SSCReader
11mo ago
You have to start earlier than that, after all wokeness is a reaction itself.
Did the US have that "conservatism" imported from Europe, assimilated it, had elements react against and create wokeness, then re-export that AND the "conservative" reaction to wokeness again.
Much of the US's cultural information was imported to them. Its why the US is largely aligned with the Anglo world in the first place. Plus Ireland due to high immigration. If not for large amounts of Irish people bringing their cultural exports with them the Presidents wouldn't be touring Ireland so regularly and they wouldn't dye the rivers green (and the beer).
They are re-exporting to us as we once exported to them. Partly because thats what the global hegemon does and partly because of the close relationship.
Lots of funding came from the US for the IRA for example. The US was also a big part of the Good Friday Agreement happening at all.
You have US immigration in Dublin airport so you can fly into a domestic terminal when you reach the US!
The US has a big finger in the Irish pie so to speak (and vice versa) if you believe that nearly everyone i meet in the US after learning i am from Ireland tells me some story about their grandmother being from Meath or similar. Progressivism (or the reaction to it) is hardly only the most recent.
SSCReader
11mo ago
If the country's basic political framing is demoralizing to your position, well again, the options to both change it via the well-established process or to leave to someplace more suitable are open!
Or to have it ignored. It's not a magical document, convince enough people in the right places it is illegitimate or out of date and you can avoid the process entirely.
If I founded a country and said the only way to change the founding rules is by me deciding it, it's quite possible in 300 hundred years the inhabitants of SSCReaderonia would entirely disregard my well-written constitution. And they would probably be right to do so. I just got first mover privilege, no reason that needs to last after I am dead.
The political framing is downstream of people believing it is the basic political framing. It's not like the Supreme Court has not been challenged to enforce its rulings before.
Not advocating this should be done by the way, just pointing out it isn't an either/or. There are many different options.
SSCReader
11mo ago
I regularly attend my institutions Women in X meetings and the spin off social events such as the book club. There are usually maybe 1 or 2 men for every 10-15 women on average. If anything we get effusively welcomed and praised for being brave in joining. I suspect should I be in the market I could probably parlay this into a dating strategy.
SSCReader
7mo ago
Acquired immunity. People don't get resistant to filth fever by hanging around in a dungeon repeatedly, because pathogens are not germ-based in Iomeade's world
Vaccinations are actually a thing in Pathfinder so the real sin is that Iomadae would probably know the word itself. And given creating it needs a sample of the disease AND that Starfinder (which takes place in the future of the Pathfinder universe) has actual antibiotics in addition, it seems fair to say that germ theory does indeed work there. It is just there are also magic and direct miracles so vaccinations are less useful, when the local cleric can pray it away.
"A vaccine grants a creature immunity to a specific strain of disease of a level equal to or less than the vaccine's level, and a +2 item bonus on all saving throws against other strains of the same disease. For example, a vaccine could grant immunity to filth fever inflicted by otyughs but would only grant a +2 saving throw bonus against filth fever inflicted by a giant rat. Special: A vaccine is the same rarity as the disease it's designed to prevent, or as the creature who inflicts the disease if the disease itself doesn't list a rarity Craft Requirements: Creating a vaccine requires a sample of the disease in question."
SSCReader
7mo ago
The vaccine rules I quoted are from the Archives for Pathfinder 2e here:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=773
My alchemist was crafting them in a campaign I am in which is how I knew there were rules for crafting vaccines. In order to take some pressure off the cleric if we were already immune to the disease we knew we were going to encounter.
Though they may have been invented post Iomadae's ascension, It seems probable natural immunity exists in some form in world but is just abstracted away ruleswise otherwise. As it isn't fun in game to track if your character should be immune to filth fever as he caught it 6 years ago when trudging through a sewer in Alkenstar and was bitten by a direrat or whatever.
Its also possible the varying dieties of disease alter them every so often to evade natural immunity. That might be my take as a DM. That diseases are viral or bacterial but they also have divine forces creating new variants. Golarion does have Anthrax, Dengue fever, cholera and bubonic plague, malaria and TB for example and they even talk about the lymphatic system so mundane diseases do seem to operate much as we would expect here and given the lymphatic systems purpose it would be odd if humans didn't have the same immune system and thus could get immunity to cow pox or something. Its just not an exciting part of the game system to talk about.
