Rape and extreme health risks with regards to abortion are some of the clearest examples of motte-and-bailey arguments I know of. The best way to spot a motte-and-bailey argument is to see if the person is satisfied if you were to grant them the motte. In this case, imagine abortion was 100% completely legal up to any point in the pregnancy for rape cases and for significantly higher health risk than usual pregnancies, and 100% illegal for family planning purposes. If necessary, imagine an omniscient arbiter were able to make sure no rape victim gets dismissed and no one could get away with falsely claiming rape just to get an abortion.
I think a majority of pro-life people would be overjoyed. Even though they might have preferred a full ban, what they want, to save what they percieve as life, is in accordance with the arguments they put forth, so any decrease is good. Pro-choice people would be almost uniformly against, because extreme cases like rape and risky pregnancies are not the reason they are pro-choice, family planning is (but it's a harder sell, especially to family and duty minded conservatives). So in that case, guaranteeing absolutely no rape victim or no risky pregnancy is forced to term is not worth giving up on family planning.
*EDIT: In fact, I suspect that they would be unhappy in ways they could not reasonably explain themselves if full right to abortion were granted to rape and high medical risk cases on top of current compromises. Truthfully because they could not then use these as a shield to expand family planning rights, but I can easily imagine half-assed excuses as to why the medical establishment (or the omniscient arbiter) has no right to judge whether a woman has really been raped, only she can know!
pigeonburger
10mo ago
Canada
In a surprising turn, the ruling Liberal Party of Canada has announced changes to the Temporary Foreign Workers program that would limit the number of admissions; regions with an unemployment rate of 6% or more will not see any application processed for low-wage positions, companies will not be allowed to have more than 10% of their workforce be staffed through the program, and the validity of the program is reduced from 2 years to 1 year. The Liberal Party of Canada has also expressed, though without any commitment yet, that they might revise down their 500 000 immigrants a year target. This is on the backdrop of abysmal (and persistent) poll results for the LPC forecasting a severe loss in the election expected in 2025.
Critics have already pointed out many flaws in the changes, such as how it does not affect the foreign student pipeline, which is a large part of the migration influx. How the 6% unemployment rate restriction applies to the initial request but workers could be moved between regions after being approved.
pigeonburger
10d ago
Last I checked Trump doesn't distribute the belongings of deported illegals to ICE officers, so I don't know what parallel you see.
So long as heterogenous outcomes are treated as failures requiring intervention, the meta will incentivize redefining heterogeneity to maximize resource capture.
Maybe the answer is the Tom Paris rebuttal.
The ROI of fare enforcement is the higher utilization rate of commuters when criminal vagrants are no longer an everpresent concern. The ROI of fare enforcement is the lower maintenance costs for repairs and cleanup when mentally ill homeless no longer defecate and trash the public space with the full expectation of someone else cleaning up their mess. The ROI of fare enforcement is the higher communal trust that the MTA will enjoy when it looks to be an organization that can steward its received resources with competence and clarity, instead of burying its head deeper in the sand about extant problems too inconvenient to address openly.
That's without counting the effects downstream from Broken Windows Theory. Which despite mainstream academia trying for decades to tarnish it, is so obvious from observation of humans and human nature that it still holds a quasi-tautological position in my thinking on this.
The Shopping Cart Theory is a great first-order test to determine prevalence of antisocial elements.
It is often a private choice, and it is harder to notice if this has any downstream effect because ressources are deployed to clean up, as you've mentionned. I've started to prefer bus queues to point out antisocial elements. Who, when coming up to wait at a bus stop that has an obvious, clear, nonambiguous line of people queueing up for the bus, decides to ignore the queue entirely, without any mitigating factors (joining a friend being barely acceptable). There's sadly patterns in what kind of neighborhood and people ignore bus queues.
pigeonburger
4mo ago
The meaning is altered in that a very salient objection can be raised that these things should not be given to those who don't work for them. But that's not different groups' interest competing, it's still mistake theory. It hits a crucial mistake people believe others are making; everyone should be in a nice part of town, but how many ressources should be allocated to helping people who don't help themselves (and their community), even if just to keep all parts of town nice? At what point does those ressources create incentives for freeloading and ruin that part of town?
pigeonburger
8mo ago
Candace Owens is into the weirder end of YEC.
I believe there's nothing genuine at all in Candace Owens' public persona, no genuine belief to analyze there at all.
She suddenly appeared as a "personality" during Gamergate when she tried to claim some ground on the anti-Gamergate side, found herself run out of it after encroaching on another leftist grifter's turf, realized that there's much more alpha in being a black woman right-winger, so after a week she came back as a pro-Gamergate grifter instead.
Someone genuinely moving from one side to the other is certainly possible, but I'm deeply suspicious one would do it within a week. It took me years. Hence since then I just dismiss her as an obvious grifter.
pigeonburger
1yr ago
Restaurants in East Asia, or restaurants of East Asian cuisine abroad?
