justmotteingaround
No bio...
User ID: 2002
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Threats to our community aside
Are we going to move to an onion site now that the VP candidate made a 5 second vague reference to a writer whose comment section inspired this forum?
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
please engage with the substance instead of doing so with mockery.
Fair. As I've said here a few times, I loath safteyism. I find the hypothetical threat scenario so implausible that mentioning it screams of a persecution complex. I should have engaged more substantively.
I was against the move from reddit. I actually never saw a full explanation of why that was necessary. I recall a discussion of "((( )))" use trigging and auto-admin response). Iirc zorba said a full explanation would be forthcoming, but I missed it. I could be misremembering and no explanation was offered, but I remain open to one. That said, I thought having a backup motte was a good idea.
I've read the Skrmetti case and the amicus brief, and I really hope the petitioners fail.
That said, I'd bet money that the amicus brief (an inherently one sided argument) is broadly accurate in its claims, and is far closer to ground truth that the current US medical consensus. IMO the APA, AMA, and WPATH are completely out to lunch with regard to gender care, peddling harmful anti-science bullshit. I think trans insanity is waning slowly but surely, but the remedies proposed in Skrmetti set a precedent I don't like on principle. And principles are occasionally bitter pills to swallow, otherwise they're not principles.
If Skrmetti prevails (and I think it will), the effect will be a long standing precedent in case law that legislatures can eschew a medical consensus. Science will be decided in the courtroom; then the legislature. Granted, I think the US scientific consensus is wrong in this case, but I'm hewing to my principles, which sucks big fat amputated cock in this case. I want doctors, not legislators, to determine medical care. I don't want legislators deciding if mifepristone is safe, if my doctor/psychiatrist can prescribe me therapeutic ketamine, testosterone, MDMA, a lethal dose of whatever if I'm terminal, etc.
I loath safteyism, and won't clutch my pears and "think of the children" because other avenues of justice are available, namely torts. Suing doctors for negligence will change medical standards without opening a wider door permanent legislative intrusion. Torts have worked before. Anyone remember when fake tits were (erroneously, in retrospect) deemed unsafe for a period in the 90's? (In re Dow Corning Corp, 1996).
justmotteingaround
4mo ago
Whatever role you thought licensing boards were doing, they're not doing that.
Hey now, I'm sure plenty of people here hated occupational licensing before it was cool. The Institute for Justice has been suing some of the more absurd boards around the country for 15 years, but its still common for a cosmetology license to require 1500 hours of training vs 300 for an EMT. Louisiana famously had an onerous flower arrangement license, scaled back since 2010ish. Not until 2020 did Florida scale back its ~1000hour license for interior residential decorating. There was a country-wide movement to pare back licenses for braiding hair. The ring cam anecdote is new to me.
The Gist recently had an interview with a journalist looking into occupational licensing. Might be the same author you referenced. They got into the weeds about how doctors who become drug addicted, drug peddlers, or do some patient related sex crimes maintain there licenses, often going to work in prison jails when nobody else will hire them.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
“If you drive [Gaza’s civilians] into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat.”
Lloyd Austin, December 2023. Whatever you think of him, that's pretty much what happened.
"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
Golda Meir, 1973. Whatever you think of her, that's pretty much why Israel felt it necessary to 'drive civilians into the arms of the enemy'.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Thats why having principles sucks. It will be an improvement in this one case. But the expansion of legislative caprice can be broadly interpreted for a long time. There are equally useful alternative toys of power to exact justice. Torts maintain a comparatively narrower scope, and stay within the realm of liability.
justmotteingaround
11mo ago
So, like, the worst part about Humbert-Humbert is that he he didn't intend to marry Lolita?
I don't think "feminist notions of consent" have anything to do with protecting minors from their own voluntary decisions. The legal basis is cognitive. 12 year olds can't legally quit school, buy legal drugs, leave home, sign contracts, etc. But this is not because of feminism.
Would you be okay with a 19 year old having sex with an 11 year old? An 8 year old? And so on...Provided they intended to marry?
