Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
Hello back frens
User ID: 2022
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2yr ago
Martha Nussbaum writes about wild animal suffering in the New York Review of Books.
Sort of. That exact wording is not used, and the utilitarian discourse on the subject not referenced, but it clearly is the same general thought. And it is very cathedralised. We have:
The "everything is political":
In the US, “wild horses” and other “wild” creatures live under the jurisdiction of our nation and its states. To the extent that they have limited rights of nonintervention, free movement, and even a type of property rights, that is because human law has seen fit to give them these rights. Humans are in control everywhere. Humans decide what habitats to protect for animals, and leave the animals only what they decide not to use.
One might grant that the current status quo is that humans dominate everywhere, while still recommending that humans simply back off and leave all the “wild” animals in all of these spaces to do the best they can for themselves. Even that proposal would require active human intervention to stop human practices that interfere with animal lives: poaching, hunting, whaling. And it would be, it seems, a gross abnegation of responsibility: we have caused all these problems, and we turn our backs on them, saying, “Well, you are wild animals, so live with it as best you can.” It is not clear what would be accomplished by this pretense of a hands-off policy.
The critical theorising:
There are also some very bad reasons for not moving against predation. Part of the Romantic idea of “the wild” is a yearning for violence. Blake’s Tyger and Shelley’s West Wind are emblems of what some humans feel they have lost by becoming hypercivilized. A longing for (putatively) lost aggression lies behind a lot of people’s fascination with large predatory animals and indeed with the spectacle of predation itself.
(And much more in this direction. That is most of the article.)
And just enough mention of the exterminationist angle to stay deniable:
Moreover, the animal reservation is geared as a whole to this exercise: the wild dogs are highly endangered, and much effort is made to preserve them. I am agnostic about the desirability of preserving that species, but I think here the central concern prompting preservation is a bad one: money from sado-tourism.
I find this interesting in light of an ongoing debate about cthulhu theory: Whether new leftist causes are relatively obvious consequences of general principles that have already been driving the movement for a long time, or have more short-term cynical explanations. I lean towards the former and think this example supports that:
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.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
4mo ago
...and now for something completely different: Lemurs and the True Human Form,
in which a Zizian uncovers the biological basis of furrydom, which actually everyone has and is in denial about.
The bodies people walk around in here on Ancient Earth do not necessarily match the sensorimotor portions of their brains, and/or other information content about what their bodies are supposed to be like.
From what I can tell by looking at stuff from the fossil record, other modern species, and my own ancestral memory, it seems that a large part of the True Human Form evolved between 30mya and 85mya, around the time of our common ancestors with lemurs.
Most of our proprioceptive body map probably was selected on during this period of time because the delta to our ancestors’ survival was strongly tied to them using their bodies very precisely and acrobatically.
An anthropomorphic mammal seems like a valid way of trying to project the human self-concept including sensorimotor body map, visual modules, and social modules into a 3D form.
I actually find this somewhat plausible. While a good bit of the bodymap is propably learned as well, we should expect remnants like this. The culturewar-relevant part is how moral conclusions are drawn from it - that this is what youre supposed to be like, your True Form. The analogy between gender and species transition is hardly new, but it always gives a bit of a distorted impression, the latter is always a bit of a cardboard figure. Here, we have someone filling in part of the discourse a transspecies movement that laid similar claim to seriousness as transgenderism would produce.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2yr ago
Isnt it weird how you never hear about the gypsies? They sure look like they count as a capital-M Minority: Very poor, very uneducated, very bad relations to the police, they even were in the Nazi camps. But in political discourse they might as well not exist. Im vaguely aware that our eastern neighbors have more of them and its more of a topic there, but this doesnt make it to me either. I just searched for it and best I found is this, from 2020. Theres sightly more in german, but compared to the media volume dedicated to telling me that Orban is mean to the gays, it might as well not exist. While I was at it I also looked for the "list of gypsies that made important contributions to science", and that actually doesnt exist. The only thing that remotely looks like a hit is this, which has three people on it: one with a possible nth-generation ancestor, and two that google isnt even sure exist.