SSCReader
7mo ago
But describing border security as evil are not the words of any paladin anywhere, much less the words of a paladin otherwise-fated to be a god of paladins that worships a Lawful-Neutral god of human civilization.
Strictly she is a Paladin of Arazni, who is the herald of Aroden, but I think she might actually see immigration restrictions as evil on Earth for one reason, everyone there is human, and Aroden is essentially the god of human manifest destiny, and that humanity should be as one, she might feel that America as the most powerful nation should indeed be both spreading its influence in order to unite humanity and allowing any human who wishes to live there to do so. In otherwise she might well support America taking over Mexico AND prior to that allowing any Mexican who wants to live in the US to do so. She would probably feel differently about an orc nation for example. Remember at 15 she is just about to join the crusade against the undead hordes of the Whispering Tyrant, a nearly existential threat to human civilization itself. Making humanity strong by bringing as many people under one rule as possible is consistent with both the way Taldor spread and not having the kind of legal system where a human from outside Taldor who wants to live there is going to have many issues doing so.
Aroden is prophesied to (at the point this story is set at least) lead humanity into a golden age, united and strong. Paladins don't have to follow laws that they believe are not just or not good, if your god wants humanity united, any law that prevents humanity coalescing into a united group could well be seen as evil. From a certain point of view of course. America absorbing as much of humanity under its direct influence whether by conquest or immigration seems very much in line with Aroden.
"The Starfall Doctrine is a series of prophecies written in Azlanti that predicted that the god Aroden would return to Golarion in 4606 AR and lead the human race in a millennium of prosperity known as the Age of Glory. He was supposed to lead the world from Cheliax, which he would personally rule and which would also become the pre-eminent nation in the world"
That the human race should be united and not artificially fragmented into smaller nations is pretty on brand. Border security against orcs and undead Good, border security to prevent other humans swelling the ranks of your nation: Evil.
SSCReader
7mo ago
In PA, Republicans passed the mail in voting law in 2019 (thus nothing to do with COVID) because they thought it would help their rural voters or because they wanted to get rid of straight ticket voting in exchange (depending on the representative in question).
This is what they said then:
"In late October 2019, the Pennsylvania General Assembly was preparing to pass a comprehensive voting reform package that included no-excuse mail-in voting. Republicans, who controlled both chambers of the Legislature, were happy that they had managed to eliminate straight-ticket voting as part of the legislation. Some Democrats, including state Rep. Mike Sturla of Lancaster, were miffed by this and so voted against what would become Act 77. But the Lancaster County Republican delegation to Harrisburg voted overwhelmingly in favor of the legislation (state Reps. Steven Mentzer and David Zimmerman voted against it). The legislation passed in the state House in a 138-61 vote (note 59 of the votes against were Democrats) , and was approved by the Senate in a 35-14 vote. (note the 14 votes against were all Democrats) The state House Republican Caucus website was almost giddy in its characterization of this “Historic Election Reform,” the “most comprehensive effort to modernize and improve Pennsylvania’s elections since the 1930s.” State House Majority Leader — now Speaker — Bryan Cutler, of Drumore Township, discussed the legislation in glowing terms. “This bill was not written to benefit one party or the other, or any one candidate or single election,” Cutler maintained. “It was developed over a multi-year period, with input from people of different backgrounds and regions of Pennsylvania. It serves to preserve the integrity of every election and lift the voice of every voter in the Commonwealth.” What was not to like? Reporting on the new law, CNN noted that it eliminated a “requirement that applicants for absentee ballots provide an excuse as to why they can’t make it to the polls.” “We never checked anyway,” said state Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman, who’s now the Senate president pro tempore and is seeking the Republican gubernatorial nomination. As Spotlight PA reported, Corman hailed Act 77 as the “most significant modernization of our elections code in decades.”"
and
In a column published in May 2020 in LNP | LancasterOnline, Kirk Radanovic, chairman of the Republican Committee of Lancaster County, wrote that “this new mail-in voting option in Pennsylvania will be a crucial tool for the Republican Party and candidates to succeed.” “Anyone can apply to vote by mail, without a reason or excuse needed,” Radanovic wrote, encouragingly. “If you think COVID-19 or the prospect of long lines will keep you from wanting to go to the polls on Election Day, then vote by mail. “Our state senators and representatives have worked to ensure the integrity of this process, including safeguards to protect your vote.” He pointed out that every “mail-in ballot includes a unique bar code that is used to match you and your ballot, a security safeguard.”
