@non_radical_centrist's banner p

non_radical_centrist


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 23 15:54:21 UTC

				

User ID: 1327

non_radical_centrist


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 23 15:54:21 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1327

And also have a system where if the legislature ignores the bill entirely or can't come to a consensus on it then the court publicly admonishes them for being incompetent

I don't think that'd actually do anything, both sides would just blame the opposing side for being partisan in refusing to update the law to their own preference.

A system I've seen casually proposed that's somewhat related that I like the sound of that for every law on the books, some legislater needs to take responsibility for it and say "That's my law", and at any time that legislater has the power to repeal the law if no one else is willing to step up and claim responsibility for it. That way if there's an outdated law, it gets repealed automatically when the legislater leaves office if no one's willing to take it up. And every legislater needs to think carefully about the laws they take responsibility for, because if it causes some big problem, the blame will be on them personally.

I forgot about the method I like for that. For that, I prefer a system like reddit gold. Let people spend money(or some other form of limited rating) on their favourite works. I really miss the days of reddit silver, gold, platinum, it was great for spotting under rated works on /r/anime and /r/manga that only got a few upvotes but managed to impress someone so much it they'd spend money on the thread.

Legislators are free to update legislation anytime they feel like it, they don't need special permission from the judiciary. And I think I have heard of cases where the Supreme Court recommends Congress update relevant laws in the end. The trouble is that leglistatures can be very disagreeable and unable to pass a law, so how to actually govern gets left to the courts while the legislature is deadlocked.

I generally prefer social media review systems to be simple like/dislike for that reason, either you like something or you don't. 5 star systems lead to too much confusion over what different ratings mean. Then ideally people are allowed to sort the results of a search by any metric they like, such as best like:dislike ratio, most total likes, best like:views ratio, etc. based on whether they want a guaranteed good experience or if they want to try to find a more niche product that they'd personally love or whatever else they're looking for. And if something does well along every metric you can be very confident it'll be excellent.

It technically depends on the elascity of demand, but pretty much nothing has demand so inelastic that there'd be no cost decrease at all

No one likes illegal immigration, so that's a moot point.

I think everyone would prefer if those illegal immigrants were legal immigrants, but there are some people who's order of preferences are legal immigrants > illegal immigrants > fewer/no immigrants, and some people who are fewer/no immigrants > legal immigrants > illegal immigrants.

I probably should've predicted it would've been total toxoplasma bait, but I definitely didn't forsee it being that extreme of toxoplasma bait or receiving that universal of condemnation by motteizans.

I don't want meritocracy, equality of opportunity, judging the content of someone's character.

Why not?

Why should an opoid addicted piece of white trash who was born to two parents who were white trash deserve American citizenship more than a Venezualen who fled socialism and crossed the Darien Gap just to participate in the greatest nation on Earth? That's purposefully inflammatory I know, but I do strongly believe that immigrants to America will rarely make natives lives worse, and often will in fact improve their lives through providing stuff like cheap farm labour. That's not an universal law, I look at Europe and see how terrible they are at integrating immigrants and wouldn't propose they open their borders because I don't think they could handle it. But immigrants are an amazing source of strength for America, one that should be harnessed.

Also you've posted about 7 or so articles--I was going to say "only 7 or so" to make my point that that's not a large number to start making assumptions about people,

Yeah it's hardly a large sample size, but I think it's a pattern that's common on pretty much all the internet. And I'm not discouraged by it, more just that I think it's a bit of a shame that lower quality but controversial posts get way more engagement than higher quality ones. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not just comments and that there are more unique readers of the controversial links than the high quality ones too. But of course I do the same, it can be very hard to tell from a link and maybe a short blurb if it'll actually lead somewhere high quality, versus when there's 100 comments on a link you know there's at least something there.

I think I was aware at least 80% of the facts covered in the article.

I don't think the degree to which gender and sexuality are largely, but not entirely, biological is common knowledge. Maybe most of themotte have already familiarized themselves with the science though, if any group's likely to have it's motteizens.

The Icelandic essay was also about historical legal practices and historical libterarianism. I think that's quite relevant to this forum.

But yeah I get the reasons why what I consider excellent pieces didn't generate much discussion. I'd just hope the motte would be a bit of a higher standard than twitter in what generates discussion

You're not wrong, but it's kind if irrelevant. People are reading and commenting on the weaker essays I post because they're controversial, while ignoring the better essays I post. It'd be one thing if they aren't reading the controversial essays, just discussing, but they are reading.

