MathWizard
Good things are good
No bio...
User ID: 164
MathWizard
Good things are good
8mo ago
Do some people enjoy being raped?
I normally don't wade this deep into controversial gender stuff, but... once I had this thought it won't leave my head. It's super anti-memetic, the sort of thing that if true nobody would want to admit and everyone who found out would suppress other than misogynists who people would ignore. If it were known to be true and widely admitted then rapists would just use it as an excuse, therefore the media/scientists/everyone lie and say it's not?
A bunch of people have rape fetishes. They are aroused by power and strength, or the courage and audacity to defy social conventions, or the idea of being so desirable that they drive someone insane and make them lose control. Or I've heard someone describe being raised in a super conservative household where you need to be pure and chaste, but they secretly want sex, so fantasize about being raped so that they could experience sex but it wouldn't be their fault and they haven't done anything wrong. I personally can imagine scenarios in which as a teenager a hot girl could have offered to have sex with me and I'd say no because I was a good boy who didn't do that sort of thing, but maybe would have ultimately been happy if she had forcibly insisted? But that never happened so I don't actually know.
Now of course, fantasies are not reality. Actual rape is going to be more violent, less perfectly tailored to someone's ideals, more terrifying, and probably with a much less attractive person than in an imaginary hypothetical. Lots of people have fantasies that they wouldn't actually want to carry out in real life. But it seems like the translation should be nonzero. And the translation of that it actual rapes is also nonzero. That is, if the proportion of people with rape fetishes is A, the proportion of those people who would enjoy actually being raped is B, and the proportion of those people who experience rape is C, and if all of these proportions are nonzero (and not so tiny as to pragmatically be zero), then the product, ABC is the proportion of people who have actually been raped and enjoyed the experience.
And it seems like they would experience an entirely different set of issues than normal rape victims. On the one hand, the experience is going to be a lot less traumatic: Instead of a horrifying and degrading experience they got to have an enjoyable if unexpected sexual encounter. On the other hand, they probably feel guilt and shame for their feelings, which they cannot voice without severe backlash from society. Rape is "the worst crime" possible, it's victims are permanently "Victims" and "Survivors". Its existence is a weapon to bash men and promote women. Mainstream culture is super well equipped to support and assist typical rape victims, at the expense of absolutely silencing and shunning anyone who might have not had a terrible experience and not been traumatized by it. And that itself might just amplify the shame and guilt and trauma for this subset of people. Like the kid who doesn't cry until they know someone is watching, I suspect that this subset of rape victims might not be traumatized from the rape itself, and wouldn't ever be traumatized in a different society, but are traumatized by our society's reaction to them and the need to stay "in the closet" so to speak, because of the backlash they'd receive if anyone found out the truth.
I'm not crazy, am I? Is this secretly a thing that nobody is allowed to talk about? I'm not sure it's really actionable if true. I don't think it makes rapists less horrible people even if they get lucky and target someone who secretly enjoys it, because the expected value of their crime is still catastrophically negative. So it wouldn't indicate reducing criminal or social penalties for rapists. And I don't think it would indicate reducing support or funding for rape victims, a majority of which are still traumatized in the normal way that everyone thinks they are. But maybe it would suggest something along the lines of... giving people the benefit of the doubt? Having more options for how people are allowed to cope with rape on their own terms without assuming they are "victims" when they might just be fine? I'm not sure this makes much difference, but I'd like to hear thoughts and/or statistical/scientific evidence for or against this (if that's even meaningful given the massive reporting biases this would create)
MathWizard
Good things are good
11mo ago
I'd guess that the single highest value per effort is probably in choosing the right plants. If you can find plants that thrive in your garden you'll get a much better result for less effort than any amount of techno-fixes being spent on the wrong plant.
How do I figure that out? Do I try to google a database for what plants grow optimally in my region? Or do I have to trial and error if soil quality and sunlight amounts vary enough such that my yard is somewhat unique?
MathWizard
Good things are good
11mo ago
No more or less than the man who yells "Trump deserves to die" and then doesn't shoot at him is politically irrelevant rather than an extremist. I'm not a political activist, but neither are the vast majority of people, and yet all the voices do add up. An awful lot of activists and politicians and media are emboldened by the prevalence of people supporting them and saying the same thing. Rather than being one more of the millions of voices shouting "you're scum, you deserve to be killed" to their political opponents, I am one of the thousands shouting "No you. You are scum, you deserve to be shamed and mocked but not killed, not because of which side you're on but because you are an uncivilized thug who resorts to violence over words." If it were reversed, if there were millions of us and thousands of them, a lot less violence would happen because they would find less comfort and confidence and public support.
