coffee_enjoyer
☕️
No bio...
User ID: 541
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
I find the position strange because cursory research shows a clear over-representation of Jews in key areas of society, yet you have Jewish advocacy groups whose aim seems to be to replace any thought of this with the propaganda that “white people” are over-represented, which most people do not interpret as “mostly Jews”. The sheer chutzpah of this group to go after rappers because they “spoke truth to power” inarticulately is staggering, because their crime is not misinformation — saying it about white would get a pat on the back —but naming a group a little too accurately. Since when do we expect rappers to be articulate, anyway? When Lebron James, king of the first page of books, says that every day black people are hunted by white people, was he called out or was he praised?
So I think this is the strange place of “organized activist jewry”, or whatever you want to call the alliance of Jewish-identifying advocacy groups and journalists. You have a wealthy, influential cabal, united by a belief in the superiority of their bloodline, and they’re pushing a little too much and the curtain is started to tear. While of course I hope that every Jewish life is safe in America, the blacklash seems utterly natural, and I’m not going to catastrophize the words they pick when they speak truth to power. As organized Jewry is pretty much against my interests, I hope awareness continues to spread, and this awareness will of course be deemed anti-Semitic.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
I’m not sure if “genocide is fundamentally unsolvable” cuts it. Were we to ask the Tutsi what moral demands they have, one of them would surely be the reinstantiation of their past political influence. And so a model that de-prioritizes births as a metric of power is already better justice than the democracy model. We note that the Tutsi as a cohort were harmed, that they are a group whose power was unjustly cut, and we address that harm against the cohort. This is already moral progress!
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
I think these people truly are suffering but do not have the vocabulary or introspection to determine the cause. My relative would have you believe that every bad emotion they felt from 2016 to 2021 was caused by Donald Trump, and since 2022 the cause is Vladimir Putin. Most of his complaining is about these two. But I know him and I know that he’s actually upset about aging, a feeling of lack of control, and a decayed sense of community. These external events become symbols of internal disruptions.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
Does anyone know the the vitamin c content of boiled vegetable water? All the studies I find are focusing on the content of the vegetables post-boil, as opposed to the content in the boiled water.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
I do not want humanity to become a dystopian baby- making competition. And I see no reason why births or babies should have anything to do with political power. And so I get to argue against it because I think it’s a bad philosophy. And you get to moan about my arguing against it.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
Your entire argument presupposes fecund privilege, whereas I’m arguing against it. You are saying “they are blamed for not having children, which is how I measure political power in democracy”. I am saying that it’s a poor and capricious measure of political power that doesn’t satisfyingly answer moral concerns. So, yes, we could blame them, if we wanted. Or we could not, and instead consider a better way to disperse political power. Democracy is not some ingrained facet of human nature, like genetic and behavioral legacy.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
Democratic ideology already acknowledges that, were a power to take the property of a citizen without good reason, it would constitute oppression. I’m arguing that fecund privilege is arbitrary because it reduces the power of cohorts of citizens, whether we’re looking at cultural or genetic cohorts etc. It is arbitrary because it reduces the power of a cohort for something out of their control —in some cases the antisocial actions of others — and which has no bearing on the functioning of the polity (the number of children of others). As the examples have shown, a cohort that does all of the right things will have their power arbitrarily reduced.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary
As my claim is that children are connected to their parents in identity (well-acknowledged across domains, and even in progressive ideology), a grandchild shares in the oppression of their grandfather just like a Tutsi in the fallout of genocide. If a Tutsi has to live under a society governed by Hutu because they committed genocide against his grandfather’s generation, that Tutsi is oppressed. Also, my argument answers why your grandfather would be oppressed: “there are strong trends of political interest by demographics and families,” and “shared values and behaviors”. His influence over the polity is reduced in a Democracy-filled polity, even if you vote totally different.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
“Be the change you want to see in the world” is not the right fit for the discussion of politics and culture. People debate these things to determine the truth and the right path forward. It’s pretty important to have the right outlook on life, is it not? And the whole concept of a forum is predicated on the value of persuasion. Like, you can easily criticize several millennia of theology and philosophy with this kind of idea.
