omw_68
5hr ago
Are you aware of how the sanctions actually work? Other countries who trade with Cuba also get penalised for violating the blockade.
I'm not aware of how the sanctions work. Please tell me what penalties has the US imposed on China over the years for trading with Cuba? Similarly, what penalties has the US imposed on Mexico for trading with Cuba?
Also, what does the word "blockade" mean to you? Are you claiming that the US physically prevents ships from calling on Cuban ports?
omw_68
6hr ago
I don’t love the term “terrorism” here since the electronics were clearly aimed at military targets and not civilians. No one calls it terrorism when you bomb an army base but some collateral damage kills civilians too. Terrorism I think by definition is causing civilian harm to change politics.
I agree, but the basic playbook is (1) identify conduct which is perceived as being reprehensible; (2) falsely accuse Israel of doing it. Thus, the false accusations of "genocide," "apartheid," "terrorism," etc.
omw_68
6hr ago
I don't get it. Do they genuinely think that a world where normalizing blockades of international shipping is one that they would actually want to live in?
If it (1) allows them to feel morally superior; and (2) harms their outgroup, then I would guess "yes," in the sense that they might choose such a world. They might regret such a choice later, though.
omw_68
6hr ago
So if a mail bomb is sent to some IDF recruit by Hezbhollah to blow up inside his house then that's not terrorism because it's a military target?
If Hezbollah were genuinely targeting a specific soldier, I wouldn't call that terrorism, especially if Hezbollah had the option of destroying the entire neighborhood the soldier lived in but instead decided to use a mail bomb. I would object for other reasons, but I wouldn't call it terrorism.
As far as blockades go, I agree that the rules of war do not have a general prohibition on naval blockades. However, I recall the following:
(1) A blockade must be directed at enemy territory, as distinguished from a blockade of the high seas or of an international waterway. Thus, if the Iranian Navy blockaded the Port of San Diego, this would arguably conform to the rules of war. But I doubt that blockading the Strait of Hormuz would conform.
(2) The blockading state must not play favorites, i.e. the blockade must be enforced against all states, friendly or not.
I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like this is an illegal blockade. Of course I am open to being corrected.
omw_68
7hr ago
For a counterpoint: in WW2 once the Germans started losing roughly 2 u-boats a month they began drastically drawing back the campaign against Atlantic shipping. This effectively ceded the supply war to the Americans, even though Germany still had over 1,000 u-boats. Extreme risk aversion has been a thing in the past too.
Question: At the time the Germans were losing 2 u-boats a month, from the perspective of the crewman on a u-boat, what were the odds of being sunk on any given mission to disrupt shipping?
omw_68
20hr ago
you still end up running into public choice and Hayekian flavored failures of communism.
Can you be a little more specific about the scenarios you are envisioning here? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just would like to understand the issues you are raising.
omw_68
1d ago
The panic for the first two months or so I don't think was totally insane, but the continued cargo culting for another 2 years was nuts.
Well one thing that was pretty crazy early on was the flip. What I mean is that in the early days, people who were concerned were dismissed as anti-Asian racists. People who were Correct Thinkers fully supported gatherings for Chinese new year.
The other thing is that it was reasonably clear -- even in the early days -- that you didn't face much risk if you were young and in good health.
I will concede that there may have been a brief period during which society was not wildly under-reacting or wildly over-reacting, but I'm not sure I would agree it was 2 months.
omw_68
1d ago
here was never anything like Covid before and hopefully never will be again.
Sadly, mass hysteria is as old as the hills. The best I can say -- in general -- is that it was interesting to live through a mass hysteria event. But I would be pretty angry about the situation if I had had elementary-school-aged children at the time.
omw_68
1d ago
I'd invest all the money in tech, focusing on AI companies. Look, AGI is our best for fully-automated luxury space communism (with optional homosexuality), if we don't have that, then communism ain't for me.
Yeah, I think that if some companies invent AGI and are able to produce nearly unlimited goods or services at very little cost, then there's actually a pretty good argument to be made that the people -- acting through the government -- should seize the means of production and distribute the benefits evenly.