Its an interesting perspective, but I see some small potential for abuse.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Of course the sexes are unequal. This is undeniable. But I have yet to hear any argument why basic rights should differ. What is being proposed here is an anathema to classical liberalism. Sure, people are free to debate the cultural inequality of agency or roles between men an women, so long as they're treated equally under the law. If it wants to fit into classically liberalism, the individual takes precedent over group based rights.
Women demonstrate more agency than men when it comes to getting romance or finance scammed, abusing drugs and alcohol, or murdering people. Of course, it doesn't follow that we should take the vote away form men, or consider them children. Men are full adults, and are responsible for their choices. So is Pavlovich.
justmotteingaround
11mo ago
In spite of book like 'Weapons of Math Destruction', books like Criminal (In)Justice still get published. The former presents plausible arguments for algorithmic bias, the other presents data about who commits crime and where. Black crime has been a supposedly awkward talking point since the 1970's. Jesse Jackson's comments marked a turning point in political honesty, but Sowell was happily publishing Black Rednecks and White Liberals not long after (which I found quite convincing). All of this stuff can and has been said. It's not some secret knowledge.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Indeed. To take an easy case, I have to constantly admonish secular people have to such empathy and magnanimity towards religious people. Many secular people consider religious folk mentally diseased and morally defective. This is not meant to be insulting. I just take ethics seriously. It would be easy for me decide that all religious people are intellectually and morally deranged; a lost cause. They routinely claim certainty about something I know they are not certain. Almost always they were indoctrinated about what to believe, and then not to question it. Case closed, right?
But that's not the whole story. I know that religion does so much good for so many people. I know what spiritual yearning and salvation feels like. Order. Comfort. Community. Humility that this world is much bigger than we can even begin to understand. To realize that the purpose life - no matter who is controlling it - is to love whoever is around to be loved. To realize that one friend is all one needs in order to be well supplied with friendship. Imaginary friends should count, too.
So yeah, I think being religious means something is mentally wrong with you. But don't let what I have written tell on me. I - the author of this post - actually, sincerely, earnestly, unsarcastically and unironically, have empathy for religious people.
But this isn't about religion.
This is about empathy. Not pity. Not sympathy. And certainly not about condoning actions one finds immoral. Empathy isn't best derived from an analogous personal experience. Thoughts can overcome emotion. As a straight guy, I too find depictions of men blowing and butt fucking one another to be inherently gross. According to John Haidt, this is fairly normal as when some straight men are show such images, areas in brain related to disgust become active. However, I have the analogous feelings of love and lust to fall back on. When a gay person says "I want that too" my emotions are easily overcome. When it comes to trans related issues I'm more at a loss. I have hated myself in one way or another, but never in a way that altering my outward appearance would be useful. I'm quite open to experience, so when a trans person tells me they want to be trans on their own time, I have to felt sense or moral or ethical implication, and am willing to make reasonable accommodations in kind. However, when trans activists make a religion out of woke, I can delineate what and is or is not a reasonable accommodation in kind. Importantly, I can still have empathy for the terminally woke. It probably is genuinely distressing to think the Cass Report is bigoted pseudoscience, or that there is some sort of trans genocide, as is often hysterically claimed. Empathy has a role to play in destroying bad ideas.
justmotteingaround
11mo ago
I also found Trump's interview with Logan Paul quite humanizing and worth a watch. It made him look normal and sane compared to his usual public behavior. Granted, these are both very low stakes situations, but he rarely shows or grants access the normal side of himself. Perhaps his campaign is trying to clinch moderates. His brash, equivocal, and uncompromising rhetoric was often touted as his genius. Was he serious, or literal? Who cares? Hes Trump! But I think his base can still count on that, so his rhetorical style has been normalized.
One thing I never understood about TDS is how little attention is paid to the other side of the coin. In answer to a question nobody asked is a paragraph pointing out Trump's golfing bonafides, admonishing all who doubt as deranged. Trump is the most fervently worshiped US politician in my lifetime; the only political lifestyle brand I've ever known. He'll call your wife is ugly to your face, and then you'll stump for Trump as expected. With how little this even gets noticed anymore, I think TDS has become normalized.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Worst. Deal. Ever.
