@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

2 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

				

User ID: 359

OracleOutlook

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

2 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 359

A Deadly Education is probably right up your alley: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50548197-a-deadly-education

The last book comes out this month, if that helps.

In the case of deafness, I understand it a little. The fewer people who speak a language, the less likely someone is to be understood. The technology doesn't exist yet to cure everyone of deafness, there will always be someone left behind. Unless we can convince more people to learn ASL, healing deaf people will be removing people from their community.

The thing that gets me, or is at least really tricky, is when people feel that they could not be the same person if their mental health problem is cured. People often feel like it would be the same as killing them. I can understand how someone could feel that way under their current mental model of personality, self, sentience. I also don't believe anyone is the same person over the course of 70 years and I don't feel like I've died yet. There is something about our philosophy of self that is broken. It doesn't lead to the best outcomes and it does not match with people's experiences.

If your English is good, become a copywriter on fivver/upwork.

I wonder if Tolkien's wikipedia page edit is due to the Amazon show. In the past there have been spats over if Tolkien was racist for using Light/Fair to signify good, Dark to signify evil, and have orcs/Southrons, Easterlings described as swarthy. In his letters Tolkien does not come across as racist, much the opposite, but the debate went on.

Amazon probably did not want that level of scrutiny on their new fantasy flagship show. Maybe editing the wikipedia article ahead of time was a way to stem criticism before it happened.

In A Brave New World there is a comment about encouraging kids to play sexual games with each other as a normal part of schooling. Would you consider this grooming, even though the adults performing the encouragement are not the ones getting sexual pleasure? Would an adult standing over two five year olds, helping them get undressed, telling them where to put their hands on the other, be grooming?

I think most people regard any outside encouragement for kids to have more and riskier sex to be a Bad Thing, and the more severe and direct examples ought to be criminal. Absent any other criminal terminology, people use the word Grooming, regardless of who is getting sexual pleasure.

And yes, technically any adult helping any kid gain access to porn is grooming. Even the cool grandpa and the old fashioned magazines. It is illegal to show porn to minors. Do people forget this?

Don't overdo sugar and alcohol in the same night, stick to one or the other.

Drink electrolytes before, during, after.

Get pregnant and stop drinking.

Worksheets? Notebooks? How is homework assigned?

How is that a pertinent argument?

You are the one who brought up a grandpa showing pornography to minors as if it was something socially accepted and reasonable.

"Harmful to minor" laws prohibit showing obscenity to minors. Because it is considered harmful in and of itself. Showing pornography to minors normalizes sexual behaviors and is often used in the process of grooming.

Abusers may also show the victim pornography or discuss sexual topics with them, to introduce the idea of sexual contact.

Child advocacy groups consider showing pornography to minors as sexual abuse itself.

If someone shows a minor porn and is arrested and accused of grooming, how do they prove that they had no intention of sexually abusing the minor (when the action itself is considered sexual abuse)? Outside of education, which the law allows for, showing porn to minors will be considered grooming behavior.

Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity

Is masturbating to pornography not sexual activity any more? And showing porn to kids is something "for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense?"

To your wider point that the Right has begun using the word grooming in wider and wider contexts, they are not the first to consider the similarities between grooming and political radicalization. Grooming itself is a broader word with multiple meanings - grooming a young politician for a higher office for example. It is not weird or purely waging a conflict for the word grooming to be used to describe persuasion, enticement, or cohesion to ingrain in children sexual politics their parents would not approve of (which is what schools are accused of.)

I think we have radically different interpretations of "to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense." I really didn't think I was cutting it up, I was addressing two halves of a requirement seperately.

Or does the law not apply to an adult having sex with a minor? The minor is not breaking any laws - it's the adult who's breaking the law. "Any person can be charged with a criminal offence" - if any person in the event, child or groomer, is doing something which they could be charged a criminal offence for, it applies.

I see now, I thought I had established in a previous comment that showing underage minors (under 16 federally, other states have other laws, federally only protects interstate stuff) is a criminal offence outside that statute. Please see here: https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity:

Section 1470 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits any individual from knowingly transferring or attempting to transfer obscene matter using the U.S. mail or any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce to a minor under 16 years of age. Convicted offenders face fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years.

It is illegal for an individual to knowingly use interactive computer services to display obscenity in a manner that makes it available to a minor less than 18 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 223(d) –Communications Decency Act of 1996, as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003). It is also illegal to knowingly make a commercial communication via the Internet that includes obscenity and is available to any minor less than 17 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 231 –Child Online Protection Act of 1998).

An adult showing a child pornography is something illegal and of a sexual nature. Something that adult could be charged with a criminal offense for. The adult showing the child pornography is the offence, it is a sexual action that the adult could be charged for.

Double checking your citations. They come from Title 18 U.S. Code Chapter 117, which does not use the word "grooming" at all. The section is titled "2422 - Coercion and enticement." This itself is not a legal definition of grooming. As far as I know there are none and it is more of a sociology term. But even so, showing minors pornography counts under the definition you offered.

I'm realizing how much I miss my RES tags. Whenever someone commented that they had a unique life experience or were from a specific country, I would tag them and would have a better idea where someone was coming from. Maybe people would rather this information not be remembered though?

Sounds like the work of Professor Ostrov, specifically here and here.

