wemptronics
No bio...
User ID: 95
wemptronics
12d ago
At one point I knew his name and his position as a grad student. Thanks.
But Adelstein's take on veganism strikes me as aggressively, surely willfully obtuse
They appear to becoming more like performance art with time, which is likely the product of a growing audience.
If you told me that you enjoy a video game where the goal is to torture fictional characters, I'd also probably remember your face and tell people to avoid you.
Listen, I did not intentionally trap those Sims in their living room. The placement of the stove was an innocent mistake. That fire could have happened anywhere! A terrible tragedy.
as an instrumental goal in the process of doing something else
One man's instrument is another man's cross to bear, or something like that. They demonstrate that it's not as instrumental as you (or I) claim, or not instrumental at all, by existing and being more righteous. People in Africa or Indonesia get a necessity pass for now, but you, neighbor, have a choice. That is if they cast judgment. I've met more vegans who are simply tired of the same old jokes, jabs, and want to be left alone than I have met the stereotype, or vegans cognizant of utilitarianism for that matter.
I felt what I consider an appropriate level of bad one particular time I found a rat in a traditional trap. It was gravely maimed, and as I went to put it out of its misery I saw, as it had lain incapacitated, its friends or children had taken the opportunity to feast on its guts. If I had chosen to not put it out of its misery, then I would have thought less of myself. The experience did not make me think more highly of rats, but it's not as if I am above considering the suffering of other animals.
Targeting an animal one already hopes to exterminate for pest control is not outlandishly cruel. To argue against that one needs to argue against effective rodent control more generally.
If I told you I trapped rats to torture them because it felt good and made me laugh you'd probably remember my face and tell people to avoid me. Except, in this case, instead of one weird kid you make sure your child stays away from, it's all of society that is going out of their way to torture rats. That what I imagine and have been told the emotional prism is like for dedicated vegans. As a personal choice it is common and well enough. The personal choice I don't have much objection to. The more foreign value impositions, especially done in a way that where they only logically hint at the most moral ends, are where I find objection.
After Zizians and the efilist bombing I have tried to pay more attention to the cross section of ethical veganism, rationalists, and nerdy utilitarian blogs.
A Substack titled "Don't Eat Honey" was published. Inside, the argument is made that to buy or consume honey is an unethical act for insect suffering-at-scale reasons. According to the essay, bees, like livestock, suffer quite a lot at the hands of beekeepers. That's a lot of bees. Thus the title: don't eat honey.
The median estimate, from the most detailed report ever done on the intensity of pleasure and pain in animals, was that bees suffer 7% as intensely as humans. The mean estimate was around 15% as intensely as people. Bees were guessed to be more intensely conscious than salmon!
If we assume conservatively that a bee’s life is 10% as unpleasant as chicken life, and then downweight it by the relative intensity of their suffering, then consuming a kg of honey is over 500 times worse than consuming a kg of chicken! And these estimates were fairly conservative. I think it’s more plausible that eating honey is thousands of times worse than eating comparable amounts of chicken
This particular post is high on assumption and light on rigor. It received outrage. Another post on Bentham's blog on insect suffering I recall as higher quality material for understanding. Did you know that composting is an unethical abomination? I'd never considered it!
'Suffering' presents an incommensurable problem. Suffering is a social construct. Suffering is the number and intensity of firing pain receptors over time. Suffering is how many days in a row I experienced boredom as a teenager. Still, science attempts to define and quantify suffering. An equation works out the math: how conscious a cricket is in relation to man, a cricket's assumed capacity to feel pain, the length of time it spends feeling pain, and so on. My prediction is we will figure out the consciousness part of the equation with stable meaning before we ever do so for suffering.
We will manage to rethink, remeasure, and find additional ways of suffering. People always have. Today, plants do not feel "pain", but tomorrow, pain may not a prerequisite for suffering. Maybe starvation becomes a moral imperative. If the slope sounds too slippery, please consider people have already built a (relatively unpopular) scaffolding to accept and impose costs at the expense of human comfort, life, and survival. Admittedly, that suffering may present an incommensurable problem doesn't negate any imperative to reduce it. Find more suffering? Reduce that, too. It does give me reason to question the limitations and guard rails of the social technology.
According to Wikipedia, negative utilitarians (NU) are sometimes categorized as strong NUs and weak NUs. This differentiates what I'd call fundamentalists --- who follow suffering minimizer logic to whatever ends -- to the milder "weak" utilitarians. The fundamentalist may advocate for suffering reduction at a cost that includes death, your neighbor's dog, or the continued existence of Slovenia-- the honey bee capitol of the world. Our anti-honey, anti-suffering advocate has previously demonstrated he values some positive utility when it comes to natalism, but much of his commenting audience appears more in the fundamentalist category.
One vibe I pick up from the modern vegans is that the anti-suffering ethics are the ethics of the future. That our great-grandchildren will look backwards and wonder how we ever stooped so low as to tolerate farming practice A or B. I don't doubt we'll find cost effective, technological solutions that will be accepted as moral improvements in the future. I am not opposed to those changes on principle. Increase shrimp welfare if you want, fine.
