@Supah_Schmendrick's banner p

Supah_Schmendrick


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:08:09 UTC

				

User ID: 618

Supah_Schmendrick


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:08:09 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 618

I would say the current idea of a 'mental illness' like Autism (at least in some diagnoses) is pretty damn imperfect though.

No more imperfect than the concept of 'general intelligence' to uplift dogs.

Ah that makes sense.

Historically, no. America is the country of tar and feathers, riding muck-raking newspapermen out of town on a rail, and mobs smashing up printing offices.

I'd say that there was a few decades there where people were 'made' to conform with the 'living constitution' ideal.

No, people were made to conform with the views of people who used the 'living constitution' interpretational theory to justify their desired policy results. Seriously, go back and read a lot of the progressive decisions from the Warren court era - it's pure power in there. Why did Roe find a right to abortion? Because Harry Blackmun wanted to find one, process and interpretation be damned. Even retrospectively-sainted cases like Brown v. Board of Education don't hold up well if you look at them just as examples of judicial reasoning. Brown's whole rationale was based on social-scientific and psychological findings that segregation created "[a] sense of inferiority" which "affects the motivation of a child to learn," and therefore "[s]egregation with the sanction of law . . . has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." That's not a legal reason; that's a policy choice.

You can't rely on turning policy and power questions in to legal and interpretational ones. You clearly have a view on how the country should be organized and run. Fine! But argue for the view on its own terms, on the objective level. Don't divert the argument into legalistic questions of interpretation - that's not going to get you the results you want, and will distract everyone from the actual debate and disagreement at issue.

I don't think there's anyone who thinks that the Constitution is unable to be changed or updated, but many object to this being done by judicial fiat without giving citizens the chance to have a voice in the process.

Oh but citizens have had chances to have their voice heard! The fights between gilded age lassiez-faire capitalism and progressive-era "scientific management" were cultural and political fights that reshaped government without constitutional amendment. The New Deal was mostly a legislative and administrative plan, not a judicial one. Even the Great Society and the rise of the modern concept of anti-discrimination law was at least as much legislative as it was judicial in origin! The people keep electing legislatures who pass giant enabling acts, and Presidents who vow to make use of those powers through imperial bureaucracies!

Moreover, there's nothing that requires the courts to have the authority they currently wield; the Constitution is actually extremely vague about courts; and Congress has extreme power over what courts exist, what their competencies are (and, just as importantly, what they aren't), what causes of action exist, what remedies are available, etc. Even SCOTUS isn't immune from this; it took an act of Congress in the 1920s to give SCOTUS the ability to pick and choose what cases it takes. Similarly, the ability of the Court to pick particular policy questions out of the morass of any given lawsuit and only decide on them - the basis for the institution's current role - depends on legislative authorization.

Either the Constitution is the solid foundation upon which the Union of states is supposed to operate, and should be treated with sufficient reverence by the institutions involved, or it is not, and we are not held together by anything but historical momentum and a bare sheen of national brotherhood arising from shared history.

Por que no los dos? The Constitution is a set of rules and a political compromise. It is also, along with the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address, the holy text of the American civic religion. However, rules don't exist without people, who insist on being imperfect and quarrelsome things, to whom virtue comes uneasily if at all. Why should you, I, or anyone expect any set of rules, no matter how well designed, to hold a single shape against the efforts of centuries to game and twist them? What faith, civic or otherwise, can survive as long as the U.S.'s has without doctrinal drift and corruption amongst the hierarchy and/or laity? What political compromise has endured, unchanging, from the 1700's 'til today? It's not for nothing that there are all those quotes from the Founding Fathers sounding ominous warnings that the whole thing could fall apart:

"[O]ur Constitution is neither a self-actuating nor a self-correcting document. It requires the constant attention and devotion of all citizens. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: 'A republic, if you can keep it.' The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health."

"While our Country remains untainted with the Principles and manners, which are now producing desolation in so many Parts of the World: while she continues Sincere and incapable of insidious and impious Policy: We shall have the Strongest Reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned Us by Providence. But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour, frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition and Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams, To the Officers of the first Brigade of the third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798

". . .[T]here is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." - George Washington, First Inaugural Address

No, we treat these things with reverance in no small part because of the historical momentum behind them. And we use them to forge national brotherhood from disparate peoples despite the lack of shared history. Whether the project is working or not is something for interested observers to judge for themselves. But we Americans have always been a fractious lot, so a modicum of historical perspective is suggested before drawing any conclusions that are too alarmist.

Yes, but at the same time if "exit" is easy (or at least not significantly harder than non-exit, b/c let's be real cossack life in any circumstance wasn't a picnic), and if the hierarchy is in many respects directly-answerable to the group (e.g., the election and deposition of Cossack "hetmans") or a function of ill-defined "prestige" or respect, then that hierarchy may sit comparatively lightly on one's shoulders.

Of course all this is theoretical, and I'm not a cossack or cowboy so if I'm blowing wind feel free to disregard.

Sure, but it's also harder to ... figure that out, if it does exist. And also a lot harder to fix. Dysfunctional just means "bad", and is about as informative. The EA people probably don't even agree with you about that dysfunction! It's not a quantification issue.

Right, I agree that "making things good" is hard to quantify. Which is why small and local arenas where one has the most information are the best places to start.

Millions of people can try to fix it and just ... be wrong about what they're fixing, fix it poorly, and go nowhere. Which is probably happening, sure, but the problem is not only hard, it's not obvious at all what the problem is, or what can be done - and in a sense half of politics is trying to solve it, but poorly!