Activism is useless, and in many cases actively harmful, unless you're actually supporting the right cause. Even if my words turn out to be entirely useless because nobody listens to me, literal 0 is still higher than a negative number. And if I'm lucky then maybe my words and my sane representation of ideas that are usually misrepresented by insane extremists will help people realize that their political opponents aren't all nutjobs, even if some of them are, and be less violent and more forgiving as a result.
MathWizard
Good things are good
11mo ago
But this would require skill and insider information and subjective analysis. Having a deterministic, mechanical process with known inputs that can process this data goes a long way towards preventing someone from corruptly picking and choosing which places they count as "high risk" and which they don't. And lowering variance, since some individuals are going to be better at doing this sort of subjective guesswork than others, while the AI can have its performance actually tested.
And goes a long way towards laundering this in the public perception. Even if everyone "knows" that this group is high risk, having an AI with testable metrics say so is probably going to be easier to sell (in the long run) than having human beings say so.
MathWizard
Good things are good
11mo ago
I felt the same way about 8.1 vs 10. But if I go to 10 I'm going to run into the same issue again in half the time.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1yr ago
What if we create diversity quotas for Quality Contributions? Almost all of the political ones that end up actually making the list are right-leaing, or at least anti-woke. If we (slightly) lower the standards for left-leaning or rare opinions so that they get signal boosted, and in particular the highest quality of them get seen by more eyes, that might incentivize people who hold those opinions to put effort into it and feel more appreciated.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1yr ago
I think he means that Trump winning is a rebuke of the Democrat's lawfare against him, because then they didn't accomplish their goal.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1yr ago
"Destroy your opponent before they can destroy you" does not at all sound like the "reasonable answer". Especially since this won't literally destroy them, they'll still exist and be even more ravenous to seize the reins of power. It seems like the actually reasonable answer is to de-escalate and decrease the power and influence of the government so people can make their own choices about their own personal lives.
I don't even get why there are "sides". I don't care whether the meat I eat comes from a "farm" or a "lab", I just care whether it's cheap, tasty, and nutritious. Let them both try their best and we can judge them and eat them according to our own preferences. I'm on team freedom, and that means nobody gets shut down pointlessly just to "own" the other side.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1yr ago
In terms of scale it involves more people, but in terms of perceived threat and actionable measures it seems less threatening.
Like, JFK was assassinated. This is immediately violent. Believing that the government/CIA assassinated the president makes them dangerous bad guys who are willing to assassinate people they don't like, and potentially justifies violence against them in retaliation and/or self defense. 9/11 likewise killed lots of people, making the perpetrators dangerous and worth retaliating against (even ordinary non-conspiracists can get behind this, which is why there was so much support for military intervention in the middle east after 9/11).
The most likely response to threats of violence are accumulating weapons to defend oneself and possibly pre-emptively strike using violence. If someone points a gun at you, you point one back.
Vaccines and Flat Earth are about scientific lies. They say that the leading scientists and media are corrupt and in the pocket of the government or whoever is leading the conspiracy, and the things they say cannot be trusted. Nobody needs to die to cover up the truth, because they can be paid off instead. Now, maybe some of the variants of vaccine and Flat Earth conspiracy theories do involve the government murdering people to cover up, and those ones are potentially dangerous, but I have never heard a Flat Earther talking about assassinations, so I think it's uncommon.
The most likely response to media and scientists lying is to not trust them, and possibly have this mistrust bleed into other domains. If they're lying to you about X, why should you trust them about Y? Now this can lead to some harms such as people refusing to vaccinate themselves or their children, but this is significantly less dangerous than actual violence. If someone lies to your face, you lose respect for them and possibly try to avoid them, but very few people would respond with violence (except in weird edge cases, where it's probably not about the lie itself but about the underlying thing they were lying about).
MathWizard
Good things are good
1yr ago
Hence the word "relatively". All conspiracy theories carry some risk, via this sort of chaining, but the Flat Earth ones are indirect like this, while others like "the FBI is stalking me" have a much more direct path towards danger.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1yr ago
Oh hey, I've been playing a bunch of Warframe and Factorio as well. I can't get enough of games with in-depth crafting systems.
