quiet_NaN
2d ago
A father should do what's best for his son.
You do realize how controversial this statement is?
Should a father murder to cover up the crimes of his son if he thinks that this results in a net increase of his expected utility?
Most people would grant that people have some moral obligations to their children, that it is fine and good to spend your money to feed them before you feed random strangers. But people also have other moral obligations (i.e. not to murder), and sometimes they rank higher thank family.
quiet_NaN
2d ago
If he had taken his son and defected with him to North Korea, I would respect his decision a lot on grounds of familiar ties. (Of course, that would be complete overkill. Realistically, his son could likely escape to a neutral country and continue his lifestyle there during Trump II, or he could risk having to spend some time as a VIP prisoner for his misconduct. Neither would destroy him.)
The problem with accepting that of course, people in power will use that power to help their family members is that it will result full-on nepotism.
- "Naturally the CEO gave that cushy managerial position to his nephew. Who would not put family first?"
- "The Don basically had to order a hit on the witness accusing his son in law. Should he deprive his daughter of her husband?"
- "Of course the general leaned on his adjutants to quickly promote his son."
Improperly helping your family is just as selfish as helping yourself personally. If you accept that of course elected officials will do that, then you basically end up with a banana republic.
At the end of the day, every accused is someone's son or daughter, but most fathers and mothers are not in a position to put their hand on the scale.
quiet_NaN
4d ago
Ok, I ran a quick eyeball-based diff, and it looks like in the revised edition, the first two sections were cut, with references to a conworld he ran with Alicorn from which the very name Archipelago was adopted.
The revised edition is much de-nerdified, with the power grantor becoming some generic wizard.
I can see both why Scott wanted a revised edition (which is spending fewer weirdness points on a backstory ultimately not terrible relevant to the point he is making) as well as why you might believe the original version instead of the watered down version edited for mass appeal.
quiet_NaN
4d ago
Crime has a very easy and effective solution to it that is known to every civilization: ruthless and immediate enforcement of the law.
The problem with that approach is that it will quickly become incompatible with liberal democracy when the swift and ruthless standard is applied with political motivation.
Consider how Jan 6 would have worked out in your system of ruthless efficiency: likely either Trump has Pence arrested, convicted and hanged for subverting an election before sundown, or he himself is hanged for treason. (And no, you can't separate political and non-political trials reliably. The best you might do is to have summary justice for commoners (presumed non-political) and some refined justice system for nobles.)
The stable configuration for your efficient system of punishment is some kind of autocratic regime. This is why in the legal system of western democracies, swift efficiency was not the primary design goal. There is a reason why the designers of the US constitution (and subsequently the SCOTUS) were so big on procedural checks. It is not because they were having too much sympathy for murderers.
As H.L. Mencken said:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
--
Also, you say about organized crime:
The former is almost impossible to squash totally but can be negotiated with and restrained to specific areas of life (and actually help make law enforcement more practical in some cases).
I tend to disagree. Sure, if the law prohibits something which is very popular, such as drugs, gambling or prostitution, then trying to stop can be practically impossible. But just turning a blind eye to the mob's enterprises hardly seems like an adequate solution. I mean, it works fine for the upper crust of society, who are unlikely to frequent harsh gambling dens, be sex workers or consume impure drugs.
A better approach would be to legalize and regulate the vices which society can stomach (likely prostitution), and crack down hard on the vices it can not (e.g. snuff movies).
quiet_NaN
4d ago
Perhaps an archipelago solution would be an idea.
No, not that kind. The good kind.
The US has partly outsourced running prisons to private enterprise. This is bad because the incentives of prison companies are not the same as the incentives of society.
Instead, one could outsource the rehabilitation process on a voluntary basis, as an alternative to state-run prisons which can be opted out of at any time.
Any organization could, with the prisoners consent, offer them an alternative to state run prisons. If they rehabilitate prisoners at better rates than state prison, they can pocket the costs they saved the criminal justice system. If they do worse, they pay that difference instead.
