SSCReader
1yr ago
Why does the employer not simply fire the people doing the organizing? Sure you can all vote to make a starbucks union, but...I just won't hire anybody in your union.
The question there (setting aside laws and the like) is, what if there aren't enough people to hire otherwise? Remember that unemployment is pretty low in the US currently, so are there enough people you could actually attract, in the area you need them, for the lower wages you are refusing to hike? With the skillset you need, and all at the same time so you don't have to shut down anyway because you need at least a 100 or 300 or 3000 factory workers all at the same time? And then you need to train them, and who is going to train them with your experienced staff just been fired?
That's a gamble in and of itself. And the more people are in the union, or who won't work as scabs (because they are in an affiliated union or something) the harder it becomes. Now if truckers refuse to deliver to you because they are crossing a strike line and so on. A strike is a balancing act where labor does hold some cards, because replacing them will cost time and money, and a short term shock can kill a company. They leverage that in exchange for better conditions.
Recruiting large numbers of new workers is very expensive and it takes time your cash reserves may not be able to support.
Firing everyone who tries to unionize (again ignoring laws for the moment) would be a signal that you want to hamstring the power of labor. Which is entirely reasonable for an employer to do, but then it is also entirely reasonable for labor to move to an employer who doesn't if available. If you can manage it and keep your staff then you win, but if they have other better options you lose.
Then of course labor can elect politicians who put in place anti union busting laws which is also entirely reasonable for them to do, leveraging their numbers for advantage. And employers can leverage their advantage (wealth) to lobby politicians for anti-union laws. Whomever is more effective gets an advantage and so round we go. That's what it means to have the adversarial relationship you spoke of. Employees using the options they have available to try and better their conditions, with Companies doing the same.
SSCReader
2yr ago
If a depressed person said if you deny us medication or therapy then more depressed people will kill themselves, is this making a veiled threat or recognizing (what they see to be) factual truth?
SSCReader
1yr ago
Christianity is pretty disordered itself. So I am not sure Christianity really has much of the moral high ground here. Even setting aside the truth value of the existence of God. Why else are there 85 different sects which have had (and still do have) their own violent confrontations?
Which exact Christian sect is going to be at the head of this Christian nationalism? I suspect there will be some pretty big push back coming from inside its own house. Are you really wanting to bring back Catholic vs Protestant as a live issue?
Being from Northern Ireland, I can tell you, that might not go as well as you would like.
SSCReader
1yr ago
You think violent terrorism between Catholics and Protestants who both ostensibly worship the same God, and have the same holy book is moral? I'm pretty sure that God is not very convinced murdering children is moral.
SSCReader
1yr ago
And when the bottleneck goes the other way companies can push down wages and so on. It's just swings and roundabouts. Each side can use the power they have when they have it. Why should it be any other way? There is no moral requirement for workers to make things easier for companies or indeed vice versa. The adversarial approach sometimes puts out of work a lot of people and sometimes causes companies to sink. and that is entirely ok. It's part of the emergent processes for finding the balance points between capital and labor. At a societal level it works. Each side has their own levers to pull, at different times. Expecting them not to do that is a fundamental error. Your employer is not your friend, and your employee is not your friend. You are engaged in a transactional agreement, nothing more.
SSCReader
7mo ago
So your answer is people have to carry their birth certificate with them to prove which bathroom they can go into? I know the UK gets a bad rap for having licenses for everything, but I've never had to show one to go to the bathroom. So in the spirit of your query:
What happened to the free market solutions in the freest country in the world? Why are you jumping straight to a government solution? If you want a female (or male) only bathroom, you can pay for a subscription and the private company will demand proof (DNA perhaps, they can buy out 23andMe, I hear that is going cheap) before you get put on the access list, for their chain of male/female/unisex W.C.s across the nation.
