Now, when we’re talking about the 20th century, it’s a complicated discussion because in most of the nations you’re talking about, women could vote, and even in the ones where they couldn’t, they were certainly far more emancipated, and their preferences taken far more seriously, than in any previous time in history. That arguably had a massive effect on the political trajectory of the 20th century, even if the people actually tasked with implementing those political preferences were still overwhelmingly male.
Right wing movements came to power without any women voting at all in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Croatia, etc. The notable country that went from being a democracy with full women’s suffrage is Germany (and even there women mostly voted along with the male head of the household), and the NSDAP was the only party to not run female candidates because of their open stance that politics was the domain of men; women’s representation dropped from 37 MPs to 0 under them.
In which country did a fascist party come to power with majority support from women, or really any major attempt to cater to women’s preferences? Most mid-twentieth century right wing parties were pretty explicit about wanting to roll back women’s rights and restore traditional gender roles.
This is either wildly wrong or extremely pedantic.
…it isn’t though? Fitting your hand behind the back of somebody’s head and pushing down isn’t a natural, easy-to-fall-into movement - you might have to literally force your hand up in between their body and yours while they’re struggling - and that move is specifically what causes the blood flow to cut off. Almost every other form of back control doesn’t have that immediate risk because the RNC isn’t back control, it’s a submission. Even just take the same hand and use it to pin his arm to his body and you have a movement both less dangerous and more natural for beginners, whereas as the RNC isn’t something people know intuitively without being taught.
As for your comment about lethality, in every conversation I’d had about this event, including my comment above, I’ve very explicitly said I’m not condemning the use of lethal force, which may have literally been necessary if the guy was attacking him or somebody else on the train. I’m disagreeing with the people who are for some reason arguing that choking someone out for a long ass time doesn’t have obviously lethal potential. And if it turns out the guy wasn’t attacking anyone, for better or for worse you don’t get to knock people out just for being awful.
Soriek
1yr ago
From your above comment you did judo? How often are rear naked chokes used? I thought pushing down on the back head as part of a choke was fully banned in judo tbh. I've seen people go out more times than I can count in bjj and have come close to passing out myself.
Soriek
1yr ago
Completely agreed Roosevelt had an unusual commitment to decolonization, but what about Nixon stands out to you? (past like the same kind of empty-but-supportive debate rhetoric that Kennedy also made when they were first running - and Kennedy of course went on to write up the interventions against the DR and Brazil later launched under LBJ). Insofar as Nixon's policies wrt colonization are memorable to me it's in the "Tar Baby" strategy of supporting the colonial-relic white minority governments in Southern Africa, even against growing domestic public sentiment in the US. His posture there feels like the opposite of "ideological impulse rather than practicality as necessary or if necessary".
Otherwise no huge objection - America did want to end colonialism and contributed somewhat towards hastening its end, I just don't think it was really all that important to us? The strongest direct actions I think we took were opposing Salazar and threatening to boot the Netherlands out of the Marshall plan if they didn't leave Indonesia - the rest was just not directly getting involved in the Empires' counter-revolutionary wars, which I think is too tall an ask for America fresh out of several wars.
Sometimes we ignored colonialism, sometimes we supported it in ways (sending Britain funds in Malaya and France materiel in Vietnam). When and where we did oppose colonialism feels for me less driven by ideology than by the same issues of Suez repeated elsewhere: weakening potential rivals and bolstering our credentials with the various non-aligned countries during the Cold War. If we truly felt ourselves to be kindred spirits with the other colonies, it's a little strange that we didn't feel dissonance putting those kindred spirits under new dictators that replicated the worst aspects of colonial rule - as long as they now reported back to us. As in, there might have been people that felt motivated by ideology, but it was a an ideology of such a self-serving sort that it's hard to distinguish from what someone would have done motivated by realpolitik alone.
I will read your link though (it may have answered my questions), I'm just trying to find a non-jstor version of it.