All kinds of for-profit and not-for-profit orgs could compete. Think that what the criminals really need is Jesus? Just incorporate JesusPrison. Think corporal punishments are the way to go? Fine, as long as you stay within BDSM norms, the prisoners safe word is 'state prison'. Have a shortage of plumbers in your enterprise? Invest in the education of prisoners and offer them jobs afterwards, and benefit from their limited options on the job market. Want to treat criminals for some psychiatric diagnosis? Same rules, with strict oversight. Want to teach the prisoners how this is all societies fault for being racist against them? Whatever you think, as long as you are able to pay the recidivism fine.
Of course, the organizations should be somewhat vetted (the mafia running a 'sex and drugs' based rehabilitation center for their own members is likely not what we want), and the orgs would have to have some kind of liability insurance, but otherwise something like this could work.
quiet_NaN
4d ago
This is rich. You complain about utilitarianism leading to antisocial outcomes, and then you continue:
There is no metaphysical or metaethical reason why one should inherently care about the suffering of those who are not even constitutionally capable of agreeing to or following the social contract.
Did you just say that it is ok to torture two-year-olds to death? At least if they are without guardians who would care about them, they are terminally ill (so they won't grow up to be an ethics-capable person) and you keep it secret (so you won't upset the general population).
Utilitarianism certainly has its share of problems, but at least it gets "pain is universally bad, even if it is felt by some entity who could never reciprocate with you" right without having to add any epicycles.
quiet_NaN
4d ago
I think the implicit assumption that most harm society suffers from criminal action is likely untrue.
Cutting the profit incentive through magic will certainly remove some crime (and likely most of the organized crime), but plenty of crime would remain.
Tax fraud would be eliminated, but murder would likely not drop much. Clearly, we will disincentivize killing your grand-mother for the inheritance or murder-for-hire, and indirectly eliminate some murders conducted in organized crime and other for-profit crimes (such as robberies), but plenty of murders would be wholly unaffected.
quiet_NaN
4d ago
I don't really know who it benefits to keep creating people without the skills necessary to live in modern society and then, when they fail to live in modern society, say "Yeah, they deserve to be tortured for that".
I read that as "if we could retcon reality so that someone who has received a decade of prison sentences had never been born, that would be the moral thing to do".
While we do not have the power of retroactive birth control, we likely prevent the births of some children who are most at risk of becoming criminals themselves. A violent criminal who is locked up for a decade during his 20s or 30s will likely cause fewer accidental pregnancies, which are likely (through either genetics or environment) to later end up in the criminal justice system. I have discussed that here.
quiet_NaN
9d ago
From that link:
By 2028, women will own 75% of the discretionary spend, making them the world’s greatest influencers.
Is that with or without an AI-caused extinction event, if we are talking hypotheticals?
89% Of women globally say they have shared or primary responsibility for daily shopping, household chores and food prep.
Wait, so daily shopping is discretionary spending?
Per wiktionary, that is defined as:
The amount or portion of a person's or group's expenditures which is used for non-essential or voluntary disbursements; the amount or portion of one's expenditures which one may make as one sees fit.
Whoever does household shopping might decide to go for beef, pork or tofu, but if they decide to spend their budget on video games and feed their family rice for a week that decision will likely be brought up in the divorce hearings.
Also, that sentence again:
By 2028, women will own 75% of the discretionary spend, making them the world’s greatest influencers.
Assume that women and men make roughly equal amounts, that half of each are single and that half of them are in hetero relationships where the women do most of the shopping for the pair or family. Would it not be fair to say then that women will own half of the discretionary spending, but control 75% of it, rather than that bold claim above?
quiet_NaN
9d ago
I thought that the Grey Tribe also had its share of good programmers. But perhaps I am typical-minding here.
Personally, I see modern progressivism as largely performative, you keep your pride flag up to date, do land acknowledgements or whatever is en wogue right now to signal tribe membership.
A few of the great coders I know are conservative at least in their choice of tools. Rather than eagerly awaiting the next release of their IDE, you would have to pry their vim from their cold dead hands and like to compile their code in hand-crafted makefiles using gcc -std=c89 or some such.
While the one behavior does not necessarily preclude the other, a combination of both would nevertheless feel a bit incongruent.
But perhaps this is my own perception, or my own bubble.
quiet_NaN
9d ago
The problem is that the woke-vs-Trump split is absolutely impossible to discuss dispassionatly in a classroom. My own position ('a pox on both your houses!') (which is obviously very dispassionate, neutral and objectively correct) would likely earn me fire from both of the big factions.