I find this interesting as a point of comparison. Theres lots of people out there of even opposing ideologies giving mechanistic explanations of how the shared characteristics of Minorities lead to the political discourse around them, and then heres a case where it just didnt.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
4mo ago
The same way that you might look at a guy with a broken hispanic accent who just attained citizenship saying "shut down the border" is how I look at most people saying "shut down the border". Or the same way you might look at a person, still dripping wet after pulling themself onto the lifeboat and saying "we can't let anyone else on".
You know, unless I had some independent reason to think theyre crazy, I would take that as strong evidence that its in my interest what theyre saying.
And since were doing credentials: My family has lived within an hour of here longer than europeans have been to america.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
4mo ago
You say youre not a troll, but this is a very wordy version of "Conservatism is bad because I hate my family.".
Interesting topic in a thread below
Consider: a society of just downies and Henrys* wouldn't even be a society, while a society of Enron, Google, and AXA is just ... our society.
A society of my aunt and Henrys would necessarily devolve into hunter gatherers who would be in a precarious position.
A rival hunter gatherer society of entirely Enron, Google and AXA professionals would be a tribe that my retarded aunt and Henry with comparable numbers of similar nature would probably subjugate easily, eventually integrating violent strong men or wise old women, humiliating the rest in servitude.
I think this is probably a point of disagreement for many here and so worth discussing on its own. I see two larger topics that this could become a test for: One is the model of "general competence"/IQ maximalism, expecting successful people to be successful at ~everything, vs a tradeoff between abstract thinking and practical or social skills. Second, whether our current elites are in some sense a paper tiger - bullshit jobs, Overcredentialism, etc.
Canadian Man Dies of Aneurysm After Giving Up on Hospital Wait
So this is making the rounds on the internet today. Comparisons to the accute discussion in America obviously suggest themselves and are even briefly mentioned in the article. Now a lot of this seems to be more typically discussion of the merits of prublic vs private healthcare, but my initial thought was, "Who could you shoot for this?".
Obviously, murder is bad. But assuming you accepted the idea that killing people for delivering insufficient healthcare is ok, and you thought Canada was bad enough to count, who would it even be? From what I understand healthcare is done on a provincial level there, so maybe theres some kind of health commissioner in the local executive? But then again, budget limitations are propably more to blame on the local parliament. And they implement what they ran for election on. Etc. I mean if youre lucky theres someone somewhere who lost metric fucktons of money and thats all there is to it, but propably not.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2yr ago
But is the broadening of the accepted reasons really a problem? Assume for a moment that puberty blockers worked as advertised (no interference with normal desistance processes). Is there something inherently wrong with offering kids who are experiencing discomfort with their gender puberty blockers? One might argue that categories like non-binary or genderqueer don’t exist and are artificially created for ideological reasons, but if they do, I’m not sure what the issue is.
Whats the scenario here? So you have kids who have some sort of gender problem but dont want to transition, and you give them puberty blockers. If nothing changes about their gender situation, what then? Do they just keep taking blockers permanently? I mean, progressivism making people literally not grow up is funny as an idea, but probably not so funny if it actually happens.
And if you dont start out with the idea that normal development is the "good outcome", why would it be a problem if they interfere with desistance? At most you can say that trans people end up less happy. But hypothetically that could change, and the interference remain the same.
The simpler explanation would be that trans women attracted more scrutiny, so of course people who declared themselves to be pro-trans focused on touching women and female-related terms. Trans men don’t seriously threaten men in the same way, and good luck trying to start a mens-rights movement which might be threatened by them.
There are more arguments Joyce makes for the preservation of single-sex (basically only women’s) and the dangers of allowing trans women to enter those spaces, but they’re not very interesting or worth expounding on. If you understand the argument that males tend to be more violent, especially sexually, towards females, you’ve read about a dozen or so pages in this book already.