What’s more, some sort of Malthusian breeding competition would be a tragedy for the entire world and completely ignores that pollution/resources/etc are a factor of population. If it is the case that overpopulation is a problem, “stop thinking and knock up baddies” is poor advice that runs into serious problems longterm.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
If I arbitrarily take thousands of dollars from someone and their family, and they have no recourse, it would be an oppressive action and they would be said to suffer from oppression. If I arbitrarily take their property, it would be oppression. And so this same idea of oppression is merely extended, to something more important than money or property, which is the ability for people to fairly and justly have influence over political matters and the future of their community.
Pro-choice voters would be oppressed if pro-life voters had extra points allotted to their vote. And fecundity places extra points on groups and “kinds of people” capriciously.
My values are almost certainly different than those of my grandfather
Granted, but there are strong trends of political interest by demographics and families, and so while in your case you “accidentally” happen to be unaffected, that doesn’t mean others aren’t negatively affected. There are also other ways in which your influence is reduced — not at all the polls but still in the polis. If you have to transfer your resources to others with worse values and behaviors, or your children attend a school in which worse students negatively affect your children, or you have to pay more for policing. Now I suppose we can construe these things to also be political opinions (“I am pro all welfare and redistribution”), but it takes the bite out of the moral claims underlying these things, and then it’s the question of “is a slave who loves his slavery really a slave?”
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
Re 1, my sentence was unclear — the first moral concern is “creating healthier/better humans versus abundant humans”, a concern of many wealthy westerners, and the second moral concern in the sentence is just that fecund people get privileged legacy, influence, and control in democracy. Re 2, this concern over downstream consequences of fecund privilege has no way of being expressed with the dogmas of democratic ideology, I argue (I see no evidence the concern can be expressed). 3, being stripped of your influence for capricious reasons is itself oppression.
Per 4, they need not be identical to qualify as oppressed — it is sufficient that they share in culture, behaviors, habits, and/or genes which all children and parents have in common to some significant degree. And indeed, the parents are oppressed for having their legacy reduced in influence.
Fecund privilege and the oppression of those who do everything right
Democratic and progressive ideology assume that each person ought to be valued the same in equations of political power. Representatives are allotted according to the number of inhabitants, presidential elections are dictated by the popular vote of states, and equity calculations are informed by population percentages. The infrastructure of our popular ideology is undergirded by a strange and rather aged idea, that each individual magically gets the same political points of influence at birth, regardless of any greater social concern. Yet this way of thinking breaks down when real world social justice claims are considered.
Imagine a situation like the Rwandan Civil War, where the Tutsi minority were killed en masse by the Hutu and their population significantly reduced. It is not morally sufficient to compensate the families who lost loved ones and to punish individual actors. The loss in political power of the Tutsi demands justice, because their reduction in population along with their impoverishment leads to a real loss of political power. Ignoring the specific details of the actual Rwandan events and political system (for example’s sake), in a basic model of democracy the Tutsi could have their future completely controlled by their genociders forever, because the political power lost due to reduced population/fertility is not compensated. The Tutsi would have a legitimate moral claim to re-exert their old political power, and yet our old “magic value” way of thinking about democracy contains none of the complexity necessary to make sense of the Tutsi claim. Adherents can only glue the justice together with ad hoc formulations, perhaps implementing a regional governance system or property compensation system or something other thing which avoids the real substance of the claim. This proves that there are moral considerations involving democratic power that are not adequately addressed by fecund privileged ideology.
For a second thought experiment, imagine two regions of a nation with different cultural values and interests. As chance would have it, a neighboring country invades one region and a defense is launched, and the invaded region valiantly defends the whole of the nation from the invaders. As a consequence their population is halved. The region behaved perfectly and sacrificed itself for the whole of the nation is now the one who might forever lose its past political influence. Does the “sacrificing” region have a moral claim that their loss of political power should be compensated in some form? If they do not, then the basis of our political system appears capricious and superstitious. A constituency of a nation can do all the right things and be harmed from it, or can be harmed from chance. And this for reason other than the idea that the number of current human lives is somehow inexplicably valued over every greater concern, despite this number being essentially governed by chance and historically untied to production or any good.