It has been said that Politics is the Mind-Killer.
The thing about elephants in the room is that sometimes, acknowledging them will cause them to rip your head off (metaphorical elephants, at least, I think actual elephants are mostly peaceful), so it is much safer to tiptoe around them and confine your lecture to elephants which are safely in another continent.
Of course, you want your students to engage in political discussions about stuff which actually affects them, not the politics of of the French revolution, but you also want them to have civilized disagreements and arguments, not to start killing each other.
Pick a topic which students have feelings about, but which is not partisan-politics-coded. i.e. daylight saving times -- it is safe, if slightly boring. Every student has to deal with them (or their absence), but few will pick that as their hill to die on. Local issues.
quiet_NaN
9d ago
paying tens of thousands of dollars to at least one underage girl 17 at the time, to have sex with him and others, including paying for their travel, which is also known as sex trafficking.
My understanding of 'sex trafficking' was roughly 'to get someone through either false pretenses or outright violence into a different country with the intent of using their helplessness in that country to force them into prostitution', which seems despicable enough.
If 'paying for travel accommodations for your escort' is sex trafficking, why do we need a law against it?
Also, here is something I don't understand: why would anyone ever hire a 17 yo as a prostitute? I mean, I can understand why some pedophile might risk a lengthy and well-deserved prison sentence to fuck some kid instead of an 18 yo, but if you are into young adult women, why risk a prison sentence? Is that some jailbait fetish I don't get?
gives them fraudulent real Florida driver's licenses listing their age as 18,
Why I am sure that the law is written in a way that puts all the risks of the prostitute being unable to legally consent firmly on the person buying sex, this sounds like we could say that the wrong Matt Gaetz did intentionally was to pay for sex, which does not seem like a moral failing to me. (If it turns out that the prostitutes in question were foreigners who barely understood any English and were obviously physically abused and scared, then I would revise my judgement, but from the facts you mentioned that was rather not the case?)
quiet_NaN
9d ago
Tipping off someone that his son is under investigation by a secret grand jury might be against some law. Or it could be that it is only criminal if you are an official, so they could only go after the (presumably unknown) source who gave the info to McGee, and McGee was free to blab all he wants.
quiet_NaN
9d ago
Bob Levinson: Retired FBI Agent and CIA contractor who disappears in 2007 and becomes an Iranian hostage
I would argue that given from the context, this is likely a very non-central use of the word 'hostage'. If Iranian operatives had captured him in the middle of the night in his home in (say) Langley, that would be a central example of the word hostage.
Instead, what likely happened was that he voluntarily entered Iran and did spy for the US government.
Spying for a foreign government is illegal pretty much anywhere. If he had been spying in the US for the Iranian government and got caught, he would be in US prison instead. This would not make him a hostage of the US government in any meaningful sense.
Being caught and spending the rest of your life in a shitty cell (or being executed) is part of the risk profile of being a CIA asset in a hostile country. Sometimes you will get traded, sometimes you won't. Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you. (Also, I am sure that before going for hare-brained con jobs, they actually tried to sell their rescue plan to the CIA, and the CIA went 'nope'. I assume it was not 'we would really like to help, but all our black funds are booked out four years in advance, so we must decline.')
Hostage has a certain moral connotation. If someone pulled a con job to rescue the hostages in the 1979 crisis or the Hamas hostages of today, we could say 'their end goal was noble' (which would put them on a level with SBF, at least). The neutral word for what Levinson is is prisoner. Without knowing the details of his spook work, I have no opinion if the world would be better if he was back in the US or if he kept rotting in some Iranian jail.
quiet_NaN
13d ago
The justice system is not designed to handle prosecutors actively trying to thwart punishment of criminals. The solution here seems not to be to add epicycles and do retrials with special prosecutors, but to not re-elect prosecutors who offer sweet-heart plea deals. Oh, wait:
Foxx won a second term even after Smollett’s case became a topic of national outcry.
If her electorate is happy with her, then there is little one can do, I guess.
quiet_NaN
14d ago
If NATO directly entered the war with large numbers of its own combat forces, it would defeat Russia's military and drive it out of Ukraine. Russia's only way of stopping NATO from doing that is to make NATO think that if driven far enough into a corner, Russia might actually escalate to using nuclear weapons.