I notice something of a negative correlation between the quality of links I post and the reception they get. I posted the recent article about sex positivity vs purity culture, and while I had a higher opinion of it than most mottizens it seems, I still wouldn't consider it among the best essays ever written. Yet it's spawned over 200 comments. I feel similarly about my other links that got the most discussion, like The Media Very Rarely Lies and Is Wine Fake?

Meanwhile, links I have posted that I thought were amazing pieces of writing that were accurate deep dives into a topic that were some best in class writing, like Biological Determinants and Homosexuality that surveyed a wide body of well done research on a controversial topic, or Njall's Saga which was a hilarious and insightful look at medieval Icelandic literature and law, got barely any interaction.

Just Toxiplasma of Rage in action I suppose.

What do you think the opposite of what she proposes is? That we should encourage young women to have drunk hook ups, while also simultaneously we should honour kill them for being sluts?

Sounds like good reasons not to be a lawyer

That sort of thing stood out to me too. But I think women with holding sex from fratty dudebros and being more aware those fratty dudebros won't make them happy, like this article advocates, would lead towards women looking for other types of men. To select less on looks and more on whether a man isn't douchey.

That's not what I said. I think women should take more responsibility in general.

Rape's not that rare. Lots of men go to the trouble of putting date rape drugs in women's drinks to do precisely what the author claims that random dude did. I hardly think it's impossible that a guy would take advantage of an "opportunity" he stumbled upon that other men go out of their way to arrange.

If you can change that then sure, the black mark goes away... but that's a real big "if".

I don't think it's that big an if. We've been moving closer to it pretty much continously for about the past century.

Obviously not the parent poster, but one glaring thing about the whole essay is that she doesn't seem to waste a single word of reflection on what she, or the other women she talks about, could have done to avoid the bad outcomes they experienced.

I thought it was pretty clear. They should've more firmly said no to sex when they weren't interested, and they should've had their guard up more against men who just wanted to use them as cum rags.

She didn't have a complete solution, but I interpreted it as a fairly clear message that we as a culture should pressure women into casual sex less, and that that women should take the agency to refuse casual sex more.

It's fascinating, going through this bizarre, alternate reality hellscape of sexual relations. Absent is even a single person in a monogamous relationship. Not even a single one. How is that even possible? You don't know one single person in a relationship? You don't even know of one? This reads like some sort of speculative fiction where relationships have been outlawed.

It is a bit of an elephant in the room in the article, but at the same time, I don't think it'd be completely necessary to include. Most people agree that a loving monogamous relationship with good sex is the ideal. Saying that out loud again doesn't change anything. The point of this piece is just to push back against toxic sex positivity without back sliding into toxic purity. It's about nudging our current culture a little bit closer to a better equilibrium. It's not about describing the perfect equilibrium with lots of happy loyal relationships for everyone.

Maybe there really are just two breeds of men.

I think it's more of a spectrum, but there are definitely a lot of different male archetypes. Incel and red pill types are mocked for stuff like that video which went something like "Are you a Sigma Male? And is it better than Alpha?" for the weird categories they had, but I think there's a fair amount of truth to those categories.

I think some of those norms made sense in certain contexts. In a world with no condoms and no anti-biotics and no anti-virals, I personally would support some pretty harsh norms to stop the sort of disease spread that would occur if all men felt like they had a free pass to have orgies with each other. Since about the 40s, that began to be rapidly obsolete, with a backtick towards relevant in the 80s with AIDs, and today with even better medicine is back to being very obsolete.

There are a couple levels to explain things on, from neurochemical to evolutionarily. Neurochemically, I couldn't say why two birds would end up mating for life- although I will note a lot of species that ostensibly mate for life also "cheat" on each other a lot. Evolutionarily, it happens because both the mother and father of children get more expected gene-spreading value from raising and investing in their children in the niche that species operates in, instead of the father or even both the father and mother ditching the children after birth.

Is your point that lots of partners early degrades whatever neurochemical method the human brain uses to pair bond, making you unable to fully do so when you'd want to? If so, I just want to see some better evidence of it. A more rigorous neurochemical explanation of how that degradation happens, or good stats about how people who've had many partners early in life are more likely to dislike their spouse later in life.