domain:abc.net.au
iprayiam3
57m ago
stopping at a reasonable hour (say 10-11 pm) so as not to disturb those trying to sleep. 10pm?! This gets you less than an hour of darkness where I live.
On July 4th itself, we should at least induldge till 2:00am., with maybe till midnight on the day before, through the next closest weekend.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
54m ago
That's the thinking of the people pushing for shutting down municipal fireworks shows.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
51m ago
And yet people have jobs, which they very frequently have to be at the next day. July 4 doesn't usually fall on a weekend like it did this year. It's not reasonable to insist that people can't get sleep when they have to be up the next morning just so that people can get hours upon hours of fireworks. 11 pm, even in your time zone, would be over an hour of darkness. 10pm would be similar in places I've lived. My stated timeframe of 10-11pm is a perfectly reasonable one imo.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
47m ago
To be clear I in no way support stopping municipal fireworks shows. I'm referring purely to people setting them off in the street in front of their house, which has a significant component of antisocial jerks in my city. Official fireworks shows (municipal or otherwise) are perfectly fine and need no action taken at all.
vorpa-glavo
40m ago
I suppose humans are more fundamentally hierarchical than they are tribalist/racist.
As long as the person or people on the top stand to benefit from greater numbers of workers, and they don't personally suffer negative effects from things like immigration and ethnic diversity it is in their interest to encourage it. They command the people below them, who are also made better off in a number of ways from the increased number of workers, and on down through the system.
In this way, you only need a system where diverse races are in the rational self-interest of a smaller group of people at the top, and then they can use men with guns to force a culture that is conducive to their rational self-interest, which works because the hierarchy-minded people below them don't rebel enough to make that entirely untenable. There are going to be limits pushing against these things in various directions, and there's probably a Goldilock's zone where all of these varying aspects of human nature (rational self interest, hierarchy and tribalism) are balanced against each other and you have a relatively functional society. Outside of that Goldilock's zone, either people's tribalism overwhelms their hierarchical social instincts, or it starts to be in the rational self interest of the ruler to care only about the people tribally similar to themselves.
Mantergeistmann
37m ago
Most of the complaints I see have nothing to do with dogs or vets, but are instead about the impact to birds.
SkoomaDentist
30m ago
So why did they build it? Is it just a stepping stone to the hydrogen bomb?
The first stage of a hydrogen bomb is basically an implosion type fission bomb. They may also be aiming for a boosted fission weapon to get into high tens / low hundreds of kilotons range.
Is there consensus that Western Europeans are more attractive?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
24m ago
I suppose humans are more fundamentally hierarchical than they are tribalist/racist.
As long as the person or people on the top stand to benefit from greater numbers of workers, and they don't personally suffer negative effects from things like immigration and ethnic diversity it is in their interest to encourage it. They command the people below them, who are also made better off in a number of ways from the increased number of workers, and on down through the system.
Okay, but the question you originally asked was:
I'm a little unclear on how a libertarian watchman state where all of the government enforcers are racist/sectarian/whatever, ever stops being bigoted.
So isn't the direct analogy here the people on the top being more racist, and therefore commanding the people below them to be more racist? If the dynamics of diversity and rational self-interest naturally result in people on the top imposing non-racism on the bottom, how does the nightwatchman state end up with government enforcers being racist/sectarian/whatever?
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
21m ago
So, what are you reading?
I'm picking up With and Without Galton, an open access book on Vasilii Florinskii and Russian eugenics, or as the author calls it, 'eugamics' (ie. well-married), as distinguished from Galton's eugenics.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
14m ago
I've also been seeing the "worst wildfire of the year" in California articles. I keep thinking how LA almost burned to the ground in January and wondering how worst is being measured.
Zephyr
13m ago
I would disagree entirely - I think it’s an “Al Capone was arrested for tax evasion” type thing.
If someone lies about intending the downfall of America, you have a much better excuse to kick them out than if you have to find an example of them stepping outside the bounds of free speech.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
8m ago
What's with beards these days? I feel like beards came back hard over the last 10-15 years.
Conceptually, I think the choice of "grifting" has a fairly limited cap on median outcomes. Limited cases might exist, but it's hard to sell indefinite affirmative action or reparations for a minority doing better than the median. I can't see democratic will supporting that for long, and it's unpopular even when isolated exceptions come up: Elizabeth Warren, or affirmative action for Obama's kids applying to college.
Chinese-Americans seem to have taken the "work hard and naturally do better than the median" option, which I think sounds better if it's available.
More options
Context Copy link