domain:moultano.wordpress.com
quiet_NaN
18hr ago
I mean this is extremely inflammatory especially as coming from elected officials.
Did you mean from an elected official who is not Trump?
Saying 'Republicans want to redo the civil war' is very different from saying "let's redo the civil war", from where I stand.
Sure, they are longing for an escalation, but they have also learned in the last decade that being a divisive leader who takes a shit on his opponents every chance he gets, always doubling down rather than backing down is what the electorate prefers.
Trisha Meili wasn't murdered, she ended up living. And all 6 of their taped accounts (including Lopez who isn't counted in the "central park 5" because his parents made sure he didn't confess like the others did), and those of a few other people who had been around them that night, were really pretty consistent. The only difference was that each kid downplayed his own actions somewhat, thinking that they would be fine if they weren't the one who raped her. And the confusion that everyone knew she was raped, but these kids didn't actually see a rape, so they were trying to fit that into their confession incorrectly.
But the consistent picture of an assault and sexual molestation (but not rape, they were really too young and awkward for that) is pretty clear. It would be pretty remarkable if the detectives in a few hours of the untaped interrogation got them all to get on the same page of implicating themselves consistently in a made-up story, especially when they weren't even suspects in the initial questioning of ~30+ kids until kevin richardson happened to mention that the scratch on his eye was done by "the female jogger". Also especially because a few of them were borderline retarded, as was used in their defense. But they still all knew exactly which kid was hitting people with the metal pipe, who was throwing rocks at joggers' heads, and who was ripping her clothes off, etc.
That Reyes came along later and raped the woman who was lying there unconscious and nearly dead, really has no bearing on the assaults committed (on multiple victims) by the above 6 (which were attested to by multiple other kids as well, who somehow avoided being 'framed' by the detectives themselves).
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
18hr ago
I am begging you for an effortpost on cell phones and criminals.
daguerrean
18hr ago
It is wrong to abuse a pack animal, but all physical punishment is not abuse and the same applies to humans. The relationship of owner to pet is closer to parent-child than me-UPS driver, and it is certainly widely (but not universally) accepted that spanking a child is acceptable.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
18hr ago
I'm sure that that is exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to slip it in. To quote the original post:
Some sort of religious or, at least, high-minded civic metaphysics is a necessary part of this.
I'm not even sure what kind of argumentation you're using here. It's like mini-maxing what I explicitly said as I kind of snide way of cultivating doubt? It's strange, that's for sure.
If you want to get into a discussion about proposed solutions and their cost / benefit profile, I'm all for it! But, cards on the table first - do you see the current "liberal order" of things to be all well and good?
Ioper
18hr ago
In theory sure, in practice it's a reliable signal that you're abusive. Furthermore, i don't want to give abusive people the social go ahead for using that tool and plausible deniability for going over the line.
I don't have a principle against physical negative feedback, I would support corporal punishment where there is a neutral third party evaluating and administrating said punishment, like Singapore style caning.
daguerrean
18hr ago
Well humans have all sorts of cultural taboos around physical violence that clearly dogs have no comprehension of. In the absence of cultural taboos and laws I think for a big enough bonus many employees would prefer a short electric shock over missing out on a 50k bonus. I know I would.
Primaprimaprima
Aliquid stat pro aliquo
18hr ago
Fair enough! Catholics have always been very tolerant of iconography of Jesus though.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
18hr ago
The Constitution is dead. America is dead.
Man, fuck that noise. America is the best country. We have problems, but there's nowhere else in the world I'd rather be. The whole reason this thread exists in the first place is that America is a great place and too many people want to live here.
I am beginning to wonder if patriotism is going to flip towards being blue coded, it sure seems to be trending that way.
Supah_Schmendrick
18hr ago
Ah yes, withholding a bonus to an employee is the same negative hedons as whipping him. Clearly.
Supah_Schmendrick
18hr ago
View the dog as a working animal, its job is essentially to perform as an actor contributing to his streams. In exchange it receives food, shelter and so forth. It seems like a fair deal for the dog, I see nothing wrong with this.