PA only expanded mail in voting because the GOP wanted it done, they had majorities in both House and Senate. Mostly it was Democrats who voted against it because they feared the loss of straight ticket voting would hurt them. The fact that barely a year later they were now saying the very law passed by Republicans was unconstitutional and left things open to fraud is you have to admit a little laughable.
There is shooting yourself in the foot and then there is shooting yourself in the foot and then saying:
"Act 77 also had the support of almost all of the Republican state representatives in the Pennsylvania House, including state Rep. Dan Moul, a Republican from Adams County who joined the lawsuit over the mail-in voting law in 2021 "So my bad. I should've checked the constitutionality of that big bill," Moul says."
It's either staggering incompetence or a scapegoat for the loss, but at least in PA, The Republican party were all for mail in voting..until they weren't.
SSCReader
7mo 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
7mo 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
If unions can be influential enough to get government protection, then that is something the market must take into account.
The market only exists in this form itself because of government protection so complaining unions get it too is just special pleading.
In other words there are other factors than market forces to be accounted for. They are neither more nor less legitimate than the market itself.
SSCReader
7mo ago
The market needs government intervention to exist in any meaningful fashion too. So that is not a compelling argument.
SSCReader
7mo ago
And give a resolution process for fraud,and theft and IP infractions. And ensure they abide by rules that the public want enforced, and build the roads the product moves on, and educate the workers the company employs and so on and so on.
A modern market is not the same as two farmers haggling over how many chickens per bushel of wheat. It is, like it or not reliant on the government.
A market can exist without government but it wouldn't be this market with all the advantages that entails. You must take the rough with the smooth.
SSCReader
7mo ago
But it is free people voting for politicians who enact pro union laws. Just as legitimate as the market itself.
SSCReader
7mo ago
Entirely irrelevant. If markets emerge naturally so too do governments and whatever rules they enforce are the rules they enforce. The market isn't some special thing, its an emergent behavior just like government and laws and unions. Governments get to build roads, where they want them, close roads and so on. They emerge in every human society, just like markets.
Markets must adapt to the society they are in, not vice versa. Markets are made for man, not man for markets.
SSCReader
7mo ago
Why? Being good at politicking is a useful skill, precisely because it is often a substitute for violence. Being good at commerce is also a useful skill, but that requires a solid civilizational foundation for markets like our currents ones to flourish. Its not stealing value its trading value for stability. An excellent trade.
SSCReader
7mo ago
Who said anything about not giving anything back though? Sure when labor has more power, capital is paying more than it would like but it is still trading money for labor in a positive sum fashion overall. Because if all companies fail then labor also fails. Each side has constraints. Its more take what you can and give something back with the something and what you can varying within stable constraints at a societal level.
SSCReader
7mo ago
As mentioned elsewhere though government is also an emergent process. Every human society develops it and its coercion. There is nothing unnatural about it. Its a fundamental part of human society.
Markets are protected by men with guns and also coerced by those men with guns. You must take the rough with the smooth.
Because people don't seem to realise that is the fundamental underpinning of civilization. If they recognize that then all talk of what markets deserve and unions being government coercion, is simply special pleading.
If the fundamentals of markets also rely on violence then that particular critique of unions specifically is not a good argument.
SSCReader
7mo ago
In this very thread we have arguments that unions are bad because their restrictions are based in law and thus enforced by the threat of government violence whereas in contrast the market does not rely on threats of violence. I am pointing out the underpinning of markets is also supported by the same threat of government violence and therefore this argument is not a strong one.
The violence may be good or bad, that isn't my point, merely that if both sides are reliant on it, it isn't a justification for markets being good, or unions being bad, or indeed vice versa, because it applies to both of them.
I am making a narrow rebuttal to this particular reasoning that is apparent above. If you said capitalism is bad because it relies on government violence to enforce private property laws, and therefore we should pick communism, a rebuttal might be, that communism also relies on threats of government violence and therefore this particular argument is not a good one. It doesn't say whether communism or capitalism is better, merely pointing out the specific justification being used is erroneous.