Perhaps one last example. Within a tribe of 400 humans, 100 of them decide to spend more time working for the good of society, spending more hours raising up two great children versus their neighbors who have 8 and spend little time with them. Within the current fecund privileged system of democracy, the tribesmen who are putting in effort to make the whole of society better by raising better children wind up worse off than their less-caring neighbors, who inherit more of the tribe, whose families increase in influence, and who proliferate their habits and genes. (Remember that humans are living organisms governed by concerns of gene proliferation as much as a fruit fly or gorilla, and it makes no sense to pretend it isn’t so, but even without genes, we can see how worse habits are proliferated). The tribesmen who make the better decision are punished in influence.
To hit home on my bolded assertion above: A constituency of a nation can do all the right things and be harmed from it, or can be harmed from chance. Our society, implicitly and explicitly, discourages high fecundity among those who do absolutely everything right. Our best and most obedient citizens are pressured toward paths that make fecundity difficult, and are propagandized to actually place a ceiling on their number of progeny. They are told that overpopulation is a problem and they incorporate that idea into their future family plans. They are doing everything right and their ancestors will be punished for it, with reduced political power due to the capricious notion of fecund privilege. Their cultural, behavioral, and genetic legacy is irrevocably worsened for making the right choices.
The children of our best doctors will have their power dwarfed by the children of a random 7/11 attendant who happens to be a Salafist, or a Hasidic person who abuses tax schemes to study only his holy book, or an Amish farmer who contributes little to the polity, or the migrants of a random Nigerian that chose children over more prosocial concerns. The legitimate moral concerns of our best citizens have no way to be expressed through the decrepit ideology of “magical political power allotment” and “fecund privilege”. The result is that the descendants, constituency, culture, genes etc of our best and brightest are oppressed by those who simply ignored the greater moral concerns and popped out more babies.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
Personally I would just try to buy fentanyl.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
The same is true of Hungary, which is why there has been anti-Hungarian sentiment since Orban. It is only true for half of Brazil, hence the anti-Bolsonaro stuff. It is not true of the Philippines
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
Russia’s proximity to Germany is a geopolitical risk for American hegemony, but also, identity politics increased post-2008, and see Raskin’s recent statement for all the regressive sins Russia is guilty of. Russia is white and Christian, which makes them an easy target for those whose ideology is essentially against white Christian organization
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
Hypocrisy is only problematic if the person claims that they themselves adhere perfectly to the moral guidelines. Promoting morality while also falling short of the ideal is not bad, and in fact it is better than the alternative of not promoting morality. This idea is found in the gospel, where Jesus’ first disciples all fall short of the ideal, and where a repentant sinner is seen as more just by God than an otherwise righteous man who looks down on others who fall short.
Indeed, the name of the Statue of Liberty is “liberty enlightening the world”, and faces outward, to teach other nations the values of America. Lazarus was a Zionist whose family owned slaves, and also a bad poet, so she really should not have a privileged position in dictating American sentiments about immigrants. What’s more, in the inauguration ceremony of the statue, it is repeatedly mentioned that immigrants ought to be of high moral character to be allowed in.
As you write, America was a country of Europeans founding their own European societies within America. This is not what is commonly understood as immigration, but colonizing. Japan did not emigrate to Okinawa, they colonized it. When there is a direct continuation from your homeland to your new home, and you divide almost completely your life from the natives, that is obviously settler colonialism. We talk about Greek colonies and settlements in history, not Greek “immigration”.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
Well if you’re a girl, wouldn’t you want to talk to someone interesting, fun, funny, the slightest mysterious, and emotionally strong/mature etc? And you wouldn’t want to convey that you’re boring, not fun, have no humor, and are all around someone that a girl wouldn’t want to be around because he doesn’t make her life more enjoyable. Of course this would only work if you’re following the important advice of “be attractive”.
So to procure a date, perhaps think in terms of expressing the most interesting, fun, and good-humored side of you.
I did not mean in that way, and apologies. I appreciate the allusions that prove your authenticity. I think everyone would love an OP post about your experiences about the conflict some day!
edit also, your English is very good. You just miss a couple small native phrases. The small phrases made me think you were not native speaker, hence “unnatural”, but otherwise your English is perfect.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
Those anti nutrients absolutely reduce the absorption of nutrients, sometimes by 50% or more, but the foods that have them usually contain more of the nutrients anyway. Eating potatoes and spinach is still better than many alternatives. Vitamin C, garlic, and fermentation will enhance absorption. The only ones that substantively decrease absorption I think are some legumes that aren’t fermented or washed but don’t quote me on that.