Do you know of any other games with similar progression systems to Warframe? Monster Hunter is kind of similar in crafting, but I'm more interested in the mastery system: "do all the things, collect one of every single weapon/armor/companion etc, and each thing you collect adds to your exp even if you never use it."
MathWizard
Good things are good
1yr ago
It might be appropriate (or just tempting) to have some level of discussion, at least on the meta-level, regarding whether other people agree or disagree with the request or potential difficulties they anticipate arising from it or something.
Like, literally right now, you have in this post made a suggestion and we are having a meta level discussion about it, though it's about site content rather than a specific CW topic. As long as the discussions remained brief and meta level that would be fine, but when it comes to CW topics that's always a slippery slope.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1yr ago
If you're sufficiently loose with your criteria for a scenario where reward is involved, such as a desired endgoal or outcome, then literally all rational behavior is driven by reward, because that's the definition of rationality. And not in the broad logical scale of rationalism, but in the colloquial someone acting with no goal is being purposeless and irrational. Why would you do anything at all if there wasn't some point? And then you can consider that point to be a "reward".
So unless you have a narrower definition of reward in mind, then regardless of whether learning is involved or not, the only case of behavior I can think of which is not tied to a reward is irrational behavior, and people with involuntary tics, and stuff like that.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1yr ago
I think this still demands a distinction in different contexts, especially between respect in ones physical capabilities, and one in their mental capabilities. I respect a lion as a powerful beast and I would avoid trying to fight one in unarmed physical combat. I do not respect a lion's intellectual abilities, and would happily trounce one in a game of chess if I could play in safety from its aforementioned physical prowess. Further, I do not respect the physical abilities of lions as a whole in comparison to humans as a whole, because we have guns and missiles and they do not. They simply do not pose an existential threat to humans as a species, while we do pose such a threat if we cared to wipe them out (and maybe even if we half-heartedly try not to).
Bringing this back then, I respect the physical threat of a jihadi in a similar way to a lion, they're extremely lethal if you face one underprepared, and I would personally try to avoid them, but I do not respect them as an existential threat to my people, we have nukes and they do not. But this is a separate consideration from the original issue of respecting their conviction. On the moral front, I do respect the specific integrity of standing up for one's beliefs, but overall do not respect their general moral character, because their beliefs are evil and selfish. Even from a classical sense, they don't exhibit honorable behaviors worth respecting. If they stood and fought against overwhelming odds and died for their beliefs, I could respect that more. But guerilla warfare, hiding behind civilians, and terrorism are incredibly dishonorable and unrespectable. If their beliefs tell them to do that, then they're just standing up for dishonorable beliefs. If you're going to respect that you might as well treat the hypocritical Christian as someone who believes in being a hypocrite and respect them for being so good at it.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1yr ago
I wouldn't straight up cut someone off if they were already a friend for other reasons and that was the only thing about them I disliked. But it would be a yellow flag which would make me less comfortable around them. Because stuff like that rarely shows up in isolation. I've never actually had the issue show up, because the type of people I typically hang out with are so far from that archetype that it's not even a remote possibility.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1yr ago
MathWizard
Good things are good
1yr ago
Are you talking about like the morning after pill? Because those are bad, but I'm referring to the ones that prevent women from ovulating during pregnancy so they don't just keep conceiving babies month after month while already pregnant. I know they make IUDs that do that, but there might be pills for it to.
I actually am not super familiar with the habits of promiscuous people and their typical birth control preferences, so "most" might not be the right phrase to use here. But if it turns out that most forms of birth control are abortive, but some aren't, that just increases the potential benefit of a pro-life promotion and subsidization of the ethical ones. If someone can pay $10/month for abortion pills vs $20 for non-conceiving hormones, and they don't think fetuses are people, they're likely to take the abortion pills. If someone can pay $10/month for abortion pills vs $0 for non-conceiving hormones because the government and/or pro-life charities pay the $20, then no child gets conceived in the first place, and thus none die. Assuming that the goal is actually to prevent the conception and subsequent deaths of fetuses because they die, and not just to increase the number of childbirths, this seems like a massive win to me.
