Jiro
1yr ago
When a socialist supports violence by a capitalist state against the Nazis, that's only "support of capitalism" in a very indirect way. They're not fighting the Nazis by trying to impose capitalism on them; they're doing it like any other state would fight a war. The connection between supporting Hamas in this war and Hamas killing civilians on purpose is far more direct; Hamas started it by killing civilians, and killing civilians is one of the tactics they use as part of the war.
Jiro
1yr ago
If a socialist in WW2 were to support the US/UK against the Nazis, your logic would have this person counted as a capitalist since they aren't rejecting the violence.
The logic wouldn't say that they are a capitalist, the logic would say that they are a supporter of the kind of violence that the US/UK uses against the Nazis. Likewise, Palestinians are mostly supporters of the kind of violence Hamas uses, which is killing civilians.
Jiro
1yr ago
We live in a society that has figured out, long ago, that we should have religious pluralism where Christians can worship as they please, but can't enforce their religion on society. So I don't care how irrational they are.
We have not figured this out for trans people.
Jiro
1yr ago
In the Xth best world, the media would stop signal-boosting all the evil cardiologists. Assuming that this actually happened as described, there's a difference between a non-representative person and a representative one. Rejoicing in the death of innocents is official activity of Hamas and common among Gazans. Signal-boosting the extremists on the other side to make it look like both sides do this equally is media deception.
Also note that "former X" is a variety of "not actually X".
If they are protecting him and he orders them not to do so, that is, by your reasoning, an unlawful order. If they are pretending to protect him, but are lying and instead restricting him for political reasons, ordering them not to do so is a lawful order even by your reasoning. It would be hard to prove the order is lawful (since the agents are lying and you can't read their minds) but it would be lawful.
All this argument shows is that if government officials are willing to lie and do their jobs unlawfully, they can engage in a coup-by-another-name and make it appear that the president is in the wrong. But the president won't really be in the wrong, he'll just be a victim of a coup-by-another-name.
You don't even need secret service agents to do this. An ordinary police officer willing to lie could arrest the president for a Trumped-up crime and cart him to jail, where he won't be able to go anywhere at all.
Jiro
1yr ago
The road network exists because the government collected taxes to build it. In the absence of taxes you could have (collectively) gotten roads built on your own without the excuse for government meddling.
By your reasoning if the government shut down all grocery stores and instead taxed us more to buy food, which it then distributed, it would be okay for the government to put arbitrary restrictions on what food people are allowed to eat since after all you're getting the food thanks to them. It's thanks to taxpayers, not thanks to the government.
Jiro
1yr ago
The question isn't "is he found guilty", the question is "is he found guilty and punished similarly to how a red triber would have been".
Cradle is about as close as cultivation can get to mainstream and it did tone down the harshness. It also goes full gender equality while most cultivation stories are "women can cultivate like men can, but for some reason most of the characters are men anyway".
Though to be fair, these stories are known for taking the harshness to ridiculous levels and have to be toned down to even make any sense.
Jiro
1yr ago
I think that, in a nutshell, leftoid attempts to censor rightoids failed.
"Did not succeed at the 100% level" is not "failed".
Congratulations! You’ve successfully invoked the Worst Argument in the World,
No, you haven't. If someone claims that everyone should be let out of jail, and you say "that means we'd let even murderers and rapists out of jail", they can't respond "that's the Worst Argument in the World, most prisoners in jail are in there for nonviolent crimes". You judge how bad the standard is by looking at the worst case, not at the average case.
While most transgendered people are not in cults, the left has no principled standards about how to distinguish between transgendered people in a cult, and everyone else. You're just not supposed to gatekeep at all, and the policy of not gatekeeping deserves to be judged by the worst cases that it enables, not the cases they would like you to think about.
Jiro
1yr ago
If he didn't mean all Jews, what else is he supposed to say? Lie and say he did mean all Jews?
Jiro
1yr ago
This is pretty much the only situation where the purple-haired activists have faced any pushback at all that couldn't be described as evil conservative Nazis. It's just a blip; they pretty much have all the power in all other situations.