A person's character is revealed in how they treat those below them - particularly those who are obligated to serve them. It's wrong to whip a UPS delivery driver for stopping his route for a coffee; it's wrong to abuse a draft or pack animal, and it's similarly a mark of low character to electroshock a dog for the "infraction" of taking a few steps inside your home.
You don't need to be deranged or toxic to look down on that. There's a world of difference between "don't cause your animal unnecessary pain for your convenience" and "deliver your animal 'lavish accommodations' in exchange for nothing."
I'll take this in good faith because I think you meant it that way.
Very much so, yes. It's important that we think clearly about what we mean when we talk about "the sacred". And the best way to clarify your concepts is to stretch them to their logical limits, so that you're forced to draw distinctions and clearly demarcate the boundaries of things.
But I don't actually want to just drop a "This is what the Catholic Church says" style response here. THat wouldn't be helpful.
It would be extremely helpful, if it were genuinely a part of your ultimate motivations. I'm less interested in debating policy and more interested in understanding why different people think the way they do, regardless of what those reasons turn out to be. (Sometimes people aren't honest about why they think what they think. Sometimes they genuinely don't know why they think what they think, or they're lying even to themselves. That makes it a difficult endeavor.)
At the risk of channeling the spirit of Helen Lovejoy, I think we should think of the children. Meaning, as a rubric, is whatever the "thing" we're talking about something we would more or less be comfortable with in giving to children?
Sure. But that doesn't really seem to be addressing my question, because this new criteria (about what's appropriate for children) seems totally orthogonal to the dimension of the sacred. The sacredness of the phenomenon or object in question is no longer relevant; we just have to look at whether it's safe for kids (or addictive or whatever other criteria you want to propose) and that will determine what types of prohibitions we need. But the reason I asked the question in the first place is specifically because I wanted to clarify what exactly the sacredness of sexual acts consists in.
I do believe that you (and not just you of course, but many people, both religious and non-religious) correctly perceive that there is a certain type of spiritual power in sexuality, and that this power can be dangerous if left unchecked, and this perception is what prompted you to use the word "sacred". A spiritual power that is not present in booze and guns and etc. We can quibble over whether "sacred" was the correct word choice, or if the category of the sacred needs to be subdivided further in order to account for different types of sacred phenomena, and so forth. But regardless, I think you were at least directionally correct.
quiet_NaN
18hr ago
First, the context was clearly the CP5 case. Timing matters. I think that most here would agree that a lefty posting a "resist fascism" meme within hours of Kirk being killed would be worse than a lefty posting the same meme a week earlier. Personally, I was disgusted by the pro-Palestinian demonstrations a day after the oct-7 attacks, when I week earlier I would been wholeheartedly meh about it.
Second, I disagree with Trump that an emotional response like hate will lead to better justice outcomes. I want judges and juries calm rather than emotional when they make their verdict.
Third, the world is not populated by easily distinguishable cooperate-bots and defect-bots. Your perception of the behavior of other people is always affected by noise. Under such circumstances, tit-for-tat is no longer the optimal strategy, and you want to build in some amount of forgiveness to avoid getting into a defect-defect loop with someone like you. Sure, any forgiveness option will lower your performance against defect-bot, but maximum effectiveness against defect-bot is defect-bot, and it does not perform particularly well. (This also happens to be the gist of the message of Christianity, as far as an atheist like me understands it.)
In particular, the fact that Trump was (as I have extensively argued here) wrong and overconfident about his "murderers" being defect-bots -- an opinion he likely formed with no in-depth knowledge of the subject -- is a cautionary tale.
Sure, we could simply task the police with shooting anyone who looks like a defect-bot to them, and that would tremendously cut down on the costs of the justice system as well as the rate of reported crime, but it would not lead to a much worse equilibrium than our present system, both due to innocents getting killed and such a system being ripe for abuse.
Goodguy
18hr ago
Agreed. Plenty of societies that had/have very clear pathways for boys to become part of society nonetheless had/have horrific levels of violence. Generally against their outgroups, but that's bad enough.
Nazi Germany had such pathways, and they were very clear.
