Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
No bio...
User ID: 551
Last week, during the discussion of the Marcellus Williams execution we had a brief aside discussing my belief that the absolutist anti-death penalty stance is evil. That got me to thinking about the topic more and with the spate of executions last week, my social media feeds had a lot of discussion of them. Much of the commentary are sentiments that I find repellant, like this:
rest in power Emmanuel Littlejohn
may your memory drive us to continue fighting for the abolition of the death penalty
To be clear on who Littlejohn was:
On the night of June 19, 1992, a robbery occurred at a convenience store in Oklahoma City, resulting in the death of the store owner, who was gunned down by two robbers.[2]
On that night, at around 10:15 p.m., 31-year-old Kenneth Meers, the owner of the convenience store, was working with two employees, Tony Hulsey and Hulsey's brother, Danny Waldrup. While they were still doing their work, 20-year-old Emmanuel Antonia Littlejohn[a] and 25-year-old Glenn Roy Bethany entered the store and held Meers at gunpoint, with the intention of robbing him.[3]
…
In a separate case, together with William Arnold Penny, Littlejohn was also charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon, two counts of first-degree rape and kidnapping.[9]
To be clear on the arguments for clemency, it seems to be almost entirely based on uncertainty about which man pulled the trigger. This sort of hairsplitting, about who pulled the trigger is the kind of thing that I was referring to in the previous discussion as being about as close to just plain evil as any relatively normal, common policy position could be. Two men walked into a store with no intent other than robbing the owner at gunpoint. One of them shot him in the face. I could not possibly care less who pulled the trigger, they were both responsible and should both hang. I see no plausible moral case to the contrary. Perhaps one adheres to a generalized claim that the state should just never execute anyone, which I still strongly object to, but the idea that the case hinges on who pulled the trigger is either ridiculous or in completely bad faith. The latter possibility brings me to the second example of a post that caught my eye:
I was a witness for Alabama's execution of Alan Miller by nitrogen gas tonight. Again, it did not go as state officials promised. Miller visibly struggled for roughly two minutes, shaking and pulling at his restraints. He then spent the next 5-6 min intermittently gasping for air
Readers will probably immediately spot what I think is in bad faith. Am I to believe that Ms. Gill’s objection to what she saw is that this method of execution is simply too brutal? That if only we could figure out some way to end Alan Miller’s life without suffering, she would agree that it’s appropriate to execute a man that “shot and killed two of his co-workers, 32-year-old Lee Holdbrooks and 28-year-old Christopher Yancy, at a heating and air-conditioning distributor, then drove five miles to a business where he had previously worked and shot and killed his former supervisor, 39-year-old Terry Jarvis”? No, of course not. Nonetheless, I want to treat this, for a moment, as a serious objection on the object-level to make a point in favor of execution that I don’t see made with much frequency.
How do you feel hearing that Miller may have spent five or ten minutes suffering before he died? Some may extend a degree of empathy to the monster on the table that I am not personally capable of, but I feel the same as many of the people replying on Twitter do - Miller deserves much worse than a few minutes gasping for breath. In fact, I’ve sometimes seen people argue that the death penalty is too good for the worst people, that life in prison is a worse penalty. This is presumably because they’re imagining a life in prison that’s filled with brutality, misery, and possibly rape and torture for decades. What this highlights to me is that the death penalty is not the worst punishment that a society can mete out - far from it, a swift execution is a cap on the amount of suffering that the justice system may inflict on someone. Truly, I think people like Dahmer deserve much worse than a simple firing squad, but putting some cap on it is a good way to prevent people from exacting revenge in a dehumanizing fashion.
I don’t really have any coherent argument to piece together here. I’m mostly expressing my frustration with empathy that is so misplaced that it seems like faulty wiring to me. Seriously, a man walks into a store with his buddy, shoots an innocent man in the face, is finally executed decades later, and people say, “rest in power” because it might have been his buddy that shot the innocent man in the face. How can I describe that other than evil? The only miscarriage of justice in the Littlejohn case is that the system allowed him to live for decades when no one even had any follow-up questions about whether he was one of the robbers. Other policies are more consequential, but there are none that I feel more conviction about my opponents being just plain wrong than the question of what to do with men like Littlejohn.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
10mo ago
I watched the Harris speech this morning and wrote down some scattered thoughts. My apologies if any of them don't make sense without having watched, I was just typing a few things up as I watched.