The feminism is getting in the way of the analysis here: Men dont worry about transmen because whatever they could do was already done by normal women. They demanded to be included in previously male-only spaces, and that those change to accomodate them. But this goes back to "The only allowed reason to not like someone is that hes evil", and so she has to claim this is about violence.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
MMT is propably not a popular position here. Your comment mostly assumes its true, and your very long quote is entirely about why the reactionaries wont see the light. The justification is essentially this:
To be economically literate, one would have to know that saying the government deficit should be cut is identical to saying the non-government surplus should be cut.
The rest is the same thing in different words. And as for that.
Government deficit & debt are good things, and the only problem is along the lines of 'too much of a good thing' (inflation, which is the self-correction mechanism)
Why is inflation correcting it? We have over the last few years heard from many left-leaning economists that inflation is actually fine, the lower classes are just irrationally afraid of it, go right ahead Mr Biden. In a mostly cashless economy like the US, even the logistical problems of hyperinflation can be handled pretty well.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
13d ago
Why would you use this though? I can understand not wanting to do hormonal birth control, but thats not the only option. Im generally open to natural law argumentation, I just dont see why they would treat cycle timing differently from condoms or especially pulling out. The only relevant distinguishing factor is that, as a certain dissident rightist said, the days you cant are the ones youll want it most. I could see any combination of this being good/bad if it does/doesnt cause people to fail, but its not the argument any exception-makers seem to go with.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2mo ago
I never feel like I learn something from your comments anymore. Its always just AI/China is the best, unbeatable, even better than you thought, and not even committing to anything concrete there. Like for example:
That the EU has sovereignty, that Canada has sovereignty, that… basically, that the US is not a big scary hegemonic superpower it imagines itself to be and sometimes laments the wages of being. It's just a very powerful country, with large but decidedly finite leverage, and that runs well short of getting everyone to play along with American King's unreasonable imagination.
In what sense wasnt this already demonstrated by Germany buying russian gas? That seems like a case where wed expect more US influence than any of this tariff debacle.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
4mo ago
In Austria, we used to have political hiring very far down the chain. This worked fine because every government was a coalition of the two major parties, so we didnt constantly turn them over. It changed eventually, but more so due to the bad optics of patronage and limited meritocracy. Today of course, we do actually change our government - though theres also a good chance well settle into something again in the medium term, and maybe that bit of chaos now would be worth it.
I dont think this flipping is viable long-term. It was fine in the days of Jackson, but today the civil service is much more of a career, and thats not compatible with flipping a coin every 4 years whether youll have a job. It would sooner lead to actually obedient bureaucrats.
But I also dont think the wilder swings in governing ideology are viable. The government just does too much for that. Spending is a third of GDP (plus more effectively commandeered by regulations), redirecting even just a good portion of that every 4-8 years is very destructive, and besides, theres no value in a border closed half the time, or a pension paying out half the time. Ive said this before in the context of election fraud or electoral college discussions, but if a 2% effect can make your government not just different, but really different and unacceptably bad, then you should reconsider whether the one without that small deviation is really legitimate.
So I think this scenario youre describing will be avoided, one way or another. Boringly, by continuation of the status quo pre-Trump. Or interestingly, by a stable orthodoxy that encompasses much more than bureaucrats.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
My guess was definitely about US officials and how their actions may be explained by their private knowledge, rather than an estimation about our forum members' beliefs.
The point of me saying this was that in that situation you should put more effort on justification.
When collectively...
None of this describes an actual problem with inflation. It says that inflation will automatically regulate away any excess borrowings. Why then not set taxes to 0, and just let the inflation run its course?
If you think the government deficit is a bad thing that should be reduced, you have to explain why you think that of the non-government surplus as well. It is quite literally the same thing.
Is there any reason this is unique to the government? Or is my deficit also literally the same thing as rest-of-the-economy surplus? Because if it is, then it seems noone else should have objections to me borrowing indefinitely, either - it just makes you better of!
When collectively the private sector has more monetary savings than we want
Why would they not want more? You demand that I explain why we would ever want non-government surplus to be less, but now you just assert that it will be the case.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
What will lead the GOP?