The US gets: blowback, military escalation, and debt. The US receives: sand. Id rather they send a blank check and let Israel take all the flack.
Islamic terrorists have told the US for decades that the primary reasons for 9/11 and other attacks was US support of Israel, AND military boots on the ground in "Muslim lands". This comes from a straightforward reading of the Quran/Hadiths as understood by hundreds of millions. They sincerely believe that the creator of the universe wants them to dedicate their lives to killing US troops in Muslim unless they pay the jizya and "live in humiliation".
Saudi Wahhabists found Bin Laden so extreme on this issue (as they has made deals with the US gov't) and basically sent him to Afghanistan, where he was armed by the US and famously praised a freedom fighter.
Israel is doing pretty well. They're far from dire straits. The US should be hands off as possible. Financial support is quite tolerable as it goes to a small, stable democratic ally in a hostile region.
justmotteingaround
11mo ago
Just posting "despite..." in the right context is a meme. Yglesias said "This precrime paper is kind of wild". Thinking this implies he had no idea about the demographics of crime is kind of wild. Google trends seems to indicate that since 2004 "black on black crime" is about a common a trend as the highly secret sport of "pingpong". Just searching "black crime", it's about a common as searching for "Ethiopian food". (Random aside: I like spicy indian food, and Ethiopian food is like a cousin, which I also like. They frequently offer a spiced raw beef dish (kitfo). Veggies are good, sometimes too oily. All dishes pair well with beer).
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
I'm very happy about the direction and I hope it represents a sea change. However, I have strong reservations in this case specifically. He was recently hand-picked to rejigger the government, ostensibly on behalf on the American people. This past summer he tweeted "Normalize Indian hate", and "I was racist before it was cool." At best, this belies his immaturity. He already had a job at SpaceX, and he now has the sympathies of the richest man on the planet. He wasn't cut out for public service, and he'll be fine.
Vance said "I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life". I totally agree, but Vance is being your typical disingenuous politician. Either Musk is hiring kids to oversee the government, or this guy isn't a kid.
In principle, I'm against this specific re-hiring because I think he earned his firing more earnestly than he earned his hiring. It would have been better to issue an apology and do nothing. In practice, I'm just hopeful that more sympathetic cases become the norm. The left will continue to eat their own for some time, so this is a competitive advantage on the right. And the right is probably closer to a humanistic, empathetic understanding of people on this issue. My point is that it has limits.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Thanks! That fleshes out my memory, but I'm still lost as to what the mods knew regarding the need to move. Was it "safteyism"? Did they say 'we wont elaborate further at this time' or am I hallucinating that?
I'm interested in that because at the time I thought the move could be plausible, but was leaning paranoic. However, there is a lot I didn't know as a casual reader. I'm trying to put context around OPs claim that JD Vance allusion to a Scott Alexander article threatens the motte. Is this a pattern of persecutorial complexion, or am I off my rocker.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
In 2017 Oren Cass published an a great article on the problem of "policy based evidence making" in my favorite magazine, National Affairs. Part of the thesis was a call against government expansion, which won't be the case if Skrmetti prevails. Unlike policy, science gets mugged by reality in comparatively short time spans. I'm confident that "gender science" won't hold for a hundredth as long as the precedence Skrmetti will establish. Moreover, it would broaden the scope of legislative intrusion. Imagine a scientific consensus emerges that natal males playing female contact sports poses statistically significant injury risk. An ideological legislature could dismiss that, and instead pursue their own policy, ethical, or ideological goals. The same principles are in play.
Science remains the best way to find out what is true, all else being equal. No passenger would be tempted to troubleshoot a high-flying faulty airliner by the legislative process; to defer to a representative for the best way to perform life saving surgery.
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/policy-based-evidence-making
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
we all sort of just know what's right and don't need reference to any kind of overarching moral framework.
FWIW that isn't remotely close to what he argues. He claims that apropos of nothing, we could/should define "bad" as the worst possible misery for everyone. Any step away from that lowest valley is in the direction of "good". He argues that this is the overarching moral framework we need. Many consider several steps in this to be bad philosophy.
