domain:parrhesia.co
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
22m ago
Old-fashioned gender roles were better at teaching young people how they can be of value to others than today's gender roles are.
The gender roles were also very good at determining/controlling pitfalls, too; a society that is only capable of condemning stupidity/violence in men [who provide value by doing], or anger/entitlement in women [who provide value by being], is inherently divided against itself simply because that is the most common failure mode of each gender. It gets worse when those faults are portrayed as positive.
If you want to be valued (beyond the default "all human life has value" value, which is a wash across the board), you need to provide value.
Maybe, but along came mechanization and post-scarcity, and the West hasn't quite figured out how to deal with that yet; now, men need to act like women to succeed (sit down, shut up, regurgitate is how they'll waste their physical and mental peak times of their lives), and women need to act like men to succeed (you have to waste your physical peak proving you're fit to receive the welfare that is most public service jobs and by the time you've done that you're already starting to wilt- divorce doesn't pay well, after all).
And when "how well you can pass as the other gender" is the order of the day, it's not a surprise that men-acting-as-women aren't attractive to women, and women-acting-as-men aren't attractive to men. And while that's great for man-women and woman-men, maybe most people are better off steering clear.
(And really, it's threading the needle: making sure the bi-gender people aren't held back, but at the same time pointing out that cargo-culting their inherent success is a bad idea. If humanity was capable of understanding that nuance we'd probably be better off, but I don't think the average human is and it doesn't remain stable between generations either.)
sliders1234
49m ago
Fairly sure you are technically wrong on “illegals immigrants”. Being intellectually honest when these debates were going on the asylum seekers are “legal”. They are allowed to claim asylum without proof but that status makes them legally allowed to be in the U.S.
But I too just call them illegals immigrants for dramatic effect. But the Biden administration has in fact found a way to make them “legal”. It’s embarrassing that illegal is technically wrong.
NewCharlesInCharge
1hr ago
And had the bill passed they'd be telling immigrants to claim they were waterboarded, since it is a form of torture that leave no physical evidence on the victim, for which they'd qualify to remain in country.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1hr ago
In Canada, our Charter of Rights explicitly lists "freedom of expression"
S. 1 of the CCRF is the explicit "everything after this section is functionally meaningless" part. It's difficult to miss, being at the top and all. And if that wasn't enough, there's S. 33 (which normally gets used for provincial vs. federal slapfights).
and it was worried that including it would imply rights not listed did not exist.
Well, given how they treat the rights that are listed...
dasfoo
1hr ago
Is it a wise choice for a woman to opt into an identity with a mandatory retirement policy that's at most decade out? What's she supposed to envision doing for the rest of the time?
A person's value can change over time from one asset to another.
I know you want to read a lot into this, but it's reall very simple, and universal for both men and women:
If you want to be valued (beyond the default "all human life has value" value, which is a wash across the board), you need to provide value.
A young man, for example, is generally valuable for his strong back and plentiful energy; an old man is generally valuable for his learned wisdom, accrued wealth and maybe even skill at the management of young men. If an old man is stupid, poor and cannot lead the young, he is shirking his own value. It doesn't matter if other people want to imbue him with value or not, he provides nothing.
Women, likewise, can be valuable for a lot of things when they're younger, and less valuable for those things later, but valuable for other properties that align with their age and experience.
I am not proscribing that women only do certain things -- certainly there is variability with every person, and I'm libertarian in terms of what part the law should play in this -- but rather suggesting that women who complain that they aren't valued are probably not providing value out of their own choice. Just like men who don't feel valued by women. This type of value is not innate but something one must identify correctly and work towards providing. Old-fashioned gender roles were better at teaching young people how they can be of value to others than today's gender roles are.
HighResolutionSleep
1hr ago
Really? No posts on Wellness Wednesday? Any wellers in chat?
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1hr ago
Or more generally:
The ultimate arbitrator of what constitutes success in [subject] should be [a structure men have significant biological specialization into manipulating], not a [a structure women have significant biological specialization into manipulating]
I don't think there's anything more complex than that going on here. I think the lack of biological specialization in objective usefulness is a serious problem to people who were sold "if you waste your life on this degree, you'll be just as objectively useful as men are", and so need to compensate [in a way indistinguishable from them truly believing it].
And the way you compensate in a zero-sum environment... is to impose taxes. And if you want to levy taxes, you need a good excuse, and what better excuse to use than something currently intractable like "disparate impact"?
