domain:novum.substack.com
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26m ago
The Antipopulist is literally the nerd emoji who goes around saying, 'if we replace all the MAY with SHALL, that TOTALLY restores the legitimacy of the system.
Yes, I know. My point is that Gattsuru can, and does, show that irrespective of the hostility he exhibits, and therefore the hostility is unnecessary, and only drags the quality of the discourse down.
quiet_NaN
27m ago
I think that you will find that "to ask" is frequently used in situations where it is clear that non-compliance with the demand will have adverse consequences. For example, if someone makes a fuss in a restaurant, they might be asked to leave. If they then refuse to leave, that is not the end of the story, instead, the restaurant will typically escalate to more coercive measures.
I do not think life in prison is a reasonable maximum sentence here, though. I am sure the judicial system can come up with disincentives which are less severe than "we lock you up forever" and more severe than "we politely asked".
For example, the punishment should be a lot more lenient than if someone killed the fetus against the will of the pregnant woman (to avoid having to pay child support or for inheritance reasons or whatever).
Hadad
30m ago
You're quite welcome! I don't know how popular my take would be here, given this place has always been more disaffected liberals than anything else, but I'd say it's rather common among the modern right -- there's too much history on the subject for anyone to believe the rules matter.
voters-eliot-azure
patently unbiased
30m ago
You really set me up for a "Just following orders" response here after I already invoked Carl Schmitt.
voters-eliot-azure
patently unbiased
31m ago
I put this in my edit, but your comment stood out to me:
I appreciate the responses, there was actually quite a bit of variety which was nice to read. I came away with a steelman (which I didn't have originally) which is that the theatrics of ICE is meant to intimidate illegal immigrants.
What are your thoughts on the selective pressure this will have for illegal immigrants? My first thoughts were that it would select for:
- immigrants who are reckless and fearless (or motivated by lots of money, e.g. coyotes) - basically, criminals
- immigrants who face such extreme danger in their home country that even Twitter videos of brown people being tackled by men in masks doesn't slow them down - these desperate people would probably be considered "authentic" refugees by most leftists, and not just "economic migrants"
Probably a general success, then, because "economic migrant" is probably the lowest position on even the left's list of "immigrants who should move to the front of the line".
Jiro
32m ago
I'd think that if the movement has changed enough that the bad faith from 40 years ago isn't relevant, then people in the present-day movement who are acting in good faith would say "I admit that happened 40 years ago, but we no longer want to do that." If they don't say that, then either they are acting in bad faith today or they have to appease people in the movement who are acting in bad faith today.
Ideally they should also add "... and here's what we're doing to make sure it doesn't happen again". But they haven't even gotten to the first step of admitting that it's a concern.
Tenaz
32m ago
The word "right" is confusing because it refers to
- Things people deserve and should have. E.g. if I have the right to free speech, that means I should have free speech. This is unalienable and arguably bestowed by our Creator.
- The realization of #1. E.g. in this sense I only have the "right" to free speech if the government recognizes that right. This is the kind of "right" that people fight for and the kind they're referring to when they say they want rights.
We can argue about whether category #1 actually exists, or is just something that people define into existence, but the discussion will be hopelessly confused without this distinction.
crushedoranges
34m ago
The Antipopulist is literally the nerd emoji who goes around saying, 'if we replace all the MAY with SHALL, that TOTALLY restores the legitimacy of the system. This won't be worked around by motivated reasoning! The open-borders advocates will take their ball and go home and the government will enforce the laws as intended!'
I refuse to accept it, on this face, to believe that someone could be stupid enough to argue this. Or that he would believe us stupid enough to believe it. It is totally pedantic, almost surreal. This will not happen. It has never happened. No one has given up on a cause because of the wording of a law. And all of it is a moot point, because, and let me shout it loud so that the people in the back can hear...
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW WELL A LAW IS WRITTEN IF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF ENFORCING IT DECLINE TO DO SO.
OBVIOUSLY.
The hostility is deserved.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
35m ago
If a parent can veto the decision to abort, they would presumable also be able to veto the decision to have the baby.
