domain:npr.org
fishtwanger
15m ago
This doesn't address the main thrust of your argument, which (to try to sum it up in less than one sentence) I think is about how proximity correlates to care, and what that says about universalist ethics, but...
Perhaps there is some deep metaphysical argument that establishes, on an objective basis, that one ought to behave the way they wish others in "their community" to behave
If you want society to follow a rule, hold to that rule and propagate that rule. If you hold to it but don't propagate it, it won't last. And if you propagate it but don't hold to it, people will eventually Notice.
Doesn't really matter what the rule is. Utilitarianism, Christianity, Nazism, whatever. And clearly other factors can be involved (like losing WWII).
Of course, if one were merely aiming for a short-term effect, like personal benefit, that doesn't apply. One might be able to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, to get away with whatever one wants.
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
29m ago
I think this belief is, for many, simply downstream from the idea that Ukrainians are just funny-speaking Russians, that the natural course of action for them would have just been to join the Motherland at a drop of a hat and the fact that this didn't happen is an aberration that needs an external explanation, ie. the evil West brainwashing them to fight. The references to videos of stragglers etc. are just marshalled to provide evidence for this preaccepted thesis.
Southkraut
Rise, ramble, rest, repeat.
52m ago
similar to how parents protect their children but expect their children to obey them.
Note that modern parenting does not expect this. Obedience is not demanded and disobedience is not punished.
fishtwanger
55m ago
This is a great way to get on the bad side of judges. They are not amused by people trying to game the system.
fishtwanger
1hr ago
one of the purposes of Oct 7 was to disrupt the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia that Netanyahu was nearly achieving despite the dogma
Yeah, it seemed like the Palestinians were gradually being discarded by the governments of Arab/Muslim states (except perhaps Iran), even if the general population still cared. It reminds me of the way the Chinese government cracks down on nationalist revanchism every so often: partly it's that they don't actually want to invade Taiwan/wherever at this particular moment, but also it feels like they're setting things up so that they get to play "good cop" in international relations ("if you don't work with us, we might lose some domestic legitimacy, and then we'd have to appease those people").
Thanks for providing an infodump. I'm somewhat new here, and I confess that I don't know your position on this whole mess, but you seem like a calm and reasonable person. So I'm going to ask a couple more questions on sensitive topics, in case you still feel like answering. If you don't want to, I completely understand.
-
I've seen a few videos that appear to be of harmless Gazans being shot dead. I don't think they're fakes. What's up with that? And why aren't they viewed as more of a Abu-Ghraib-level scandal by Israelis and supporters of Israel? I worry that Israeli society has fallen to the level that American society did shortly after Sep 11, where pretty much anything could be justified, and almost no one was willing to dissent. And that parts of the IDF are taking out their anger and frustration in ways that are more about personal vengeance than about any strategic purpose. Here's the two worst ones that I've seen; they're old but they've stuck in my mind. I haven't had the heart to look for more recent ones, and none have been forced into my attention, but I don't know whether that's because they stopped happening, or whether they're just better hidden. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-slams-uk-network-after-claim-unarmed-gazan-was-shot-dead-shortly-after-interview/ https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/26/middleeast/hala-khreis-white-flag-shooting-gaza-cmd-intl/index.html
-
It seems that factions in Israel supported the initial incarnation of Hamas, decades ago, in order to destabilize the PLO/Fatah. What's your take on that? To me, it seems like either a short-sighted plan that backfired (much like assassinating heads of state, in hopes that whatever replaces them is more controllable), or an extremely cynical ploy to eliminate compromise in favor of the preferred extreme solution. (None of which should be read as relieving Gazans of their ethical responsibility for their own actions.)
Thanks again, in advance, for even considering a response.
FistfullOfCrows
1hr ago
being a particular sex is conduct rather than a status
Judith Butler certainly seemed to think so. Performative gender identity and all that good stuff.
FistfullOfCrows
1hr ago
This is insanity.
What I don't get is this. Why don't the municipalities instead pass like 60 laws at the same time, all with different spelling or formally different clauses that all enforce the same thing. Let the courts figure it out, just DDOS the system.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1hr ago
The optics would just be terrible
This wouldn't stop Israel. The optics were terrible when they shoot children in the back but they do it anyway and clear it in court. There's no shortage of bad optics on either side.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/israel2
If IDF snipers were systematically targeting civilians (doctors, elderly, kids, etc), that would be outrageous and well worth mentioning
Well they sure did shoot at them before the war: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/Documents/A_HRC_40_74_CRP2.pdf
Imagine you're Israeli. All your life you hear about suicide bombings, attacks, rockets, problems all coming from these dirty uncivilized Arabs who belong to a death cult that hates your religion and routinely sneak-attack on your religious holidays. You hate these people.