I don't mind there being Elves of Color or humans of color in the Amazon series. Elves came out of the far East before being drawn West? And then some elves stayed behind while others went on over the sea. If there was a consistent racial difference between the elves that came over the sea and those that had stayed behind, I'd be ok with it.

Numenor was a massive empire centered around what would now be the Mediterranean and the crown was based on the Egyptian crown. So there's a lot of room for a cosmopolitan society there. (Though there is a rule that only a man can inherit the crown, and the show breaks that.)

What bothers me is when people's ethnicity just does not make sense considering the historical context.

Like isolated Hobbit village. If they want to argue that hobbits used to all be darker but got lighter over thousands of years by the time of LOTR, I'd accept that. But if they have hobbit precursors that look like they are from every corner of the globe in a small isolated community that hasn't had any intermarriage for hundreds of years... that makes no sense. Same with dwarves. If they want to say that elves who have been in the same geographic regions and marriage stock for thousands of years have distinct ethnicities, that seems impossible too.

This is all to say, what will really bother me at the end of the day is a show that doesn't give the same consideration to history, language, and time that Tolkien imbued on his universe. If there isn't an explanation for everything that goes back tens of thousands of years, they did it wrong. If everyone acts like a modern American, with modern American values and motivations, they did it wrong.

From the other tribe. "Anti-Fascist Blues" by Five Times August

Wow, Shinedown was a pretty large name in music and their new album is full of stuff like this. I never thought a major name would be singing (somewhat less in your face) protest music. First comment on the linked Youtube video, "Rock right now is returning to what rock is all about: saying fuck you to the idiots and the mainstream. Shinedown has big ass balls, and I stand with them." Maybe there is a bigger movement that the average person is missing, since radio only plays the same 20 songs?

Five Times August is Red Tribe. I don't know what you mean by the comments on the video, "They don't want people to wake up so they can keep controlling people," "music that resonates with the silent majority," "Now we have protest music against the woke Left and the government."

They are ridiculing antifacists. Yes, it is pretty blunt.

I have a Spring birthday, so without skipping a grade or doing anything unusual I was 21 throughout most of my senior college year.

Most school districts have a cutoff for kindergarten the first day of school. So if someone just turned five September 1st, they could go to kindergarten the next week (if their school starts in September.)

I'm feeling pretty awesome right now because I did really well in school despite my apparent "disadvantage."

It wouldn't be too hard to implement a grade school semester system. Everyone would have to be 5 1/2 to go into Kindergarten. Kids who are 5 1/2 in July go to Kindergarten A in September, Kids who are 5 1/2 in January to to Kindergarten A in January (and the previous group goes on to Kindergarten B). And then so on for all the grades.

It would be a very small school that didn't have two classrooms per grade level in the first place.

In New York, 63% of fourth grade students are not reading at their grade level.

You aren't the first person to discover that homeless people appreciate being looked in the eye and spoken to like they are human beings. In fact, I was trained to do that from a Catholic Charity - that even if I don't have any cash lying around I can still help make someone's day if I have just 10 minutes to spare. In fact, Catholic charities are making those individual connections and treating the undesirables like human beings all the time, in a way that does not often happen at a governmental level. I don't believe that it's 100% sufficient - there needs to be a safeguard to protect people who live far away from charities or who have personalities that conflict with the charities. But you are knocking Christians for something they are constantly doing and something that just occurred to you.

I don't distrust welfare because it gives money to the undeserving. I am worried that we create perverse incentives for single mothers. I am worried that it increases the percent of people who could have been working but now have time to spend on criminality and drugs/escapism. I would support the Freedom Dividend, or Fair Tax, or whatever welfare plan that helps prevent that incentive structure.

Can everyone have their cake if we say something like, "African American descendants of slaves are disadvantaged by the epigenetic effects of slavery and brutal selection effects that killed their best and brightest early as they were the ones with the greatest chance of escape/rebellion?" I can't tell if saying it's genetic/epigenetic but also white people's fault is the worst or best of both worlds.

I'm surprised to see Japan as lower trust, given that they send little kids on errands and trust slightly older kids to navigate around.

What accounts for this unusual degree of independence? Not self-sufficiency, in fact, but “group reliance,” according to Dwayne Dixon, a cultural anthropologist who wrote his doctoral dissertation on Japanese youth. “[Japanese] kids learn early on that, ideally, any member of the community can be called on to serve or help others,” he says.

Maybe it depends on how the question of "Most people can be trusted" is translated into the language? In Japan maybe they hear the question "Most people (globally) can be trusted" and think of their geopolitical neighbors China, North Korea, and Russia and say, nah. And in China they hear the question "Most people (locally) can be trusted" and agree? "Share of people who trust others in their neighborhood" is at 74% in Japan at your link.

When a society does not have medically-assisted euthanasia, the implied goals of the society are to improve people's situations so that they don't want to kill themselves. The goal will not succeed for everyone. But there's less of a, "Don't like it? Then quit" attitude.

Countries with ubiquitous medically-assisted euthanasia seem to have determined that in a lot of situations people should just quit instead of receive support or help. For example in Canada people are being euthanized because they are disabled and are not receiving the financial support they need, or they are unable to see loved ones due to Covid precautions. Patients have recorded hospital staff pushing assisted-suicide against their express wishes.

These people might be making the rational best decision for themselves at the individual level, but society might be failing them overall. When society gives itself the out of, "They can always just kill themselves," there is less incentive for it to try to improve the lives of people with fixable, temporary problems.