I think you underestimate the reluctance of NATO to become directly involved in a war with Russia, which would easily spill outside of Ukraine.
The logic of the cold war was to prevent any direct conflict between two blocks. If the US gets involved in Vietnam, then the USSR does not ship their troops there to directly fire on US soldiers. Instead, it provides weapons to the Vietcong. Likewise, if the USSR invades Afghanistan, the US will simply provide weapons to their local opponents (Bin Laden and the Taliban, as it turned out) to fight the USSR.
This logic is still very much in play even today. NATO is totally playing by these rules, we arm the Ukraine (with non-nuclear weapons) and let them fight and die for their country as long as they wish to.
Quite frankly, Ukraine is not worth a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. Even if the conflict was initially restricted to Ukrainian soil, these things have a tendency to escalate. Say air defense stationed in Poland becomes involved, then Russia bombs it, then Poland declares that an attack on their soil and invokes article five.
quiet_NaN
14d ago
I do not think that describing trans women as 'men with a cross dressing fetish' is very close to reality.
There is a small fraction of people who are genuinely very uncomfortable with their biological gender. They sometimes take hormones, get surgery and go through byzantine legal processes to change their legal gender. They kill themselves at elevated rates when forced to conform to their biological gender. This is not just some kink.
Different cultures have dealt differently with non-conformists of all sorts. Killing them at the earliest opportunity is certainly a popular choice.
Modern liberal democracies generally frown on that and try to do better than just applying whatever solution would suit the majority of people. We don't accept "most straight men would prefer if they knew for certain that the man peeing next to them was not sexually attracted to them" as an excuse to kill all the gays and bisexuals, or even kick them out of the military.
The bathroom issue is simply an issue of trade-offs. Having to use a gendered bathroom which belongs to a gender one does not identify as clearly can be humiliating. Imagine getting told that you are too small or weak to qualify for the men's bathroom, or that you are too large, ugly or flat-chested to qualify for the women's bathroom.
On the other hand, there is both a perception of danger if people who are not cis-women are allowed in women's bathroom as well as possibly some actual danger.
I think that the actual danger is over-rated. With the possible exception of Hogwarts, gender restrictions in bathrooms are not strictly enforced. Someone who is entering a women's bathroom to commit rape is unlikely to care that he will also break some trivial statute about not going to the women's bathroom. Nor would punishing someone who disregards the gender sign on a bathroom (for example, to avoid waiting time) with a lengthy prison sentence be proportionate.
There will probably be some sick fucks who like to jerk off in the women's bathroom who can use the excuse 'but you see, I actually identify as a woman' if they are seen entering or exiting, but this is a lesser concern.
At the end of the day, it is a numbers game. If half of the rapes are committed by men in women's bathrooms who had previously invoked their gender identity as an excuse to be there, then I would agree that this was a huge fucking problem and we should restrict access to improve women's safety.
As things stand, I don't think it is a huge practical issue. At the risk of sounding like some woke, I think most women I know would very much prefer having to share their bathrooms with trans women to losing access to abortions.
A decade ago, Scott argued for drawing a more complex gender boundary than 'has Y-chromosome' as a cheap and easy way to improve outcomes for a lot of people. I think that his article is still spot on.
I think that the bathroom safety argument frequently is used by anti-trans people not because preventing rapes is their first and foremost concern, but because it is one of the few issues with trans rights that the average person will care about.
quiet_NaN
16d ago
Saying "it would be great if the US decided to gift what is currently New Mexico to Israel, and Israel and all of its Jewish inhabitants would elect to move there and gift the territory previously claimed by Israel to the Palestinians" does not sound antisemitic to my ears.
It also is not a realistic proposal, however. Current borders are the results of random happenstances, but it is rare that they can be moved without bloodshed, which makes them practically sacrosanct. Thus, I oppose both new Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Hamas slogan "from the river to the sea", because both would entail the forced displacement of the people presently living in these areas.
quiet_NaN
16d ago
The Jews as a people have a strong pervasive immoral Jewish supremacist ideology of which zionism is one angle.
Similiarly on the basis that european nationalism can threaten Jews and other so called minorities, they are unable to compromise with even the existence of European nations.