I mean, one of the fundamental flaws in communism is that when the government controls the means of production (1) it does a lousy job maintaining them; and (2) it disincentivizes the development of better means of production. But if the means of production can maintain and improve themselves, this is (arguably) much less of a concern.
omw_68
2d ago
I am not certain of the exact number
I asked for "rough" numbers. Please provide them.
The same kind of reasoning applies, but not to the same degree. No anti-racist government policy yet implemented in the West has caused as much harm to white people as Jim Crow caused to black people.
Current so-called "anti-racist" (to use your misleading phrase) policies cause DEFINITE harm, as opposed to speculative harm. Also, the societal belief that black underperformance is the result of white misbehavior might lead to far worse harms.
Given that there is both definite harm to whites and the possibility of far worse harm, would you agree that a high standard of proof is necessary before concluding (for purposes of policy) that black underperformance is the result of white misbehavior?
My evidence is that I have watched the bloody news for the past quarter-century!
As another poster requested, please illustrate your claim with three specific news stories.
omw_68
2d ago
A little off-topic, but how about a thread for registering predictions?
Last night I had a vivid dream that I was in Seoul, South Korea and suddenly there was a major incursion by the North Koreans. Yes, it's pretty unlikely that I have the gift of prophecy, but hey, a guy can dream, right?
omw_68
3d ago
I, on the other hand, think it's more of a critical mass thing. Once an ideology reaches a certain scale, it obviously starts to affect the population, and at that point it almost inevitably develops coercive or oppressive elements, regardless of its original intent.
It seems to me that ideologies vary in terms of how oppressive or coercive they are. For example, consider what could be called "liberal democracy" or "social democracy" -- the sort of ideology that has been ascendant in much of the developed world since after World War II. It seems like it's possible to openly be a Marxist or Communist or Libertarian or whatever in such societies. By contrast, if Marxism is ascendant, it's much more difficult to be an open subscriber to some other ideology.
As another example, one can ask who is more likely to be disrupted: A conservative speaker on a liberal college campus or a liberal speaker on a conservative college campus?
And when you think about it, it kinda makes sense. One of the basic tenets of Wokeness is that white people, as a group, have committed a horrible crime against non-whites and continue to do so. And conservatives help to perpetuate that crime. This would seem to justify quite a bit of coercion and oppression.
omw_68
4d ago
And as a German I say rightfully so.
Obviously there are pluses and minuses, but I think that on balance I prefer the American approach of having very broad protections for speech. There are a lot of people out there who would LOVE to be able to sue or prosecute me simply for stating true facts about racial differences; sex differences; whether or not the "it's ma'am" guy is a dude; and so on. The American tradition of free speech puts a huge obstacle in their way.
Thus, in this realm, I assign non-zero probability to the hypotheses that Black underperformance is caused by:
It seems to me that this is pretty much tautological. In the sense that ANY factual claim about the world has a "non-zero probability."
Let's do this. So that I can understand your position, please tell me roughly what probability you assign to the following claims:
(1) A significant part of the cause of black underperformance is genetic differences between blacks and other groups;
(2) Genetic propensity for greater (or lesser) intelligence is distributed roughly equally among all racial and ethnic groups.
On the other hand, in the realm of public policy and practical implications on the lives of human beings, it becomes necessary to consider how much harm a hypothesis might cause, and hold some hypotheses to a higher standard of proof on that basis.
And, if I understand you correctly, even the mere possibility of harm is cause to implement a high standard of proof, right?
Also, does the same reasoning apply to policies which (1) assume that black underperformance are the result of societal discrimination; and (2) definitely (not possibly,but definitely) cause significant harm to white people?
Last, can I take it you are abandoning your claim that the norms against racial discrimination established during the Civil Rights Era are eroding at an alarming rate?
If not, what's your evidence for this claim?
omw_68
5d ago
Why not both?
Occam's razor.
Plus some actual principle, honestly.
I'm rather skeptical of this. Can you point to three instances in which (1) the Left has cancelled someone; and (2) doing so was a genuine and significant setback for the Left?
but I think erasing him is extremely convenient right now.