Imagine you're Palestinian. Israeli troops will knock down your door at night-time and search your apartment. You're not allowed to move freely, they cut power off, they steal your land like they've been stealing it for decades now. You spent your whole childhood punctuated by bombs, assassinations of peaceful protestors, dead family members, dead neighbours, arrests, torture... You hate these people.
This is a war of hatred. They hate eachother (as a collective). Not all of them hate eachother but enough do. We cannot model this war without understanding that there's intense hatred. Trying to model leadership or boots-on-the-ground as calculating, rational plotters is not going to yield good predictions.
Pasha
Defend Kebab
1hr ago
Unless the western countries entirely abandon any and all liberal pretence in the coming months, I can’t imagine that this will result in anything other than making it easier for Ukrainian men abroad to claim permanent asylum. Becoming stateless because your state refuses to give you a passport usually strengthens your asylum case quite a bit
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
1hr ago
My condolences. It sucks to meet someone you really like, and then have circumstances drag you, or them, away.
I find myself in much the same position as she does, in that I'm about to uproot myself from all I've known, loved and hated and fuck moving states, I'm moving States.
That bodes poorly for things with the several really nice women I've encountered while running Bumble and Hinge's unpaid psychiatry services, some of whom I genuinely wouldn't mind getting serious with, were that an option. (The long list of absolute crazies deserve their own post).
But hey, I made it clear I'm here for a good time, not a long one, and make it a point to remind them not to get too close because soon enough I'll be gone; and I doubt that 3 months is nearly enough time for someone else to also decide to drop everything and move for someone they met on a few dates.
But in your cases, all you should feel is mild regret. You didn't do anything wrong, nor did she, and you'll find someone not inclined to wander away sooner or later.
Pasha
Defend Kebab
1hr ago
English is the easiest language to learn by far because once you give kids some basic resources and internet access they often tend to do it by themselves by playing video games or watching pewdiepie/music videos/netflix 10 hours a day. My girlfriend’s step brother in poor Hispanic country got pretty good at English in a couple years because the kid is addicted to smartphones and happened to install duolingo at some point to be able to watch English gaming videos
Botond173
1hr ago
Given all the political realities at play, even an Ukrainian military collapse would not be likely to result in anything more than the loss of territorries East of the Dnieper.
fishtwanger
1hr ago
What, then, is something we don't believe but take action as though we do believe?
Going in a few directions: faith? ideals? social fictions?
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
2hr ago
Why do we need an explanation for how free will works mechanistically? Scientists are unable to even explain how consciousness or qualia arise from calcium gradients between nerve cells, yet just about everyone agrees that consciousness and qualia are real. The old "qualia as emergent phenomenon" number is simply handwaving.
It's absurd to demand a mechanistic explanation for free will when almost no part of our daily subjective experience has a mechanistic explanation.
sun_the_second
2hr ago
Of course, there are also Russian complaints in the "let me fight well" territory.
One significant difference I observe is the ethnonationalist motivation in particular. It appears that nationalists are usually the most fervent fighters. Ukrainian nationalists think they're in control of the country. Hell, even Russians are saying that Ukrainian nationalists are in control of the country [and it's bad]. Russian nationalists, the explicit ones, are split between "all citizens are Russians, don't you dare to rock the boat" and "why should we fight for this country while Chechens are taking our money and Tajiks are taking our jobs?".
quiet_NaN
2hr ago
I was speaking generally. I feel that (would-be) genociders such as Hamas come as close as you can get to being hostis humani generis without leaving dry land.
But not all non-state actors who ever take up arms against a country are that evil. For example, I do not think that the US civil war would have been improved if the North had decided that since the South represented no state they recognized, they were free to kill Confederate soldiers like dogs in the street. Or if the Brits had adopted that stance with regard to the US during the war of independence.