Unlike the letter signed by the architect, these statements are strangely congruent with old European tropes of antisemitism. Per Wikipedia, some 8% to 11% of the 'eligible' Jewish population (that is, the ones being allowed to migrate to Israel) live in Europe. Are you seriously suggesting that their purpose is to destroy their nations from the inside to further some Jewish-controlled New World Order? (Also, the reason that there are not more of them is that in 1945, there were very few Jews left in Europe due to antisemitism, and quite a few were understandably reluctant to return after the war.)
When a group of people behaves horribly towards others it becomes quite rich to obsess about racism towards them.
I disagree. Hamas, the elected government of Gaza, behaved pretty horrible, but that does not invalidate your concerns about racism against Gazans. No matter what you and the wokes think, most conflicts in the world are not one-sided fights between the heroic freedom fighters and evil oppressors. Look at the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and you will find that there is plenty to blame on all sides.
Likewise, the Israel-Palestine conflict -- decades of behavior ranging from shitty to crimes against humanity on both sides have locked both sides in a defect-defect equilibrium which is much worse for human striving than a compromise solution would be.
Or the BLM protests. I believe that the median Black shot by US police is a gang member who had it coming. However, that does not mean that there are no victims of excessive police violence fueled by racist perceptions. And that in turn does not mean that the riots were justified.
quiet_NaN
16d ago
Agreed. The last thing that the cartels want is some 9/11 type attack which causes the US to ramp up their action against organized crime to GWB's war on terror level. That would be terrible for their profits and life expectancy.
I am not even sure that the Iranian government would want to sponsor large terror attacks on US soil. Sponsoring Hamas and Hezbollah is one thing, but poking the US in the eye would go badly for them. (Of course, a government administration is made out of people, whose goals are not always aligned with their country, but getting the US to bomb the shit out of them would likely not benefit anyone in power.)
quiet_NaN
17d ago
Another day, another controversy about what is antisemitism and what is legitimate criticism of Israel.
This time, a German architecture prize was rescinded over the recipient signing a letter condemning Israel.
The Athens-based artist and author James Bridle, [...], was announced in June as the recipient of the Schelling Architecture Foundation’s theory prize, [...]
Bridle was informed in an email that the foundation’s committee had decided unanimously not to award them the prize because Bridle was among the several thousand authors who signed an open letter calling for a boycott of Israeli cultural institutions.
Of course, the Guardian is not quite sure how the founder of the prize is called, oscillating between Schelling and Schilling:
The foundation’s prizes, which have been awarded since 1992, are named after the late German architect Erich Schilling.
The letter in question is here. Key passages:
the most profound moral, political and cultural crisis of the 21st century.
We still have 3/4 of that century to go, but good job being optimistic!
This is a genocide, as leading expert scholars and institutions have been saying for months.
This would at least be debatable.
Therefore: we will not work with Israeli cultural institutions that are complicit or have remained silent observers of the overwhelming oppression of Palestinians.
Fair enough.
the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people as enshrined in international law.
That would be the the general right self-determination of peoples, as mentioned in the UN charter? Does this also apply to the Uighur, the Kurds, the Basques, the Catalans and so on?
Or is the relevant law the limited recognition of Palestine, or the Oslo Accords?
Was the Hamas rule before the Oct 7 a shining example of self-determination?
Personally, I am somewhat sympathetic to calls to stop the IDF from bombing the hell out of Gaza. I am also fine with demanding that Israel should stick to the Oslo accords in the West Bank and dismantle their illegal settlements.
But to demand political autonomy in the context of Gaza is where I get off the train. The force of political autonomy in Gaza is called Hamas. Their primary objective is to sabotage any peace process by murdering random residents of Israel. Asking for political autonomy for Gaza is like asking for political autonomy for Germany in 1946.
Overall, I don't think that the letter is plainly antisemitic. If the author had signed a similar pledge against Chinese institutions for the Uighur genocide, and also demanded self-determination for the Kurds, I would tend to call them a general advocate for oppressed people. If their only political topic is Israel, then that would be a bit dubious.
quiet_NaN
17d ago
One thing to keep in mind is opsec.
Sometimes therapy sessions include pretty personal data.
With a regular meat-based therapist, all sorts of regulations are in place to limit how the data gathered in session can be used. Crucially, such data can sometimes not be compelled as evidence. The fact that the data is mostly in his head also makes automatic analysis more difficult.