Gangbangers in south Chicago have such pathways too. They do in a sense prize the stability of society above the autonomy of the individual, it's just that in their case their society consists of their gang.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
18hr ago
Probably true empirically but that doesn't mean you should therefore support those breaking the law*.
It means I must choose between acceding to every bad law or supporting lawbreaking in some instances. I won't give politicians that blank check.
(and no, I don't accept "We live in a society therefore suck it up and obey", no matter how many words you put behind it).
This is not because helping people take a chemical or cross an imaginary line between countries is depraved, it's because they are chipping away at the machinery that drives organized, peaceful, advanced societies.
Sometimes, I want some of that machinery chipped away, so the organized, peaceful, advanced society can be less regimented.
Corvos
18hr ago
If you are a Republican voter in Alabama, I don't see how Chicago is "your house" in any morally relevant way. If you are a Reform UK voter in Lower Snoring, I insist that my house in London is not "your house" in any morally relevant way
For the obvious reasons:
- There is free movement within borders. Open borders for one part of the country means open borders for all.
- There is continuity of government within borders. Imported voters in London can and do vote on what people in the oh-so-condescendingly-named Lower Snoring are allowed to do, think and say. They also exert cultural control through more indirect means (quangos, pressure groups and so on).
Are you proposing allowing individual US states / UK counties to have their own legally-enforced borders and government?
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
18hr ago
But this won't be accomplished by TikTok ads (lol) encouraging the boys to man up and / or talk to a therapist on BetterHelp (thank you for sponsoring this podcast, BTW). I think it requires the sincere confrontation of a modern liberalism that prizes the autonomy of the individual above the stability of society. I can see a good argument to be made that liberalism should be about the tension between those two things. But I don't believe we're living in that world. We're in a world where individuals demand acknowledgement, recognition, and validation from all of society all of the time regardless of any conflict between an individual's value system and societies. This is "live your truth" in a nutshell. And when that nut cracks open, it burns down everything it touches - like, literally.
Yeah and a huge problem with modern "liberalism" is that it isn't even liberal, as folks here know. There are certain values and taboos that still very much exist, and there always will be.
The idea that we can just fully liberate and allow anything and everything to go with no values whatsoever has always been a completely illogical thing. I do think a coherent underlying metaphysics (like Christianity?) is absolutely required for liberalism to thrive.
My personal vote for the young men is:
- Major works projects, building giant monuments, perhaps building a bunch of flop house camps for homeless people in rural areas to get them working/productive, repairing bridges/roads, basically New Deal stuff.
- Space!!! Send these mfers to the moon or mars, once we get the tech. Which will be soon. Though ofc this would be more for the higher IQ ones, at least at first.
- Martial arts and sports and fight clubs. Make these more common and available and high status. Lifting is good but lacks the social component.
Supah_Schmendrick
18hr ago
You deeply underestimate the prevalence of destructive behavior in the past.
hydroacetylene
18hr ago
Uh, you think these women care about being a good look?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
18hr ago
Where are you seeing the sealed documents? I see some paywalled ones that haven't yet been added to RECAP but nothing before Sep 30. Am I looking in the wrong place?
Goodguy
18hr ago
Are you sure that you're not trying to slip collectivism and religion into your proposed solution to the problems caused by some young men's woes in the same kind of way that some climate change activists try to slip communism in with their proposed climate change solutions?
samiam
18hr ago
You linked to politics, politics, unfiltered news, and bluesky skeets
The particular subreddits where these lies were spread do not matter because every single one of these stories made the front page of Reddit
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
18hr ago
Maybe carrying around constant location trackers in our pockets is a bad idea?
It is a terrible idea if one wishes to commit crimes. Like the guy arrested for the fire, my clients learn this fact to their detriment on a regular basis. For many of them, they will not truly absorb the lesson and will continue to commit crimes while carrying a location tracker, using said location tracker to arrange the crimes, or even using the tracker to record them committing the crimes.
Hell of a stawman!
Do you truly believe I'm advocating for pathways to manhood to include the active cultivation of violence against others (in a non military, State governed sort of way, of course). You immediately jump from my "the boys need purpose" to "YOU MEAN LIKE NAZIs?!" This is a bad faith argument.
More options
Context Copy link