NewCharlesInCharge
1hr ago
I would like to see some kind of personal liability for legislators that are clearly flouting previous rulings. You shouldn't be able to use the state to deprive citizens of their rights with complete immunity.
NewCharlesInCharge
2hr ago
Huh, I don't know where I'd heard it but it looks like I'm 100% wrong. Thanks for the correction.
Hyperion
2hr ago
She's the wacky MMT advocate who thinks you can just print money to get out of any fiscal problems. He is a very progressive and fiscally liberal, but mainstream, economist who thinks that printing money and borrowing money have very different effects on inflation.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2hr ago
"don't tell a trans person you don't think they're the gender they claim to be"
No, this is more "you can think you're [opposite gender] in your own head/in private, but there's no valid reason to do that in public outside of wanting to make it someone else's problem".
Going out and screaming "it's ma'am" in people's faces and insisting that "because I think I'm a woman, that means I get to be classed as one in their sporting events" are, in my opinion, central examples of "making your thoughts other peoples' problems", and is as intentionally destructive/disruptive as publicly announcing you're using hot-or-not on people when they interact with you. (Same thing with casual racism/sexism/ageism, come to think of it.)
And as everyone else has replied to you it’s really not a double or nothing strategy. The bill doesn’t do anything to prevent the current asylum situation especially if you do not control the Presidency.
It’s a bet to win strategy versus a nothing accomplished.
Maybe you are correct it’s the biggest win on immigration we’ve had. But it doesn’t solve the issue. The failings of the bill just expose how bad are immigration system currently is. The bill solves 5% of the issue and only if you control the Presidency.
I’m starting to think you might just lack political instincts. This is a lot like Russias military doctrine which often involves escalate to deescalate.
I do think the right has a chance to win on the issue. I expect a landslide for Trump in 2024 if the Dems can’t figure out how to cheat.
I just saw this on Twitter, the guy whose literal a lifelong Dem and has been funding anything to prevent Trump from winning is now talking about voting for Trump.
https://twitter.com/cliffordasness/status/1788378439428227209?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ
Also I would not call it strawmanning you when you explicitly blame Trump for torpedoing the bill. In my opinion the bill was dead before Trump came in. He just read the room that people were pi$$ed off when they read the bill leadership came up with and felt betrayed.
Ben___Garrison
Voltaire's Viceroy
3hr ago
You are not being honest when you say Trump tanked the bill.
If you're going to accuse me of lying, please don't strawman me. I never claimed there was no opposition to the bill before Trump came out against it. But whatever prospects the bill had, died when he did.
It’s far better to expose the immigration issue and pass a clean bill after the election.
This is just the double-or-nothing idea I mentioned in my post. Throwing away the biggest win on immigration in a generation, and instead banking on winning the Presidency AND the Senate AND the House AND hoping Trump actually cares about the issue enough to pass actual legislation instead of just trying EOs. Surely the last time he had a trifecta and passed no major legislation on immigration was just a fluke, right? Surely he won't be distracted by settling scores and getting revenge on his perceived enemies, right? And even if all that happens, hoping that Trump is tactful enough to actually do a (supposedly) extreme immigration bill without the Democrats freaking out and repealing it the minute they come into power.
HalloweenSnarry
3hr ago
Eh, there was the mosque in Christchurch, NZ. That didn't have a cop out front, did it?
SSCReader
3hr ago
I agree! I don't think the current format is good, and I don't think OP's version of having individials have to negotiate with companies with their own budget is either.
Functionally though what is the difference between paying a company to do x or fining a company of it doesn't do x?
In the first case the company raises prices to cover the cost of X and its customers will end up paying for it, in the latter taxpayers pay for it ( some of whom may or may not be customers).
So I suppose the question is who should be on the hook for paying? Customers at least in theory have a chance of benefitting from X more individually than taxpayers most of which may well live hundreds of miles away from said business. However in taxpayers the cost is distributed across more people so probably feels like it costs less. Though that might count as hiding the cost I suppose.
As it stands we do both I guess, companies can get grants to make adaptions, and can get sued if they don't. So maybe thats the answer, a mix of both depending on the situation. Make funds available and directly fine companies that refuse anyway.
quiet_NaN
3hr ago
I think the bad-tasteness of it depends on the group size. Three people can keep a secret (if two of them are dead) and all that. If three boys want to spend their time fantasizing about their classmates, that is very different than if three quarters of the class participate in the ranking, in my mind. (I don't know what the participation rate for that spreadsheet thing was, I am trying to make a general point.)