-
Nice outfit - fairly warm while still professional.
-
When she mentioned going to Illinois, there was a small cheer, when she mentioned Wisconsin there was a much larger cheer. No one likes Illinois, not even the people that live there.
-
Talking about the experience of “injustice” is in such bad taste for the child of professors. These are privileged people that found immense opportunity in the United States. I realize that the whole Democrat schtick is playing up how oppressed people of color are, but it’s ridiculous for Harris.
-
The phrase, “I’ve only had one client - the people” is a fantastic way to spin never having held a private sector job. Good speechwriting!
-
The line referring to Trump as an “unserious man” is a good line. Trump’s lack of seriousness is obvious to all but his most ardent supporters. This criticism rings as much more on point than all of the Russia conspiracy and “coup” nonsense ever could.
-
The claim that Trump has an “explicit intent to jail journalists” is just an outright lie.
-
The callback to her earlier line with “the only client he has ever had - himself” is great speechwriting. Banger of a setup and punchline. Much like the lack of seriousness jab, this rings much more true than all of the dark conspiracy stuff.
-
The line that the Department of Education “funds our public schools” is pretty weird. It’s not quite literally false, the DoE does spend ~$20 billion on public school funding, but total American school spending is nearly $1 trillion and the vast majority of it is state and local money. Are people under the impression that school funding is a big thing that DoE does or is it just a bit of rhetoric?
-
Referring to abortion as “decisions of heart and home” is an interesting tactic. Abortion is a huge winning issue for Democrats, but it’s so frequently referred to with euphemisms rather than in the most literal terminology. I’m basically entirely on the same side as Democrats on the issue, which makes it more interesting to me that it tends to come with alternative phrasing rather than just saying what they mean.
-
Shoehorning every issue into “freedom” requires some downright Orwellian twists. Abrogating the constitutional freedom of the right to bear arms is inverted to “freedom to live without gun violence”. A massive regulatory state creating arcane rules for everything from flow of showerheads to the powertrains of vehicles becomes “the freedom to live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis”. I think the framing probably works for people on that side of those issues though.
-
Claiming that the recent Senate border bill was the “strongest in decades” is a lie. HR 2 from 2023 passed the House and was much stronger but was unacceptable to Democrats. I do understand that this one has become an accepted truth among Democrats though, so it probably plays pretty well. Continuing to push this one requires a fully complicit media, but she can safely rely on that.
-
The Israel line is politically palatable, but also pretty hollow. Israel has a right to defend itself, but the Palestinian people will get freedom and self-determination - OK, what’s that look like? As near as I can tell, Palestinian self-determination selects Islamist leaders. Islamist leaders want dead Israelis and the land returned to Palestinians from the river to the sea. You can’t solve this problem if you’re not addressing reality. Someone has to actually lose.
Overall, it was a well-delivered speech that tacks towards the middle on most issues. While I am personally not impressed by teleprompter speeches, her tone and clarity were both quite good. Simply being energetic and eloquent is a good look. If I were a Democrat strategist, I would feel good about the speech and consider it a positive step towards victory.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
6mo ago
I have previously discussed why I think the anti-death penalty stance is not just incorrect, but evil. This morning, I have received news that what I consider the most pro-crime administration of my lifetime has done something that I thought was unthinkable, and has commuted the death penalty sentences of 37 of the 40 federal death row inmates:
The move reduces the sentence for all but three of the 40 inmates on federal death row. Biden said that the commutations are "consistent with the moratorium my Administration has imposed on federal executions," with the exception of terrorism and hate-motivated mass killings.
The three people on the federal execution list who were not on Biden's commutation list are Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing; Robert Bowers, who was convicted of the mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue antisemitic attack; and Dylann Roof, who killed nine Black churchgoers in a racially motivated shooting in South Carolina.
I am, as they say, triggered. For an administration filled with pro-crime sentiments and excuse-making for evil people, this probably tops the charts. I am disgusted by Biden's handlers. Here's the list of federal death row inmates. Absolutely none of the usual reasons for opposing the death penalty even begin to make sense for these guys. People worry about sentencing someone that's wrong accused to death - did they get it wrong in these examples?
Convicted and sentenced to death for the fatal shooting of a security guard during a bank robbery. (Co-defendant of Billie Allen.)
Convicted and sentenced to death for the killing of a federal grand jury witness in a Medicare fraud investigation.+
Convicted and sentenced to death for the killing of a prison guard.
