@Tarnstellung's banner p

Tarnstellung


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 12:50:41 UTC

				

User ID: 553

Tarnstellung


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 12:50:41 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 553

Muslims and Orthodox Jews hardly have any interest in attacking gays, despite being anti-LGBT.

The Pulse nightclub shooting was committed by a Muslim.

I guess this is what leads to people thinking $500 million dollars is enough to make every American a millionaire.

Haven't they already made extremely strong Starcraft and Dota AIs?

What exactly do all law abiding (even this qualifier isn't universal among US states) American citizens over 18, young and old, rich or poor, smart and dumb have; but which no non-citizen or child posseses?

Nothing, age is just a heuristic. This applies to other age-restricted activities, too, like alcohol consumption or sex. Whatever age requirement you set, there will be people who meet it but are still not mature enough, and people who are mature enough but don't meet it. An age requirement is imperfect, but it's usually good enough. Conducting a detailed psychological assessment of every potential voter (or alcohol drinker or sex haver) is infeasible and is open to abuse.

Voting rights for citizens and non-citizens are a separate question.

I don't think people misusing malaria nets is a major issue, but if you do, GiveWell also recommends funding malaria drugs and vitamin A supplements. Could something go wrong with those? I guess people might overdose. But GiveWell doesn't guess: they've actually run the numbers, and they've found that the benefits greatly outweigh the risks. If that still doesn't convince you, you can just donate to GiveDirectly.

You might think this kind of altruism is reckless, I think giving malaria nets to people whose problems we don't know is reckless.

Why do you think we don't know these people's problems? Tons of research has been conducted on how terrible malaria is, how it prevents economic development, has all sorts of higher-order effects, etc., and on how to treat and prevent malaria. Much more research than Dorothy Day conducted in your anecdote. Maybe the woman was just a drug addict who would sell the ring for a fraction of its value and spend the money on heroin, and giving her the ring rather than assistance in kind (food and shelter) is just feeding her addiction and funneling money into the pockets of criminals. A few days later, the ring is gone, the woman is still a homeless addict, and you get to pat yourself on the back because you weren't paternalistic and you respected her autonomy.

Not that we shouldn't offer aid to foreigners, but it should be done deliberately and thoughtfully.

That's literally the point of EA. We shouldn't donate to causes with the best marketing, the most touching pictures of starving children, and so on; we should evaluate them objectively to see which ones actually help.

Are people quitting their positions as volunteer coaches en masse to work more to donate to malaria prevention, to the point that the operation of children's sports clubs is seriously affected? If not, then it's not a serious concern.

In the cable, Mr. Blinken noted that it was not a requirement and gave chiefs of mission the ability to “determine that such a display is appropriate in light of local conditions.”

In other words, only do it where the locals are already pro-LGBT. They're not trying to convince either the local population or the government of anything, they're just repeating a message the locals already agree with. Hardly a "high priority".

The act of "valuing the life of an [unknown] African child anywhere near to the value of some kid geographically near you," if widespread, actually harmful to your locality and (insofar as you have one remaining there) community, which depends on "inefficient" time-sink efforts to generate public goods.

If EA becomes widespread enough for this to become a serious concern, the low-hanging fruit of malaria nets will have already been dealt with, and new cost/benefit analyses will need to be conducted to find new causes to contribute to. At that point, local volunteering may well become the most cost-effective option, at least for someone without very high earning potential.

EA focuses on what an individual can do, and right now, the marginal benefit of a single individual devoting their time to earning money for malaria nets is much greater than the marginal cost of a single individual not volunteering in the local community.

Of course, EA assumes that your primary goal is to help others. Maybe someone finds coaching local kids fun and does it as a hobby, but in that case helping others as much as possible is not their goal.

The 14 words alone could perhaps be interpreted charitably if taken at face value, but "1488" is unambiguous and basically conveys the same message as "AuschwitzKikeGrinder".