SSCReader
7mo ago
Perhaps you are not understanding, in each case the government will initiate violence. If companies break anti-union laws or if thieves steal property from a company or whatever. We're talking about the back up of government sanctioned violence via law enforcement here, and how both union and markets rely upon that to exist.
Whether it's enforcing IP laws, private property laws so that companies products cannot simply be taken with no comeback and so on, the government will initiate violence (through law enforcement). Sure it might start with fines and so on, but all government action is ultimately backed by state sanctioned violence.
That is the violence both unions and markets are built upon.
SSCReader
7mo ago
You don't. It's emergent based on what catches on and what doesn't. It's a social sanction so society is the arbiter as a whole.
That's the point really. It's the distributed judgment of your fellow citizens. And when enough agree, a new convention coalesces and through social shaming and gossip it spreads to a critical mass.
Even with Christianity it only works when enough people agree with the tenets. But if Christianity fails to convince enough people, its reach falls. It still spreads through the same mechanism as every other social judgement.
SSCReader
7mo ago
The MP in question is a Conservative ex-Minister (under Cameron, May and Johnson) while Brand is an anti-establishment Marxist (to the extent he is anything). So if there is a political motivation it's might not map exactly to what people may think.
SSCReader
7mo ago
Conservatives (most of them at least) are the establishment, how "woke" they are varies. In many cases political stories in the UK are better explained by looking at establishment vs anti-establishment than left vs right.
SSCReader
7mo ago
Because I'm tired of people acting like they are explaining something to me when all they are doing is playing PR for their ingroup.
Then stop saying "Like, it can't be that jews actually caused something negative to happen or are in any way instrumental in the proliferation of anything bad and that some people had a very natural and human reaction to it. I.e. not wanting to live with jews anymore. " and say i.e. not wanting to live with the specific people who did X. We can only judge you by what you say, so if you cast a wide net (jews) with your words, that's all we can respond to. If you mean to only criticise a subset of people who did X or Y, then say that.
That's why one of the part of the rules is: Be as precise and charitable as you can.
Be precise about who you want to criticise. If you don't mean jews as a group then define who exactly you are talking about. If there is some anti-European position you want to criticise, define it and who said it. If you know it "isn't all jews" then make that clear. Otherwise it looks like you are simply indulging in Boo-outgroup rhetoric.
It will also skip the whole back and forth you are right in the middle of now, where someone rebuts with, "well actually,not all jews", and you have to sigh, "yes I know it's not all jews, I don't think the guy I play CoD with is involved. I'm not an idiot!"
Define exactly who you are talking about at step 1 and you can skip steps 1A through D going back and forth until you define who you mean. It removes a derailment opportunity. It hones your argument and removes extraneous pain points.
The fact Germans are paying for anything is because citizens do in fact inherit the financial responsibilities their government has agreed to. It doesn't mean morally Brunhilde is responsible for the Holocaust, any more than the fact her taxes go to pay interest on the national debt means she is responsible directly for the government building an autobahn 10 years before she was born and thus the deaths of anyone who crashes their well engineered automobile at 200kph should weigh on her soul. But yet still her taxes go to help pay it off. The German government can decide that a moral crime committed by the German government demands recompense. And all German citizens therefore inherit the financial responsibility, but they do not inherit the moral responsibility. That is the disconnect in your example. They are different things.
Brunhilde is not morally responsible for Hitler's actions just as Bob the jew is not morally responsible for Fred the jew's actions. So if it is Fred's anti-European actions you have a problem with then criticise Fred, not jews. If you mean Fred but say jews then people will understand you to mean jews not Fred. And if Bob and Fred are BOTH members of "Ja, we hate Europe" then specify it is the organization JwhE that you are criticizing.
In other words if you are not being specific in who you are calling out, why should people responding be specific in return?
Isn't the point here that the law enforcement system is too EASY to change by voting? Your DA's are politicians first, they get elected by people who are "soft on crime" therefore they are "soft on crime". Which they should be, if that is what they campaigned on.
Its not too difficult to impact law enforcement politics, its far too easy. Its too responsive to the whims of the public.
More options
Context Copy link