I think trumpist campaigning plays out pretty differently when there are multiple people doing it. Im not totally happy with the following explanation of such campaigning, and expect people to dispute some things, but I feel I have to at least attempt one, and I think the conclusion that theres some void to be filled here is relatively clear from just considering the question.
The way the politics game is played traditionally, candidates talk about their policies, are probed for gaffes and flipflops, lose some points for not aswering questions, etc. This gives voters some basis for making decisions, but it can also lead to an "emperor with no clothes" situation with politicians trying to comply with thing voters actively dislike. Trumps strategy exploited a big, interconnected bunch of such issues by rejecting this sort of accountability entirely. This includes saying the populist things, but also not caring how offensive or contradictory you are doing it, never apologising for that, etc. The goal is to trigger a preference cascade towards not judging by those standards. This obviously worked pretty well for him, but it also gives a drastically lower-resolution picture than the conventional strategy. Thats fine if youre far away from all the other candidates anyway, but what if youre not? Now youll need something to distinguish yourself, and I think the great question of the next few republican primaries will be what that should be. Here are the options as I see them:
Inertia-based
Trump won the '20 and '24 primaries because he is the Trump, noone was gonna out-trump him and so noone seriously tried. The path of least resistance going forward is propably that Trump remains in charge of trumpism, continues to voice himself prominently in the media and xitter/truth social, and expects the candidate and later president to dance by his fiddle. I expect this not to go well: People propably arent excited to vote for a president who is outshone even as a figurehead. A falling out at some point is also likely, especially since Trump will likely be more erratic when the role thats naturally the center of attention is filled by someone else. The best case scenario is propably that this goes well once, and then either Trump is too old to stay relevant, or the new guy falls out with him and manages to "win" the internal conflict before his time is up, and then the next election is something else.
The "better" version of inertia is propably some kind of "the party decides". There are plenty of countries that manage without primaries, and while occasional upsets propably cant be prevented entirely if primaries are mandatory, something more like that seems possible. However, the republicans are specifically not set up for this. The democrats have "the groups", and a kind of permanent party leadership - meanwhile, you never really hear about the RNC, except in the fixed phrase "RNC convention". They long where much more of an extension of the current president(ial cnadidate). So the somewhat-possible version of this is that Trump anoints Vance his successor, and Vance some else, they remain supportive of the new guy but in the background, and afer a few times of this you have a more substantial party leadership - but leadership at any time deciding to separate from the previous ones would likely break this, so it takes a long streak indeed.
Return of the media
Candidates go back to conventional campaigning, with a somewhat shifted overton window. This could happen if it seems like political wins were big enough that shielding yourself from the media is no longer necessary, and its also the default option if trumpism has become too unpopular for another go. If it hasnt, there will be significant hesitation before adopting this option, as rejecting it was one of the central ideas of trumpism. Those dont die easily, and its not even clear if the problems of that system where just inerta or an attractor.
There is also the question of the trumpist media. Its been 10 years of Trump on the right, new media outlets have been founded and older ones reconstructed to supporting him. Theyre not really set up to evaluate politicians in a meaningful way, and follow his lead instead. What direction they will take once there is no longer an obvious leader of trumpism is in many ways a similar question to the one Im asking here. If they just try to pivot to evaluation without any kind of more systematic ideological program, that will be one huge slapfight that propably eventually ends in one, but it sure is going to be rough until then. Writing them all off leaves only people who are in significant part not even republicans in name anymore, and propably means a collapse of the right.
Full bore
Candidates engage in an epic rap battle, whoever has the greatest stage presence, the most charismatic voice, and the best alliterative insults wins. This is theoretically the closest thing to multiple people running the original campaign unmodified. I think its unlikely to happen in a pure form, but the the problem of trumpist campaigning that I outlined is with too many candidates running like this. If noone is trying that anymore, it could be viable again. So there could be a mixed equilibrium here, where theres one candidate trying full bore in addition to whatever else ends up happening, with either winning the candidacy sometimes. And since theres no reliable way to have exactly one guy like that, sometimes candidates like that will have to face each other, and it would have to go like that.
