domain:preview.redd.it
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
19hr 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
19hr ago
Ah yes, withholding a bonus to an employee is the same negative hedons as whipping him. Clearly.
Supah_Schmendrick
19hr 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
19hr 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
19hr 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.
20hr 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
20hr 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
20hr 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
20hr ago
You deeply underestimate the prevalence of destructive behavior in the past.
hydroacetylene
20hr 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.
20hr 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
20hr 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
20hr 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
20hr 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.
Skulldrinker
20hr ago
I find Hasan's brand repellent and emblematic of the current era of internet fame; Of course the top political streamer on Twitch is a handsome rich vapid LA socialite
I had the misfortune to be swiping the other week and among the endless "You better also be an anti-capitalist queer ally Free Palestine LGBTQTQBLG! or else" Profiles was one that went a step further by raving about how dreamy Hasan Piker is. This made me put down my phone for a while. In what universe is talking about your favorite e-boy a good look?
And what happens when the rewards for all that effort are, rationally, not worth the effort and expense?
More to the point, after a guy goes through the painful efforts of making himself better, can he expect to achieve a loving marriage, have a kid or two with a loyal wife, and see these kids to adulthood in an intact home?
The stats on that are bleak, as of now.
If not, then what, truly, is the point? Why does he do what he does if not to preserve his status and pass on his genes?
2rafa
20hr ago
Not really. Sure, modern Germany only allowed immigrants to naturalize in 1991 (and large numbers of Turks only started actually doing it more recently), but there was no large scale deportation and so in effect they had de facto ‘permanent residency’ since the 1950s. Kohl considered trying to deport some but it was considered too much effort so they didn’t. Even after recruitment of Gastarbeiter stopped in 1973 family reunification continued and had always been allowed even if it was ‘discouraged’.
That is kind of the story of mass immigration to Europe, especially around family reunification. Once you have that, you have children in public schools, the whole system breaks down and some degree of naturalization is seemingly inevitable because you’ve created a class of de facto permanent residents (in the Gulf only wealthy expats send kids to (private) schools; kafala migrants have no family reunification rights).
The German Turks existed in this state (huge extended families and many children living in Germany) for 30+ years without getting citizenship, but it didn’t really matter because no effort was made to remove them and they were comfortable, their kids attended public schools, they had access to welfare and social housing etc etc.
cjet79
20hr ago
"Is talk therapy medicine?" seems like a very easy question to answer.
Is it licensed and regulated by a state or federal level medical board? If yes then it's medicine, if not then it's just speech.
quiet_NaN
20hr ago
See my reply here.
Again, it is technically possible that they aided Reyes in raping the victim alone, then killed her, and for some reason decided to shield him (and only him) in their confessions by claiming he was not present. Perhaps he was a member of the illuminati, and the defendants who were afraid enough to betray their buddies were nevertheless more afraid of him than of a murder sentence, and had taken the steps to coordinate a false version of events -- which lead to them spending decades in prison -- so they did not have to implicate him.
Or it could be that Reyes is psychic and edited himself out of the memory of his accomplices after the deed.
Or perhaps a bunch of forensic experts formed a conspiracy to falsely exonerate a bunch of murderers and get them millions in restitution instead, and falsified the DNA evidence after convincing Reyes to confess. Perhaps they did it to make Trump look bad a decade later when he would start to become a political force.
Here is what I think likely happened. CP5 was a big, political case. Trump published his attack ad on the mayor. The mayor knew that he needed a conviction, and made it clear to the police that he wanted a guilty verdict. For a cop, this is the kind of case which will make or break your career. They found the likeliest suspects that they could find and convinced themselves that they were guilty, which was easy because it was in their personal best interests to believe it (as opposed to telling the mayor that they had been unable to find the killer). Confirmation bias did the rest.
They did not follow good epistemic protocols, like having different cops get confessions from different suspects, and then check the confessions for consistency, or determining if the suspects had perpetrator's knowledge.
In their mind, there was no need, because they already knew that they were guilty ("police instinct" and all that), and their job was simply to paint a picture which would convince any bleeding heart jury.
They very likely cut corners in the process, skipped legally mandated safety checks. Even if you are a cop who will mostly play by the book, this case was to important to leave it up to chance if the real, circumstantial evidence would convince the jury. So you 'forget' to give your suspect the Miranda warning. Perhaps you beat a few of them up to get them to confess, after all, these scumbags just murdered a girl, and you are not even breaking their bones. Or you prompt them with the same story which they should confess. Who cares if you find out in which order they raped her, the important thing is that you present a version of the story which will get them sent to prison, not contradictory confessions which will confuse the jury. Simulacrum level two, not one. Perhaps you even plant a bit of evidence to help justice along.
And they would have gotten away with it, too, if it were not for the fact that the boffins developed a new forensic technique which is far more reliable than any amount of confessions.
In a way, the case exposed the whole rotten underbelly of the US criminal justice system. I wonder how many other 'criminals' are still sitting in prison because the same dirty cops played the same dirty tricks on them. (While I believe that most convicts are in fact guilty, I also believe that US cops do not have a culture of good epistemics and calling out the ones who use illegal shortcuts to paint a nicer picture.)
The reason why every kid learns that the only thing you say when arrested is "I will not answer any questions and I want a lawyer", no matter if you are innocent or guilty, is because US citizens can not trust the police to be interested in determining the truth, especially if they are already detaining you.
The fact that they are still breathing is an affront to justice
Oh come on. Now every state that does not execute prisoners is inherently unjust?
daguerrean
20hr ago
Why is physically negative feedback taboo but other negative sensations are not? They are all just dolors, negative hedons, whatever you want to call them. I’m fairly confident that dogs might choose a small shock over, I don’t know, being refused access to a particular treat. In my mind if a dog would prefer it I struggle in understanding what makes it wrong other than the squeamishness and moral purity of the pet owner
daguerrean
20hr ago
Have you not encountered invisible fences? They are extremely common and widespread in my experiences and use shocks based on proximity to the fence
daguerrean
20hr ago
There is nothing wrong with using a shock collar. 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.
Pet owners online are some of the most deranged, toxic people I have ever encountered. They seem to view dogs and cats as our masters, that we must deliver them lavish accommodations and expect nothing in return. Suffice it to say I find this unreasonable. If a human is expected to have a job, so too can a dog.
Fair enough! Catholics have always been very tolerant of iconography of Jesus though.
More options
Context Copy link