guajalote
2mo ago
When people refer to the "woke right" they're referring to right-wing people who behave like woke people in the sense that they try to censor, cancel, and thought-police those who disagree with them. They aren't saying the woke right is politically woke, they're saying they use the same illiberal tactics as the woke.
guajalote
3mo ago
It should not be legal to shoot someone on the subway except to defend against deadly force. But the deterrent effect of guns extends beyond these situations. People have broad incentives to respect others' boundaries when it's unclear who has a gun and under what circumstances they might be willing to use it. I never carry a gun, but I look like I could be carrying one, and that by itself changes the way people treat me and others in public.
I can't conclusively prove causation, but the observable correlations are so strong it should at least give you pause to consider they might be causal.
guajalote
8mo ago
I think he is making an argument. It's a bad argument in my view, but it's an argument accompanied by some sort of reasoning. Not going to win a quality contribution award, but not in violation of the rules either IMO. He is inviting a discussion and responding.
guajalote
11mo ago
I don't think it is, nor should be, against the rules to merely argue in favor of an opinion one does not sincerely hold. If the poster breaks the rules in other ways, that's a different story, but I think it's fine and even valuable for people to be allowed to play devil's advocate.
guajalote
11mo ago
What difference does it make? We should be evaluating the argument, not the person making it. The sincerity of the person making the argument doesn't change the validity of the argument.
guajalote
11mo ago
The sketch was in reference to Bush, and what made the joke funny was the fact that everyone could tell Moore was not actually joking.
guajalote
3mo ago
I have to disagree with the premise that too much liberalism created the problem. The solution is more liberalism: legalize gun ownership and deregulate housing. This approach has proven itself effective in the real world, it doesn't cost anything, and it doesn't require an authoritarian state.
guajalote
5mo ago
Banning all travel to and from places millions of Americans visit each year would be costly to the economy so while it might be cheaper for the government it would surely be more expensive for the country. Also, I want freedom to travel where I please. We shouldn't impose travel bans that aren't actually necessary.
guajalote
8mo ago
The government regularly ignores well-documented violations of the law, particularly where those violations are non-violent (e.g. speeding, immigration, drugs). Given that the government doesn't have the ability to enforce all the laws all the time, it makes sense to deliberately ignore inconsequential violations and focus on consequential ones.
guajalote
8mo ago
It "makes sense" from the government's perspective to do what you're describing. It "makes sense" from society's perspective to do what I'm describing.
guajalote
9mo ago
Yes, there is a line where prohibition makes sense, but I don't think any human society comes close to crossing that line when it comes to alcohol. This is especially true given that alcohol has proven its ability to coexist alongside the development of advanced human societies over the course of several millennia.
Regardless, I am not aware of a real-world situation where a federal judge has been consistently "wrong" while otherwise doing his job (i.e. showing up for hearings and issuing orders in a timely fashion). For example, a federal district judge ignoring a direct order from the circuit court would be shocking. Perhaps some examples of this exist, but I am not aware of any, and presumably it would be grounds for disciplinary proceedings.
guajalote
5mo ago
If you're going to invest in the stock market, put the money in an index fund as suggested. I've been making around 10% annual returns doing this. You're not going to beat the market making risky bets because you don't have better information than the market. Trying to pick stocks is just gambling.
If you are truly dead set on out-performing index funds, then you need to invest in something that you have more direct control over, like a business you own or a property you manage.
guajalote
8mo ago
The squirrel only bit the guy after they entered the house and tried to take the squirrel, which should have never happened to begin with.
guajalote
11mo ago
Humans don't behave what way? They don't make false statements and/or invalid arguments in support of positions they sincerely hold?
guajalote
11mo ago
this is only true if the argument includes no personal observations or other claims that might be false.
A person arguing for a claim they genuinely believe in is at least equally capable of (if not more capable of) making up false anecdotes, or exaggerating true ones. In general, personal anecdotes should get very little weight as evidence of anything.
If you're an actual human, you don't want to bother with someone who's likely to make a lot of invalid arguments
A person arguing for a position they truly believe is at least equally (if not more) likely to make invalid arguments, due to blind spots or confirmation bias or a simple desire to win the argument.
guajalote
7mo ago
I am not sure whether they are more social and more into strategic networking, but certainly the benefits of socializing and networking are greater because elites have more resources and power at their disposal.
guajalote
7mo ago
You can make this argument about anything. Many men would prefer an educated wife, therefore they would benefit from society shaming women who choose not to pursue an education. Does that mean women who do not pursue an education are "cheating the social contract?"
The places in the US with high rates of homelessness (e.g. San Francisco) are places with restrictive gun laws and restrictive housing and building regulations. The places with liberal gun laws and liberal housing regulations have low rates of homelessness. It's very consistent.
Houston's housing first policies are good, but they only work because the baseline rate of homelessness is already extremely low. This is mostly due to cheap housing. When the lowest tiers of housing are so affordable that someone with drug and mental health problems can afford to live there, you end up with far fewer homeless people. You also avoid negative feedback loops where, once someone becomes homeless, their lives tend to spiral and their issues get worse. When housing is attainable for even the lowest income people, it provides a sort of "ladder" people can climb to get their lives in order.
Also, just to clarify, I am not arguing that liberal gun laws reduce homelessness. I'm arguing they make homeless people far less likely to hassle or assault people because you never know who's packing heat. For example, you will see some homeless people on public transit in Houston, but I have literally never seen one approach other riders to ask for money, make a bunch of noise, or threaten anyone, all of which are common behaviors in other cities.
guajalote
3mo ago
Houston's homelessness rate is about 30 per 100K. Denmark's homelessness rate is about 112 per 100K.
guajalote
8mo ago
I completely agree. Laws ultimately rest on the threat of violence and there should be as few of them as possible.
guajalote
11mo ago
It's free speech even if he's not joking. The whole point of free speech is to protect reprehensible speech. Inoffensive speech needs no protections.
I have no problem with people becoming addicted to drugs and other substances. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I have no problem with it because it's none of my business how they choose to live their lives.
More options
Context Copy link