omw_68
5d ago
I suspect a big part of it is the challenge to authority implied by exercising agency and choosing not to do something.
I agree. Besides, "I forgot" as a get-out-of-jail-free card doesn't work forever. Sooner or later (and usually sooner) people will notice that your memory fails whenever it's convenient for you and they will treat you accordingly.
omw_68
5d ago
It is both. They are ignorant because they don't want to learn The Science™. And they do not want to learn because they are intellectually lazy bigots.
Those attacks might very well be common, but they present a different issue. It's arguably wrong to devalue someone for being stupid; it's pretty reasonable to devalue someone for being an intellectually lazy bigot. As far as I can tell, the OP isn't proposing an epistemic framework to accommodate intellectually lazy bigots.
Besides, the sort of attacks you describe belong in the same category as stupidity. It's irrelevant whether the person is actually a bigot. The point is to insult and degrade the person.
You never encountered opinions that let's say Trump voters are uneducated stupid heliolites or that all Christians are science deniers or some version of this argument?
Roughly speaking, yes. With those examples, my interpretation of the claim is that stupid people are (sometimes) seen as less valuable, less worthy, lesser.
Anyway, the main problem I see with the argument (as I understand it) is that when people attack Christians, or Trump voters, or whomever as "stupid," the point is to insult and degrade them. It doesn't matter whether or not they are stupid. So I don't see how the proposed "epistemic framework" would make a difference. In a hypothetical world where "stupid" is no longer seen as an insult, people would just find another way to insult and degrade their out-group.
omw_68
5d ago
Well it’s supposed to be on the nose and self-indulgent, it’s a sexual fantasy.
Self-indulgent, yes. On the nose? I would say that's a matter of taste.
omw_68
5d ago
One of the issues I keep coming back to is the unspoken assumption a lot of society have that stupidity is a moral failure. That being stupid means you are a bad person, and if you were a better person you would just be smarter.
Maybe it's early in the morning, bu I haven't really noticed this. Can you provide some examples/evidence that this is the unspoken assumption?
omw_68
5d ago
I mean, fundamentally it's just Dramione for men, isn't it?
I don't know much about "Dramione," but I do think that Malfoid is a compelling male fantasy -- the idea that a hot chick from the other tribe/side/etc. is into you. As I recall, this was part of the fantasy regularly portrayed in James Bond movies.
(Of course it doesn't hurt that Malfoid is coded conservative. I think a lot of men are tired of the very common trend of women being into progressivism.)
It reminds me a bit of a comment (a tweet, I think? or maybe Tumblr?) I saw once describing a gender-flipped Twilight, where an everyman, maybe slightly schlubby, self-insert protagonist meets a hot goth vampire chick who is inexplicably into him and fights a similarly hot wild werewolf chick for his affections, and male replies going, "Oh my gosh. I get it now."
FWIW I would see such a plot as a bit too on-the-nose. Which is probably part of the reason I find Twilight to be a bit cringe, and the same thing about many James Bond movies.)
Anyway, at the end of the day I think you've touched on the main reason why Malfoid is controversial: It tweaks the Harry Potter story in such a way as to cater to male desires in a compelling way. For a lot of men, that's great. For feminists, that's a big problem -- things are supposed to cater to women, not men.
omw_68
6d ago
Interesting choice of exceptions that makes me think your first post here is not entirely in good faith or high effort.
Yeah, I get the feeling that this person (wittingly or unwittingly) has chosen a side in the culture war and is perplexed as to why the other side is not simply rolling over.
I'm speculating a bit, but I would guess that according to this individual (1) for one side, it's necessary and appropriate to participate in the culture war in order to "fight prejudice,"; but (2) the other side is being silly given that nobody is actually trying to genocide them. It reminds me of progressives who seriously accuse conservatives of being obsessed with race.