Anything you think Ive missed?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
12d ago
Thank you. Most of this seems pretty reasonable, I have some disagreements from action 3 downwards. I think this is a superficial understanding of what an act is, and you would have trouble in other areas of ethics if you set aside background knowledge and intent this much. Consider for example a surgery that ends up lethal: what distinguishes accident from murder, and bad luck from negligence? What is the sin of gluttony, if knowing that youre satiated makes no difference?
You could similarly break the pulling out method down into steps, each of which "surely is allowed": 1) having sex is allowed under the right conditions 2) youre not obligated to keep the penis inside the whole time 3) if you just happen to ejaculate while its outside, thats an involuntary reaction. This assumes you can do it without jerking once outside, but thats possible and I doubt its supposed to make a difference.
From what I remember, the church allows nuns to use the pill in places where theyre at risk of being raped. So its allowed to be used, and even for its contraceptive purpose. Why? Presumably because they dont intend to have sex that way.
Would an intra-vaginal spermicide be allowed? What if its application moves further in time from the intercourse, in the limit to something like a copper IUD without side effects? You cant technology your way out of purposes, and the selling point of natural family planning is that it doesnt feel like technology.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
5mo ago
A lot of these arent really points of conflict though. If the husband gets sick in a permanent career-ruining fashion, wouldnt he also wish they had a second income? And it would have been a problem in the old days, too.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
I could say that I do want to shrink the non-government surplus in hypothetical situations, if we're having obnoxious levels of inflation, maybe caused by too much government spending being indexed against the price level
Ill note that you still havent explained why too much inflation is bad, or how we would know what "too much" is.
Having some amount of taxes is what gives the currency an initial anchor value... That's what allows them to indefinitely print up IOUs that promise to pay nothing but an abstract amount of value in a unit of measurement they make up, and people will still line up to earn those IOUs
Transitioning out of just questions, I agree that the taxes give value to the IOUs, but I dont think the made up unit gives you all that much long-term. You can inflate away your debt, but expectations of inflation are built into the interest rate you are offered. Unless you can somehow inflate above expectations indefinitely, in the long term you need to tax back what you borrowed plus interest in real terms. There is no reason to borrow unless your position as the government gives you investment opportunities above market returns, youd just pay interest for no good reason.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
5mo ago
I agree with this, but I also had the impression lately that these rules have become much more relaxed when its not about the Special People.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
12d ago
and i think I made that clear in the above comment when I talked about the subject knowing
I dont think this is considering intent properly. Theres a difference between doing something despite or because of an effect. I think what Im suggesting here is similar to the doctrine of double effect - and you have been arguing that because the "forseen unintended" case is ok, the "forseen intended" case is too.
I think there is a conflation between sexual intercourse and the possible results of sexual intercourse - or conception. Sexual intercourse is the ejaculation of a penis in a vagina.
How do you think acts and their proper form are determined? I thought that it was to do with purposes. Meanwhile your description taken at face value, without background knowledge of what you want it to mean, sounds like condoms are ok too. I suggest that thats not a coincidence: the principles youre using on this case are much more permissive than those that inform your general view.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
I assume you're not asking for the various downsides of inflation in general and why people find it annoying when it's above some small amount like 1-2%?
Im asking for some kind of real economic cost; "Its annoying when the prices are different than I remember" doesnt count, no.
As for paying interest, it's purely a policy choice to pay anything other than 0% on any of these IOUs
If you dont pay enough interest, people will stop lending you money.
When and why would they ever need to 'tax back' this amount? The IOUs just roll over indefinitely.
Well, you said that the difference between me and the state is that the state can tax. If it doesnt actually need to do that, then whats the difference? Why cant I have ever-increasing amounts of debt that I service by taking on new debt?