My fault; poor language. I agree that it's definitely possible for millions of people to be bad and/or wrong at fixing things. What I meant was that there is no mass-movement towards revitalizing civic associations, mutual benefit societies, churches, families, municipal governments, or rooted neighborhoods; ACS statistics and local election turnout numbers tell us this much.

uh dustin moskovitz, the main EA donor, is literally funding yimby stuff on a large scale though

Yes, this is good (though depends on what he means by "scale" though; I'd be more pleased with him doing something in his own community and then moving outward from there than going state- or country-wide).

Maybe. Are you American?

Guilty as charged. I've always been jealous that in my dad's day High Schools offered greek and latin, but now...well....gestures helplessly at the universe.

Okay, but was WoT worse than "Legend of the Seeker"? Because if so, that's Plan 9 from Outer Space, so-bad-its-good territory.

Whoops, mixed up the jurisdiction.

What do you mean "gets to?" They can decide to use a nuke or not, at which point we would have to decide how to react. And given that the Russians have agency, shouldn't it behoove us to, y'know, treat them seriously even if it means doing somewhat distasteful things? Given that question, why are people on the NATO side whipping up an anti-Russian crusade? Seems like a nation that is the target of a crusade, even if in the wrong, is more likely to do wild and unpredictable things - possibly including unwise things with nukes - than one which is being dealt with as a regional power.

I don't think the Ukranians should surrender. If someone was invading California, I like to think that I would be brave enough to volunteer to fight. I do think that the U.S. needs to take escalation concerns seriously when analyzing the risk-reward of providing various weapons systems, information, training, or support to the Ukrainian war effort. It's not as simple as "oh, someone waggled a nuclear dick around, they automatically win" - its a question of determining whether what we expect to reasonably be able to achieve by the desired policy is proportional to the risk being run of nuclear or other serious retaliation. And that determination requires (1) a clear statement of what the U.S. expects to achieve from its policies, (2) an evaluation of how important those goals are worth, and (3) an analysis of whether those goals are worth the potential costs imposed by Russian countermoves, up to and including nukes or other action targeting civilian infrastructure in the U.S. or in vital partner-countries/treaty partners.

I would be interested in what mistakes those are - I read and enjoyed "Stalin's War" but have very little outside knowledge of Finnish history.

I haven't seen any type of coordination or planning to it, which is something common to most other historical examples I would call "ethnic cleansing." To my knowledge, the 60's and 70's radicalism was not focused on forcing whites out of cities, but rather blaming whites for self-segregating in areas away from blacks.

Like 2rafa, however, I would certainly agree that it was "ethnic replacement," with a fair amount of inter-ethnic conflict as well. I would also call the displacement of blacks out of many areas of Southern California by latinos "replacement" as opposed to "cleansing," because it was an emergent phenomenon and not premeditated.

I stand corrected, but would suggest that Poland, Denmark, and Hungary, are very much the exceptions that prove the rule (e.g. Germany, France, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Greece, UK, etc.)

except the ones that admit anyone with a pulse

This is actually most schools. Most colleges in the U.S. have an acceptance rate of over 2/3rds.

"Critique of STEM supremacism" is useless because the alternatives tend to be woo

It's not a question of "alternatives," its a recognition that STEM disciplines are still full of people, with the same conflicts of interest, corruptions, status-games, cliquishness, and all the rest. STEM doesn't get you an "objective" view of society because the map is still not the territory, and to the degree that it gets you an objective view of the physical universe you still have to convince all the other non-STEM people that you're right or else they'll just coordinate meanness against you using the same old dark arts as always while you're demonstrating the perfection of your equations alone at a blackboard.

Depends which law school you're going to, and what class you're taking. Bar-subject classes at middle-ranked law schools tend to hew pretty closely to bar-exam-style questions because they're not trying to train the next SCOTUS nominee; they're trying to make sure their bar-passage rate is high enough to attract more applicants.

Child liberation is opposed mainly by people who want the power to ensure that their children become the upstanding ideal of their culture, and are uninterested in any compromise that would free their children to pursue becoming the upstanding ideal of a different culture.

“Every generation, civilization is invaded by barbarians - we call them 'children'.” - Hannah Arendt

I've heard someone say 'it's easy to be woke in a bull market' - and that suggests to me that if a recession comes businesses and other institutions will face enough difficulty in delivering on their core mission that they will need to strip out the extraneous stuff and the distractions.

Or the "extraneous stuff" will overtake the core mission and the institution will collapse, a looted, gutted corpse. See, e.g., South African governmental institutions, and their power grid, water works, and mining regulators.

If people actually looked at this incident, there wouldn't be a need for too many changes. The shooter accessed the school through an unlocked exterior door. That's the first problem. [Edit: this was inaccurate, per KMC below.] The second problem was that there wasn't security - the shooter allegedly rejected another potential target he was scoping out because there was security present. That's it.

unless there are editorial reasons not to do so.

...like being a school shooter?

I am not asian. I have not had medical testing done to determine if there's a genetic component. But I do notice that I dislike most mind-altering substances. I've gotten stoned a few times and disliked it each time, and generally disliked the feeling that psychotropic prescription medications (e.g. vyvanse) had on me. Maybe I'm just ornery and/or literally don't know what's good for me. IDK.

The number I recall is 6%, but either way its a tiny minority.

I wouldn't think so, because the cartel still has the advantage of pre-existing and trustworthy production, distribution, and retail networks. Everyone else is going to be trying to start from zero. And if the cartel doesn't like the competition, it already has access to people willing to do violence on its behalf, and an institutional culture where such violence was routine and approved of. Legalization is not a panacea.