I agree with Yudkowsky that the men who flew the planes into the WTC were many things, but not cowards.
Yudkowsky apparently doesn't believe in the concept of moral cowardice.
Jiro
1yr ago
Is that "because of the bombs" or "because Hamas uses hospitals as human shields for military bases"?
Jiro
1yr ago
It's true that you're still losing money, but you're losing less money than you are if you release it and it does poorly. In order for releasing it to do better than writing it off, you have to make $cost * $rate after paying the expenses of releasing it, profits to other people in the chain, etc. They've probably also got a limited number of slots to release things in and it's probably not going to make $cost * $rate * $expenses more than the thing whose slot it replaces. They could release it to streaming, where they don't have a limited number of slots but if they do, it'll make no money at the margins, and zero is still less than $cost * $rate.
Jiro
1yr ago
it's worth noting that the 2017 Wonder Woman did well ($800+ million gross total , $100+ million open) despite obviously having a female lead.
Woke is defined by presentation, not by having a female lead. Also, the female lead in Wonder Woman is Israeli and Jewish which the woke have really mixed feelings over (as has recently become obvious).
Jiro
1yr ago
The application may be denied, but that doesn't force them to go home. They can just disappear into the US.
Jiro
1yr ago
Gaza attacked Israel, which is an act of war, and an aggressive war at that. The people of Gaza don't have any right to use military force in an aggressive war just because the enemy is now on their land.
All of those are factual claims though. Did you go 60 mph or 70.
Whether it's factual is irrelevant to your argument. Your argument is "couldn't someone truly think X?" It's possible to truly think X whether X is factual or not.
But it's not hard to think of examples without that nitpick. Instead of 60 mph, think of "are you driving at a safe speed?" It's a judgment call, yet we still require people to drive at a safe speed and we don't say "couldn't someone truly think that any speed is safe?" You can kill in self-defense, and it's certainly possible for anyone to truly think that a killing is self-defense, but self-defense is still a useful concept. Whether someone consents to sex is in the real world not a yes/no thing, and "couldn't someone truly think that a victim has 'consented'" doesn't negate the idea.
Even the examples I already gave aren't really like that. Someone could have a moral code under which, for instance, capitalist exploiters don't truly own their property, it's all stolen property which is really owned by the proletariat; whether you own that burger is just as much a moral issue as whether abortion is murder. But trhe fact that people can have moral disagreements which lead them to conclude that you don't own your burger doesn't mean that "you can eat a burger if you own it" becomes useless.
Jiro
1yr ago
If it is ok to go to Palestine and shoot people who are going to murder Israelis then people who truly think abortion is murder, have the same logical justification.
That's not reasoning we accept anywhere else.
"If it's okay to eat a burger because you own it, what about people who truly think they own that burger?"
"If it's okay to go at 60 mph because that's the speed limit, what about people who truly think the speed limit is X mph?"
"If it's okay to take merchandise from a store if you paid for it, what about people who truly believe they've paid for something?"
Whether someone can truly (but not truthfully) believe something is irrelevant.
Jiro
1yr ago
That's like saying "what? You think that anyone who owns a burger should be able to eat it? Then people who disagree about who owns a burger are free to eat whichever burger they want!" No. You can be right or wrong about whether you own a particular burger. The fact that true owners and false owners have similar mental states doesn't mean that we have to tolerate false but sincere claims of ownership.
"Is it okay to shoot them?" doesn't have an answer independent of the specific facts of the case. It's not okay to shoot people for having abortions.
Jiro
1yr ago
The Gaza example falls under "are you allowed to shoot them? If so, you're also allowed to do a lot of other things that are beyond the pale."
It would be perfectly fine to walk into Gaza and start shooting people who are planning murder and genocide. (It may be unwise, if you don't want to die, but it wouldn't be wrong.) If it's okay to shoot them, it's okay to do other things, like ignore the rules they put on you being there.
Incidentally, I still repeatedly see the bug where trying to post something at a level that would produce a more comments prompt results in the post actually being accepted, but seeming to hang and never refreshing the screen.
Also, we don't seem to have a thread for forum bugs.
More options
Context Copy link