That is certainly not true. That authority to forbid is not the authority to require.
voters-eliot-azure
patently unbiased
36m ago
Forcefully and publicly initiating the detention of illegal aliens for their removal is not a novel tactic: raids on businesses (but no accountability for the business owners) has always been an ICE tactic. That new-new is everything that's actually being complained about: masks, no badges, no warrants presented, no cooperation with the judiciary (yet), no oversight by congress (yet), no transparency with the public beyond "Rah Rah go-get-em" and "Enemies of America"-rhetoric by Noem and Leavitt.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
36m ago
"Nothing ever happens" is a completely valid sentiment, more valid than all the proclamations of all the academic experts combined, in fact. Also, people don't chime in with "I agree" comments over here. People only responds in agreement, when a comment is exceedingly insightful, otherwise they tend to respond with disagreements, which you can observe in this very instance.
oats_son
42m ago
Sorry to hear that about your cousin. I find that it's hard to say much on suicide deaths. They inherently create a lot of guilt in everyone around them, and I frequently hear people say "what a selfish thing to do" or blame them in some other way. Personally, life is just really difficult, and I can't say I don't understand someone who was already having a hard time of it for a long time deciding to check out. It is too bad that he couldn't figure out a better way.
As for snatches: the kettlebell book you linked me mentioned that they tear up hands pretty bad. Is there some reason you're throwing yourself at the goal this hard? The typical test is 100 snatches in 5 minutes, isn't it? Surely there are other ways to target those muscle groups. I think you should take it easy on the snatches.
I haven't actually learned the snatch yet, but I did manage to finally figure out the clean, though I am not using it in the intended way. I clean it once and then do 5 overhead press reps. I follow the previous routine I was doing: 3 sets of overhead press (5 reps) and 3 sets of pull ups (as much as I can manage, 5 intended but I can never do more than 3 good ones) on day A, 3 sets of push ups (10 reps, 20 reps last set) and 3 sets of high pulls (10 reps, 20 reps last set) on day B. My high pull is probably not what Pavel pictured, either; swinging so close to my face scares me, so I just pick it up and pull it high with no horizontal momentum. I am sort of butchering the workouts listed in the book, but it's closer to what I actually want to do for now, so I guess I'm going to keep it. I like the kettlebell a lot.
I thought you were FiveHourMarathon while reading this, which made it surprising when I read his comment below just now.
quiet_NaN
43m ago
Corporations, in my view, should just be big dumb money-makers.
Spoken like a sophomore year self-proclaimed capitalist.
Depending on the circumstances, an entity whose purpose it is to make money can act in ways which make society better or worse. Thus, they have to be aligned to the values of society through laws and regulations. For example, protection rackets are highly profitable, but we judge them net negative and thus they are forbidden, with enough penalties to turn the EV negative hopefully. Likewise for environmental or workplace safety regulations.
But regulations are always either overbearing or incomplete. The solution here is that people can also treat corporations as entities capable of moral behavior, which is a fiction which is also commonly applied to other people with great success. When Google had the motto "don't be evil", this was an implicit acknowledgement that corporations can be seen as moral entities.
This framework allows us, when we learn that a corporation has just invested into hunting street urchins in Somalia for their organs to not shrug and go "well EvilCorp's sole purpose is to make money, so there is nothing to complain about". Instead, we can go "EvilCorp is clearly evil, and I will not do business with them". Collectively, this affects their bottom line (depending on how consumer-facing they are), and serves to deter some unethical behavior.
Then there is the consideration that multiple companies competing with each other is not the ground state in the absence of regulations. The ground state instead are monopolies and regulatory capture. For things which will change the bottom line of one person by plus one million $ and change the bottom line of a million people by minus one dollar, it is clear that the one person (or corporation or special interest association) will put a lot more effort into lobbying than the million people.
I think that takes like "corporations are the real unaligned ASIs" are obviously stupid, because corporations are not superintelligent. But it is certainly a good idea to keep in mind that unless you are their sole shareholder, the corporation has fundamentally different goals than you have.
SkoomaDentist
46m ago
Now that I think about it, the 2 party system seems to have lot to do with it
I’m not so sure about that. Margaret Thatcher was known as the Iron Lady but I don’t recall her being particularly angry.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
46m ago
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti.
In a 6-3 decision, it held that:
Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.