So a stance of "well, these gunmen are not representing a nation state, no reason to give quarter to them" would have predictably bad outcomes whenever you are not fighting Hamas or the like.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
2hr ago
Imperial Germany suffered enormously before capitulating. In the winter of 1916-1917 about half a million people starved to death in the 'Turnip Winter' so-named because that's all they had to eat. The food distribution system broke down completely. By 1918 they were in a famine. Children were running around breaking into warehouses trying to get food and dying in the tens of thousands. This is one of the reasons the Nazis were so fixated on securing agricultural land later on.
In tsarist Russia "Working-class women in St. Petersburg reportedly spent about forty hours a week in food lines, begging, turning to prostitution or crime, tearing down wooden fences to keep stoves heated for warmth, and continued to resent the rich."
It takes a lot of pain to bring down a country in a major conventional war. There's a certain level of stubbornness and sunk-cost that seeps in after serious blood has been spilled and national pride is on the line. Attitudes harden. Ukraine has not experienced anything like the mass suffering of a world war. There is no mass starvation in Ukraine, no massive inflation (7% is not great but it's not 90%), no social breakdown. Lessons have been learnt since the world wars and Ukraine enjoys the support of wealthy backers.
Nevertheless there are signs of serious problems - the videos of men being forcibly dragged into vehicles by recruiters, desertion and so on. What is that if not ambivalence/non-cooperation? States can do a lot with ambivalent but not-yet-rebellious people.
quiet_NaN
2hr ago
From the other discussion, I nominate "free will".
Intellectually, I know that human minds are messy things partly driven by drives hard-wired by evolution plus perhaps a bit of capacity to rationally consider hypotheticals and pick an option based on that in a very imperfect manner.
Yet when interacting with others, it is a very convenient frame of reference to assume that Bob was free to pick any option when he punched you instead of modelling him deterministically.
quiet_NaN
2hr ago
Do you have an experiment to determine if an individual exhibits free will as opposed to just making decisions based on its incentive landscape plus perhaps internal sources of randomness?
If humans have free will, do dogs too? LLMs? Frogs? Insects? A ball travelling through a Galton board?
How is free will compatible with a physics world view? The old "brain as a quantum computer" number? Does that mean that other quantum systems whose state we do not know would also exhibit free will? Or are the responses of our neurons remote controlled from our souls?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2hr ago
and the state would struggle to dispute a claim by a gay couple that they fastidiously avoided that particular act
Are you familiar with the gun-law term "constructive possession"?
The "struggle" involved in proving a crime exists because the authorities in question want it to be a struggle. if they decide they don't feel like struggling any more, they can simply remove the struggle and go straight to enforcement.
As you are likely aware, Jefferson was strongly influenced by John Locke in the writing of the Declaration. Locke wrote that the doctrine of equal natural negative rights was plainly discernable by independent reason:
The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; [Locke, Two Treatises of Government, essay II, section II].
In the opening words of the Declaration, Jefferson follows Locke's wording in this passage fairly closely, writing "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", where Locke had written "life, health, liberty or possessions." In the same paragraph, Locke says, not that these precepts are part of English or Christian traditions, but that they can be ascertained by "all mankind who will but consult it [reason]". So the idea that these notions would be obvious is not a new idea in Jefferson's time, nor a straw man, but the stated opinion of the thinker who was probably most influential on Jefferson's writing. Logical inference from self-evident premises, in the style of Euclid, was in fashion during that period in writing on subjects from physics to politics -- however queer a fashion it now appears to us.
The fact that Jefferson was advised by Madison to keep his opinions to himself does not make them any less his opinions, and the fact that he was writing a public document does keep his opinion from working its way into the text. The text says what the text says.
An axiom is a premise to an argument. You don't set out to prove axioms within the scope of an argument not because they are obviously true, but because they are outside the scope of the argument by definition.
The phrase "self-evident" has meant the same thing from the time of Aquinas, through the time of Jefferson, up until now:
self-ev·i·dent\ /ˌselfˈevəd(ə)nt/
adjective
not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious.
[Oxford Dictionary of the English Language]
Can you explain more carefully, from a textual perspective, why you think it means something else in the Declaration? If this is your whole argument,
I said that "we hold these truths to be self-evident" is not the same as "self-evidently".
I don't buy it.
But approximately nobody wants to ban the penis-in-vagina conduct, and generally nature conspired to make the straight option the one that has the most unique options available. To get a purely conduct-based rule that prevents same-sex activity, you'd have to write something tortured like "you must not let two penises come in contact", and this would not only give lawmakers the vapours just having to put these words to paper but would also only capture some subset of same-sex activity (and the state would struggle to dispute a claim by a gay couple that they fastidiously avoided that particular act).