I don't think it makes much of a difference. Probably 95% of Americans have no idea who he was or what he stood for. I myself had completely forgotten him until now and I went to college in an agricultural area in the American West during the boycott grapes era.
omw_68
5d ago
However if this were an earlier time when false allegations of homosexuality was considered defamation per se, might 'Licc'em Low Lisa' have been defamatory?
I haven't listened to the song, but I would guess that yes, in an earlier time, implying that someone is a homosexual would be considered defamatory.
The trend in the United States is towards free speech, which I basically agree with but obviously this is not without costs.
omw_68
5d ago
Because it is usually not "grooming" in the sense that they are intentionally preying on these women from the start. Rather, it is usually more that the women become infatuated and initiate the sexual interest (eg, through flirting), they eventually catch feelings and lose the will to maintain appropriate boundaries, and the women discover their infatuation didn't lead to the (unrealistic) desired relationship so they blame him for their original behavior rather than accepting responsibility themselves.
I basically agree with this, but I would add the following:
If you are a man, it's pretty nice to have desirable women approaching you. And that's what typically happens if (1) you are a man; (2) you are in a high status position in an organization or institution; (3) you have regular contact with desirable women in the organization or institution; and (4) you are at least mediocre in terms of physical attractiveness.
The alternative to having desirable women approaching you is to seek them out yourself. Which consumes time and energy and more often than not leads to the unpleasant experience of being rejected.
The entire situation boils down to society refusing to treat women as adults with agency.
I think that's not entirely true. Rather, women pivot back and forth between "helpless child" and "adult with agency" depending on what's convenient. A society that truly refused to treat women as adults with agency would put substantial limits on their autonomy. As a small example, it used to be common for girls' college dormitories to have curfews and to not permit male visitors after a certain hour.
omw_68
5d ago
The distinction you make between the sort of coercive vs. non-coercive wokeness sounds good, but it hasn't held up in practice.
I suspect part of the issue is that a lot of the time, wokeness is more about the tactics than the actual beliefs. In other words, for example, a large number of wokies (perhaps most of them) don't start from the premise that they desire racial equality and then start thinking about ways to work for racial equality. Rather, these wokies really like the idea of terrorizing other people with ever-changing language rules; taking over buildings on college campuses; blocking traffic; getting laws passed to punish and humiliate their out-group; and so on. Wokeness gives them a means to pursue these activities while feeling righteous in doing so.
omw_68
5d ago
I'm kind of skeptical about this, because the Left can easily just lie about what Chavez stood for. There are plenty of examples of the Left inverting reality when necessary.
My guess is that someone just decided to come forward with a story for whatever reason, which motivated other people to come forward with stories. Either because they were genuinely abused by Chavez or just wanted attention.
omw_68
5d ago
however, these norms are eroding at an alarming rate.
I'm extremely skeptical of this claim. What's your evidence?
Jim Crow was far more harmful to Black people than any of the attempts to remedy it have been to others.
Acknowledging the truth about racial differences is unlikely to result in a return of Jim Crow laws. The only evidence you have offered (so far) is a claim that racial differences were used to justify Jim Crow laws.
Meanwhile, harm to non-blacks from affirmative action and such is real and unquestionably happening.
I have considered many potential explanations for the continuing poor outcomes among Black people, both orthodox and heretical; all of them seem to, ultimately, trace back to discrimination against them, although that discrimination is not always done by human beings.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Certainly if one were to apply your standard to the position that black underperformance is primarily the result of past discrimination by non-blacks, there's nowhere near sufficient proof.
In any event, I take it that in your view, it's reasonable for society to refuse to acknowledge truths solely because doing so might possibly result in harm. Is that correct? And this applies universally, not just in connection with policymaking. Correct?
omw_68
5d ago
No. It would not necessarily lead to such; however, defenders of Jim Crow often cited the alleged mental deficits and supposed inherent criminal tendencies of the Black population; thus, it is not as far from possibility as I would prefer.
Ok, I think I understand your position now. I disagree for a couple of reasons.