Here in the west if a restaurant has a giant menu it's usually a bad sign because it means nothing's really good. But I think for East Asian cuisine restaurants abroad, they feel kind of forced to serve a few (often westernized to hell) "staples" of asian food else people complain. Like I see a lot of korean or vietnamese restaurants serving sushi because people just don't know or don't care. Thaï restaurants will be forced to serve general tso's chicken, all noodle restaurants will be forced to serve pad thai, etc...
pigeonburger
4mo ago
I've always had a sense that "stop illegal immigration" is the bailey while "stop all immigration" is the motte.
The left has been kept in control of the culture so long they've torched and salted the immigration motte so hard that for the longest time even just very moderate positions like "reduce immigration" made right wingers sound racist to even their own side. The bailey is all that was left, because of its almost tautological nature (you can't really formulate many good arguments against the government stopping the immigration that the government decided wasn't allowed to legally happen).
Now the right are timidly coming out of the bailey, seeing the invading army mostly gone with only a skeleton garrison and cardboard cutouts in their place. And they're seeing some sprouts in the motte, give them time.
I mean just yesterday former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed that the head of Iranian counterintelligence was found in 2021 to be a Mossad double agent (alongside about 20 others in the unit). The head of counterintelligence! Pardon my swearing, but the one guy whose job it was to find spies was a fucking spy himself! Assuming it's true, and I don't see why it wouldn't be as it's massively shameful for Iranians to admit it, it's an absurd level of superiority and dominance Israel is showing. Israeli intelligence is so ahead of them that Iranians were unable to meaningfully vet that ONE guy at the top of the pyramid.
pigeonburger
10mo ago
You just work through examples of how difficult finding the exchange value of labor and objects is, and what the consequences of getting it wrong are (too low: shortages due to high demand and not enough incentive to produce more, too high: fewer people can afford and waste from overproduction).
The main problem of communism is that it assumes finding that value is trivial or unimportant and can just be done by someone guessing. As inefficient capitalism can seem, it allowing prices to adjust according to supply and demand automatically resolves that issue, and simply by that, it outperforms everything else significantly. And so you explain to that person that any time there is a proposition to try and "fix" prices in capitalism, they need to ask themselves: 1. Am I going to fuck with prices that are actually accurately set by an unimpeded, normal market? (if yes, don't do it) 2. If the prices were not being set by a unimpeded market, is my solution bringing it closer to that market, or am I just trying to adjust prices it by vibes? (if just vibes, don't do it!)
pigeonburger
10mo ago
Now as to the commentary... I mostly ignore provincial and national politics as the obliviousness of Québecois and Canadians to their problems was a source of major despair for me. it's quite surprising to me to peek my head out, check what the discourse is now, and see just how much things have changed. The MAIN (!) /r/Canada subreddit is filled, filled with nothing but messages about how the immigration is just too much and how the Liberals have ruined and destroyed the country. That maybe it's not even recoverable from before decades. Particularly shocking to people is how the TFW (and International Students) are used to staff fast food service positions, while youth unemployment is spiking. Most proeminently Tim Hortons, which seems to be all over the country staffed with almost nothing but Indians now. Most surprising to me is how it's now firmly within the Overton window to not just cite economic concerns with the influx of immigrants, but sociocultural ones too. Which is of course the polite way to say people believe we're letting in a lot of immigrants who are not a good fit for our way of life. The people saying such have found a neat little trick to avoid sharing the blame for supporting the LPC all these years; see, it's all big business' fault for corrupting the LPC to bring in all these people to use as quasi slaves to depress wages. They were told they were going to have Change with the Liberals. Of course, the Liberals did precisely what they were promising to do. And none of it is to blame on the narrative-following majority who for all those years treated unchecked immigration as an unalloyed good, something to be celebrated on its own merit and obviously the right thing to do regardless of if it even made sense economically (which they believed it did, despite the fact that only the barest simplest economics education is required to forecast the effect on wages and housing affordability).
On related anecdote, I went to get breakfast and coffee yesterday at the nearest Tim Hortons, and as my order was taking a long time I could observe the staff. As usual, almost the entire staff was south asian, predominantly women, with one middle eastern/northern african looking man acting as a shift manager and one single white teenager/young man. There must have been around 10 people running around behind that counter. The orders for the drive-thru service were coming out but people in the restaurants were piling in and only a trickle would get to give their order and no one was recieving their food. Now the workers all seemed to be working and to be very busy but still nothing was coming out for the clients inside the restaurant. The manager and the teenager appeared to be the only ones with agency in the situation, noticing the customers were starting to get impatient running from worker to worker, telling them what they should be doing so that they could actually complete orders. We're told that service in fast food restaurants is bad now because since COVID they got used to running with skeleton crews, people are underpaid and because the conditions are so bad working in food service now that it's unfair to expect people to work hard in them. But the area behind the counter in that Tim Hortons seemed very well staffed to me. And presumably, if the people there are immigrant workers then the working conditions there would have been appealing enough to move from across the world for. As I waited 20 minutes for a coffee and a breakfast sandwich, I really struggled to see how anyone except employers could have been fooled this was in Canadians interest.
pigeonburger
1yr ago
Family reunification in Canada requires that the sponsor vouches that they can financially support the sponsored immigrant and that they will not need to ask for social assistance for 3 years. They check that the sponsor is in good enough financial health to support them. If they do ask for social assistance, the government can ask the sponsor to reimburse it.
