democrats faced in the Senate this last term, where the support of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema were required for them to effectively utilize their 50+tiebreaker majority.
ETA:
At the end of the fourth ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 201
Donalds - 20
Present - 1
So Trump's continued endorsement does not seem to have moved any of the holdouts to McCarthy. One member (I missed who) changing their vote from McCarthy to Present has to be concerning for McCarthy. Since election requires a majority of votes cast for a person (Present votes don't count) if more Members follow it decreases the total needed for election. If those Present votes are coming from McCarthy then that moves Jeffries closer to being elected Speaker, as the current plurality vote haver.
I wonder if this is the new strategy from moderate Republicans. Threaten to vote Present and lower the threshold and get the Democrat selected Speaker unless the holdouts get behind McCarthy. Presumably the holdouts would prefer even McCarthy to Jeffries. It would take 12 (I think) members voting Present to put Jeffries over the top, assuming he gets all 212 Democratic Party votes.
ETA2:
At the end of the fifth ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 201
Donalds - 20
Present - 1
No movement from the prior vote. Trying to understand how one side or the other break the stalemate here. Doesn't seem like anyone has attempted to put forward a compromise candidate. Seems unlikely McCarthy supporters are persuaded to back the HFC candidate in the needed numbers, though they have peeled one off and another is voting Present. Seems unlikely the HFC members come back to McCarthy. In 1855 when the House had failed to choose a Speaker after two months and over 150 votes the majority agreed to elect whoever got a plurality as Speaker to finally end the voting. Maybe that's a possibility here but would be pretty risky since Jeffries has consistently been the plurality winner. All it would take is 6 HFC members staying strong and you'd have a Democrat Speaker of a majority Republican House (who could immediately remove him if they wanted).
ETA 3:
At the end of the sixth ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 201
Donalds - 20
Present - 1
Still no movement. No idea how this stalemate gets broken.
ETA 4:
After returning at 8pm ET the House adjourns until noon tomorrow by a vote of 216 to 214.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
The Republican Conference apparently think there's a difference. Speaker of the House is a very powerful position because they have almost total control over what bills come up for a vote, what amendments can be introduced, etc. Even moreso than the Senate Majority Leader. Based on the speeches some Republicans have given so far they think McCarthy won't be conservative enough in what bills he brings to the floor for a vote.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
For sure. I recall similar issues when the party eventually settled on Boehner and Ryan when they were Speaker. Although those issues were resolved before the actual election for Speaker.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3yr ago
C-SPAN reporting that there have been these kinds of talks behind the scenes between some members of both parties. All they would need is 218 people across both parties to coordinate on one person.
Anyone else watching the drama play out electing the Speaker in the United States House of Representatives? You can watch for free on C-SPAN. Today is the first day of the 118th Congress and the House's first order of business is electing a Speaker. Normally this is a pro-forma affair and whoever is the leader of their party cruises to victory on their first ballot. The last time a Speaker election went beyond one ballot was 1923, and that was resolved only after five ballots. So far today we've had one ballot in which Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) (the presumptive speaker) has not only failed to win a majority of votes cast and become Speaker, but to win even a plurality of votes in the ballot (the Democrats voted unanimously for Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)). The current split in the House is 222 Republicans to 212 Democrats. So if every member votes then 218 votes are needed to win and McCarthy can afford to lose just 4 Republican votes (assuming no cross-party-voting). Currently McCarthy is on his way to lose a second ballot, with 19 votes having gone to Jim Jordan (R-OH). On the first ballot McCarthy lost 19 votes, mostly to Andy Biggs (R-AZ) but some to Other. Jordan has already exceeded Biggs total, but the voting isn't finished so it remains to be seen whether more people have fallen in line and voted for McCarthy or if Republicans coalesce around Jordan or some other candidate.
It seems to me the most likely outcome is Republicans eventually fall in line and elect McCarthy, but other outcomes are possible. Republicans could potentially coalesce around another candidate (Jordan seems possible). Since what's required is a majority of all votes cast Jeffries could win if enough Republicans abstain or don't vote, leading to a Dem speaker in a majority Republican house.
It's interesting to look at the drama today through the lens of the common complaints about infighting among the Democrats and the left. For all that discussion it seems the Democratic Party has gotten behind Jeffries as Pelosi's replacement in short order, while Republicans can't seem to reach consensus on who should be their leader in the House.
ETA:
At the end of the second ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 203
Jordan - 19
This means McCarthy picked up no votes between first and second ballot. All the votes that went to Biggs/Other on the first ballot went to Jordan on the second ballot.
ETA2:
At the end of the third ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 202
Jordan - 20
McCarthy now officially losing ground to Jordan. This is kind of funny because Jordan (at least by his own words on the House floor) doesn't want the job and wants McCarthy to have it.
ETA3:
The House just adjourned (Speaker still undecided) until noon tomorrow.
What is the source for the claim that there is no increased risk of myocarditis in COVID-19 reinfections? It seems like your whole argument hinges on it but you don't provide any evidence for it.
More options
Context Copy link