The free market, not the government is the best way of determining what the value of a bathroom free from the opposite sex really is, by finding out what people are willing to pay. Who wants unelected government bureaucrats making these kinds of decisions? Have you heard how much the army pays for toilet seats? These birth certificates will be printed by equipment sourced from the lowest bidder, and will be easily falsifiable. No, let's let the invisible hand of the free market deal with it, that is what America is about. That way, as the amount people are willing to pay rises, companies will convert shops into toilets and perhaps the incentives will lead to exciting new developments in toilet security technology, as they will want to ensure people do not take advantage. Let's see the Russkies keep up with the unleashed might of the American bathroom dollar! If they thought Western supermarkets were startling, once the toilet boom takes off, all we will have to do is install a few American toilets in Ukrainian towns about to be overrun, and Putin will be out on his ear in no time.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Blocking roads has been part of American discourse for a long time. Legalising just ploughing through the crowds seems a little over the top.
SSCReader
2yr ago
It's always immensely amusing to see the people crying about being persecuted and oppressed starting up their own Crusades and Inquisitions and heresy-hunts and witch-burnings for not falling in line with the new orthodoxy.
I mean given the examples you yourself invoked of what Christianity itself did I am not sure there is much of a leg to stand on. Christianity was the underdog and was persecuted, rose to power, did its own persecution in turn and now some of the groups it doesn't like/thinks are sinful have banded together and are repeating that cycle and doing something similar to it (though without yet launching actual crusades or priest burnings I suppose). I guess it's darkly amusing in a schadenfreude kind of way. Live by persecution, die by persecution?
In other words if a church says a group is sinful, they can't exactly be surprised when that group isn't well predisposed to them, and that if said groups gets the chance may well choose to try and reduce the power and influence of the church and its followers. Sure maybe in an ideal world LGBT groups and the like should take the high road and forgive and forget, but given Christianity itself struggles with getting its followers to do that, I'm not sure that is anything we should actually expect.
And specifically with Mormon's its not as if they didn't mostly do an about face on race:
"In 1978, apostle LeGrand Richards clarified that the curse of dark skin for wickedness and promise of white skin through righteousness only applied to Indians, and not to black people.[3]
In 2013, the LDS Church published an essay refuting these ideas, describing prior reasoning for the restriction as racial "folk beliefs", and teaching that blackness in Latter-day Saint theology is a symbol of disobedience to God and not necessarily a skin color."
So politically I think you could see the LDS reversing their stance on homosexuality at some point (assuming you think the racial reverse was done for pragmatic reasons and not because God told them to) so it makes sense to put pressure on them to become more "correct".
SSCReader
7mo ago
But to go even further, mocking Trump's internal polls (which agree with yours) that say he has the election almost in the bag, like that's a sign of how deranged he and his followers are.
That is exactly what you should do. If your polls show you are losing and you believe them, then one of your only chances is to convince your opponents supporters that actually they are losing in the hope they decide not to turn out on the day, and to convince some people that maybe he is actually really bad. That's why biased polls are useful. Because the polls can influence what people actually do, that is why there is so much argument about them. So yes, you absolutely should lie and mock your opponents polls even if you are certain they are correct. If you can convince enough people that Trump is a threat to democracy then you can retrospectively make the fake polls true. It's a high risk tactic and does not have a great success rate, but if you are sure you losing, then it is worth a shot.
It isn't political malpractice, it is just politics. If they didn't try it would be malpractice. You can lie about your opponent being a communist or a Nazi why shouldn't you be able to lie about their poll numbers, and that them attacking the poll numbers shows they are a Nazi in the hope that convinces people?
SSCReader
7mo ago
Well free association means anyone can use any bathroom, otherwise someones right of free bathroom association is being infringed, but if thats your position that is ok.
SSCReader
2yr ago
Thats the default though. 60 years ago kids were being indoctrinated into an ideological system with the backing of the state, whether their parents liked it or not. And 40 years ago, and 20 years ago.
Arguably the issue with America right now is not that kids are being indoctrinated but that they are not all being indoctrinated the same way. Thats how you get a cohesive polity. Too many states, too many systems. Call it a civic religion, a shared mythos or whatever. The point is what you are complaining about is not new, every kid is getting indoctrinated into something.
The fight is over what. But the sholip on not having kids indoctrinated at all sailed a long time ago. But
SSCReader
2yr ago
Sure but why does that impact you? Its just an ad for a demographic that is presumably not you.