They just somehow accidentally tabbed the wrong guy for murdering a prison guard? Really could have been anyone? Or perhaps you're concerned that it should only be reserved for the worst people, which is why Roof has to go. OK:
Convicted and sentenced to death for the kidnapping resulting in death of a 12-year old girl.
Pled guilty to and sentenced to death for the fatal shootings of two campers on federal land.
Convicted and sentenced to death for involvement in the drug-related killings of a family, including two children. (Co-defendant of Ricardo Sanchez, Jr.)
I'd love to hear the explanation for the parents of that preteen girl why their child's life wasn't every bit as sacred as the victims of Bowers and Roof. Why does he deserve a commutation? Perhaps it's because she was just an individual, so her life doesn't really deserve to be repaid with retributive justice, in contrast to Roof's victims. On an intuitive level, almost everyone knows that Dylann Roof deserves to die and that the only miscarriage of justice will be that it takes decades of fighting with demonic attorneys to get it done. Somehow, a bunch of otherwise decent people have convinced themselves that while Roof is sufficiently evil that he just deserves to die, there are probably a bunch of other death row inmates that don't. I believe this is because they're just not aware of the facts of those cases. Let's look at one of the commuted sentences:
Jurijus Kadamovas (born October 22, 1966) and Iouri Gherman Mikhel (born April 9, 1965) are Soviet-born American serial killers who immigrated to the United States from Lithuania and Russia, respectively. They are currently on federal death row for five kidnappings and murders. The kidnappings occurred over a four-month period beginning in late 2001, in which the kidnappers demanded ransom.[1]
Documents related to the case allege the crew demanded a total of more than $5.5 million from relatives and associates, and received more than $1 million from victim's relatives.[2] Prosecutors said the victims were killed regardless of whether the ransoms were paid. The bodies were tied with weights, and dumped in the New Melones Lake near Yosemite National Park. Federal prosecutors sought the death penalty under murder during a hostage-taking, (18 U.S.C. 1203), a federal crime.[3]
How many people, knowing that information, would say that it's important for the President to spare these guys from execution?
There is no coalition that I have more sincere contempt for than people that spend their lives trying to avoid the execution of men like Kadamovas. There are so many issues where I grant a difference in preferences, values, evaluations of policies, or genuine mistakes. On this one, I am just sincerely angry at everyone that disagrees with me. The Biden administration has done so many things that I disagree with, but most of them still fall into that category of normal political disagreements. Denying the victims of these crimes the only justice that could have been done is evil.
Have we talked about the squirrel? Sigh. Let's talk about the squirrel:
Mark Longo, the owner of the Instagram-famous squirrel, Peanut, is mourning the loss of his beloved pet.
On Nov. 1, Longo took to Instagram to reveal Peanut had been euthanized, along with his pet raccoon named Fred, by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
...
Peanut the squirrel is an internet sensation. He's the beloved pet of digital creator Mark Longo, who would occasionally share Instagram videos of Peanut eating treats, jumping on his clothes and scurrying around his house as he does various tasks throughout the day.
...
In a joint statement, the DEC and the Chemung County Department of Health say they are "coordinating to ensure the protection of public health related to the illegal possession of wild animals that have the potential to carry the rabies virus."
The DEC also notes that it is illegal to keep young wildlife as pets since they are "not well suited for life in captivity. Plus, they may carry diseases that can be given to people."
...
"To test for rabies, both animals were euthanized," they said in a joint statement. "The animals are being tested for rabies and anyone who has been in contact with these animals is strongly encouraged to consult their physician."
This story has been making the rounds on my social media feeds, with commentary, countercommentary, memes, and political implications galore. A few people have wondered why the story resonates, given that it's just a squirrel. For me, it's because of how neatly it ties into other election conversations.
A couple days ago, we were talking about an article on SlateStarCodex and I disputed Scott's framing where he felt the need to say that Democrats can be authoritarian too, even if it's not the normal definition. No, I say, Democrats want arbitrary and petty control over the smallest aspects of your life, things you can't even imagine that someone would care about. In this case, a man had a squirrel living inside his house rather than outside his house. Squirrels, you may be aware, are common animals. Rodents, in general, frequently cohabitate with humans both as pets and pests. For some, it seems only natural that the government has a compelling interest in making sure you have a Squirrel License with proper proof of squirrel maintenance. Failing to license your squirrel is proof positive of outright irresponsibility - what kind of miscreant doesn't even file their squirrel paperwork? For others, this is a great example of how under no circumstances will the government ever leave you alone, even if it's on something as small and irrelevant as whether you're sheltering squirrels under your floorboards. These petty, useless authoritarians are willing to show up without warning, sit you outside your house, and kill your pets because you didn't file for a squirrel license.
