domain:felipec.substack.com
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
13m ago
It's a bit odd to me that everyone is so confident in their answers (regardless of which answer they choose).
I don't feel like I have a good enough baseline intuition about how dangerous bears are to answer with confidence. How likely is the average bear to attack you? Is it possible to outrun a bear? This is far outside my domain of expertise.
I certainly understand why a lot of women would say "bear", even if they might ultimately be mistaken.
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
15m ago
Wait, what?
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
21m ago
I believe women think they're safe in situations with many men, yet they say they're afraid of men when they're alone with just one man. Yet many men and 'society' generally is just a clump of single men. If men are bad alone why would they be good together?
It doesn't really matter, I'm overthinking and over-rationalizing this. Realistically there are fundamental differences in the purpose of language and epistemology going on here.
You can kind of see the differences here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Asmongold/comments/1cf34fy/wife_asks_husband_would_you_rather_our_13_year/
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
22m ago
So if:
-
The AuthLeft and AuthRight are defined by a belief in the right to wield absolute power over all other humans without accountability or restraint - all members of the AuthLeft and AuthRight believe this, and furthermore members of other political ideologies don't believe it, and
-
This belief is the most salient factor in determining identity among political ideologies,
then sure, the AuthLeft and the AuthRight are the same. But this is less of a substantive sociological/philosophical thesis and more of a tautology. You're using these idiosyncratic concepts "AuthLeft" and "AuthRight" whose applicability to broader political discussions is questionable.
The space of possible political positions is much broader than you give it credit for. I would encourage you to read some of the original works by any of the thinkers we've been discussing lately - Zizek, Lacan, Marcuse, Derrida, Nietzsche, or Heidegger - and see if there's anything in there that surprises you.
Marcuse put it very succinctly:
The institutions of a socialist society, even in their most democratic form, could never resolve all the conflicts between the universal and the particular, between human beings and nature, between individual and individual. Socialism does not and cannot liberate Eros from Thanatos. Here is the limit which drives the revolution beyond any accomplished stage of freedom : it is the struggle for the impossible, against the unconquerable whose domain can perhaps nevertheless be reduced.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
43m ago
America has rolled out a new national anthem, except only for black people: https://youtube.com/watch?v=sQ0B7cF3DQk
Blueberry
50m ago
even the new “black” national anthem
The what? I’m not American and don’t get the reference?
RenOS
Dadder than dad
57m ago
Is Indie really better in that respect? I'm currently playing Outward and enjoying the gameplay, but in terms of setting it has quite a few insufferably woke moments. Before, it was Battletech, which is also very woke. It just seems to be in the water supply at the moment.
TowardsPanna
1hr ago
Broken leg? Walk it off.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
Or historical?
I'm not qualified to debate these. There's enough fog of war about issues I've seen with my own eyes, so I'm not sure how much it helps to bring millenia-old civilizations into the conversation. Also historical vs. hypothetical example is not a fair comparison.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
I don't think that taking minor risks is careless.
Botond173
1hr ago
It's worth pointing out though that I can imagine many mainstream Republicans (not those heavily involved in the Christian Right) would also be more or less sympathetic to Sanger's ideas if they actually checked out what those were.
epohon
1hr ago
Modern community? Or historical? It would suck to exist in Sparta, but I've read enough of female designs for the society to know it would suck vastly more. Culling of men, castration, loss of rights, the usual.
SkoomaDentist
1hr ago
There are zero real democracies that have managed a transition from poverty to wealth.
Zero?
Iceland, Ireland and Finland come immediately to mind.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1hr ago
I once lived in a place where bears occasionally appeared on our driveway. Pretty awkward.
f3zinker
Its A/B testing all the way down
1hr ago
Maybe... Japan is doing something right especially given the cards they've been dealt with.
Botond173
1hr ago
It's still not advisable though. Getting lost or suffering an injury can have grave consequences in such a situation, especially if there's no cell phone signal.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1hr ago
As the others said, moral foundations - care/harm, liberty/oppression, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation.
Everyone cares about the first three, but WEIRD (white/educated/industrialised/rich/democratic, and especially autistic) people care much less about the last three (while caring more about care/harm), which generates liberalism (and is why liberals frequently fail ideological Turing tests for conservatism, because it's harder to hypothetically add things to a moral compass than to remove them).
As @fishtwanger said, Haidt's book laying these out is dated because it predates SJ. My best working theory of SJ is that it's what happens if you try to cram 90s liberalism down the throats of people who are six-foundation-inclined; they will take superficial features of it, connect them to the missing foundations, and produce a bizarro-world morality that has all six foundations but lacks coherence and is divisive rather than unifying.
As I said above, this is a bulverism; it's an explanation for "why would people believe this crazy thing despite its craziness" rather than "what is the thesis of this thing and is it true". I don't like bulverism, and I don't like thinking of people as, well, morons susceptible to memetic effects. But it's the most sense I've managed to make of SJ.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
We've been through this. He's not a milquetoast neoliberal, he's a radical transhumanist techno-surveillanist, with sympathies for (if not direct allegience to) Critical Theory.