I mean, it's not perfect, but it's not like no one though of this problem.
I'm not sure about the Swedes, but for the the British and the French I think a good part of it is in the national temperament. The British are legalists. They will only consider solutions to their predicament that paint inside the lines, even if the lines are so restrictive as to bind them from responding effectively to intimidation. While the French can be at any specific moment more or less accepting than the British, as a people if the wind changes they would be willing to take bolder actions. I can't ever imagine the British going for "repatriation" for any reason; from their perspective British citizens are all equal, period, and even permanent residents have rights and cannot be discriminated against directly. Any law to resolve these issues would have to be a carefully thought out meta-level law that doesn't single out anything in particular. But if the muslim population pushes the French the wrong way a couple more times, they might find these kind of solutions on the table. The French are willing to make object-level laws specifically against things they don't like, even if it's "unfair". See, law against the islamic veil. It's not going to stop youths from lashing out, but it might make more organized attempts at bullying the local population less attractive, as it tends to make the french hate muslims, not hold hands and sing "Don't Look Back In Anger" while decrying hatred in all its forms.
pigeonburger
1yr ago
Or the crypto-racism of having every evil or stupid character look like me, and every cool, heroic and most importantly moral character look like a Gen Z Nonbinary Zirboss.
Being a bit of a devil's advocate here, but I can't help but see this as validating the other side's concerns about representation. One of the main defenses against culture being remade was that the old one was serving everyone just fine; that black kids were identifying just fine with a white Little Mermaid. Of course, there's an obvious over-representation of diversity now, but after how many decades of under-representation? The thinking here, which I can't agree with, is that dragging our faces in it for a while is necessary for straight cis whites to learn not to do this again. But your reaction seems to be exactly what they're going for and is likely to embolden them; your unease is the mirror of the one they claim every non straight cis white has felt for decades before they established institutional and cultural dominance.
pigeonburger
1mo ago
Interesting, this does seem to explain something I've noticed recently in how little purchase the "War on Porn" that the left and mainstream media seem to be trying make into a big thing has. Considering how many guys watch porn, you'd think they'd defend their access to it passionately, but it doesn't seem to get any reaction from the public. And I doubt that it's because the public at large has untangled the media's spin and can tell that it's not something to panic over, the public is rarely that sophisticated.
pigeonburger
3mo ago
I would argue it was reached between Mass Effect 1 and 2 already. But certainly at Dragon Age 2, a year before Mass Effect 3.
pigeonburger
4mo ago
Broadly speaking, "you can get healthcare if you work/pay for it." already is the selfish position
I would formulate it more like "I want good healthcare to be available and affordable to everyone". Seems unselfish, and a rather universal proposition. I don't think it's altruism necessarily, people want to live in a place where they don't have to be driven in armored cars from gated enclave to gated enclave through a wasteland filled with roving gangs of dying sick panhandlers. Seeing only healthy people around me has value not because I'm altruistic, but cause it's more pleasant than the alternative, and for that I'm willing to compromise on maybe the speed or the cost of my care.
And Im not sure in what sense you think people dont have access to jobs, unless its an immigration thing.
I think they do too in the west, broadly speaking, but it's something that good or bad policy can influence (by running employers out of town, for instance), and that a vast majority would probably agree they want everyone to have.
pigeonburger
7mo ago
The point is that criminals are not deterred by the length and severeness of the punishment but by the likelihood and immediacy of the punishment.
pigeonburger
1yr ago
Basically, they thought they could Jedi Mind Trick the entire world into thinking they did not just see a clearly, obviously senile POTUS.
pigeonburger
1yr ago
I don't know how comfortable with small talk you are, but I recommend practicing it, some people assume if you don't engage or reciprocate small talk with them then you hate them or something.
pigeonburger
1yr ago
For example, it doesn’t explain libertarians, who tend to be Republican but are fiercely anti-police.