Soriek
3mo ago
I mean, he could have made immigration law take morality into account but didn't, suggesting it wasn't really that important to him as a matter of policy. Is the claim "not everybody in the world is equally awesome" really relevant to anyone but Bryan Caplan? Few people genuinely imagine the entire earth should move into their country.
Soriek
3mo ago
Pretty much just paraphrasing our founder:
“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respected Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges”
-George Washington
OG approved.
Soriek
1yr ago
Doing a bit of googling to confirm this: that's for a five year loan. A new car lasts a few times as long as that. Google says the average age of a modern vehicle is 11.4 years. So pay $716 for 5 years and then get a paid off car for a hell of a lot longer.
Thanks for crunching that out, others have also pointed out my table napkin math was (predictably) off, so I switched to O’Toole’s Bureau of Economic Administration stat that in 2017 drivers spent $1.15 trillion on cars.
I saw a Federal agency's list of per passenger mile fuel consumption for various means of transportation and public busses were shocking bad. Worse than a single person driving a big truck. A full bus is very fuel efficient per passenger mile. But most city busses are mostly empty most of the day, so they are horribly inefficient uses of fuel on average.
You’ve described the long and the short of it really: transit is much more effective than cars when full, but less efficient when empty, which raises the question if we should keep pushing policies that distort the market away from the most efficient form of transit, like single family zoning, municipal parking minimums, and diverting sales and property tax to road infrastructure.
The things you care about.
Affordability, efficiency, pollution, and use of public space are things that people on all sides of this debate are comparing, from Randal O’Toole to the most militant /r/fuckcars poster.
Soriek
1yr ago
That's not "depressed". That's actual less subsidy. Car users pay for their own rolling stock, both operating and capital costs.
I guess I should clarify that O'Toole's concerns wrt subsidies revolve around the cost burden on the taxpayer. Paying those costs privately is just a different, higher way of tallying the same burden
Soriek
7mo ago
Darwin was quite notable both for his prodigious and sustained output and his dedication to dishonesty and bad-faith interaction at every possible opportunity.
I disagree. He often made quality arguments and was willing to buck the status quo here from an underrepresented angle, something we should want more. He was no more inflammatory or bad faith than plenty of others here, but people reacted absolutely viscerally against him at a level disproportionate to his behavior.
The point stands. Darwin is still free to post here, as are any of the others who think BLM is a good idea. The fact that the history of their previous positions and the observed results places them squarely in the center of a rhetorical kill-zone is their own fault.
Imo that too easily absolves us as a community for failing to create the kind of debate space we set out to build. People get bitter and hostile in response to users who have actually tried to buck majority opinion here. I experienced this kind of thing enough from the times I tried to engage in actual culture war issues that I'm pretty unwilling to do it anymore, and I'm a very long time contributor.
Either way it doesn't matter much anymore, we are what we are here and my reply to gatt was meant to be light hearted, not a declaration of conflict or something.
Soriek
7mo ago
The dark old days when we still had users who actually had different opinions.
Soriek
1yr ago
Isn't this his point? Since the constitution doesn't guarantee a freedom of association then you don't have that right, AKA there's no reason the states can't infringe upon it, which is what they did in quite extreme fashion during segregation - if I as an individual wanted to go to McDonalds with my friend of a different race I was deprived of that right and legally barred from doing so. By ending the State's ability to prevent people of different races from voluntarily comingling, surely the CRA represented one of our history's more dramatic expansions in freedom of association.
Soriek
1yr ago
Yeah it can be confusing because gas taxes are used for both systems as well. Also correct that the 40% doesn’t include private costs but rather taxes; the remaining 60% is from user fees. I just added that in to point out that both systems are financed partially by people other than their users; the fact that car owners bear the private burden of their vehicle doesn’t mean that car infrastructure doesn’t receive other people’s money as well.
Because Anglos have tended to establish the world’s wealthier major states, mass immigration to them if open borders should exist is inevitable. These other peoples are unlikely to have a particularly great fondness for libertarianism, and so will slowly dismantle it as soon as they get the vote (just as happened, to some extent, in the US from the 19th century onwards).