I don't drink beer but if my favorite cider company did some ads with a NASCAR driver or Donald Trump or Kyle Rittenhouse or Ben Shapiro or whoever you think the opposite variant of Mulvaney might be then I just don't care. If they think aiming at a particular demo with a particular celebrity who is on the opposite culture war side to me helps their sales so what?
Its no skin off my nose. As long as they don't change how the cider tastes or how much it costs or whatever then they can market it however they please. They don't need to market to me, I already know I like it.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Because i do. Murdering people is wrong especially over minor differences in religion.
Also i'd rather not have my birthplaces culture war reignited over here for more pragmatic reasons.
SSCReader
2yr ago
If they are suffering from a mental illness, arguably they are not 100% in control of their actions or words.
SSCReader
2yr ago
Don't worry the brainwashing into religion is probably reversible and we'll only intellectually and culturally ruin some of them. And mutilate a fair number (depending on religion).
It's just incomprehensible. How did we get here?
Its easy. If you believe in the fundamental axioms its not crazy and if you don't its a cult of God-flesh eating, God-blood drinking psychically mutilated Manchurian candidates who infest the planet.
Trans ideology is no crazier than pretty much every religion. So if religions can demand crazy things and religions are just ideologies with a supernatural skin, why is it surprising ideologies look crazy from the outside?
Magic cannibalism, magic underpants, magic apples, magic hammers, magic hats, magic babies. Magic loaves and fishes.
If you can convince people of that, to the extent some religions practiced literal human sacrifice, why are you surprised by getting here?
We got here the way we always did, someone came up with something to believe (palpable nonsense or otherwise), convinced other people to believe it and everything cascades from there.
This isn't some new development, this is how we (humanity as a whole)operate.
Might as well be taking communion when told this is the literal blood of Christ despite not changing in any detectable way and thinking "how did we get here, its incomprehensible".
SSCReader
2yr ago
In no sane world should a "human resources coordinator" with a Communications degree who sends out emails for a living, feel that the Electrician who wired up her house is beneath her.
Counter point - We lived for millennia without electricity, but communicating is a key factor in building community, consensus and indeed society. Creating and nurturing those bonds has been a female role for a long time (see who tends to organize church events et al even where the milieu is explicitly patriarchal). It is those artificial but carefully maintained social ties that are what have allowed us to scale tribes into cities, nations and overarching cultures. Those roles are high status because they are absolutely VITAL in a societal sense.
This is not to denigrate electricians, most of my uncles on one side of my family are electricians or plumbers (and most on the other side are teachers) but I think there is a tendency especially in the rationalish sphere to devalue just how important emotional and social cohesiveness is (possibly due to the fact that "normie" women are not exactly well represented either there or here). And from what I can tell in both my own and others marriages, and in every company and organization I have ever worked for it is nigh exclusively women in these "useless" communication roles that do that. There probably isn't much need for the Communications degree but building a corporate culture begins with communication that most men, again in my experience are not interested in. Women are heavily involved in the social shaming, rewarding and so on that is the foundation of our societies, top to bottom.
Which leads to the solution. If you want more babies, you have to convince enough socially influential women to shame and judge other women for not having enough kids. More easily said than done of course, but the only real answer. Social status, social shaming and judgement will outweigh any amount of financial incentives or law changes.
SSCReader
7mo ago
But public bathrooms are a thing. If you have a whites only bathroom and a blacks only, and I am black and you are white, our right to free association is infringed. Because we can't as so many women do go to the bathroom together.
Whether thats the owners choice or not is irrelevant, one way or another someones right to free association IS infringed. Either black and white friends can't use the same bathroom, or a white guy who doesn't want to associate with black people has his rights ti not associate infringed when he walks in and finds P Diddy there.
Its impossible for someones right not to be infringed because they are conflicting. Thats different as to whether that should be legal. You can certainly argue people should be able to pick whose rights they want to infringe, but they are certainly going to be infringing someones, ergo we are admitting there is no general right to free association. We're just picking and choosing. It can't be a free country in this regard. The US has roughly chosen that the positive right to free association is of greater value than the negative right for historical reasons but don't get it twisted, thete is no option that preserves everyones right to free association. Its a logical impossibility.
