Jiro
2d ago
But if it IS doing a thing (like the ADA currently), then presumably we can still explore what would be more or less effective, even if we stipulate that you might not think it should be doing that thing in the first place?
But I don't think the government should not be doing that thing. (Defined nontrivially.)
Helping disabled people isn't bad. The problem is that doing so through lawsuits creates problems that don't happen when the government just taxes people and pays businesses $X to have disabled accommodations.
Jiro
2d ago
Multiple people referenced the exact same remark shortly after the meeting was over, so I think it's safe to assume he really said it.
But it can't be a PR strategy if it was said in private and not meant to be publicized.
Jiro
2d ago
Leave aside whether the government should do A or B, I am saying ONCE we decide A or B, then it's inefficient to have it coordinate one part (gathering the resources) but leaving it up to individuals to target the entity.
That allows you to characterize the act any way you want just by dividing it up into steps and saying "leaving aside the first step...."
You can't separate whether the government should do A or B from the government's role in the transaction of which A/B are a part.
Jiro
2d ago
Well in both cases the government is putting an obligation on the entity right? To stick to a contract or to make accommodations for those with disabilities.
A company would be expected to have contracts, and would commit itself to some method of enforcing them, even in the absence of government interference; this isn't true for the ADA. It's the difference between the government enforcing better coordination on something that would exist regarelsss of the government's presence, and the government enforcing something that it imposed on its own.
Your framing is that the government's major role is to coordinate an existing transaction. That would be true in an actual contract; that would be false for the ADA.
If the government said that Bill Gates had to bow down to me, it would be misleading to describe that as "the government is there to coordinate what you and Bill Gates do" or to say "the government is just letting you negotiate with Gates, who's less powerful than a government but more powerful than a normal person".
Jiro
2d ago
In other words your solution removes the advantage of government force against entities that are less powerful than a government but more powerful than a normal individual.
"Government force against entities" assumes that the entity did something, and that the government force is being used to stop it. On the contrary; the entity didn't do anything, but the government imposed an obligation on them.
Jiro
3d ago
The government isn't going to find the security holes and report them; they're going to find the security holes, report a couple, and save the rest for their own use.
Jiro
3d ago
Writing "X is an ugly pig" on the blackboard is writing it where X is likely to see it. The list was private and only exposed to the public by the authorities.
Jiro
3d ago
When I think back 10-20-30 years nobody would give a shit about this at all. Sailor Moon would be re-edited for American audiences now with more modest clothing
You are unfamiliar with Sailor Moon censorship. And they actually did edit the art during the transformation sequences.
Jiro
3d ago
The good news is that the FAA has opened up to these sorts of "alternative navigation and control schemes".
Why has drone regulation gone in the opposite direction from opening up, then?
Jiro
3d ago
Ok, so California required default passwords four years ago. Your nightmare world has already arrived. We've already crossed over the epsilon threshold.
I don't think you know what "epsilon" means. "epsilon" means a small amount, often in a context where a bigger amount is possible. Making one regulation isn't going to cross over the epsilon threshhold, but it can be one step towards having lots of regulations which do.
Jiro
3d ago
I also suspect that even someone who intentionally chose a car based on it having airbags and seatbelts would be incompetent at deciding which cars had better airbags and seatbelts and which cars had worse airbags and seatbelts.
Jiro
4d ago
"Unrapeable" doesn't mean "morally unacceptable to rape". It means "unattractive even to rapists". The implication is that the others on the list would be attractive to rapists, but not that the writer would rape them personally.
The question was about moral responsibility for having to defend themselves.
Your trans scenario would have to be something like "trans people have done things which anger cis people, such as demanding to be in the wrong bathrooms. If an angry person then attacks the trans people and gets hurt when the trans people defend themselves, the trans people are morally responsible for that". Under those circumstances, I'd agree that the trans people were defending their existence and aren't responsible.
In real life, "they just don't want trans people to exist" never means "trans people are not at fault for hurting someone in self-defense".
Jiro
6d ago
decisions they (the Israeli people and their forefathers in general, and Netanyahu in particular) made before were what got them in this situation to begin with.
Decisions such as being Jewish and alive at the same time?
Jiro
7d ago
In all of these cases, there's the same belief that the Americans being mind-controlled lack their own agency and that an utterly trivial investment on the part of foreign actors can create a completely inorganic belief system within the United States.
They can change the relative size and influence of existing movements even if they can't create movements from scratch.
There's no such thing as "technically isn't a picture of Mohammad" that magically makes a Muslim think it's okay.
It's a hypothetical.
Also, if you really need a real-world example, Muslims are forbidden from charging interest, but have figured out ways to have non-interest interest. Demands that the US switch over to using it, even if it was as good as real interest and even if voluntarily, would be seen as absurd.
The primary reason that people who are vegan/vegetarian (for non-religious reasons, and even plenty of those) condemn the consumption of meat is because their heart aches at the idea of eating cute little animals, with souls,
The primary reason why people don't like pictures of Mohammed is because their heart aches at the idea, except for religious reasons.
I am agnostic on lab-grown meat. If it tastes good, is cheap, and is of comparable healthiness to legacy meat, I will eat it.
I'm sure that if non-picture pictures of Mohammed were good enough, non-Muslims would be agnostic about using them. It's not as if non-Muslims think that pictures have to be real pictures, as long as they look fine and serve their function. Same as for the meat.
Lab-grown meat strikes me as like deciding that it's evil to draw pictures of Mohammed, but if you use a special light refraction method, you can have something that looks sort of like Mohammed but doesn't count as a picture for religious purposes, so Muslims lobby for use of this method and dozens of scientists spend millions of dollars figuring out how to get people to accept this method instead of normal photography.
Jiro
12d ago
The Law of Undignified Failure as described there seems to sound more like the Law that Not Everyone's Boo Lights are the Same.
The fact that someone is doing things with negative emotional valence to you and that you are therefore scared should be irrelevant. Military weapons are supposed to kill people; marketing them for their ability to kill people is not undignified unless you have preexisting negative attitudes towards the military.
Jiro
14d ago
A funny thing though is that on the right, this emotion has long been mixed with something that is very different: an extremely powerful and (mostly) closeted, emotional-sexual complex with overtones of father issues. The anti-egalitarian right has a strong streak of closeted mostly-homosexual eroticism that revolves around dominance/submission.
People see homoeroticism in things like this for the same reason they see it in pretty much every anime, TV show, and movie under the sun that appeals to the right crowd. Can you prove that Harry Potter isn't secretly in love with Draco Malfoy?
Jiro
15d ago
New York passed gun laws prohibiting guns in a wide variety of sensitive locations (maybe not exactly 60). The courts had to declare each one unconstitutional separately and it wasn't possible to do so for all of them.
It's already happening.
Jiro
16d ago
The explanation that fits is that the progressive movement is against straight male sexuality. The objectionable sexual anime-flavored things are generally that. Drag queen story hour, explicit LGBTQ educational books, and the other examples of them promoting sexuality to minors aren't.
Paying it is limited by budget. Unfunded mandates aren't. This prevents many abuses.
More options
Context Copy link