2rafa
1hr ago
Klaus Schwab
The turning of a befuddled, milquetoast neoliberal German finance professor who started a conference into the arch-villain of modernity is quite something.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
Aside from the fact that the far likelier scenario is a stalemate resulting in extinction, as we (not)fuck ourselves to death, it's because it wouldn't go the way you think it would go. If you want to see a completely male- or female-dominated society, look at the gay/lesbian community. Even if you crack reproduction, neither of these is capable of maintaining civilization, IMO.
do_something
1hr ago
Heavily depends on location, claim you made is silly and reveals that you are unaware that situation elsewhere is different.
BahRamYou
2hr ago
There is no “true” set of races that “falls out naturally” from genetic or cultural data, but the US government’s system was especially fake and embarrassing. they declared Hispanics to be an “ethnicity” that you could have along with a different race.
I've heard stuff like this before, that Hispanic is a nonsense category. But I actually think it makes sense, at least as far as anything makes sense in the US legal/cultural system of race.
First, just to state the obvious: this wasn't ever intended to a rigorous, comprehensive, scientific system. It's just a quick and dirty way to classify people, in a way that any average person on the street can see and more-or-less agree on. You don't want to make up dozens of separate categories because it quickly spirals into confusion.
Second, look at the history. Hispanics, in the US, come mostly from Latin America (not from Spain). And Latin America was colonized long before the US, and much more brutally. One of the very first thing's Columbus did was to immediately start taking slaves! And on the other side, explorers such as Magellan's expedition were, um, not exactly celibate.
The crew also found they could purchase sexual favours from the local women. Historian Ian Cameron described the crew's time in Rio as "a saturnalia of feasting and lovemaking"
This quickly led to a situation where Latin America was of white conquistadors, indigenous slaves, black slaves imported from Africa, and mixed-race offspring. Pretty soon the Spanish realized they needed some sort of classification system for who was going to be a slave, who was trustworthy enough to rule, and who was somewhere in-between. Eventually they came up with a rather byzantine system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizo#Mestizo_as_a_colonial-era_category
- Español (fem. española), i.e. Spaniard – person of Spanish ancestry; a blanket term, subdivided into Peninsulares and Criollos
- Peninsular – a person of Spanish descent born in Spain who later settled in the Americas;
- Criollo (fem. criolla) – a person of Spanish descent born in the Americas;
- Castizo (fem. castiza) – a person with primarily Spanish and some American Indian ancestry born into a mixed family.
- Mestizo (fem. mestiza) – a person of extended mixed Spanish and American Indian ancestry;
- Indio (fem. india) – a person of pure American Indian ancestry;
- Pardo (fem. parda) – a person of mixed Spanish, Amerindian and African ancestry; sometimes a polite term for a black person;
- Mulato (fem. mulata) – a person of mixed Spanish and African ancestry;
- Zambo – a person of mixed African and American Indian ancestry;
- Negro (fem. negra) – a person of African descent, primarily former enslaved Africans and their descendants.
Which made sense for their situation, but sort of stops to make sense once you abolish slavery and royal titles and all these people start to intermix with each other. So after a few hundred years of that, you end up with modern day hispanic people. Some are mostly white, some are mostly black, some are mostly indigenous, but a lot of them are a roughly even mix of all three, to the point where it's an obvious group of its own. You still can't exactly call it a race- it's a mix of other races, and it's hard to tell where exactly is the border between hispanice and one of the other races. But you can't just say "mixed-race" either, for something that's been so thoroughly mixed for hundreds of years. So they made up a new word, ethnicity, and called it a day.
Of course all this is awkward to talk about in polite society, and most Americans don't really know the history of Latin America. In Mexico they call it La Raza which makes a lot more sense, but that sounds kind of bad in English and the term hasn't made it here yet. So they decided to classify it on language, "are you from a spanish-speaking area?" That's... weird, since it includes people from Spain and excludes people from Brazil or Belize. But it works well enough for the US, where most Latin-American immigrants are from Spanish-speaking areas.
It's certainly not a perfect term, and I think we're moving towards changing it with weird terms like LatinX or Chicano, but it's good enough for 99% of situations to get the idea across. It's actually a lot less confusing than African (eliding the difference between North, West-subsaharan, and East-Subsaharan African) or Asian (it's a big continent lol) or white (are Arabs white?).
epohon
2hr ago
Why? I think it was Jim who suggested to block oxygen to every newborn female's brain long enough for irreparable damage to sapience but not long enough for death. "We" can continue like that indefinitely. Or if instead the other sex manages to win decisively, that's a weak proof that they also could continue in this manner by doing the same to boys.
Godwin's Law fell into abeyance, so I feel comfortable asking: would you call the dangers of Third Reich hypothetical after the publication of Mein Kampf but before Hitler took power? When enemies say what they want to do to me, I'd rather take them at their word.
More options
Context Copy link