SSCReader
1yr ago
I'd say that, as I am not a utilitarian, my moral intuitions are based upon my upbringing, my experiences, the social forces brought to bear upon me and are largely immune to rational change. I can't think myself into believing murder is moral.
Though I might try to reason myself into the position that I had to murder Bob Smith for the greater good (He is the second coming of Hitler, he is a kid rapist etc.), if I go ahead and murder him in cold blood, I am highly likely to experience guilt. This indicates i am judging myself immoral even though I was able to rationalize why I should kill him.
I don't know if I would quite call that vibes based.
SSCReader
1yr ago
They don't have the same upbringing, experiences, or social forces that you do, so if they happen to think that it's totally fine, evenespecially for minor differences in religion, then there's basically no point in you having made any of the statements that you have made. Their perspective is apparently fine, simple as.
Exactly right! Of course everyone (or nearly everyone) holds that their own views are moral. My near relatives who thought that murder was wrong, but that if it was a Catholic, well that is quite all right have no more objective source of morality than the IRA members who thought the opposite, and both sets were because of their experiences and values that were imparted to them by their families and communities. But just because I understand they think their beliefs are moral does not mean i have to agree they are correct. What is defined as moral is based upon what values they were inculcated with. That is why the culture war is important. I think the world would be a better place, if I can convince more people (or educate) more people into following my moral code. Someone with different beliefs will try to influence the opposite way. The fact neither of us have an objective claim to morality, matters not a shred.
And absolutely the experience of murdering someone is an experience that will contribute to someone's moral compass. As you say it could degrade their idea that murder is wrong, or it could send them into a spiral of guilt and reinforce it. If you think the first is more likely, then just like with never trying cocaine, you should try and ensure yourself and other people never take that first snort.
But the point of making the statements here is just because I like arguing on the internet. I am not under the impression I am going to change anything.
SSCReader
1yr ago
I'm the opposite, until recently I thought there was a big drop in the amount of moderating, to the detriment of the space. Hopefully the additional mods, mean we can keep a tightly moderated space. The whole point of theMotte is that civility needs to be modded for, in order that people with very different opinions can interact. TheMotte allows you to say almost anything...as long as you do it with an eye to framing it civilly for even your opponents. Good faith is helpful, but you still have to maintain your civility. That means not using terms that are likely to be inflammatory to your outgroup, unless those terms are vital to your post.
That requires a significant amount of moderating I think.
SSCReader
2yr ago
Same with The Little Mermaid, I've seen the original and I'm used to white Ariel, when she turns up as black I'm suddenly made aware that I'm not watching Ariel, I'm just watching some actress pretend to be a mermaid by saying the lines she's told to.
This seems a bit of an issue, we know Tom Cruise isn't a fighter pilot or a spy or a 6 foot 2 bruiser, so any famous actor should also pull you out. Or James Bond, played by different actors, with different accents and different hair colours and of different ages.
The original Little Mermaid was a cartoon, but the fact she is animated didn't wreck your immersion? Or the fact that she is a mythical sea creature with a talking singing crab et al? Why particularly is skin color the thing that breaks your immersion? This isn't a gotcha, I find it legitimately perplexing.
As an aside, I do have an amusing vision of a marine biologist complaining about how the Little Mermaid breaks his immersion because crabs don't sing like that, or a Greek classicist complaining about the fact that mermaids should really be bird women not fish women.
SSCReader
1yr ago
You're missing the point I think. This is an is claim not an ought claim. From my experience this is how the vast majority of people operate. Utilitarians (unconsciously) rationalize the values of their calculations to fit their pre-existing intuitions, Deontologists write their rules to fit their pre-existing intuitions etc. Christians emphasize certain parts of Biblical morality to match their pre-existing intuitions which is why some Christians can be anti-gay marriage or abortion, and some can be pro.
It doesn't matter what that leads to, because its the only option that appears to exist. We must live in the world as it is, not as we want it to be. I agree a true objective accessible source of morality might be better. But given how differently people act even while claiming to follow the same source of morality, if it does exist we can't truly access it.