When I was young and naturally rebellious, I was a libertarian on strong pro-freedom grounds. As a young professional, I made my peace with the bureaucracy and thought this was an important part of being an adult. As I've aged, my libertarian streak has returned as I've realized just how much I despise our governments.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
4mo ago
St. John's Well Child and Family Center, a network of public health centers in South and Central Los Angeles, cannot access $746,000 remaining from a $1.6 million grant used to provide prevention, testing and treatment for about 500 transgender people at risk of HIV, sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis and hepatitis C.
When I was younger, I had developed pretty libertine attitudes about human sexuality and I still mostly have the same gut feelings, but every now and then, I bump into things that make me think the conservatives have a point. This is roughly $3K per person for STI testing and treatment. Why? Why do these people insist on doing such consistently risky behavior that they need constant STI surveillance? Even being somewhat promiscuous doesn't result in constant infections, the behavior here really just has to be completely outside the range of anything that most people would consider normal. As you note, the other Life Center apparently spends about five times that much per capita, clocking in over $15K per person.
Making everyone else pay for egregiously bad behavior is just galling.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
10mo ago
I have no trouble acknowledging that there are many people that support a bunch of Democrat policies that I don't like much. If, for example, someone just doesn't think they should have to pay their student loans, they're probably going to vote Democrat.
On the flip side, the enthusiasm for Harris is genuinely hard to understand. I accept that the firmware update worked as intended and people really mean it, but it is genuinely puzzling to me what they're seeing that they're excited about. The answer is apparently as simple as the fact that she's 60 and lucid rather than 80 and comatose, which is fine as far as it goes, but doesn't really get me to understanding excitement.
As a bit of an extra point, I think if you'd told me this was how it was going to go down a few years ago, I would have thought a bunch of Democrats would be annoyed that they didn't get a say in picking their candidate. Instead, everyone just happily agreed that they're coconut-pilled now, that they're not going back, and that it's time embrace what can be, unburdened by what has been. That, above all else, is why I can't stop thinking of the situation as embodying the NPC meme. It is very hard for me to believe that people authentically watched some teleprompter speech and thought, "wow, now I can't wait to get out there and campaign"; I don't think it was astroturfed, but I do think that this is almost entirely an exercise in groupthink.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
2mo ago
For people upset about ICE and due process, this coverage is also not your friend. The framings- and the not-very-deep undercurrents that go against the framing- will give a basis to dismiss concern as motivated. The children-in-cage's and child-separation critiques are not going to be forgotten. The fact that not separating children from their deported parents is now a basis of criticism is going to undercut criticims of both. The media's rush to present a concerned father is going to run into discrediting disappointing revelations.
I agree, but what am I to do with that? Based on the "child separation", the "Dreamers", this case's publicity, and the general zeitgeist, it really does seem that the only policy that will actually be accepted by opponents on this is that if you have a child in the United States, you cannot be removed. There is no actual set of proceedings that could satisfy the demand that parents not be separated from their children but also that children cannot be deported with their parents. Any attempt to come up with some narrowly satisfactory resolution that would meet the due process standard that someone came up with approximately 15 minutes ago will slam into some new bad-faith litigation about why of course some deportations are fine, but not this one.
It is increasingly clear to me that getting any resembling what I would consider an appropriate level of deportations will actually just require deciding to be mean in a way that will alienate a significant number of people. My options are not between making a strong legal argument for position or just letting everyone stay, they're between deciding to look mean or just letting everyone stay. If meanness is going to be the actual deciding factor, that's what the decision-making from my side is going to have to be centered on, and I'm perfectly fine with just being mean at this point.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
10mo ago
NPR brutally fact-checked Trump, finding "162 lies and distortions". I am not here to inform you that Trump is a particularly honest man, but this bizarre tic that news outlets have developed of referring to statements of opinion that they disagree with as "lies and distortions" is wildly unhelpful. Let's look at a couple:
59 “The judge was a brilliant judge, and all they do is they play the ref with the judges. But this judge was a fair but brilliant judge.”