Note that a medical professional can still call the cops on you for being a threat to yourself or others, which is likely out of the scope of current LLMs. Also note that certain faiths have a much stronger protection of data shared in confession than medical professionals both in law and professional ethics.
By contrast, assume that if you do not run your LLM locally, your conversations are stored permanently on a server without your control. From my understanding, the big AI companies do not try to facilitate anonymous payments and usage (e.g. suitable crypto-currencies and communication over TOR), as this would invite all kinds of abuse.
To keep your intimate conversations linked to your legal identity secure, at least the following would have to be true:
(a) The staff of the AI company does not read them.
(b) They don't train other AIs on them.
(c) They don't get hacked.
(d) They don't get a subpoena for e.g. 'all conversations mentioning cannibal ideation' by police.
quiet_NaN
18d ago
I am not sure that the utility value concept is coherent.
So all the farmers quit one day and the rest of the economy stays the same, magically. People will likely decide that they want food more than they want shelter, move out of their rented buildings and spend their rent on what food there is to be had, establishing a utility value of food.
Except now the people running the waterworks also go on strike, and there is a water shortage. Very quickly, people decide that they would rather drink than eat. Nobody would waste precious water to irrigate crops.
And then some acute threat of violence looms, and people will trade their precious water so that they are not ripped apart by velociraptors in the next minute.
Depending on what their most urgent need is, that piece of bread is worth 1$, or a kings ransom, or nothing. So what should its utility value be?
quiet_NaN
19d ago
Meta: your post is 700 characters of your own words, followed by a verbatim quotation more than ten times that length. The source you linked does not seem to be paywalled. Assume that the average reader is tech-savvy enough to click on a link if they want to read the article. Quoting two paragraphs should be plenty if you are not interrupting it with commentary. Besides I gather that the motte is likely run over a jurisdiction in which copyright is a thing, and thus relies on fair use exceptions for quotations.
The article you quoted is clearly partisan. For example, uncritically referring to the gender pay gap is a red flag for me. From my understanding, the pay gap is a typical example of an equality of outcomes, not an equality of opportunity. Women are free to pick high-paying careers like engineering instead of low-paying careers like gender studies.
To this day, young men perceive that discrimination against men is more serious than against women, even though 50 percent of women between the ages of 19-29 say they’ve experienced sexual discrimination at work, compared to 30 percent of their male peers.
The article makes it sound like that statistic clearly refutes the perception of the men, when in reality, it does nothing of that sort. Perhaps men are less likely to see themselves as victims of sex discrimination. Or perhaps the cases of discrimination men experience are more severe.
From 2021 to 2023, female sexual assault victims saw a 15 percent rise.
This sounds like the author was searching for an impressive statistic to support their claim that women are more in danger than ever. Of course, 2021 was still partly COVID. And it could be that it is simply the rate of reporting which increased, which would be great news instead. Of course, it could also be a real increase, and perhaps even part of a worrisome trend instead of a random fluctuation, but so far the author has not shown the non-partisanship that I would just assume that.
It’s an acceleration of the already widening gender gap in American politics, including an increasing number of young men rejecting feminism.
Feminism can mean a lot of different things. The message of woke feminism to white cis-het males seems to be: "You are the oppressor group. By default, you are in the wrong unless conclusively proven otherwise. Your concerns do not matter because they are not the result of structural oppression." Clearly it is a total mystery why that message fails to resonate with young men.
It’s too soon to say if the 4B movement is here to stay in the United States. But even if it isn’t, the surge in interest says something about the social forces unleashed by the 2024 presidential election.
I will make the prediction that it will indeed not stay in the US.
Lots of single people do not participate in the dating market for a variety of reasons, and I doubt that the politics of their preferred gender is the main reason. Many more people will filter dating partners by their politics.
Finally, I think that if you want to avoid having sex with Trump supporters, a better strategy might be to select on geographic location. Fucking people from Hawaii (37.5% Trump) and avoiding people from Alabama (64.8% Trump) would be more effective. Wikipedia has a convenient list of criteria. The urban (38% Trump) vs rural (64% Trump) divide is in any case much stronger than the male (55%) vs female (45%) split.
Also, subsidiarity would imply that you should do charity to the once close to you first before you move to larger circles.
More options
Context Copy link