To be clear though that doesn't mean that fostering co-operation can't be better than genocide. Civilization is built on pragmatic benefits, and a group which co-operates rather than genocides may well out-perform. Morally it might not objectively truly matter if you always murder your neighbors and steal their belongings, but it does leave you isolated. And when the group the next hill over learned to work together and could specialize they will out compete you.
Morality may be relative but that doesn't mean some strands of moral thought aren't more effective at generating advantage. And those moral strands will tend to be the ones that get passed down. Moral codes are a social technology. And competition between them, like market forces is won or lost by their effectiveness.
Communism repeatedly loses because it generates worse outcomes. Christianity spread so well because it generated better outcomes for its followers so it could be spread further.
Remember relative just means that there is no objective source we have access to, it doesn't mean all options will be equally successful. Why don't we use genocide to spread our morality? Because generally that gets everyone else to turn against you, meaning the spread of your moral code will be self-limiting. Nazi ideology led to their defeat and the humiliation of their preferred moral intuitions.
SSCReader
11mo ago
Is it an unfortunate state of affairs though? Or is it just normal? My dad was more conservative than my mum, way back in time. They've been married 60 years. How much of our civilization is built between the different preferences of men and women pulling at each other? That men work to deliver what women want so that they can have women is as old as building a shack and a fire.
Just because there are differences doesn't mean its a problem after all. In fact the differences could be what drives our societies to improve. Signalling and status are huge motivators.
Well thats because most people are not hard consequentialists. So doing a bad thing for good reasons and doing a bad thing for bad reasons are seen as different.
If instead of trying to murder Jews, the Nazis were trying to save them from a disease and ended up killing them by mistake, then most people would see those Nazis as morally better than our actual historical Nazis. Even if they were warned it was a risk.
So most people would not see it as being just as bad. They just fundamentally disagree with you there. Someone honestly trying to alleviate suffering is simply better than someone trying to cause suffering, even if in the end they both end up causing it. Motivations are an important part of judging moral behaviour.
And if you think about that makes sense. If i just want to honestly help Jews then there is some set of information that can persuade me I am not helping. If i mean to kill the Jews then that avenue is closed. You would have to persuade me first not to want to harm them, and then persuade me to want to help them and then try and come up with a solution that works. You are many further steps away from a positive outcome for Jewish people (assuming for the moment that is your aim).
It's interesting because the guy with the rifle was in some sense doing a right wing coded thing. Open carrying a rifle, which in Texas is legal. It's been a left wing talking point that this in and of itself should be considered a threatening act (see Rittenhouse, K). Which means in other circumstances it could quite well have been the case that the right was outraged by the shooting, as open carrying a rifle in and of itself should not be grounds to be seen as threat of violence, that justifies self-defence. In fact if Foster had shot and killed Perry as he was driving a car towards a protest he would have been in the Rittenhouse position! Arguing he brought a rifle to the protest to defend against just such an attack.
Which is why (as with Rittenhouse) the case hinged on whether the rifle was pointed at someone and if this itself constitutes a threat. Only without clear video in this case to show one way or another.
There is a narrative here where Rittenhouse was found not guilty (correctly) because he did not point his gun at someone and therefore was not threatening, and Foster also did not point his gun at someone so was not threatening and was thus murdered by Perry. In that case the left would have a case to argue that they did indeed play by the rules more than the right. Rittenhouse was acquitted. The jury set aside all the political stuff and acquitted him. Perry was found guilty then a political intervention happened. That's how I would contrast the two stories if I were still going to bat for the left in a political sense at least. The left left (hah) it up to the judicial system to decide the right (hah!) outcome, the right refused to do that and blatantly freed a convicted murderer. Might have some bad optics for squishy moderates. But of course plays well with those already convinced. Unlikely to make a difference in Texas, but might have some play if pushed nationally, perhaps.
I suppose to turn the discussion back to you, if you had clear video that Foster did not point his gun at Perry, and was just walking around, would you accept that he like Rittenhouse did not actually threaten someone and thus Perry shooting him was murder?
More options
Context Copy link