There has been lots of criticism of the judge in the case, Aileen Cannon, who Trump appointed. She had very little experience as a trial judge, made several decisions that were questioned by legal experts and early in this case, had a ruling, in which she called for a special master to review classified documents first, overturned by the 11th Circuit.
What the fuck? OK, you think she's not fair and brilliant, fine, I probably even agree with that, but it's just obviously a statement of opinion rather than an appropriate target for some nerd to "fact check".
91 “They wanna stop people from pouring into our country, from places unknown and from countries unknown from countries that nobody ever heard of.”
Someone has likely heard of whatever the unnamed country is.
Wow, thank god for that fact check. Very serious journalism.
135 “I've never seen people get elected by saying we're going to give you a tax increase.”
Vice President Harris has echoed President Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000. However, Biden has called for raising taxes on wealthy individuals and raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% – halfway back to where it was before the 2017 cut. — Scott Horsley
I don't even know what NPR is trying to argue here. Again, perhaps Trump is incorrect in his assessment of the electoral success of promising tax increases, but there isn't some "lie or distortion" there.
153 “She was early, I mean, she was the first of the prosecutors, really, you know, now you see Philadelphia, you see Los Angeles, you see New York, you see various people that are very bad, but she was the first of the bad prosecutors, she was early.”
Although Harris did refer to herself in her 2019 memoir as a “progressive prosecutor,” her legacy has largely been seen as tougher on crime. She has supported some progressive reforms, such as pretrial diversion, which offers certain criminal defendants things like drug treatment instead of going to trial. — Meg Anderson
And on and on and on. These are disagreements, not "lies and distortions". Maybe you think Kamala's great! That she's actually the perfect balance of tough on crime with smart on crime progressivism, that Trump is just too goddamned stupid to understand that, and so on. That's fine! But there isn't a "lie and distortion", there's an actual disagreement.
I'm amazed at just how banal "factchecking" has become. I wouldn't object to this particular piece framed as an argument that Trump is VeryBadActually, but this smug tone intended to reward their readers with the sense that they're hearing serious truths, and that they have precisely calculated 162 lies is incredibly annoying. That figure then gets repeated by figures like Pete Buttigieg as though it's actually a serious empirical measure of dishonesty, furthering the sense that they're the party of facts. Perhaps things have always been this way and I'm just sick of it, but it sure feels like it's getting worse as party apparatchiks try to create an impression of the official truth.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
4mo ago
I am open to the idea that this is actually the best policy given a number of realistic political constraints. This does not move me to find it less galling that I'm stuck paying for people to live degenerate lifestyles. Avoiding HIV is absolutely trivial, but the "community" in question apparently insists on spreading HIV.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
5mo ago
Sometimes, yeah. We tacitly acknowledge this with all punitive justice - we may not be able to make a right, but the best we can do is visible punishment of transgressors.
Additionally tit-for-tat is a better game theoretical strategy than cooperating with a defectbot.
In any case, the situation can't be addressed with cliches, at least not adequately. The response like what @satanistgoblin is expressing above is largely about the complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy of people that have excused all manor of political terrorism in the past (including the recent past, when BLM rioters killed dozens and destroyed billions in property) suddenly deciding that a riot that got out of hand requires tracking down everyone present and charging them under novel interpretations of statute that had never previously occurred to anyone.
I doubt that murders will really have gone up massively with a persistent ban, but I would also expect that alcohol consumption that would diminish sharply with a small on/off switch would be down by less with a long-term, planned, codified ban. Telling people they can't buy something for a few weeks might engender a few oddball workarounds, but it doesn't result in the development of long-term, sustainable institutions of illegal production and distribution (which we see develop with any in-demand black market item).
I do agree that there's a stylized version of American Prohibition where people just accept a simple narrative and engage in some motivated reasoning about how their preferred policy was the right thing in all ways. I'm sure there really were tradeoffs and that some sorts of violence would go down with alcohol bans. Ultimately, I'm against prohibition because I like alcohol and don't like the government, not because I have high confidence that it actually increases violence. I don't think this is a luxury belief in the traditional sense - I am aware that this is probably bad for some people and I don't think I gain any performative social esteem from holding it.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
8mo ago
Squeaking in on the last day with a post that I would personally not categorize as "quality" is kind of interesting. We talked about this before, that certain sorts of highly partisan speech get lots of upvoting and AAQC reports, and I think it's probably not very healthy for the ecosystem. This isn't to say that I think my post is bad or that I don't stand by the position, but I really don't think it's particularly insightful.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
11mo ago
My inclination to be polite to the people spreading histrionic conspiracies about how he's a "threat to democracy" has fallen to zero with this incident. I don't think I have it in me to say much more than, "fucking stop it, you're going to cause a literal civil war with your antics".