My vague concern is that this social technology doesn't appear limited to spawning technological or charitable solutions. With things like lab meat showing up more frequently in the culture war I'd expect the social technology to spread. So far, however, vegans remain a stable population in the US. Nerdy utilitarian bloggers are yet to impose their will on me. They just don't think I should eat honey.
Democratic Socialists are the vehicle for socialism in America. They develop relations with leftists, organize them, use them for elections, and seek to implement socialist policy. Solidarity is praxis.
Differentiating is not a requirement, it's a method to clarify ones own position from another related position. You want Democratic Socialists to stand on their own two legs in America and be less open to smears for bad(?) socialism. I might call it socialism lite or entry-level socialism. Another idea might be for an organization like the DSA -- which Mamdani contributes to and has used to seek power -- to police and toss out the revolutionaries. Truly be a Democratic Socialist organization instead of the place for leftists. I suspect neither of these things will occur. Mamdani is more interested in winning office than standing up for Democratic Socialism. He likely appreciates the fact Fox News will lambast him as a Socialist.
It seems to be conservatives that omit the Democratic half of the moniker Democratic Socialist way more than progressives
It is not unique to conservatives. Parents that object to teacher-student confidentiality are far right. Canadian truckers are far right. J.K. Rowling is far right. Elon Musk is far right and an extremist. All those individuals are probably Islamophobic and racist, too. Many words are unfair. I wish people would be more noble and curious, but this is politics. Being far right is bad. Being a socialist is bad. Being a leftist is bad. There are no goal posts or purity. It is what it is. Don't watch Fox News.
Mamdani has a campaign platform that lists some policy ideas. Several I consider to be bad ideas regardless of how socialist they are. They do appear to be broadly popular among leftists. He also doesn't appear to have an issue using propaganda. Cable news networks are imprecise in their opposition to Bad Ideas from Bad People. That they're imprecise due to a definitional standard that doesn't meet yours or mine is not of consequence. In Bizarro world, Mamdani is a Democratic National Socialist and there's a whole lot of focus on the National Socialist part. Some of it is fair, some not so much.
would argue that "deregulation" that is often cited as "capitalist" is simply rent-seeking cronyism
I share the understanding that, as a general rule of thumb, a more laissez-faire policy is more capitalism. Nuance can be found in every crevice.
wemptronics
15d ago
Tony Blair, Nicolas Maduro, Pol Pot, and Castro walk into a bar...
Yes. Anything that can be spun as controversial means no revelation. Even something like bankruptcy can be spun as a cumulative problem that [current mayor] merely had set on their plate. Lag time also plays a role. Costs may only become become apparent after a term is over and he's off to Congress or wherever. Barring an Escape from New York level of catastrophe, then one should expect to fight free stuff in the immediate future forever regardless of results.
As an alternative to the expectation voters learn -- which voters are bad at -- they are pretty good at forgetting. They'll forget the last time it didn't work out, they'll forget why, but if a party wins enough times they might forget about bad ideas. Win so hard, so often, that the bad ideas become foreign. Then there is less voter recognition which creates an additional hurdle for advocates. NYC can still partly do this by embarrassing Mamdani in the general.
when did our definition of socialism become so drowned-down?
The second half of the 20th century. Expansion of the welfare state and government programs are attacked as socialist. The meaning gets diluted through the 90's after the Cold War. In the 2000s-2010s the meaning continues to change rapidly as progressives claim much of socialism for themselves.
Is FoxNews blocking the term DemSoc from taking off in the US?
I doubt it. Mamdani has not, as far as I know, gone to any great lengths to explain what a democratic socialist is or why he is not a socialist. Did Bernie even bother with this in his 2016 bid? That kind of distinction does nothing for Mamdani's campaign. The public does not have that demand for accuracy or nuance if it actually matters or is real. Plus, I suspect the well off progressive base of NYC quite likes voting for a socialist more than they do not-really-a-socialist. A diffuse contempt for capitalism is a popular meme that can be harnessed. No reason to put a damper on that for the sake of centuries old ideological accuracy.
I think if you're going to demand consistency here, then you should do so consistently. Are these capitalist policies he is proposing?
I can also get annoyed at the politics and the (especially online) culture.
A recent example: there was a shooting at Salt Lake City's No Kings protest a couple weeks ago. There is a brief video that shows what went down. It sounds like the SLCPD was aware that event volunteers were carrying pistols which resulted in reported "peacekeepers" (volunteer event staff) shooting a man armed with a rifle.
A pair of volunteers, easily identified by high visibility vests, observed this individual dressed in black "seclude" himself, don a mask, take out his AR, and approach the crowd with his rifle at what looks like low ready. The volunteers draw their pistols, aim at him as seen in the video, and allegedly shout at him to stop. The 24 year old panics, runs towards the crowd, and a volunteer fires 3 times. He hits the the suspect once, but then also kills a bystander beyond him. Turns out charges are not yet filed against anyone, although the 24 year old was initially arrested for reckless endangerment or some such thing.