I don't think having rankings is necessarily bad taste. I am fine with men ranking porn stars (or participants of a dating show) by their hotness, or athletes by their speeds, or competitive eaters by how many burgers they can eat, or students by how well they did on their last math test (even though I would prefer to just tell everyone their outcome and the overall statistics in that case). In all these cases, the ranking is kind of relevant to the job. Don't want to be judged by your genitals? Then don't become a porn star.
I agree that not every inappropriate ranking implies bullying and victimization. If the bottom of the list gets rated a 4/10, the whole endeavor would still be slightly ill-advised, but victim-free. (Some feminists might disagree with me here, whatever.) If half the class coordinates to agree on an 1/10 rating for one classmate especially based on politics and this strongly influences how they subsequently treat them, that would be bullying.
sliders1234
3hr ago
The Biden administration themselves are the people who built the networks that tell immigrants about the asylum loophole. All those organization and NGOs organize this are Biden aligned groups.
For winning the election.
You pass the bill. Biden then implements tighter policy for 6 months thru the election claiming victory. Then he uses all the loopholes later to go back to open borders. It’s far better to expose the immigration issue and pass a clean bill after the election.
Also - I opposed the bill before Trump opened his mouth. You are not being honest when you say Trump tanked the bill. The opposition was organic when many of us read the bill and saw how awful it was. Perhaps our system was awful before hand, but this bill doesn’t fix the main issues as many here have pointed out to you.
I meant what I said when I said tactical retreat. This is no victory in this bill. It’s admitting defeat and falling back with little value.
I get it you don’t like Trump. I’ve never voted for Trump. I don’t like his personality. But when I looked at history the dudes always right. He’s earned the goodwill of the American people because he has good judgement. So sure many Americans don’t have time to read the bill and will make decisions on vibes. All of us do this everyday and trust people who have proven trustful because we can’t be knowledgeable in everything. Trump has earned that trusts.
You also when you say Trump did nothing ignore the fact that in 2016 he had no experience and no institutional support. People like me loathed his personality. Now I am on his side. And we have Project 2024 to build out institutional capabilities. The Heritage Foundation is backing him in 2024. Ken Griffin is like begging him for the Treasury Secretary job. He’s got A team support this time.
HalloweenSnarry
3hr ago
Funny you mention clickwrap, because this whole topic reminds me of Ross Scott's campaign on stopping the destruction of live-service-type games, and the legal precedents in the US that basically give consumers no rights over software publishers.
Your post has many at best misleading statements and characterizations. I'll try to discuss just one I'm familiar with in some depth:
Ends “Catch and Release” and formalize the “Remain in Mexico” policy.
tl;dr: Both of these claims are simply wrong. No, it doesn't end "catch and release," i.e., quickly releasing people waiting for their immigration hearings. There is a whole section which describes catch-and-release, i.e., "non custodial removal proceedings" and funds it with billions a year under "alternatives to detention" expansion. Not only does it not end it, it mandates supervision under "alternatives to detention" in situations like an adult border migrant who meets initial screening criteria. And it doesn't even actually require "alternative to detention" supervision either.
For context, Congress in the mid 1990s amended the Immigration and Naturalization Act to make release of people encountered at the border more difficult. Border migrants were detained unless there was a specific showing on an individual basis their release was necessary due to "urgent humanitarian reasons or any significant public benefit" which historically going back decades meant a high bar almost all would fail to meet. Border patrol encountering border migrants had two options; normal removal proceedings or an expedited removal process. Border migrants in either process were to be detained until their hearing, unless they met the strict requirements for release waiting for their process. Trump enforced this strict requirement for release in the US (release on parole) or they could be released and away the removal process outside the country (remain in Mexico). This policy under current law was upheld.
The Biden administration in July 2021 decided to issue an order which essentially required the border patrol to release border migrants under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (which they did within ~15-30 minutes, see Florida v. US). "Urgent humanitarian reasons or any significant public benefit" meant almost all migrants would now qualify for release. Florida sued and won, the policy was knocked down. The Biden administration came out with a nearly identical policy two months later. Florida sued and won. This went up on appeal and was affirmed at the circuit level. The Biden admin continued along with essentially the same policy and same result anyway.
So, let's move on to this bill. The bill expands release on parole under the expedited removal process. It adds new categories, it adds new discretionary authority to the DHS secretary, it makes "urgent humanitarian reason" into an essentially subjective criteria of the DHS secretary. Instead of formalizing the strict language which was used for decades, it sets out that precedent as its own exception and then adds discretionary authority to the secretary of the DHS to determine what that separate vague language means (a DHS which has argued in court that climate change may satisfy this language). It doesn't even close the one "catch and release" door the Biden admin is currently abusing!