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
6mo ago
I'll once again note that various excuses about how a treating physician probably can't really know what things cost ring hollow for anyone with a decent veterinarian. That end of things is admittedly a newish experience for me, but when I take my dog to the vet and he presents treatment options, I can inquire what they cost and his reply is, "about [$X], but I can get the exact number for you if you want". That physicians cannot do this for much narrower ranges of practice indicates an incentive structure for not knowing what things cost.
Lawyers can debate...
I genuinely believe this is the part that triggers so many people to feel the way they do about Luigi. Guys like Brian Thompson make tens of millions of dollars and if anyone has a problem with it, they can get their lawyers to take it up with his lawyers, who will all make a shitload of money arguing with each other, lying for hire and making arguments that no one actually believes and that most laymen can't even understand. I'm surprised that others are surprised that profitable Kafka rituals occasionally trigger rage.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
9mo ago
Someone who has lost their house is less likely to have all their documentation, and getting new copies will take longer than the time before the election.
Less likely, on the margins, sure. But realistically, what things would you grab on your way out the door if there was a catastrophic weather event? Personally, I'd be grabbing my phone, which has my driver's license in the case. Even in the event that my home was wiped out by a catastrophic flood, I would still almost certainly be able to provide the required identification to vote. If anything, this makes me even less sympathetic to the idea that it's actually totally normal and reasonable for legitimate voters to lack identification.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
10mo ago
The biggest sign was how quickly the Trump assassination story died down. The second Biden stepped down, he overwhelmed the media cycle and wiped the slate clean on both sides.
There's a lot of passive voice here! Media outlets consist of actual people that make decisions about things. When we say that the Trump assassination died down, what we mean is that the media doesn't really have much curiosity about the shooter or why he putatively went unnoticed. Likewise, when we say that Biden stepped down and everyone rallied around Kamala, what we mean is that the media stopped being curious about what exactly Nancy Pelosi meant by doing things the "easy way or the hard way" and why it was that no one really mentioned that Biden was plainly senile.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
8mo ago
Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.
I wonder if Bezos intended the layer of Straussian reading that's available here? Perhaps it's just because it's my pet issue, but I remain surprised at how hard it is to get people to agree with me that electoral legibility is an absolutely crucial part of legitimating democracy. It's not enough to have very serious experts tell people that it's the safest and most secure election ever, it must be genuinely hard to imagine how the election could be rigged.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
11mo ago
From that link:
“It’s a gross misuse of the pardon power, and says that Trump is willing to meddle in a process that helped strengthen the rule of law,” said Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney in Alabama during the Obama administration.
These people should really, really, really consider strategically quieting down for a bit. Not to overstate things, but for clarity, when I read this, my thought is "FUCK YOU, YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT MISUSE OF PARDON POWER". Biden capped off his Presidency with an absolutely deranged sets of pardons and commutations for everyone from his family to random "non-violent" criminals to political cronies to the literal worst murderers on federal death row. My impression is that most people on my side of the aisle feel basically the same way, so the histrionics about undermining juries and judges is going to do worse than fall on deaf ears, it's going to highlight just how impossible it is for me to view these people as anything other than enemies. Yeah, I am well aware that it's a tit-for-tat situation, I don't think it's very good, but the caterwauling deepens my resolve in wanting every last one of them released in order to rub the faces of people like Joyce in it.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
11mo ago
I am increasingly sympathetic to the idea that systems too complicated for stupid people are deeply unfair, even if I personally have no trouble understanding and even benefitting from these systems. When we look at something like credit cards, smart people can gain an edge in convenience and even a net profit from gaming the points systems. People in the middle with sufficient executive function will get the convenience benefit without too much trouble. People that either don't really understand what credit is, don't understand how interest works, or lack impulse control will purchase things they can't afford, accumulate more debt with compounding interest, and ruin their lives. In my previous, more callous thinking, I basically thought, "well, tough shit for them, it's not that hard to understand and they should just do better". Observing people's behavior, that's just not true. No matter what they do, they're not capable of understanding how compounding interests works, even if they grasp it during a conversation, that's going to be right out within a couple days.
