ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
1hr ago
The right also errs by conflating progressives (as in, the right-in-waiting) and liberals. Part of that is (to borrow another comment) that their TV hasn't gotten over the fact it's not 1989 any more.
The "left" actually does keep boundaries and standards, you just either don't know what they are, don't like how they're justified, or are simply confused by the fact they call them something else (and you need a tool like POSIWID to figure that out).
For example, their criminals are their police- they're policing Racial Injustice, one taxation event (theft) at a time, until the conditions are right for the[ir] government do the stealing with that justification. So is their drug policy- after all, they couldn't help but be someone who gets addicted to drugs, and your broken window and stolen goods are their healthcare policy. Immigration's the same thing; they believe they live in exclaves threatened by the existence of the rest of the [outgroup]/nation, and open borders is the natural Uno Reverse card.
The problem with conservatism (as in, where the right-in-waiting is headed) is that there isn't actually any way to moderate it, because its moral foundations are different and thus demand an infinite contribution to its memes. Liberalism is not like that because it draws its strength from where the memes are wrong, which is why they go back and forth between estabilshment and establishment-in-waiting.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
2hr ago
Once these boomers are gone, I think these silly views will fade away.
I don't believe so. It's just that these silly views will be yours, so you won't see them as silly, and you'll start worshiping Your Experience and insisting others do as well because that'll be the only value you'll have left.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
2hr ago
basing adulthood on brain maturation
Which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
People think this process occurs magically, like some sort of "everyone's born black but they lighten gradually over time, and are granted rights at a specific shade of white", but people who maturity isn't expected of do not mature.
Set the age and expectations at X, and you'll see development delayed to match. The soft bigotry of low expectations is a thing.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
2hr ago
There’s a reason citizens have “equality before the law.”
No they don't; the under-[age] are far less equal, and any attempt to raise that age is simultaneously an attempt to undermine that norm.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
3hr ago
At the limit, the only thing considered high class by a gerontocracy is death, and the forced worship thereof crowds out everything else, including the concept that men should expect to live at all.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
3hr ago
And for bonus points, getting charged as an adult for a crime that can only be committed by a minor.
The system is broken, and the young are too weak to purge it.
Why are we constantly raising the bar and treating adults as children?
Because the gerontocracy has a massive incentive to pull the ladder up behind it. Gerontocrats favor increasing conservatism and fear of... well, life in general[1] so as the balance of power (being a zero-sum game) in society is stretched thinner, it's inevitable that the law protects but does not bind the old while binding but not protecting the young.
It's basically just racism, but for age; complete with the exact same skull-measuring behaviors.
The problem with modern society is a failure to reinvest with "but muh risk" as the excuse, one would expect that to impact its most vulnerable members first, which it has. And this happens all the way up the honor roll, so to speak; as we punish parents who the aged don't judge sufficiently risk-averse for that reason as well.
[1] New advancements that nullify their stores of value for retirement are inherently threatening, so 'just being able to go do things' inherently conflicts with their class interest. Which is exactly what we have seen since the '80s.
we should probably acknowledge that the median case is not the 15-yo getting her breasts removed, but the baby getting circumcised for religious reasons of his parents.
The two are far more similar than I think is commonly realized, because the 15 year old getting her breasts removed is also doing it for reasons that have a lot to do with the dominant civil religion. This is more apparent when the kid's younger, and just like the Christian Right of the '80s, it's always the moms [including teachers, who are just state surrogate moms] pushing the kids into doing it.
It's also why the "consent" argument doesn't work here, since the "but they can't consent" has the same valence as the "don't allow children under the Age of Consent to be exposed to the destructive memes of religion" of the 2010 Atheism Wars. That didn't really get off the ground; it's an argument that's plain unworkable outside of full societal restructuring (and most people have a vague sense it's being made in bad faith), since a parent's worldview inherently influences what their child does. That is ultimately true of the same assertion when applied to kids engaging in transgenderism.
And of course every 10-yo has the ability to kill themselves (without PC), not granted by the SCOTUS but by physics (i.e., God)
Every boy has the physical ability to chop off his own dick, and every girl has the physical ability to bind her breasts.
I think that the bodily integrity of people whom we don't consider to have the ability to fully consent is an important good, and one should not make it too easy for them to get irreversible changes done to their bodies.
If the moral framework around "consent" led directly to a society where transgenderism would be declared sacrosanct, that's pretty clear evidence that this framework has serious and fundamental flaws, and should be either refined or done away with.
Depends on whether you think the mindset behind success at basketball is good or not.
If you don't, you'll say "it's not worth the time/resources to teach these people before it is physically optimal, what about the risk of injury to self or others?". If your social position is threatened by people better able to play this game, you will generally be in this camp. This is the "conservative" position.
If you do, you'll likely be in favor of encouraging young people to play basketball, and you accept the fact that some of them will play poorly, break bones, etc. If your social position is not threatened by people better able to play this game, you will generally be in this camp. This is the "liberal" position.
More options
Context Copy link