zeke5123a
4hr ago
I don’t think this suggestion is all that plausible but it is more plausible compared to “don’t send your daughters to college and instead make sure they marry at 20.”
The hope would be that instead of drug fueled depraved sex, there would be more opportunities for men and women to mix in a way that creates long term relationships.
zeke5123a
1d ago
I think the whole thing is a strong argument for bringing back single gender colleges and strictly enforcing curfews etc for women.
zeke5123a
1d ago
The core question we are wrestling with is “what is free speech.”
It seems your view is that free speech is when you cannot be harmed for what you say. But that seems like an impossible standard. For example, if you a lose social standing over speech is that a violation of free speech?
To me, the only coherent internal standard is the American standard whereby the government cannot preclude you from saying certain things and cannot punish you for it.
That does leave risk that of course society could still curtail speech. But I would argue that risk is also present in places where the focus is positive rights. And moreover, it is easier to change society when you cannot be imprisoned for speaking against the cathedral.
In any event, I do agree with you that Euros adopt the latest American leftist approach and then crank it up to 11. I also agree that American free speech (and freedom of association) falls woefully short in practice (I think civil rights laws are terrible).
PS I think you could include within negative rights that someone else cannot kidnap you.
zeke5123a
1d ago
I am in fact being serious. The US has a concept of negative rights. That is, here are things the government will not force you to do. Included in them is the government will not compel speech or forbid speech. Another negative right is that of freedom of association. Imbedded within freedom of association is at will employment.
Sadly, the U.S. government has stupidly (and I would argue unconstitutionally) limited freedom of association with so called civil right laws.
However, the conceptual point remains: the government will not forbid you from making speech it dislikes nor will the government forbid you or require you to associate with something you don’t like. So there is no conflict with being fired for speech since the right itself has nothing to do with other private persons. That is, it is internally consistent.
Europe takes a different approach. They broadly believe in positive rights. These include the right to dignity (ie not to be offended), worker rights, and so called free speech.
But the problem with positive rights is that they conflict so you have to pick which one is more important. And the UK has picked which one is more important and it isn’t speech. Thus your right to speech (as understood as a positive right) is and must be curtailed.
In the U.S., you can have media types speak out against the current trend of the day and can hopefully self correct. We did correct somewhat (though not enough). In the UK, you have police accosting journalists over their tweets. https://freespeechunion.org/archive/telegraph-journalist-allison-pearson-faces-investigation-over-reported-non-crime-hate-incident.
Also, im far from certain UK even has robust worker protections in practice even if in law. https://www.gbnews.com/news/free-speech-row-home-office-reform-richard-tice-gb-news
zeke5123a
2d ago
And if Newman isn’t an idiot, she would realize it’s not a general right to be non offended but the obligation to not say things considered impolite by tptb
zeke5123a
2d ago
If free speech is protected in the UK, why are there literally thousands of arrests for tweets?
Easy: the UK defines free speech as the ability to say X but not Y. Suffice to say a dog is not a cat even if the government says it is a cat. Likewise, Europe lacks free speech even if they claim they have it.
zeke5123a
2d ago
I think the meme is annoying precisely because the people who use it don’t really understand Christianity but instead think it’s just the hippie version.
zeke5123a
2d ago
He rightfully said that in order to think through what’s true you have to risk being offensive (ie not all truths are inoffensive).
Your second line of thought is interesting it isn’t obvious why for example the trans person’s right to not be offended over pronouns as opposed to the non trans person who finds gender theory offensive. That is, if a position is offensive on both sides why is one side given precedence?
zeke5123a
2d ago
I’m reminded of the Cathy Newman Jordan Peterson interview where she asks why should his right to speech be more important than her right not to be offended.
zeke5123a
2d ago
My favorite part about this is there is zero discussion of whether is it true; just whether they dislike the content.
zeke5123a
3d ago
I don’t really care because soccer is dumb but it would be like one team in the NFL gets to play without a salary cap. Sure seems like massive competitive advantage.
zeke5123a
7d ago
It’s funny you cite height. Do you know the odds of playing in the nba if you are 7 feet tall or higher? They are multiple orders of magnitude better than if you are below 6 feet tall.
So it is with rich people. Who is a better investor: random GS VP or Peter Thiel?
zeke5123a
8d ago
Leftist for a summer burned down parts of major American cities. One famous example was in Portland where they literally sieged a federal courthouse for days on end.
Compare that to a few hours of a protest that got a bit violent. You are out to lunch if you think the right is treated with kid gloves and the government attacks the left. It’s the exact opposite.
zeke5123a
8d ago
I think the South Africa white farmers are a great target for asylum (reasonably productive people that are under real threat as a minority). I also think most other asylum claims are BS.
Stated differently, the radical position is the prior asylum position. Immigration is not popular writ large.
zeke5123a
9d ago
It seems to me the problem with law is its universality. We need hard paternalism for the bottom 10% and classic liberalism with protections for everyone else
zeke5123a
9d ago
You don’t need to be an aryan race warrior before the race establishment right gets upset.
zeke5123a
10d ago
The right and left polices the “far” right wing (no one wants to be called a crypto Nazi) thereby prioritizing moderation as opposed to purity. The far left is tolerated and thus more and more results in purity spirals.
zeke5123a
11d ago
It’s not just that. The confidence that it “started” at the wet market relies on trusting the PRC. That’s a huge leap.
Moreover, there are thousands of wet markets and a handful of places like WIV. Quite the coincidence if it started at that specific wet market.
zeke5123a
11d ago
That’s just not true. We have the bat lady at WIV along with Barrick talking about doing GoF there. Fauci in his own emails stated they were doing GoF at WIV.
This became a political football because Fauci perjured himself. But even Fauci’s definition was GoF (ie they were doing things to viruses to see what would happen but weren’t sure it would gain function).
zeke5123a
12d ago
Wait. The same damn logic applies for zoonosis. Why aren’t you demanding that every wet market in the world be shut down? Why aren’t you demanding massive sanctions until countries stop wet markets / trade in exotic animals? Why aren’t you sending in Seal Team Six to take out owners of wet markets?
Edit — most lab leak proponents believe China did this—with the U.S.’s help— accidentally. Making a mistake is not causes for war.
The question isn’t whether she is drunk but whether she is incapacitated. Her judgement may have been off but there doesn’t seem to be evidence that (1) she was incapacitated or (2) was giving drugs without her knowledge. That isn’t rape.
Your frame also suggests that the men were knowingly plying her with drugs or booze to get her to do a gang bang of sorts AND that being drunk / high means she could not properly consent. But what if the men offering the woman drinks or drugs were also drunk / high? Why is it that their being drunk / high is insufficient to remove agency from their decision but is sufficient to remove agency from the woman?
More options
Context Copy link