@Celestial-body-NOS's banner p

Celestial-body-NOS

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Noli tangere naves nostras.

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC

				

User ID: 290

Celestial-body-NOS

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Noli tangere naves nostras.

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 290

it is vital to the health of any society that Karen must be oppressed

Only in the sense of "You're oppressing me by not letting me oppress others!" (cf. the Cavaliers in Virginia.)

'Late' can also mean 'recent' or 'current'; viz. the War of Southern Treason being called 'the late unpleasantness'.

it was a trivial matter to find sites that didn't demand some form of proof.

And there are further ways to avoid giving away your Valid Personal Nomenclature....

Another thing we could aim for, possibly something we should aim for first, is decreasing the friction on the alternatives.

What would you rather children and adolescents do instead of watching things on screens?

Are there obstacles to them doing that now?

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?/Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

--Sir John Harington, who might have also invented the flushing toilet.

So now we have the classical Bomb-Throwing Anarchists to deal with again?

Earlier this week, the conservative radio host Sid Rosenberg described Mayor Mamdani as a β€œjihadist” and a β€œradical Islam cockroach.”

And hundreds of eyes in Little Kigali started twitching....

huge network of Arab/Islamic "Advocacy" organizations in the US, many of which already stand credibly accused of funneling money and materials to Hezbollah and Hamas, which are Iranian proxies. I would not be surprised to learn many of them are sending cash or intel to the IRGC.

You'd at least have half a case for those being treason. What isn't treason, what is ipso fatso unconstitutional to treat as treason, is expressing disagreement with government policy.

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." --Edward R. Murrow

to keep our honor clean

That ship sailed, and was turned away, in 1939. Unitedstatesian acts in defence of Israel can be justified many ways, but one of them is to restore that honour.

(Also, Iran supported the Houthis, and the Houthis touched our boats.)

along with their nearest kin, extending even to second cousins

United States Constitution, Article III, section 3, paragraph 2:

no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood

They had experience with governments punishing the relatives of traitors and wanted no part of it.

United States Constitution, Article III, section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

A U. S. citizen joining an Iranian foreign volunteer brigade and shooting at U. S. troops would be guilty of treason. A U. S. citizen giving Iranian intelligence the encryption keys to U. S. military communications would be guilty of treason. Advocating that the United States stop waging war against Iran, however ill-advised that course of action may be, is not treason.

For what it's worth, I recall reading an article once that described a taxicab driver on a congested road somewhere in Iran shouting "Death to this traffic!".

As far as the things that humans need other humans to do, many, perhaps most, don't really need college.

The first college students studied under professors without college degrees!

Let’s say that by 2030, a significant proportion of global chip production has moved out of Taiwan. China invades or otherwise β€˜reunifies’ (use whatever euphemism you prefer) with Taiwan, with minimal or no US intervention. What happens? What are the actual consequences for the world?

That depends on what kind of government exists in China. I would be a lot less worried if the unified Chinese government were a multi-party democracy with strong civil liberties.

Where does the American Revolution, wrt Britain and France, fit in this schema?

I'm just saying it's not quite as black-and-white as it might seem.

if Trump ran on "we've been at war with Iran for 47 years and under my administration we'll start a regional war" my guess is that he would have just straight up lost the election

And if the world was made of pudding, my guess is that it would be a lot harder to build skyscrapers.

And yet, our society has been built on a sharply limited willingness to make such finer distinctions...for the entirety of its existence and right down to the present day.

Society has been built on a lot of things for the entirety of its existence and right down to the then-present day, until people started to realise that it was wrong.

The Industrial Revolution greatly facilitated this process, which is why I consider degrowthism/primitivism/anticivilisationism to be unwise on the level of tickling a sleeping dragon.

I observe that such fine distinctions have been remarkably rare when it seemed desirable to coordinate consequences against my tribe for its perceived misdeeds.

I do not like the wokists' excesses either; that's why I came here!

We've had hate-crime laws for generations.

Because many (of at least the central examples of) hate crimes have two parts: the direct victimisation of one or a few individuals (e. g. a Black person beaten after registering to vote), and the threat to thousands or millions of others (other Black people deciding whether they ought to register to vote).

We've firebombed cities in wartime

Which, if you are referring to Dresden and Tokyo, I do not condone. (If we hadn't done so, we could've added charges for Coventry to the Nuremberg Trials.)