That being said, I admit I'm pretty sensitive on this issue and I see the word "prejudice" as a huge red flag. I think "prejudice" is one of those strategically ambiguous social justice buzzwords with a meaning that can jump back and forth between motte and bailey. Anyway, perhaps the poster will elucidate. I have asked a clarifying question down-thread.
omw_68
6d ago
Why do people engage in culture war though? I mean in some cases it is necessary like literal wars or a group actively holding hostile views against another and opposes thier rights on the basis of prejudice. But much of the discourse I have seen is more about attacking the group and pulling down even normal members of the group ignoring that they are not some genocidal murderers
I'm not sure I understand your point here. Let's suppose there is a group which is hostile to mine. It's very unlikely that it will come down to actual mass murder against my group but they still want to push for laws and norms which will significantly disadvantage my group. They are still fomenting hate against my group. In your view, would you say it's necessary and/or appropriate for me to respond?
omw_68
6d ago
This would seem to be the time to throw the book at anyone regardless of perpetrator or victim.
Of course I agree, but I'm trying to model Alvin Bragg's thinking here.
It is in fact bad to respond to being angry at someone on the road by shooting there car with your gun
Agreed. But people do a lot of bad things to other people, and my sense is that progressives tend to respond with harshness or leniency based on who and whom.
omw_68
6d ago
You'd prefer being ruled by a corrupt commie whom nobody voted for?
Assuming that's the choice, I would probably go the latter option. There is quite a bit of anti-white sentiment among black people and for that reason it's reasonable for a white person to be mistrustful of any politician who counts blacks as a big part of his constituency.
omw_68
6d ago
given the Count, restricting H1Bs?
I'm pretty skeptical that a Republican change on this issue would win over non-European immigrants.
omw_68
6d ago
Attention and excitement resulting in something like a 10% swing in favor the the incumbant after just giving the opposition party supermajorities in both legislatures 20 days before?
Obviously if that's true, it's suggestive of cheating. My point was simply that a total increase in votes between the first round and the run-off doesn't say much.
On an unrelated note, Judge [de Moraes] has already demanded Bolsonaro the Younger surrender his passport to keep him from "fleeing". I can't wait to hear all the norms-enjoyers have a very principled crashout about that.
The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that (1) both sides are totally corrupt and will abuse their power in any way possible; and (2) I pray that the United States doesn't go any further down this road.
omw_68
6d ago
Saw numbers that Lula's increase from the first round is more than the total number of votes cast for every other candidate that was eliminated in the first round. On top of Bolsonaro gaining a modest increase in total votes. So yeah, apparently over 100% compared to the last round of "mandatory" voting.
Arguably this could be a result of more excitement and attention over the election.
That being said, I would be somewhat interested to know the vote totals from the polling stations for that 1 or 2 hour block where they were apparently held open longer.
But not super-interested, because I think that probably both sides are cheating pretty aggressively.
omw_68
6d ago
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't require direct evidence.
And I'm not claiming otherwise. I'm simply saying that if there is plausible evidence for a lack of requisite intent, that's a big problem for the prosecution, assuming for the sake of argument that there is no way to impute the requisite intent with a showing of sufficient recklessness.
If Romero did make that argument, then yes, the prosecution could counter that it was depraved indifference murder because if firing a gun into a moving vehicle on a busy highway doesn't create a grave risk of death, then it's hard to argue what does
Right, that was my point.
omw_68
7d ago
If only the Rs would stop pursuing policies detrimental to Non-European immigrants
Would you care to name the top two policies which (1) are generally pursued by the Republicans; and (2) are detrimental to Non-European immigrants?
Because I'm super-skeptical of your claim.
omw_68
7d ago
A jury can reasonably infer that someone who shoots at someone and kills them had the requisite intent to do so. Just because the defendant says otherwise doesn't mean that the prosecution has to come up with an alternate theory of the case. The jury isn't required to believe the defendant.
Sure, but that's a big problem for the prosecution. I mean, if they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the required mental state and there is plausible evidence in the record that he didn't, the defendant is going to have a pretty good chance of being acquitted.
When you actively aim at someone you intend to hit
It seems to me you are kind of assuming your conclusion here.
omw_68
7d ago
The basis for charging murder would be that he shot at a guy and killed him.
It seems like this doesn't necessarily solve the mental state problem. For example, what if the shooter's position is that he was just trying to scare the guy? Perhaps the depraved heart doctrine isn't the right fit, but it seems to me that merely shooting at someone and killing them isn't enough to get you to murder.
omw_68
7d ago
If it is within walking distance, blocking busses would have equally little effect.