Do Western governments place a high priority on LGBT rights in their diplomatic efforts? The media may make a big deal out of it (see for example the focus on LGBT rights over more general civil and labour rights in recent discussion of Qatar in relation to the World Cup), but do governments actually care? After all, Saudi Arabia, where same-sex activity is a capital offence, is a close ally of the West, and the West also cooperates with other countries where homosexuality is illegal.

I thought usernames could be changed? I have the option to do that in my settings, at least. I haven't tried it to see if it works.

And he wasn't spending it all on malaria bed nets, or what do you call the sponsorship of sports teams and paying the UC-Berkeley for naming rights of their sports field?

I would call it an advertisement paid for by FTX, a for-profit company which Bankman-Fried only partially owned.

What is your actual objection to EA? That they're willing to give money to anyone anywhere in the world, and not just their local in-group?

focusing on art, infrastructure and knowledge

Art doesn't feed people or cure diseases. The world would be a much better place if rich people used $450,000,000 on saving 90,000 lives than buying a painting.

As for infrastructure and knowledge (by which you presumably mean education and/or research), I don't see how funding those is incompatible with EA in principle. It's just that these may not be the most cost-effective causes at the moment.

Prolefeed is media and entertainment, goyslop is food. So says Wiktionary, at least. This is the first time I've encountered the latter term.

And has the EU interfered in any of this?

you're right. I changed it to 'gay rights'.

"Gay rights" is vague. What specifically does the EU prohibit, and how does it enforce the prohibition?

It's an example of an edgy policy that would never be allowed by the EU. It illustrates that the allowed diversity is only surface level.

May I ask for a more realistic example? Something that a significant number of people in an EU country might actually support?

Which is exactly what I meant (and said). Your point about protecting local cheeses kind of proves my thesis.

Yes, a trade bloc works to facilitate trade between its members. I am glad we agree. But what does this have to do with protecting cultural diversity?

Finally - why are you doing this?

I am from one of the newer EU member countries, and I don't think the EU is harming my country's traditions and culture. I feel like the EU is being misrepresented here, and I wanted to provide another perspective, lest this forum's mostly American readers get the wrong impression.

While the EU is nominally in favor of cultural diversity, it means they will subsidize folk dresses and bland exhibits with 27 flags. It does not mean they will allow an Eastern European country to be against gay marriage.

A bizarre assertion, given that, according to my count, 13 of the EU's 27 members don't allow gay marriage.

It does not mean they will allow a country to practice eugenics

Eugenics is not part of the traditional culture of any country. The reason it's not implemented anywhere is a lack of popular support; it has nothing to do with the EU.

or protect key industries.

This has moved well beyond preserving culture and into plain economics. The EU does in fact protect traditional products. What the EU doesn't allow is protectionist restrictions that are meant to benefit one country's companies over those of another.

I don't think stable, predictable inflation shifts the balance between creditors and borrowers. Lenders would just increase the nominal interest rate to get the same real interest rate.

The reason economists today support a small, stable rate of inflation is that it keeps money circulating and prevents deflation, which would be disastrous economically.

OK, this is my fault. Hanlon's razor and all that.

The phrase "all the CoCs I've seen" implies I've seen a decent number of them. In fact, at the time of writing that comment, I had only really seen two: the one that was removed from PolyMC (linked in the top comment) and the Wikipedia/Wikimedia "Universal Code of Conduct". Those two just happened to be fairly reasonable (in my view). The W3C CoC you linked below is egregious, and I can see how that sort of CoC could become a culture war battleground.

That, along with the comment by @thrownaway24e89172, answers my original question. My understanding now is that CoCs do not necessarily need to be designed to enforce wokeism, but actually existing CoCs often are. And I suppose a CoC that amounts to "be nice to each other" is kind of pointless, so people who are trying to get a CoC adopted usually have an ulterior motive. The PolyMC CoC still seems innocuous, though.

Voluntas pauci suprema lex.

"The will of the few is the supreme law"? Although, shouldn't that be "paucorum"?

Anyway, I look forward to seeing your comment in the next quality contributions roundup.

No, the IMF isn't mandating trans quotas, if that's what you're implying.