The demonstrator -- reportedly a lefty anarchist John Brown Club adjacent type -- dressed in all black with a mask approaches the crowd by his lonesome. Apparently he was not prepared to be challenged. Despite the politics of the guy, the open carry fetishists guys, or people pretending to be them online were in absolute uproar about the violation of his rights. Of course it's unreasonable to intervene. How dare they! He didn't even fire a shot. These volunteers had no right to stop this guy from demonstrating if that's what he meant to do. They wrongly believed a different intent. They were probably so concerned about a shooting they created one. They fucked up so bad one of them killed an innocent man.
To me, a basic expectation for carrying in a public demonstration, especially doing so alone while obscuring one's identity, requires all sorts of technique, safety, and etiquette. Sling your weapon, signal your intent, and prepare to be challenged. Be a prosocial advocate. The freedom to demonstrate is limited in trivial ways with my expectations, but we get to have mass gatherings with firearms.
There's that absolutist SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ideology floating around, where any violation of 2A rights is perceived as abhorrent, and thus worthy of maximum outrage.
I find it easy to believe takes like Rov_Scam's below. A trashy individual who can't manage to present himself as a decent, responsible person doesn't get what rights he is entitled to. Pretext for a judge to judge an individual as too irresponsible or dangerous.
Capital A-bsolutists are real, though they are less common among advocates. The absolutist rhetoric is some part cultural signal, part true belief (what is a right?), and part tactical. For the last bit, what benefit is there to giving an inch? 2A groups fight alone for a right, at best, most don't care too much about. The public is fickle and of limited value to the advocate's position. The world and many American jurisdictions set an example that incentivizes and justifies obstinance.
The 2A lobby is arguably more alive than ever, so that also contributes to being annoying. Where and when the lobby fails -- which happens -- many people scream with glee. A great many more shrug.
It's the duty of gun rights advocates to show that any given restriction is unreasonable
Unfortunately, yes. A government reinterprets, ignores, or dismantles a right, and the onus is on the citizenry to challenge it. This should carry additional explanatory power for any stubbornness. It would be nice to not require advocacy at all in a high-trust, high-functioning society. Lots of things would be nice!
Are you going to send a donation to a 2A advocacy group because, upon reflection of the details in this case or another, you perceive them as acting reasonably? As @gattsuru studiously documents for us, every little niggle, every small "in", each precedent and alternative interpretation that can be exploited gets explored fully.
It's real. In the sense that this looks like a tit-for-tat draw down preceded by a mad smash and grab. It is not real in the sense that "ceasefire" means ceasefire. The two nations haven't conducted open diplomacy for 40+ years. I don't think anyone believes a "ceasefire" looks anything like peace. Iran will mostly get its airspace back after the launch missile quota, the US gets to leave for a moment, and Israel must be satisfied with the operation. None of these things prevent future actions or new phases. If you require a "ceasefire" be a ceasefire, then it's not real. It's still a meaningful change in posture.
I've shared that thought, although I'm not as sure it's new. I haven't watched the movie, but I'll take your word for it that the performance lacks the authenticity of a Friday.
Most black people are interested in protecting an ethnic identity. I'd bet that number approaches 100% when it comes to black entertainers. Cynically, because ethnicity means a target demo to make money from. Less cynically, because they are responding to cultural norms that push them to be black, and actors, often annoyingly, consider themselves representative.
Maintaining a culture that can induct new generations requires understanding and conformity. Time and entropy weakens the ties to founding myths and common understandings. A culture then places more importance on fewer pillars, popular ideas, and easily identifiable signals. There are still many black people alive who can share personal experience that bonds them to the black experience. However, these people are dying. As they die fewer grandparents share the old understanding of Civil Rights, racism, victimhood, etc. Young black people can (and do) try fit their experiences into the broader cultural framework and society, in this case, helps facilitate it. But, since these individuals cannot always credibly sell their stories as the same old stories they can sound little off. Did you know 13 unarmed black men are killed by police each year?
It's not unusual to hear black people tired of being black because blackness imposes on them. The bits that outright blame black culture is a less public grievance, because there's taboos, norms, and bad words to call people who fight this type conformity. The most socially acceptable way to express this sentiment in the mainstream is to primarily fault white people for the cultural pressure or, in entertainment, blame the Jews. Even with a few naysayers, demand for blackness remains staggeringly high. Black people favor more blackness, the studios want more blackness, many white people want more, but the black people selling blackness today lived different lives than the story everyone wants and is familiar with. Those within the culture can choose belief, others that are most inclined can humor it, but for the rest of us this is more difficult. It requires talent to sell us on an update that aligns close enough with our own. Maybe Sinners as a production didn't have much talent, but a show like Donald Glover's Atlanta did.
Black people may have another Tyler Perry to rally behind, but it's also possible we'll notice more performative blackness as relatively unblack, untalented people contort themselves to try and fill that demand. Blackness has already been fully commodified and commercialized, so maybe we can call it post-commodified blackness? Uber commodified? Flanderization also comes to mind, but what is an identity if not some grade of caricature or stereotype?
That said, if you're just now noticing this, then it's more likely something has changed your perspective recently. This is an ongoing, decades long trend, and Friday is a part of it.
More options
Context Copy link