I'm not sure how atheism itself could be a moral parasite any more than not collecting stamps could be parasitic hobby.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Most of my critique revolves around extending a single instance of an unreliable narrator into viewing women as children, and questioning their right to vote. This is an insane extrapolation of the data, and wouldn't be accepted as a fundamental policy or philosophical argument.
Lots of people have been agitating to nationalize the credit card industry for this exact reason.
I know, and the govt heavily regulates lending anyhow, but less now than ever in terms of max ARP.
My point being that even the most egregious instances of usuary (ie pay day loans) do not portend the end of lending. Nationalizing the credit industry seems less fringe and hairbrained than not treating women as adults. However, neither are practiced anywhere worth living.
I'm sure there is bias in the law as practiced, and men and women suffer unfounded disparate impact, but AFAIK the laws theoretically apply equally wherever possible. Given men's propensity to fall for romance, finance, and gabling scams, its odd that I've never seen it argued that we should view all men as hapless children, and restrict their rights. A maximally insane take would be restricting unrelated rights like driving or, I dunno, voting.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Like the last amren article I read, its the woke right cobbling together a smattering of aborted syllogisms, half-truths, and outright falsities to advance even more identity politics. Its not completely devoid of truth and, especially towards the end, political insight. But on balance it comes off as whining. Whites are, in fact, increasing their real wages. Middle earning whites are dwindling, but only because they're becoming the upper earning whites. I have about as much sympathy for them as I do for laggard blacks: the government should probably help, but get your shit together.
My most pressing current thought is this guy needs to read more history. About 400 years ago, when the requisite technology was fresh, Dutch Jews whose ancestors had recently fled Portugal moved to proto-Brazil, then Surinam, then NYC, chasing state alliances and riches. Most people don't give two fucks about race, even if they think HBD is true.
Modern white advocacy holds that race is the most salient identity today.
Massive claim, and almost certainly a waste of thought.
For non-whites, though, race trumps class solidarity.
Perhaps, but they are also wasting their time and thoughts. The smart ones overcome this concern and do well on average.
Progressives admire patriotism in non-white countries, even as they scorn it in whites.
While its true that Progressive definitely scorn it in (jingoistic coded) whites, even reddit regularly vocalizes the inherent racism of modern Japan, let alone Israel.
More broadly, a person’s fate is generally linked to that of his political and ethnic community.
Such a pessimistic an narrow view of what is possible. However, I think convincing readers that this is true is the point of this rhetoric.
White Americans are essentially a stateless people.
Hysterical whining.
Whites have no real stake in [Americas] success as a political entity
Pure bullshit.
because there is no respectable “alternate” political expression, whites are left with Old Glory and the Constitution.
I think this is the nexus of confusion. The author seems to have no idea how prescient, capacious, and wise the founders vision for a future America was, especially for the time.
Perhaps Steve Sailer put it best: “White Americans are behaving more and more like how Americans Indians have long behaved, as a defeated and despairing race.” It is a political and spiritual defeat, but its consequences are like those inflicted on Germany after the Second World War.
This is the most deformed aborted fetuses of a syllogism. For one, I blame American Indians for their own regressive attitudes. Yeah, they're a conquered people. So am I, if we push the clock back far enough. Open a casino already. Second, Germany roared back to success post WWII. Its 1% of world population, yet one of the best places to be born. Wow. Such consequences.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Because of the 1A. Fox News and OAN should be allowed to broadcast their opinions. The regime shouldn't be in the business of telling them what they can and cannot say. Trump is arguably a public figure, although some people are saying he is a Marxist born in Kenya. Big if true.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Specifically, did we ever see these threats? I hit bedrock here
On reddit Zorba:
Alright, so the admins are paying attention to us now. Not going into details, they aren't relevant and I don't want to draw their attention more; ask me again once this is done and I'll vent.
Poster:
Ok, it's a year later. Spill. I'm really curious about the fucked-up internal politics of Reddit.
Zorba
I am confused why this is coming up so often, you're the second in the last two days and I'd totally forgotten about it for months before that.