Phosphoric acid and acidic foods leech calcium from the bones and are associated with worse bone health, and bone health is associated with things you wouldn’t think, like flight or fight reactions.
You probably only want calcium from natural sources because high artificial calcium intake may hurt your cardiovascular health, eg “Lactose and calcium in conjunction with homocysteine from consumption of non-fat milk may also contribute to calcification of the arteries (Grant 1998)”. Notably, you want a calcium to magnesium ratio of around 1.6 to 2.0. High calcium in one sitting cannot be absorbed well, this is more than 400mg in an hour.
Fluoride negates the conversation of nitrates in vegetables into nitric oxide, which only occurs on the tongue. Studies have found mouthwash also to negate this conversion. This harms BP and general cardiovascular health. The amount in toothpaste would not have an effect.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
But Person A responding to Person B’s narrow claims is only grounds for fruitful discussion if C and D are allowed to chime with alternative or more refined arguments. Otherwise we’re all just passive spectators to the framing of A’s arguments in regards to B’s initial argument. Although maybe there’s a solution in allowing OP’s to specify required assumptions for participation in their post, and then C and D can make new posts instead of commenting underneath.
It was not a coup attempt, because (1) nearly all of them own weapons at home and consciously chose not bring them in the capital, (2) nearly all of them left on their own accord, (3) there was no meaningful action attempted which would conceivably lead to an election not being certified within the relevant time span.
I am bewildered at this idea that the protest was a coup. I know that this has been the DNCs chief messaging about the event. Why wouldn’t the same logic apply to BLM which demanded the end of policing, tried to blind police with lasers, firebombed a precinct etc? That is a coup of the existing powers that led to serious harm.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
I don’t find the judge’s reasoning persuasive, but I’m also not familiar with the laws that bind the hands of city officials. You can have a legitimate public health interest in vaccination, while having an overriding “sum total good” interest in keeping athletes and others in your city (who bring in money, which in turn increases sum total health via taxation, and other aids in other interests). An obvious example of such a rule is speed limits. We can save more lives on the road by making everyone drive 10mph, but the increased efficiency of 60mph actually saves lives in the end. Similarly, the counterbalancing interest of retaining unvaccinated city employees engaged in an appeal is so that those with a legitimate reasoned grievance can argue their case; this is a safeguard against negative consequences if it turns out the ruling is wrong, sort of like postponing an execution sentence during an appeal.
So from a simply rational perspective, I’m not persuaded with the Judge’s snippet. I do however find the vaccine mandate to be utterly irrational, given the sheer novelty of mRNA lipid nanoparticle injections. Rationally, it’s a good idea to not have the entire population take a novel and questionable injection that has not been tested long term. Especially when we know that COVID has such a low mortality rate in young people. Like, 40 year olds developing fatal heart issues because of consequences of this new injection is not at all impossible. They essentially gambled all of western civilization (life itself for the vaccinated) on the theoretical beliefs of some scientists who mostly studied cancer patients (no long term trial) and mice (very limited trials) and who had a strong motive to push their product. This is just dumb. This is as dumb as editing coronaviruses in a lab to make them more lethal. It is utter hubris given the history of humanity’s propensity for getting things wrong (cigarettes good, bottle milk for babies good, roundup good, prions in uk cattle, etc)
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
Has there been any similar case in the past decade where so many peaceful protestors were hunted down by the FBI in the hundreds (aiming for virtually 100% of people who entered a building)? If not, this demonstrates that the class of people involved in the protest are being treated especially harshly. We’re talking about people who entered into the foyer of a building (BLM in some cases blocked necessary infrastructure). We can’t do an apples to apples comparison when the FBI has uniquely labeled an entire orchard bad apples, ignoring bad apples in other orchards.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2yr ago
Is there any theory for why sophisticated European societies all developed alongside opulently wealthy families? It seems counterintuitive as you’d expect the society that opted for less “vanity waste” would dominate any with a family that owned huge estates and castles etc. is there some reason for why, in history, the countries with opulent royal families performed better? Does “place enormous abundant wealth into this one avaricious family” counterintuitively promote something that helps the whole society?
Hah, I think there is certainly reason for Jews to be proud of their ancestry and group accomplishments. But the way that the religion of Judaism codifies this superiority, in combination with activism, is a somewhat toxic combination.
More options
Context Copy link