One of Alex Nowrasteh's hobby horses is that we don't have a ton of evidence this is true, partially because it doesn't just matter how immigrants vote; it matters how the native population changes their own votes in response to immigration. America's government stayed unrecognizably small during our largest period of mass immigration in the 19th century. The period of 1921 to 1968 when America had its most restrictive immigration laws (and was 90%+ white and building a common national identity) also had the largest expansions of the government and the welfare state: the Great Society and the New Deal. After we reopened our borders government spending and union participation went back down, whether because xenophobic people don't like welfare going to foreigners, or language barriers make unionization harder, or maybe they're not related at all - point is more government doesn't necessarily follow from more immigrants.
Soriek
7mo ago
Do we want a larger share of power and capital in the hands of dumb people?
I'd like for them to be provided for in retirement! Certainly better than them being up-in-arms against their poverty, even if it's self inflicted. The problem is much larger than a cohort of dumb people at the bottom of the population as well, insofar as you trust self-reported surveys, various studies are always showing that even surprisingly numbers of well-off people report living paycheck-to-paycheck (25% of people making over $200k, 30% of people making over $250k). If these were middle income folks I would happily accept the counter that raising their payroll taxes would make this worse, but if even the Americans with the most disposable income don't save any of it, it's hard to imagine this would be better in a less-guaranteed retirement system.
Similarly, the "funding solutions" you consider all involve taxing labour more...As Western Europe has already experienced, social democracy via tax-and-spend plus regulation ends up in a trap of stagnation that is politically hard to escape:
These just aren't very high taxes on labor. 0.3% isn't going to bring us to anywhere near Europe. I'll note that even if we were, the Scandanavian countries are the pretty central example of high taxes on labor/consumption, low taxes on capital, and have done some of the best in terms of keeping pace with the US.
But we could even skip that and go with option 2 and only tax the top 5% of laborers. If you'd rather fund it by taxing capital I'm fine with that too. But even the conservative Tax Foundation agrees payroll taxes are more efficient than taxes on capital:
due to the inelasticity of the supply of labor, payroll taxes generate a comparatively small amount of deadweight loss compared to other forms of taxation. This means that payroll taxes lead to a relatively small amount of economic inefficiency, since the quantity of labor in the market does not dramatically decline as a result. Overall, payroll taxes do much less economic harm than taxes on capital. This is evidenced by our analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders’ tax proposals, whose payroll tax rate increase raised nearly four times as much revenue as his proposed increases on capital gains and dividends, but with a fourth less of the impact on GDP.
We've also been pretty committed to keeping entitlements funded via payroll tax partially because it's the least unpopular tax, since people see it more as an investment.
Soriek
9mo ago
This does not appear to be true. Those numbers are not about where the respondents were "from" but instead where they were last housed
Yeah, the relevance of the stat is that homeless people aren't traveling to California for warm weather / permissible legal regimes, they just become homeless in the areas where they already live. This also raises the relevance of California specific factors like housing costs since these people didn't become homeless under a different state government then switch states, confusing the stats. As @huadpe says, about a third born in other states is fairly representative for a normal Californian anyway.
The world is a big place, 45 days isn't slow.
The claim on the part of the skeptics is that the scientist made an abrupt 180 on their views in only a few days because of pressure from the NIH. Instead they had a month and half during which relevant research was published that overturned the main cited uncertainty.
OK, but any other theory was called a conspiracy theory (at best). So they put forth one possibility and suppressed anything else... You don't see a problem here?
This is what the scientists had to say about the lab leak theory vs the market:
As many early cases of COVID-19 were linked to the Huanan market in Wuhan, it is possible that an animal source was present at this location....
Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible. More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another.
Pretty reasonable imo. Anyone is welcome to dispute their scientific claims. Again, the same government you're accusing of supressing the lab leak has also repeatedly endorsed the lab leak. Seems like a pretty sloppy coverup imo.