First, in my view, societal recognition of truth should not depend on the likelihood of harm resulting from that recognition. Either something is true or it isn't and the standard for truth seeking is logically irrelevant to the consequences of such truth.
Moreover, if there is a principle in place that the possibility of harm is ground to reject something which would otherwise be accepted as true, it opens the door to the worst kind of abuses.
Second, even if there were such a principle in place, truths should not be rejected on the mere possibility of harm. Rather, for much the same reason, a compelling case needs to be made of a strong likelihood of harm.
Here, there are plenty of laws and Supreme Court decisions in place guaranteeing equality. Thus, it is pretty unlikely that recognition of the truth about blacks would change this.
Indeed, it is worth drawing a distinction between (1) lower black intelligence and higher criminality; and (2) the genetic cause of the same. There is no serious dispute that on average, blacks have lower IQs than non blacks and are more likely to commit crime. And yet this hasn't resulted in reenactment of Jim Crow laws. Given that, it's difficult to see how recognition of a genetic component in this discrepancy would bring about a return of Jim Crow laws.
It is also worth distinguishing between (1) the level of proof necessary for societal acceptance of some truth; and (2) the level of proof necessary for laws to be enacted on the basis of the same.
We already have laws and policies in place which were enacted on the assumption that black underperformance is the result of past discrimination. I'm perfectly fine with a principle which says that until there is super-duper proof that this assumption is correct, then such laws and policies are unacceptable.
In other words, if -- for purposes of policymaking -- we are going to have a super high standard before concluding that black underperformance is a result of genetics, in whole or in part -- it follows logically we should have a super high standard before concluding that black underperformance is a result of past discrimination.
If the resulting logic is "we just don't know why blacks score lower on intelligence tests and commit more crime, and until that is known definitively, we won't have Jim Crow laws; we wont' have affirmative action; all races will be treated equally; etc." that's fine with me. To put it another way, if the conclusion that black underperformance is in part the result of genetics is possibly harmful to blacks, then we should also consider that the reverse conclusion is harmful to non-blacks.
omw_68
5d ago
I don’t think Nazis had a lot of sexual abuses.
I don't know about that. Of course I despise Nazis, so it's difficult for me to concede that they may have had any redeeming qualities. In any event, they surely had their share of sadists and psychopaths. And it's pretty common for men in positions of power to leverage that power for sexual access to women (or other men). So I would have to guess that there was quite a lot. Especially given that they were in a position to conceal much of the evidence.
omw_68
5d ago
But it is notable that the ideology that claims to be about liberation, smashing of oppression and coercion, removal of hiearchies, etc. etc. has such poor antibodies against abusers achieving power.
I would need to think about that one. Of course part of the issue here is that I absolutely despise Leftists so of course I am naturally biased towards any argument that they are more prone to be sexual abusers and such.
That being said, perhaps a factor is that -- in large part -- Leftist ideology is about reforming traditional norms. So perhaps the provides more of an opening for sexual opportunists and such. Certainly if I were looking to get laid, I would prefer to the head of the local PETA chapter, as opposed to being the head of the local chapter of Operation Rescue.
omw_68
5d ago
It says something about the psychology of this particular ideology that so many prominent lefty leaders turn out to be rapists and/or pedophiles.
FWIW I think that modern Leftism is a magnet for various types of bad people (grifters, sadists, sexual abusers, etc.) who want (1) a shield against accusations of misbehavior; and (2) the opportunity to feel good and righteous and just as they inflict harm on others.
If I were a sociopath and I were mainly concerned about self-aggrandizement; sexual opportunities; and/or outlets for sadism, then 100% I would get involved in some Leftist cause.
As far as Nazis go, I would guess that it's the same principle in play. Perhaps not Hitler himself, but I think it's very likely that the ranks of Nazi leadership were full of sexual abusers, it's just that there isn't evidence available in the form of victim testimony, photographs, etc. But if you are a sociopath in 1930s Germany, of course you are going to join the Nazi party if you can.
Thank you for this. Assuming your narrative is accurate (and I have no reason to doubt you), it seems unlikely that it was a matter of "Extreme risk aversion."
More options
Context Copy link