This also extends to student loans. While I still have antipathy for people that absolutely can grasp what they're signing, it's just obvious that many people really don't understand what they're signing up for and don't understand the basics of financing. We can see people posting stories about how shocked they are that they've already paid the amount they owe, but the principal is still the same. People think "cancellation" is something that can be done without any impact on the other side of the ledger; they have no idea that there even is a ledger, they literally believe that the only reason their debt isn't cancelled is because some people are just mean and hate them.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
2mo ago
I guess I still don't actually understand what your working model is here. Setting aside whether the new legislation would have been good or not for the moment, it seems clear and obvious that there are plenty of statutory reasons for removal or denial of entry that weren't being used. With that fact well established (at least to me), I immediately become very skeptical of anyone that tells me we need new legislation to accomplish something that they're not even trying to do with what's already on the books. So skeptical, in fact, that I tend to think there's an ulterior motive - perhaps there's some poison pill in the law I missed, perhaps they want the optics of saying they did something, perhaps they're shooting for a compromise lock-in that I don't want. From a game theoretic perspective, I would love an off-ramp from this equilibrium, but it's very hard for me to believe that the Defectbot that just did 243 consecutive tats has responded by agreeing to cooperate after only one tit.
I guess our disagreement is about whether the current laws provide statutory reasons for removal or denial of entry?
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
3mo ago
I'll bite that bullet - my opposition to gender transitioning prepubescent children does not hinge on science and I would not be convinced by studies that purported to show that it's actually very good for children. Many questions are good questions to apply the scientific method to and I don't think this is one of them.
The reinsertion of it into the public discourse with the commutation of 37 murderer's sentences makes it of broad public interest in a way that it usually isn't. The details of the action (including the arbitrary selection of three sentences not commuted) reinforces my position that this is actually all quite evil. A decade ago, I would have said that I understand my opponents even if I disagree with them. A couple years ago, I would have still acknowledged that while I disagree, there are points to be made around the level of certainty that should be required. Now, with the pardoning of guys like Kaboni Savage and Iouri Mikhel, I think this is a good time for people that were concerned about executing innocent men to reflect on whether that's actually what we're talking about or whether they've gotten sold a bill of goods by people with very different motivations than their own.
With regard to the anger, I have to grant that I find it genuinely challenging to react to something like this without it. To do so would feel completely hollow to the point of outright dishonesty on my part. I can attempt to have a polite, rational discussion with people, and I think I mostly succeed at doing so even when I'm frustrated or angry. Nonetheless, I don't think I would be doing anyone a service if I pretended that my views on this particular action are just coldly rational, driven by nothing but clear-eyed and consistent deontology. That doesn't seem to me to be a requirement for participating in discourse either; most people would not be affronted by a poster referring to Bashar al Assad as evil, even if they disagree, for example.
There is obviously some venting involved here. Even so, if someone's actual position is that it's good that Kaboni Savage has been pardoned, that Joseph Biden has demonstrated his wisdom and mercy, and that I'm mistaken about the evil being done, there seems like plenty of space to do so. I interpret the disinterest in doing so as less about my failings as a poster and more about how actually indefensible this executive action is.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
9mo ago
I still don't understand how "a Montana voter living in the UK" isn't a scandalous notion in the first place. Why do UK residents need to vote in Montana? You don't live there! It's not your place of residence! I can see exceptions for American military and other foreign service roles, but if you're just an American that voluntarily elected to live in London, I find it baffling that anyone thinks you should be voting for the mayor of Missoula.
Over at Salon, Amanda Marcotte expresses enthusiasm for secret ballots because of concerns that husbands are forcing wives to vote for Trump:
She also thinks it would be good if wives used emotional blackmail to control men's votes:
Oddly enough, there is no mention of the issue posed by absentee ballots. These are the tools by which abusive spouses can use anything from cajoling to emotional abuse to outright violence to dictate the votes of those that reside with them. The only way to make sure this isn't an option is returning to the canonical secret ballot, which is in a voting booth where this is no option to show others who you voted for. Notably, this is a protection against other forms of coercion, such as from employers or caregivers.
Marcotte comes as close as I've seen anyone on the progressive side of things has gotten to acknowledging this problem, but somehow elides the solution to this fundamentally solved problem. Kind of interesting dynamic.
More options
Context Copy link