Soriek
1yr ago
IANAL but my understanding is that the Ninth Amendment has never been held to confer substantive rights (which seems to be what the linked wiki page affirms as well). If it is supposed to do that, and Americans have always had a right to freedom of association, then surely segregation was always unconstitutional and the CRA just reestablished the right to association that we were supposed to have.
Soriek
1yr ago
We stray ever further into our personal experiences but this is another case where I’m sure what you say is true for you, but I just feel the exact opposite. The fact that a car is a private place in a public place is one of my least favorite things about it! It means my most valuable possession, and whatever possessions I might want to store in it, are outside of my house where I can’t keep an eye of them. Instead they sit on the street with the weirdos, and any time I want to go somewhere I have to hope none of the people passing by are gonna mess with it despite the fact that I hear about more car break-ins every week.
I don’t find cars very comfortable either, but in fairness I haven’t had nice cars.
Of course YMMV.
Soriek
1yr ago
There's a psychic cost that urbanists miss: namely, that public transit replaces the labor of driving with a lack of agency.
I think in some instances this is probably true, but I feel deeply “managed” and stripped of my agency when waiting at a red light or stuck in traffic.
Soriek
3mo ago
I didn’t remove the end of the quote, that’s how I found it. Since you’re commenting on the tail end of a long conversation of me repeatedly arguing the addendum doesn’t change anything, either semantically or when we look at the actual immigration policy the quoted speaker pursued (or his other quotes on the issue), and you aren’t bothering to try to counter, do you have any point of substance to make? If not, let’s end this.
Soriek
3mo ago
because the claim that they don't change the meaning is not an objective, undisputed, fact, it's something you have to explicitly argue
Given that I have been explicitly arguing that, what exactly are you complaining about?
But to claim that Germans and Italians just wanted to be American is historically ignorant, because they maintained ethnic enclaves up until they were forced to stop, and didn’t use English as a first language until they were forced to.
At least from the surveys I've looked at it sounds like hispanic immigrants want to learn English, and they make their kids learn even when they themselves don't. This is from 2015 but:
Fully 89% of U.S.-born Latinos spoke English proficiently in 2013, up from 72% in 1980. This gain is due in part to the growing share of U.S.-born Latinos who live in households where only English is spoken. In 2013, 40% of U.S.-born Latinos, or 12 million people, lived in these households, up from 32% who did so in 1980...
for Hispanics overall, 95% say it is important that future generations of Hispanics living in the U.S. be able to speak Spanish (Taylor et al., 2012). Nearly as many, 87%, say that Hispanic immigrants need to learn English to succeed in the U.S.
I'm not sure how many other Europeans were really all that forced to integrate either. Even for Germans, while prejudice and discrimination against them was definitely very real in the WW1 era, iirc the laws against German language schools were struck down pretty quickly, and I'm not aware of similar rules on Italians, Poles, etc.
Soriek
3mo ago
We had surprisingly robust state welfare in his time, and he lived through a period of far more extreme restrictions on the first amendment via the Sedition Act. I imagine things nowadays would be pretty unrecognizable for him, but I like to think he'd be proud that we built the richest and freest nation in the world.
You do you but I'm generally pretty dubious. I think the quote you're thinking of from Scott is below:
Maybe he takes a closer look elsewhere but he doesn't actually compare wealth or gdp per capita or anything here, just kinda picks some good sounding ones. Most of these countries are spread across the continent's HDI and gdp per capita rankings except for South Africa (which was a self governing dominion) and Botswana (which was maybe the least heavily colonized country on the continent - the British basically left the existing monarchy in place and just demanded taxes). I could counter that other heavily British-colonized areas remain basket cases at the bottom of most relevant rankings: Sierra Leone, Malawi, the Gambia, Uganda, etc.
I did take a deeper look at India at least and found the British record pretty dismal. A while back I had ambitions of doing one of these for each of a bunch of the larger colonies, like Indonesia, Algeria, Malaya, Egypt, but got too duanted by the size of the project.
More options
Context Copy link