The most damning part for any claim the bill ends "Catch and Release" is that it adds a (b) subsection to section 235 which creates "Provisional Noncustodial Removal Proceedings." Under 235 (b), the DHS Secretary has broad discretion based on undefined "operational circumstances" to require any migrant making an asylum claim to go through this process and mandate release. Unlike the expedited removal proceeding under current law which mandates detention of most asylum claimants, 235 (b) mandates noncustodial supervision under the expanded "alternatives to detention" program which means they will be released. And even then, "alternatives to detention" supervision is not actually mandatory either! The bill allows mandatory release of any border migrant under 235(b) for up to 90 days before any determination whatsoever is completed (currently, the CBP is required to perform an asylum screen before any action is taken). It still gets worse! Any border migrant who failed to be given a "protection determination" within 90 days - there are over 1,000,000 cases on backlog for just initial "fear" screenings before AOs right now - are released and eligible for work permits immediately, and automatically passed on to end review. Wow! This subsection essentially codifies broad swathes of the Biden administration "Asylum Officer" regulatory scheme which is currently in court and likely to lose also.
It is honestly ridiculous to claim this "Ends 'Catch and Release.'" It does no such thing; a hostile administration will not only not be required to stop catch and release, but they're given new tools to justify catching and releasing any migrant found on the border and even mandate it in certain situations!
If you want to argue otherwise, please tell me the exact part of the bill which actually forces a hostile administration, one which has for years ignored court rulings by making slight changes to catch-and-release policies, to stop releasing border migrants into the United States? "We're not doing catch and release, we catch them and then quickly release them under an expanded program which releases them but under government supervision, but also we don't have to do that either" isn't ending catch and release.
The only way this bill ends "catch and release" under a hostile administration is that the Asylum Officers stamp "approved" on every asylum claim and let out the new residents with automatic work permits into the United States.
Trump swoops in
One, illegally allow in tens of millions of people into the United States; two, trick the (hopefully) absolute morons in the GOP to pass a "compromise bill" which allows a hostile administration to staff a army of bureaucrats which can more quickly adjudicate asylum claims under a "more strict" standard (it's really not) than one which could be adopted by executive fiat and then quickly stamp "approved" on large percentages of the illegally released people who now get automatic work permits. And it would have worked if it wasn't for that stupid Trump who is just so bad, doesn't care about immigration or the country, and opposes it because he just doesn't want Biden to get a win. And thank God for that.
Passing that bill would have been unfathomably stupid strategy to reduce illegals and unfathomably stupid politics at the same time. GOP voters and supporters will recognize this bill as a deep betrayal and failure and will refuse to show up in the 2024 election guaranteeing a Trump loss as well as losses in the House and Senate. It also gives your opposition a win on their worst subject and gives slight truth to media mouthpieces to claim Democrats addressed their worst subject. "Well, I tried" but am still horribly failing and polling about the topic is horrible is in fact much worse than "I got landmark immigration bill through Congress" in terms of electoral strategy.
This bill is so unfathomably stupid and/or duplicitous, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually did come from the desk of a GOP Senator. Yet another example of "is the GOP this dumb or this smart?"
Quantumfreakonomics
4hr ago
Remember the Ground Zero mosque? Fox News and Jon Stewart milked that non-story for months. That discourse would last about 8 hours in 2024.
HalloweenSnarry
4hr ago
I actually kind of like the idea of this; you wake up one day, your doodad has been pwned, and the screen on it says "if you are seeing this, please call [govt. number]."
hydroacetylene
4hr ago
Real talk- I expect the welfare parasites have above replacement TFR partly due to haredi Jews and partly due to teen pregnancy. I don't think the average man in the ghetto actually has elevated fertility; it's more likely that there's a few who commit a lot of statutory and a few groups like haredi jews or the FLDS that push welfare user TFR higher by having 6+ children each even if there's not very many of them.
hydroacetylene
4hr ago
Virginia is a blue state to begin with and it tends to swing away from the party in power, not towards it. They also have a weirdly timed election that would strongly benefit democrats if Trump wins in 2024 and IIRC Youngkin can't hold two consecutive terms.
I think this is a great idea, though I'm sure China and Russia are doing it already.
More options
Context Copy link