Now maybe it would be healthier for society and relationships for people to just not have promiscuous sex in the first place, but that ship has sailed, pragmatically there's nothing we can do to fix that, and it seems much less of a priority to me than the millions of deaths at stake that free non-abortive birth control could prevent.
MathWizard
Good things are good
2yr ago
I'm a moral absolutist, not a relativist. I believe that there is one actual objective morality that describes the thing we are talking about when we mean "right" and "wrong", and each action is either right or wrong in some universal sense. Moral philosophies that people come up with should be viewed as attempts at approximating this thing, not as actual competing definitions of the words "right" and "wrong", which is why when someone comes up with an edge case where a moral philosophy extrapolates to lead to some horrific result, the most common response is either denial "no it doesn't lead to that", or an attempt to patch the theory, or "that result is actually good because X,Y,Z" where X,Y,Z are good in some other sense (usually utilitarian). Whereas if you had relativist morality or just definitions the response "yep, I believe that that horrific result is right, because that's how I've defined 'right'".
As a result, it's perfectly logical that properly understood and robust versions of any moral philosophy should approach each other. So I could make an equal claim that properly understood, virtue ethics approaches utilitarianism (is it virtuous to cause misery and and death to people which decreases their utility?). And if someone constructed a sufficiently robust version of virtue ethics that defined virtues in a way that massively increased utilities and covered all the weird edge cases then I would be happy to endorse it. I'm not familiar with the specific works of Yud Singer or Caplan you're referring to, but if they're arguing that utilitarianism eventually just turns into standard virtue ethics then I would disagree. If they're making a claim more similar to mine then I probably agree.
But again, I think utilitarianism isn't meaningless as a way of viewing right and wrong, because people are bad at math and need to use more of it. And I think fewer epicycles need to be added to most utilitarian constructions to fix them than would need to be added to virtue ethics or other systems, so it's more useful as a starting point.
MathWizard
Good things are good
2yr ago
I have no idea if these exist, but if there's a company whose sole business model is buying/managing large servers and renting out the compute, then buying shares in that company is nearly equivalent to what you're looking for. The same could be done for other physical goods like trucks and C&C machines. As long as the company specializes heavily in a single type of thing and doesn't diversify, then its shares should have approximately the same value as that thing.
I think you're missing distinction between base land value and capital improvements. You don't tax the buildings themselves, or the entire property value, you set the tax rate according to the underlying value of the land itself (which can be assessed separately from the building's value, and real estate agents do this all the time). Which is entirely externalities from other nearby stuff. Whatever value a property has from invested capital improvements contained within itself is exempt from the land value tax. If done properly, the incentive to build is the same as the incentive to invest money in any other form of capital (and the same the vast majority of people have when they build in the current system): you can either extract money from it over time, (which is not taxed in a full Georgist system), or sell it for a profit, which people are willing to buy because they can then extract money from it over time. In fact, people are more incentivized to build with land value taxes, because it's becomes the only way for a landlord to earn profit. You can't just buy a piece of land and sit on it as it appreciates in value, or extract rents based on its favorable location that everyone wants to be in. You have to build and upkeep structures that create value such that people are willing to pay to live there, or useful buildings that earn profit, above and beyond the taxed land rent value.
MathWizard
Good things are good
2yr ago
(This is probably a conversation for the culture war thread, not SQS, but whatever)
I sincerely doubt cynical men who are willing to disfigure their bodies and live a life of deception outnumber those who are sincerely dissatisfied with their lives as men and think living as women will make them happier.
I don't think that the latter category is necessarily excluded from "white males trying to become a marginalized group". That is, cynical exploitation of the system is sufficient but not necessary for this to be a factor. Some men are sincerely dissatisfied with their lives, and have been convinced that men are privileged oppressive patriarchs who oppress everyone else, and viscerally reject that identity because they don't feel privileged or oppressive and don't want to be. Instead, they are bullied and socially outcast and don't fit in with more masculine men, and thus feel that they must be part of an oppressed group. They are being oppressed by other white men (the bullies/normies), so they must be something other than a white man, hence trans.
Or something like that. I am not a clinical psychologist, I don't purport to know exactly what goes through the mind of someone in this situation (I was a weird social outcast, sort of, but very much not woke so I coped in completely different ways). And each individual is different so will have different responses to this situation. But it seems very plausible to me that social outcasts will look for reasons and excuses as to why they are different from everyone else, and why the people who pick on them are inherently evil in a morally objective way that makes them truly the bad guys. Taking on an oppressed identity makes your bullies into bigots and allows you to unite allies against them, even if they were previously bullying you for reasons unrelated to your identity. And, importantly, you don't need to be a cynical opportunist or a sleaze trying to sexually assault women, just be hurt and confused and subject to the same mental biases that everyone has that let us justify beliefs that are beneficial to ourselves.
