Gillitrut

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 1d ago

I think part of it is government regulation but another part is that we often have higher standards for entities we outsource these things to than we have for ourselves. Compare home cooking to eating out a restaurant. I generally want the restaurant food to be at least as good as what I could make or I wouldn't bother going. On top of that the restaurant has to comply with a bunch of food safety regulations I probably don't abide when cooking at home. This makes things more expensive!

On the parenting front, I suspect a lot of parents who would be fine giving their kid an iPad or some other device for entertainment would be mad at a daycare they pay for doing the same.

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 1d ago

This is a post in itself but a substantial reason why so many work outside the home today, and why women working outside the home is correlated with wealth and technological development, is because having access to labor saving devices heavily shifts the economic calculus in favor of women working outside the home. It requires far fewer hours today to achieve what would have been a full time job providing goods for a household historically. One of the few areas where this is not true is child rearing and i s part of why daycare is so expensive and why people sometimes quit work to care for children. Otherwise we have largely automated the tasks of homemaking, freeing people's labor up for other productive uses. Related to this is the idea of a "gold digger." A woman interested in a man for his wealth but who does not proportionally contribute. It's much harder to proportionally contribute without a job when technology can automate most of the things you're supposed to be contributing!

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 1d ago

I think one angle missing here is why women want the ability to have their own careers, income streams, etc. This post seems to reduce it to a kind of cultural brainwashing which is far too simplistic. Women want the ability to have their own careers and income streams for the same reason men do: they want to have some control over their lives. They want to be able to mitigate the downside risk that comes with being completely financially dependent on someone else. Imagine you're a woman. You give up your career, education, etc to become a homemaker for a man. Half a decade in (perhaps with two or three children) he becomes an abusive alcoholic. What kind of options do you have for protecting yourself and your children? For exiting the relationship? I know, as a man, I would be pretty uncomfortable being completely dependent on someone else due to the potential for abuse. it seems totally rational to me that women feel similarly. I suspect many women have heard stories from family members or friends about such relationships and so the concern seems especially salient to them. How prestigious does motherhood have to be for women, as individuals, not to care about that downside risk?

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 5d ago · Edited 5d ago

~~I think the author needs to take his schizophrenia medication.~~ (I deserved the warning).

Up-efforting my comment:

I don't really see a lot of the connections the author makes in the piece. I think the excerpts in the post here are some of the more cogent parts and even those are questionable. The piece seems committed to the idea that there is some shadowy they out there that are responsible for various culture shifts but it does little beyond vibing to actually make that case. What particular entities are responsible for Kelce's rise? For his dating Swift? How did they do that? What is the evidence that they did this? You will search this piece in vain for answers to these questions.

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 6d ago

My wife and I were married for nearly a decade before we bought a house. In the US.

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 12d ago

Technically no, but that's because the logic of Lawrence would extend Griswold and similar right-to-privacy cases to prevent the state from criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults of either the same or opposite sex. Quoting Lawrence:

As an alternative argument in this case, counsel for the petitioners and some amici contend that Romer provides the basis for declaring the Texas statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. That is a tenable argument, but we conclude the instant case requires us to address whether Bowers itself has continuing validity. Were we to hold the statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause some might question whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants.

The opinion then goes on to discuss various right to privacy cases and ultimately come to the conclusion a prohibition on sodomy would likely be unconstitutional applied to basically anyone. Quoting Lawrence again:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 12d ago

What's this?!?! A distinction between "having an urge" and conduct?!? In the realm of sexuality? Say it isn't so! How many times can The Lefties That Be just boldly admit that the entire slew of homosexual behavior to gay marriage cases were based on a fundamental lie?!

I'm a little confused what the lie is supposed to be. In both Lawrence and Obergefell the state was discriminating against people because of their status. If two people of the opposite sex wanted to engage in some conduct they could, but if the two people were of the same sex they couldn't. The conduct wasn't at issue, the status of the participants was. Unless the idea is being a particular sex is conduct rather than a status? Or that the conduct is different if different people are doing it?

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 13d ago

I am not sure what you mean by a "cut-out." Like, a third party that works with the crypto exchange doing the conversion instead of Pornhub? Unless that third party is also paying all of Pornhub's cash bills it seems like that would be the same as working with the exchange. I guess the idea is the exchange might object to Pornhub but not the third party?

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 13d ago

Yes. The problem isn't the Pornhub customers identity (although that is a general problem in crypto) it's that whoever is doing the crypto->fiat conversion for Pornhub needs to know who Pornhub is and so needs to at least tolerate their business. The benefits of being anonymous (or pseudonymous) when using crypto disappear once you need to turn the crypto into cash.

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 13d ago

I think the bigger problem for shady companies switching to crypto is that they are going to have expenses they cannot pay in crypto, necessitating entities that will swap their crypto for fiat. These entities are almost certainly, if they do business in the US, required to abide by KYC and AML laws. Maybe randos looking at the blockchain don't know address X is Pornhub, or whatever, but whoever is changing Pornhub's crypto into dollars has a legal obligation to know. So the angle of attack can easily shift from payment processors to whoever is doing their currency exchange. Crypto is censorship proof as long as you only ever have to use crypto but that's not a sustainable state of affairs for most people or businesses.

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 16d ago

Wut?

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 17d ago

Farmshine has learned that these fines were ignored on advice of their former attorney, so as not to admit guilt. After all, why should Herr and Wentworth admit guilt for actions that have become commonplace and are open to interpretation of the state’s vague and archaic veterinary law in regard to defining ‘diagnosis’ — especially since pregnancy is not a disease to be diagnosed, but rather a condition to be observed?

This advice is so fucking stupid they should be suing whatever attorney gave it to them. I am not a barred lawyer in PA but I am confident that the proper response to "a state executive agency has inappropriately levied a fine and injunction on me" is "file suit challenging the action in a court of competent jurisdiction" not "ignore it and hope it goes away." All that notwithstanding, reading the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act, it sounds like the board has not followed the legally required procedure for enforcing its judgements. Unless there have been some proceedings initiated in a PA court that are not being mentioned.

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 17d ago

? I think I answered your question pretty directly.

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 19d ago

No. We must keep our eye on the ball. The problematic injustice is conscription. I do not think the situation is made better by perpetrating some further injustice even if it is, in some sense, "fair."

-4

Context

Gillitrut Reading from the golden book under bright red stars 19d ago

Yes. I would prefer Ukraine not engage in conscription, but I do not think it is a deal breaker in helping them defend themselves against Russia.

-2

Context