I think it can; libertarians are pro hierarchies, but natural hierarchies. They consider police to be an intrusion on natural hierarchies of force. Those who are stronger or better armed, or can afford the loyalty of stronger or better armed people to defend them deserve the better protection/law enforcement. To them, the police is like a communist state trying to make the protection/law enforcement market egalitarian.
pigeonburger
1yr ago
The powers that be seem intent on making examples of very average people these days. We've seen extreme prosecution of actions that "reasonable people" would believe would not draw nearly that much individual attention from the government (trucker protest in Canada, J6). And the other side is worried about the idea that, for instance, a right-wing government could use private collected information to identify and deport immigrants. "If you haven't done anything wrong (or big) you have nothing to fear" is not convincing to anyone.
Honestly I'm not really that surprised. It's the result of taking extremely sincere feminism and running it through the wringer that have been the last 8 years of so. Ishida went hyper-feminist during Gamergate, insufferably so; the comic went from trying (with limited success, but not entirely without success) to make an adult Calvin & Hobbes, to non-stop preaching. Then mainstream feminism was told "shut up, it's trans people's time now", and those who didn't toe the line were thrown in the TERF pit. There's essentially two reactions to being thrown in the TERF pit, with a spectrum in between them: 1) compartimentalize the trans stuff as being the only thing the mainstream liberal order is wrong on, but keep every other belief intact, or 2) question everything.
Ishida went closer to 2). I think he still compartimentalize the feminism as the one thing the liberal order is right on, but he went hard on the other side for everything else.
I think the comic is still annoyingly preachy and cringy though, just red colored cringe instead of blue colored cringe.
pigeonburger
1yr ago
I think nothing demonstrates this better than the case of Alexander Vindman. Let's assume his whistleblowing was not a premeditated impeachment trap for Trump as I don't think there was any evidence to that. His whistleblowing was based on that public servant's impression that the POTUS was undermining US Foreign Policy, which when you think about it with in mind who is supposed to set US Foreign Policy, is a really odd thing to say.
Following posting this comment ( https://www.themotte.org/post/900/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/193633?context=8#context ) regarding a law that I believe should only apply to those who would want to impose it on the population, I have been playing in my head with the idea of a "Higher Standards" bill for politicians. The idea would be that all laws apply maximally to elected officials; in situations where prosecutors or judges find themselves with any discretion in their ability to prosecute or punish crime committed by an elected official, even in their personal life, they should forced to start their process from the point of the harshest possible position. They would be forced to prosecute jaywalking, the slightest driving infraction, etc... and start the mental accounting for sentencing / fining with the longest sentences or highest fines before any mitigating circumstances can apply. Details as to whether it would apply to actions before the enactment of the bill, or to accession to public office could be negociated either way. A grace period could be left open to allow rewriting laws before it applied.
I see a lot of positives coming out of such a bill. The main one is to urge restraint in writing laws. Legislators pass laws knowing that it is unlikely that they would ever be used against them and care very little that these laws are held over the population like the sword of Damocles that could at any moment be applied by a prosecutor looking to make an example or please a private sponsor. If you want to vote for a law criminalizing piracy, you should yourself be able to account for every single piece of digital content you have. If you want to curtail "hate speech" you better be damn certain that whatever comments you make today on either side of the Israel/Palestine conflict will not be considered "hate speech" by the standards of tomorrow, etc... While I don't believe it would stop all of it, I think it would force legislators to reconsider some laws that achieve little but make technical criminals of very average people for widespread actions.
Other benefits I see is that it would encourage legislators to pay attention to the technical minutia of the laws they're passing, outside of the pork they're able to fit in it and how it will play with interest groups. It would also discourage criminals from running for office.
I struggle to see negatives; technically it could discourage effective would-be politicians from running for office if they believe that this is going to be weaponized against them. And I guess it would be a struggle to pass as politicians obviously would hate it, but without any arguments to bring forward I think they would find it hard to convince their constituents that voting against it is anything but voting against their interest. And it would take only a few fairly clean politicians to make some noise in favor of such a bill, willing to trade the benefits of future criminality in exchange for the large boost such a clear pro-plebeian move would give them.
I guess it could also be argued it's a very legalistic, low-trust society move, which I would concede, but that's the point I believe we are at in much of the west. That when the system is seen as benevolent it is fine to leave cops with the discretion to decide, for instance, when it's in the public's interest to disperse disruptive people for vague reasons like "loitering" or to punish antisocial speech as "hate speech", but when I do not trust the system, until that trust is restored I would rather know exactly what the rules of the game are, and so I want lawmakers to be highly interested in making sure that rules are crystal clear too.
So are there any negatives I'm not seeing? Has any similar law been enacted elsewhere and what has it led to? I see lots of references in the anglosphere to proposed bills claiming to hold elected officials to a higher standard, but for the most part it seems like it's either object-level transparency laws (which of course, we need too, but won't encourage restraint in lawmaking), too vague or obviously meant to be solely weaponized against the proposer's rival (laws against "lying", or against "contesting election results" or whatever else of that kind).
More options
Context Copy link