Maybe you could criminalise all sexual conduct that is also possible for same-sex couples; good luck with convincing a majority to make that sacrifice just to get at those pesky gays at last, or else to convince the higher courts that any selective enforcement is purely accidental.
Gaashk
3hr ago
Watching tv or movies and then reading a grammar book is a bit too long a journey
I've sometimes spoken with people who grew up in poor villages where they were the only person who could converse in English, and were thus brought to talk with me. This is what all of them did. I've heard an interest in online gaming with a voice chat component is helpful, since it's interactive. Spaced repetition software is helpful for vocabulary. I've never heard of a Best Book for Learning English. At least English is a language with a nearly inexhaustible backlog of possible inputs.
Goodguy
3hr ago
I don't know the answer, but I think the first step would be to try to quantify smell and taste as precisely as sight and sound can be quantified.
Sight and sound are relatively easy to quantify. You can quantify sight as a function that maps (x, y, time) tuples to (r, g, b) color value tuples for example. You can quantify sound as a function that maps (time) tuples to (amplitude) tuples.*
As far as I know, no-one has managed to quantify smell and taste in such a way. However, I could be wrong about that.
*(time) and (amplitude) are tuples with only one item each in them, but I am calling them tuples for the sake of consistency. In mathematical parlance, it's still a tuple even if it has 0 or 1 items.
Missives from Indian Streets
I've had two learners licenses expire on me so far. I'd like to argue, if pressed, that I was too busy to give the driving exam at the end, with other, far more important medical exams pressing. The truth is I was simply too lazy.
But now, finding myself in actual need of one, since the NHS accepts "sorry boss, dunno how" as a poor excuse for showing up late to an emergency, I paid a good chunk of my own salary to one of the driving instructors at one of the more reputable companies around (they own a car brand, though they were mildly put out because I made it clear I wasn't a prospective customer).
The last two times, my dad coughed up the change, but this time, both actual enthusiasm and hard cash were transferred from my far more empty wallet. You'd think his modestly justified annoyance at me having wasted the money before would be outweighed by paternal pride and affection at his son adding more alphabet soup behind his name, but alas.
Up till this point, my instructors had been bad, to put it lightly. And the extent of my experience on the road was driving through quiet suburban streets and doing my best to weave through parked cars and avoid the odd cow or pedestrian.
This time, well, I got what I paid for. Far better tutors, 5 whole lessons in a simulator running Windows 10 but using software probably written in the early 2000s. Unfortunately, today I braved the midday sun in an exceedingly long walk to the motor training school (for obvious reasons I can't drive there) , I can't call myself an Englishman quite yet, but mad dog? The heatstroke left me panting.
To my chagrin, it turned out that my last simulator class was supposedly a two-in-one affair, and they expected me to hit the road again, for the first time in several years.
At high noon. On the main road carrying half the city's traffic, a fucking arterial line spewing motor oil and NO2 emissions, a far cry from the sedate streets I feel quarter comfortable in.
I didn't let on that my inner self was kicking and screaming, and followed the instructor to the awaiting training car with barely repressed terror.
It wasn't that bad. The car, that is. No obvious dents, the air conditioning and power steering worked, a far cry from the broken down beater they'd seen fit to hand me at the previous place.
The driving? Talk about being thrown in the deep end. I swear I don't feel that level of hyperfocus even the odd time I'm dragged in for a surgery. Because after all, what's the worst that could happen there? The patient doesn't make it. Whereas I'm too cute to die, and I have a lot to live for.
Miraculously, despite hitting 55 km/h on some of the busiest roads I've had the misfortune of seeing, I made it through mostly unscathed, even if the gearbox didn't.
That's it. I'm buying an automatic. I modestly hoped that self driving cars would be common enough that I could always procrastinate learning to drive to the distant future, or preferably never. Sadly the distant future is today, and the odd car that can plausibly be said to drive itself is far outside my budget.
Instead, I'm buying a
Porsche,a Mustang, nah, a plain old horse. Runs off renewable energy. Confuses the meter maids enough that I might get away with it if I can't find free employee parking. Fully self driving, or good enough cruise control and lane keeping to make sure my sorry ass makes it home from the pub.I saw God, today. He was wearing a seat belt. So should you.
More options
Context Copy link