Agreed. The question is about situations where the polling station or other destination is a modest drive (or bus ride) away. With public transit, the centralized control arguably makes it easier to obstruct people. For example, the authorities could simply tell the bus drivers that they have a day off.
omw_68
7d ago
Yeah like it's still extraordinary behavior to fire a gun at somebody over a driving situation even if unlikely to actually hit
Yeah, I agree. As I mentioned in my post, this seems to fit in with the legal concept of "depraved heart" murder.
omw_68
7d ago
Only as long as the roads are maintained and unblocked. A corrupt government could institute road maintenance on the highways out of selected cities, ensuring everyone is pushed onto smaller roads with tighter speed limits thus causing mass congestion and delays on the way to the polls.
I'm kind of skeptical about this. Where I live (suburbs of the Northeastern US), most people live within a mile or two of a polling station. i.e. it's either within walking distance or a short drive on local streets. I would imagine that in more urban areas, most people are even closer to the polling station. And that in more rural areas, there's just not enough traffic density to cause much in the way of traffic delays.
I can imagine super rural areas in the US where blocking one highway could have a real impact on a small neighborhood. But I am pretty sure that the ratio of blockers to blocked votes would be too high to make it worthwhile.
omw_68
7d ago
But that is only because the government puts a lot of money into maintaining a huge and interconnected system of roads that are open to private citizens 24/7. An expense which is socialized through taxes instead of being applied to the individual car owner.
To a large extent, I agree with this. (To some degree there are tolls, gas taxes, etc. which do apply specifically to motorists).
But I think your explanation touches on an important issue. Suppose the government suddenly stopped maintaining the roads. In that case, the roads (especially local roads) would still be largely usable for a few days or weeks, perhaps even months in some cases. Moreover, the job of overseeing the roads is spread out over lots of different government authorities and agencies.
By contrast, public transit is far more concentrated in terms of oversight and far more dependent on daily government inputs.
The result is that in practice it's much easier for a strike, work stoppage, bureaucratic fiat, executive dictate, etc. to block peoples' use of public transit than it is with the use of roads.
while other public infrastructure (railways and busses) are deprioritized and left to decay.
Where I live (Northeastern US) lots and lots of resources are put into railways, buses, etc. But it doesn't change the fact that when you have a car, you are far less subject to the whims of public institutions (and private institutions).
omw_68
7d ago
Maybe he’s just generally soft on crime, and race Marxism isn’t an exception to that?
Well there was a situation a year or so ago where an angry black thug attacked and got killed by a bodega worker and the bodega worker was charged with murder, basically because he had defended himself with a knife. In that case the charges were reduced (or perhaps even dropped) in response to public outcry, but I definitely got the sense that like most Leftists, Bragg sees blacks as sacred. So I would have thought that his office would jump on the chance to pile on charges against a white who has (allegedly) killed a black person.
omw_68
7d ago
A 25% decline is not unreal for a surprise election win by the socialist party in a third-world country. Currency devaluation, property expropriation, excessive taxation, and bans on foreign distributions are all realistic possibilities.
Yeah, I think that the default assumption is that the market is reasonably efficient and is pricing in bona fide risks.
I think it does happen now and then that real inefficiencies develop; including inefficiencies that can be spotted and exploited by amateur investors and other laymen. But I think that's pretty unusual.
My instinct is that if you buy into the Brazilian markets today, it's like the proverbial sprint in front of a steam roller to grab a nickel off the pavement.
But then again, I'm one of those cautious long-term Boglehead type investors.
It's really hard for me to believe this given the big gun control act of 1968 and various pushes at the state level in the 1970s. How exactly did firearms become more readily available between 1950 and 1990?
This seems more plausible, but I would want to see the evidence for this. A lot of things changed between 1950 and 1990.
This is something I'm also skeptical about, at least as to alcohol. Before the 1980s, you could buy alcohol in many states at age 18. Which meant that just about everyone in your typical high school had access to alcohol.
This also seems plausible to me as well, and in fact it's kind of a null hypothesis.
The main issue I see though is that a lot of things changed between 1950 and 1990 in the US and the rest of the West. So it's very difficult to really know what's behind (reported) higher suicide rates.
More options
Context Copy link