Your principles may or may not be wrong, but they are certainly irrelevant because they have never and will never be implemented in the real world.

When Columbus sailed the ocean blue, communication faster than a horse or sailing ship had never been implemented in the real world.

Freeing women from the drudgery of hand-washing clothes had never been implemented in the real world.

Eradicating an infectious disease had never been implemented in the real world.

In other words,

Well, first of all, through God all things are possible, so jot that down.

(Incidentally I have never seen that film so I have no idea what happened to Rodriguez on the basis of their claimed gender identity.)

The adminisphere at the coal mine where she was employed accepted that Sra RodrΓ­guez was a woman, but insisted that, as a woman, she be excluded from 'men's work'.

What does it mean to "draw a social distinction" between two people on the basis of their gender identities?

(Note that because I do not personally experience gender identity, corresponding or opposed to my anatomy at birth, I can only rely on the lived experience of people who do have strongly felt gender identities, many of which point in the same direction as their intercruoral organs, as communicated through the not-entirely-lossless channel of human language.)

  • One person's 'social distinction' can be another's 'discrimination', based on the fact that the second person asked you to stop and you didn't.
  • There are some things to which almost all people would object, e. g. being paid a lower salary, and therefore constitute discrimination a priori.
  • Some early trans advocates did not consider the possibility that certain arbitrarily-gendered things (e. g. clothing, occupations) did not need to be divided between men and women, and thus sought to move the boundary from 'genitals at birth' to 'self-identification' because they had no more awareness of the possibility of dissolving the boundary altogether than a fish has of water.
  • The 'gender abolitionist' position is not entirely one which I would consider beyond the pale, provided that:
  1. biological sex is considered a private, rather than a public, matterΒΉ, and
  2. dysphoric individuals have the option of altering their bodies to approach, to the greatest degree possible given current medical knowledge, the other biological sex.

In society as it stands now, some 'social distinctions' which would rarely, if ever, constitute 'discrimination', would include

  • pronouns
  • titles and forms of address
  • seating at formal events whose host follows the old etiquette-guides which recommend alternating men and women
  • workplace team-building exercises in which, there being an approximately equal number of men and women, manglement decides to divide by gender

ΒΉcf. the dwarven society in Sir Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels. (GNU Terry Pratchett)

I have taken ill the past two weeks, and was unable to attend to many matters; however, I will respond to it shortly.

Do collectives exist?

They exist as a useful abstraction over the interests and actions of many individuals; i. e. they exist on the Map, but not in the Territory.

Can collectives do bad things?

Again, only as an abstraction.

If the answer to those two questions is "yes", then collective blame is a necessary concept.

Sort of. In terms of who gets listed in the 'factors leading to' paragraph in the history texts, it is reasonable to list $GROUP did $THING. In terms of who ought to suffer Consequences, one has a duty to make finer distinctions; e. g., it is not appropriate to blame or ostracise an individual liberal for the murder of Mr Kirk if the liberal in question did not, after said murder, continue to call for violence against 'Nazis' without being clear which right-wing figures do and, more importantly, do not fall under that label.

"[W]hat virtues?"

Universal benevolence, the refusal to declare certain people born less worthy of well-being; a. k. a. the thing that gets bundled with Harrison Bergeron-style pressure toward self-ensmallening to produce Nietzsche's 'slave morality', per Metaphysiocrat's commentary on Alexander's commentary on Nietzsche.

Communists who oppose other communists get called fascist. ("The only people we 'ate more than the Romans are the ----ing Judean People's Front!")

Schmitt differentiated between "inimicus," the private enemy with whom you disagreed about e.g. tax policy, and "hostis," the public enemy whose way of life is fundamentally incompatible with yours and who threatens your ability to continue your way of life.

cf. Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.

Purity test as in not doing a massive regime change war in Iran?

Iran as in the regime sponsoring every pack of rabid bugsnipes from here to Timbukthree for the past 47 years?

Then they could have let Germany do the inspections; they weren't gun-ho supporters of the Iraq invasion, but could be trusted not to look the other way knowing at whom any Iranian nuclear weapon would be aimed.

blowing up random middle eastern countries for Israel

I would take issue with the 'random' part; the countries attacked by the United States tend to be the ones loudly calling for the Jews to be driven into the sea, and sponsoring groups attempting to carry out that mission. (cf. the Book of Esther)