MathWizard
Good things are good
2yr ago
There are strong deontological and libertarian arguments that if somebody earns money, or creates something which is valued via money, via legitimate means, then they can do whatever they want with their own money no matter how wasteful you deem it, even if starving people elsewhere could use that money, because it's the owner's choice to do what they will with their own property.
I'm going to put those arguments aside, and argue from a utilitarian perspective. After all, what are they doing with their money if not spending it on themselves? If it sits in a bank vault as cash forever then it might as well not exist as far as the economy goes and thus helps counter inflation, at least until they die and a lot of it goes into death taxes and heirs. If they donate it to charity then hey, it's doing exactly what you want. If they're investing it to earn even more money, then it is being invested, not sitting around being useless. Again, if we're restricting our view to ethical billionaires who earn money by creating wealth, then they invest by giving money to ethical companies which create wealth, and then they extract some of that wealth as dividends while the rest disperses into the economy in the form of cheaper goods, more valuable goods, wages, and more buying/selling in interactions between their company and others.
So there are a number of reasons, from a utilitarian perspective, why billionaires might sometimes be good:
1: Charity
Scott makes a strong post arguing that billionaire charity is good because it can pick up blind spots that government charity misses: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/ Bill Gates in particular has devastated malaria, which was previously being underfunded relative to its value, because governments have systematic biases in what they do and do not fund. Such cases are not one person hoarding wealth that they can't possibly use on themselves, it's individuals choosing where to donate their own money that they created instead of the government appropriating it and then deciding for them. And they earn this right be creating the wealth in the first place.
2: Capital Allocation
I read a good argument (I forget where, maybe Paul Graham?) comparing investors to a natural selection process for determining what projects should be invested in. That is, people who are systematically good at telling the difference between promising companies and doomed failures can repeatedly invest in good companies that others underestimate, earn a profit, and have even more money. And then they repeat the process but more and bigger because they have more money to utilize. People who are bad at doing this will end up with less money and eventually be forced to do something else with their time. Therefore, smart investors will end up with more money, which they have demonstrated their ability to use wisely. And again, if they are investing in ethical companies then the more money they earn is a fraction of the wealth generated by the companies they finance, the rest going to grow the economy. Importantly, this process is brutal and unbiased. A bureaucrat trying to decide where to allocate public funding is going to have personal biases, conflicts of interest, and legibility concerns that they have to justify to others. A wealthy investor can chase hunches, whims, make their own plans based on their own industry knowledge, or just be unreasonably biased in favor of some industry that happens to be a good idea but nobody knows why yet. Evolution doesn't need to understand why the things it does works, it just has to kill the things that don't work and let the ones that do multiply, and eventually you have good things that work.
This second point demonstrates that how a billionaire spends their money is not necessarily decoupled from how they earned it. If they're spending it on making more money, and if they're investing in an ethical way (a big if) then they are creating even more wealth. And any limits or disincentives, soft or hard, will disincentivize this behavior and make some of them not try so hard. What genius business creator is going to super hard for a 10% chance of turning their 10 million dollar company into a billion dollar company, if you're going to cap them at 20 million dollars and they can just sell it now for a guaranteed 10 million? What $999 million dollar banker is going to risk $10 million dollars in a startup with a 2% chance of earning them another billion if you've capped them at $1 billion?
Poor people matter, it would probably help them in the short term if you snatched all of their billionaires wealth and just gave it to poor people, but you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. There's a teach a man to fish versus feed a man a fish sort of thing going on here. Capitalism is a strange alien beast which, when carefully tuned, can/is/will lift billions of poor people out of poverty. And billionaires are mostly a side effect of that process, but in some cases a direct contributor.
There's a large extent to which all of this is just a rephrasing of trickle down economics, which is 90% bullshit. But it's 10% not, and I would argue that to the reason it mostly doesn't work is largely because a significant fraction of wealth people and companies aren't actually behaving ethically. There is a lot of rentseeking and exploitation and imbalance in bargaining power between labor and capital, which means that many companies create wealth and then keep 90%+ of it as profit for themselves rather than a more fair ~50%, and some companies actually destroy wealth via externalities but manage to extract profits that they didn't legitimately create.