But anyway, out of a possible overabundance of caution, I'll PM it to you.
AFAICT, the threats were never discussed openly. I could be wrong. I only ask because this new threat rang some bells. Lots of arguably paranoid cloak and dagger stuff in the Meta: the motte is dead thread. I'm still grateful for all the hard work that goes into this place. Its the kind of place I can ask: does this place exist here because of a persecutorial complex; or was the move, like, justified...
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
The influence of US media narratives on crime has been especially distorting outside the US. Total gun deaths and police shootings between the UK and US are almost impossible to compare as the rates are respectively 60x and 150x less common in the UK.
I haven't heard of this case until now, but was there any claimed reason he didn't just get out of the car? Do I have the facts correct: the car and plate number were reported to have been involved in a shooting the day prior, the car was registered to someone other than Kaba, and nothing was found in the car? When pulled over, rammed several cop cars and tried to run the shooter over. Unsurprisingly he had been charged with attempted murder days prior.
justmotteingaround
3mo ago
An inherent problem with populism that skepticism goes out the window. People are placed in power based on what they say, and the electorate is hesitant to criticize what they do. Sure, populists don't talk or govern like effete Borgpeople, but their competence, effectiveness, and leadership should receive no less scrutiny. Musk has been positioned like a Soros fever dream: way more money, more involved in government, less oversight, more in control of media.
Its probably too early to tell if Musk's signature DOGE program will be a success like Tesla, or a total failure like Hyperloop or The Boring Company. I'm guessing it will be somewhere in between. He's overpromising and underdelivering with wild claims. This is a pattern. Second human crew to Mars by 2024, self driving LA to NY parking lots with no supervision by 2016. For DOGE he set the mark at 2T in cuts, revised down to 1T, apparently by July 2026. They've already published a bunch of erroneous stats and stories, and people are swallowing the narratives wholesale. USAID is suddenly and obviously bad, and everybody knows it. We shouldn't infer anything from the fact that every other developed nation has an analogous agency - who usually spend more as a % of national income - just ax the whole program, its 100% waste, fraud, and abuse.
I can be optimistic, but that needn't lessen my skepticism. Politics is a game of promising the world and delivering an atlas. Usually there is pushback. Granted, most major political media is now decidedly right leaning (at least podcasts, cable, and youtube), but for a group that rightly (if hyperbolically) showed interest in Bidens Ukraine dealings, The Twitter Files, Bidens mental decline, there seems to be no appetite for investigating the worlds richest man plugged in to the backdoor of government by an agency that tried to permanently dodge FOIA requests, run by what Vance insinuated were "kids".
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
In his own words, Bin laden repeatedly states his theological concerns as his sole justification for both wanting to kill Iraqis and Americans (esp in his 96 and 98 fatwas). He quotes scripture. His modern followers do likewise. They think Non Muslims should not be in "Muslim lands" unless they pay the tax. That's what they're upset about. Not geopolitics - but pissing-off the creator of the universe. They have stated this stated explicitly, many times, pointing to scripture, quoting specific passages, getting ascent from Imams and ulama. Bin Laden viewed the Baathists as apostates. That was is issue with them.
If you take the view that all these movements are sincere religious movements and really believe what they say, everything starts makes sense. The same goes for Hamas.
I posted bin ladens fatwas and writings recently, as well as this, which seems apt:
Dabiq Magazine 'Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You - 2016:
"One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahideen—who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations—don’t make sense... There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the shari’a—as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd—are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative... We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers... we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizya... We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited... What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary... we will never stop hating you until you embrace Islam."
People choose to take on too much frivolous debt and destroy their lives. Is the whole lending project dead? Should the media no longer write op-eds about payday loans with a 400% ARP? The average person no longer seems to be convinced that this is just a cultural problem which will go away.
That Pavlovich bird does not a summer make. There are global differences in median male and female traits, but I see no reason to treat them differently under the laws of a free society. Globally, men are vastly more violent, more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, get into gambling debt, fall victim to romance and finance scams. We somehow manage to treat them like adults. I've never even heard it argued that we should do otherwise which is weird.
More options
Context Copy link