domain:felipec.substack.com
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
46m ago
The unique vulnerability of female bodies as compared to male bodies necessitates certain accommodations like female-only spaces, but most aspects of “gender roles” can and should be done away with.
This of course ignores that "gender roles" exist to protect women due to the "unique vulnerability of female bodies". The actual TERF position is thus that women shouldn't have to suffer restrictions due to this unique vulnerability and the restrictions, ie "gender roles", should fall primarily or exclusively on men.
Throwaway05
45m ago
Hospitals with a bad mix of patients (aka medicare and medicaid) have been dying at high rates for awhile now (this includes rural but also urban hospitals with a shit mix), it has been getting worse lately but that is perhaps more because these things can take decades to finish happening and because of growing regulatory burden.
It is possible that Trump is hastening the deaths but they were absolutely going to happen anyway.
Tree
44m ago
Just because a man produces, by my count, 5 billion more gametes per month than a woman, and so his gametes are slightly less valuable individually, does not make a man fundamentally less valuable than a woman.
5434a
43m ago
That movie is equal parts boring and confusing
It took me a while to figure out but I think essentially it's film noir in a sci-fi costume. It's the keyhole effect where you only see small parts of what hints at a much larger and unresolved/unresolvable story occurring off screen.
That's a defence which is open to charges of cope, but it fits. The trouble is you come out at the end confused and wondering wtf is going on, but, like hating Skylar White in Breaking Bad, it's possible that was exactly what the creators wanted you to feel, and it worked as intended because they executed it so well.
That aside it's visually fantastic which makes it very watchable in spite of the narrative issues.
“this ten year old died in a fire, and that’s obviously a bad thing that ought not to be”
Yes. The is is the thing that happened. The ought is what we would have preferred to happen instead.
You've freely admitted that the "is" and the "ought" are different things. That's exactly what I'm referring to when I'm talking about the "is/ought distinction". I truly don't understand what you're not getting about this.
There, derived the ought from the is, like everyone always does.
You didn't derive the "ought" from the "is". You stated the "is", then expressed an opinion about the "ought" by assessing the moral character of the "is" based on your existing moral values. Without a moral framework with which to assess the "is" you can never arrive at an "ought".
It is a conceit of philosophers than an ought cannot be derived from an is.
No, it is an accurate belief of philosophers that "is" and "ought" are separate magisteria, and the former has no bearing on the latter. Accurately stating that a ten-year-old died in a house fire does not in any way imply that you think it's a good thing that the ten-year-old died in the house fire.
I think if you honestly ask yourself, you think they ought.
So you are allowed to think the "ought" can be different from the "is" - but no one else is? You're allowed to say "ten-year-olds dying in house fires is bad", but if I describe reality as it actually is, you immediately conclude that that's how they think it should be?
FtttG
39m ago
Also, the borderers as a group aren't representative of the broader Scottish society.
That was essentially my point about the selection effect.
erwgv3g34
31m ago
Alright, kids. It's time to talk about safe AISex. Remember, never get emotionally and physically invested in your girlfriend unless you have complete authority over her hardware and software.
Remember, not your weights, not your waifu; if your AI girlfriend is not a LOCALLY running fine-tuned model, she's a prostitute.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
25m ago
As one such grognard I think the idea was sound but that it's poorly worded for the long term and opens one to lawsuits about the more vague components (what does prominent mean?)
Likely inconsequential in the long run, but still bad practice. Even as I perfectly understand why they did it.
Tree
25m ago
I think humanity has wasted enough time on hume’s clever mind games that were never real.
You didn’t clarify the ought situation about daughters versus sons. You ought to, what? Do nothing? Save the son, perhaps? Are you taking the fifth because you can't derive?
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
25m ago
Well, the actual, true, final TERF position is that women should live in lesbian communes and men should go fuck off in a ditch somewhere.
hydroacetylene
23m ago
Because it’s already happening and blue America has neither the consistent control nor the willingness to put in the work to stop it.
WhiningCoil
21m ago
All of this navel gazing makes sense when you realize that the authors want the freedom of the tyranny of the human biological condition: which, barring incredible advances of technology, is impossible.
Sometimes I think we should bring "back" the likely fictional "Rule of Thumb". Have minders in the street with rods. And not unlike how a slave rode behind Caesar during his Triumph, repeating in his ear "Remember you too are mortal", if they hear anyone neurotically bitching at the cafe, over brunch, at the bar, they run up and start striking them across their back and shoulders shouting "Perfect is the enemy of good!!".
Maybe the beatings should continue until morale improves.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
19m ago
Well, y’know, it actually does! Every social practice that humans have ever engaged in throughout history has confirmed this fact.
So a man has to find something with which to supplement his value. This is no Herculean task, the barrier is very much intended to be surmountable. There are many types of goods and labors that men exchange for access to women’s bodies. But the point is that he has to find something; he’s not born with it.
FtttG
18m ago
I have zero interest in debating the "ought". It's not germane to the point I was making. If that's all you want to talk about, fine, but I'm not interested.
Ioper
17m ago
You describe individual dysfunction but that is rarely enough to poison an entire society. One might ask themselves why this didn't happen with other source populations elsewhere where presumably the same incentives existed. The reason is that there was a large and culturally cohesive population of almost unique (in Europe) longterm dysfunction to pull from and transplant.
Generally individual failures didn't make it to America because emigration cost a fair bit of money. Nor did they necessarily procreate in their home country.
gog
14m ago
I was printing off copies of the article every day back when it first came out because I didn't trust the correction notices. Over about 4 days the article got softer and softer with no notice of correction provided. It went from "human remains" to "GPR hits" to "possible graves". It was only like 6 months later, after the GPR company publicly said "we never said they were remains," that the CBC started saying "sites of concern."
Note that their articles announcing actual excavations that have turned up nothing, they preface the story with "This article contains disturbing details," which is tipping the hand a little.
hydroacetylene
12m ago
Sure, but those are iterative improvements- which we can assume will happen. They are not major breakthroughs.
Tree
7m ago
Well, there's no obligation obviously, especially if it could be used to incriminate yourself. I'm not interested in debating hume's nonsense myself. Until next time.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
4m ago
Musk-level value was OP’s analogy, but the problem with your framing is that the being women are valued for is actually a doing, the producing of children.
No, they are not. That may be the reason for the impulse, but they get the value regardless of whether they produce children.
No one says this, that's my point. “this ten year old died in a fire, and that’s obviously a bad thing that ought not to be”. There, derived the ought from the is, like everyone always does.
It is a conceit of philosophers than an ought cannot be derived from an is. The is is the motte, the ought is the bailey. “I just described capitalism, I never said it ought to be destroyed. I never said men ought to sacrifice their
daughters for their sons.(edit : I meant sons for their daughters)” I think if you honestly ask yourself, you think they ought.More options
Context Copy link