But also, from a brutal utilitarian perspective, maybe 10% is good enough. Like, if a group of rich people have $1 trillion dollars, we could snatch that and give it to the poor, and then the rich people and all the economic potential they represent is gone, the goose is dead. Or maybe we take 10% today, so the poor people only have $100 billion and a bunch suffer in poverty (though not literally starving). And then the remaining 900 billion the rich people invest grows to 1.8 trillion, and then we take another 10% giving $180 billion to the poor. And then the remainder doubles again and then we take another 10%. And wealth inequality continues to grow as the rich get richer and richer and richer, and yet pretty soon the amount we've extracted for the poor has exceeded what even existed in the first place, and they're not so poor. Maybe in a hundred years we'll have billions of "poor" people living in luxury apartments with all of what we would today consider modern luxuries, while the uber rich fly to pluto for vacation in gigantic space castles that the poor could never hope to afford. And if the alternative is to snatch the trillion now and hope that it feeds enough people for long enough before the money runs out and they go back to how they were before, then maybe it's better to let them stay poor until the economy grows enough to lift them out organically via wealth creation.
MathWizard
Good things are good
2yr ago
I think so. It's been a while since I learned about this so I don't remember all the details or studies off the top of my head. But I'm pretty sure there were many such studies and probably at least some controlled correctly. I'm not completely certain though.
However I don't think it would even be appropriate to control for money/wealth/family-income directly, because part of the value of a two-parent household is the increased income. And even if you look at income per parent that's not necessarily appropriate because being a single parent forces them to juggle career and child rearing which would lead to less opportunities to take on high paying but demanding jobs. You'd have to control for socio-economic status of the families the parents came from (ie the grandchildren of the kids) or something complicated like that which controls for potential earning power rather than actual earnings.
MathWizard
Good things are good
2yr ago
In the context of voters deciding who to vote for, Gc is probably the most relevant, though Gf may play a smaller but nontrivial role. You need knowledge of stuff like what problems does society face that are amenable to political solutions? Which solutions are viable or not, what similar circumstances have been faced historically, what solutions were tried then and what were the results? Which promises that politicians make are plausible and which are blatantly unrealistic? When one politician promises criminal justice reform to protect oppressed people from police and the other attacks counters that this is soft on crime and will increase murder rates, Gc is going to be more useful for comparing the truth value of each side. It doesn't really matter if the voter has high Gf can think up a clever and creative solution to the problem that addresses both issues, because they're not the one running for office and the politicians aren't going to listen to them. It might help a little, but it will help less than Gc. And Gc is also more likely to increase with age as someone goes through the education system and their brain matures, so it correlates more strongly with age.
Again, I wouldn't advocate an actual hard test for Gc as a requirement to vote, since that permanently disenfranchizes people who fall below it. But a mostly fair system which correlates with Gc is preferential to a fair system which doesn't.
I think there is a substantial conscious and voluntary component to the thing we mean by consent, and for legal and social purposes that's the only part we as third parties can/should use as inputs into decision making processes. A law saying "If you have sex with someone and they are traumatized afterwards then you get 20 years of jailtime, but if they shrug it off then you go free" is a terrible law because people choosing to have sex with someone else can't entirely control the other person's reactions. So legally rape should absolutely be defined by visible and mostly unambiguous signals. Similarly, a social convention of "If you have sex with someone and they are traumatized afterwards then you are a bad person and everyone should shun you, but if they shrug it off then you're fine." is... more reasonable, but still dubious, because if you're so bad at a sex you traumatized someone then clearly something is wrong with you. But again, if you force sex on someone and they shrug it off you're still a horrible person because that is an action with very negative expected outcome. If you shoot at someone with a gun, maybe you don't actually hit them and wound them, and maybe you don't get convicted of murder, but you still get convicted of assault, because you easily could have hurt them.
So there's the legal definition, and the social definition, and the moral definition. And the moral version of consent involves internal thoughts and feelings, the legal one does not and should not, while the social one is probably somewhere in between. And all of them are meaningful and useful, and mostly referring to the same thing even if having different words for them might make it easier to communicate the distinctions.
More options
Context Copy link