The outcome was more or less decided by the threshold question: which type of review applies? There are 3 options:
- laws that classify on the basis of race, alienage, or national origin trigger strict scrutiny and will pass constitutional muster “only if they are suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”
- laws containing sex-based classifications to intermediate scrutiny, under which the State must show that the “classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.”
- laws that classify in some other way, which only get rational basis review (almost impossible for a law to fail this one).
The Tennessee law at issue didn't fall into category 1, so the argument was about whether it was category 2 or 3. Per the Court:
Here, however, SB1 does not mask sex-based classifications. For reasons we have explained, the law does not prohibit conduct for one sex that it permits for the other. Under SB1, no minor may be administered puberty blockers or hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence; minors of any sex may be administered puberty blockers or hormones for other purposes.
Once the law fell into category 3, that was pretty much that. There is some wiggling around to deal with Gorsuch's opinion in Bostock (which is what causes Alito to concur in parts of the opinion rather than the full thing since he dissented from Bostock), but Gorsuch joined this opinion in full, so apparently he didn't have a problem with the Court somewhat limiting Bostock here.
As one might expect, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented--they think intermediate scrutiny should apply. I cannot impartially comment on Sotomayor's dissent because most everything of hers that I read makes me think that Larry Tribe was, if anything, too kind in his remarks.
Rov_Scam
47m ago
That's a pretty misleading description of what's going on. Most of the outrage seems focused on the attempt to prosecute the doctor, which requires that New York extradite her to Louisiana. The rest of it centers around the hypocrisy that Louisiana had a pre-Dobbs parental consent law, which would suggest that parents have the authority to determine whether their children carry a child to term. If a parent can veto the decision to abort, they would presumable also be able to veto the decision to have the baby. I haven't seen any commentary suggesting that the mother was right to surrepetitiously abort the fetus.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
47m ago
The period starting December 2024. The problem is, the clips on TV couldn't have started in December 2024, nor could they have had much of an effect even in January 2025 on account of Trump being sworn in on the 17th of that month.
Now, perhaps you will claim that it was in fact the threat of the Trump presidency that caused numbers to drop even faster than they were already dropping. Perhaps, but that's not the claim you made and the claim I'm arguing against.
voters-eliot-azure
patently unbiased
49m ago
I think you should read some of the co-commenter responses to get a better idea about what most people thought of when I mentioned "ICE" and "blackbagging" in the year of our Lord 2025, June. I don't think I was being particularly vague.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
51m ago
There's some largish subset of Gen-Z women who are claiming that in their daily lives, they almost never see 'hot' men out and about, and the vast majority of the men they do see are hopelessly ugly, don't take care of themselves, and are just horribly unattractive, meanwhile they also claim that most of the women they see are gorgeous, well-put-together, and otherwise "hot" and thus deserve better partners than they've got.
Look, listen, I'm broadly sympathetic to the points you're raising about relationships for younger people, but this ain't it. Women are more religious than men, and this just so happens to be a religious belief that they have to proclaim even in anonymous surveys, but that doesn't mean they actually believe it. See: Lizzo is beautiful, right up until you call a woman beautiful just like Lizzo.
More to the point, there really, legitimately are lots of people who, when it comes to abortion specifically, do not think there’s a possible case of abortion that is morally wrong.
I mean, I know - I'm one of them! The case you describe still does sound morally wrong to me, in the same way in which drugging your daughter and submitting her to a cosmetic surgery would be. This is still not "women can do no wrong" - it's interesting how culture warriors on both sides refuse to believe that the other side could actually disagree with them on the moral status of fetuses, and think it must actually all be about women (blue: "red just wants to punish women for recreational sex" - red: "blue thinks women can do no wrong").
(Not that I'm not guilty of this myself - it is still genuinely different for me to believe in my heart that right-wingers really think fetuses are people being murdered, and it's not just a case of the real principle being rationalised by a loftier one like when people always remember international law when their enemies break it. It's hard when many of the same people are arguing a few threads down that women having sex with no prospect of marriage or childbirth is the root of all of our problems.)
erwgv3g34
53m ago
Request: Tech ninja's of The Motte, find the non-paywalled version of the above.
Why is this hard? If anything, their consistency should reinforce your belief in their integrity.
More options
Context Copy link