What youre proposing here is "The Ponzi scheme that actually works". Because Ponzi schemes do work so long as the investors dont take out their money, ie stop letting you roll over your debt.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
4mo ago
when the left-leaning home depot employee lost her job
You mean the one that spoke in favour of the Trump assassination?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2yr ago
Poor areas are not awful because of tragic dirt; they are awful because they are filled with stupid, violent, impulsive people.
Yes, but its not clear IQ 120 by itself would fix that. Genetic enhancement would be a thus-far-impossible level of decoupling between intelligence and other correlates of good outcomes, it might break currently observed correlations.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
9d ago
It's fine to just liberate Chinamen or Ashkenazim
Looking at the current geopolitical situation, there may have been other downsides.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
4mo ago
Every single one of them that mentioned it eagerly brings up new evidence in favor of the theory.
I dont think that implies theyre serious about it. Or, maybe serious but not literal? Basically, if you need the big guns OP is bringing out, the point is made.
A few weeks ago, Trump signed an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship; it is currently working its way through the courts. Some users here claimed that the 14th amendment "obviously" implies birthright citizenship. I disagree, but wanted to take the time for a long from explanation. First, the relevant text:
The question, now, is who is subject to jurisdiction. It cant just be everyone, because then why would they write it, and besides there are known exceptions made on this basis, notably foreign diplomats, invading armies, and (formerly) indians. Of these, I want to look at invading armies in particular. Why are they not subject to jurisdiction?
The common answer seems to be that, since they control the territory, they have the jurisdiction rather than the US. But does the US accept that it doesnt have jurisdiction? No. After the invader is expelled, they likely have the right collect the outstanding tax from the time they were unable to collect. Crimes under US law that occured during that time can also be prosecuted (though it may be an extenuating circumstance where relevant).
Now, you might try to solve this by requiring defacto jurisdiction. The problem is that you then have to explain how the defacto failure to immediately reoccupy territory is different from the defacto failure to immediately apprehend any criminal whatsoever. This sounds quite weird and not like something they would have meant, and also every illegal immigrant is a fugitive criminal, because he violates immigration law. And it also seems that the invasion exception applies to the invaders, rather than every non-citizen in the territory.
A more promising approach might be to notice that the way the government treats illegal immigrants is a lot like how it treats enemy soldiers: Where safely possible, they are caught alive. They can then be prosecuted for any crimes committed in the US (unless responsibility goes up the command chain), and are eventually sent back home (when there is no danger that this will help the enemy anymore). This suggests that jurisdiction applies to them in a similar way, and reasoning for an exemption is likely to transfer. Indeed, one of the simplest descriptions of an invasion is "People coming into the country that the government doesnt want to". Subjecting people to jurisdiction requires activity of the government, and it seems quite sensible that someone refused entry is also refused jurisdiction. I think thats more plausible than such a refusal requiring jurisdiction, but even if you disagree, its at least a binary choice rather than having to find some complicated new distinction.
Is this a motivated reading? While it has some complexity to it, I dont see a way to accommodate the invasion exception without that. I think this is the most plausible way to resolve that. A reading which doesnt make the invasion exception may also be reasonable, depending on judicial philosophy, but if thats what the people calling it "obvious" meant, they should indicate that theyre defending something other than the status quo. In conclusion, I think children of illegal immigrants do not necessarily have citizenship, those of temporary residents (also targeted in the EO) do.
...is what I would have written, if I didnt remember that the US actually claims universal jurisdiction for some of its laws. This doesnt make everyone a US citizen, because there is the territory requirement in the text, but it potentially outflanks the exceptions, and under my above reading all of them would be invalid. Admittedly I dont think SCOTUS will take this line seriously - theyre too practical for that, and if they just really want to keep children of illegals theres plenty of bad arguments to use that sound more normal. And actually, theres a wrinkle in the wrinkle, because one of the laws with universal jurisdiction was passed before the 14th ammendment, and so actually maybe you should make the traditional exceptions work even under universal jurisdiction (depending on judicial philosophy). I think the universal reading of that law is bullshit, but it has precedent.
EDIT: Since noone seems to take into account the last paragraph: My final conclusion is that all the exceptions are gone.
More options
Context Copy link