@pigeonburger's banner p

pigeonburger


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2023 March 03 15:09:03 UTC

				

User ID: 2233

pigeonburger


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2023 March 03 15:09:03 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2233

So exactly as he said.

It sounds like what you actually want is not the freedom to do as you wish, but the power to coerce others, and particularly to deny the other what they want.

No, I do realise all of that. But the forms and niceties are important, even if they are just pretending. If you pretend to tolerate the other for long enough, you start believing you do. And when enough people believe it, something magical happens (or rather, something terrible doesn't happen); your society becomes more stable and its constituents don't jump to civil war anytime they lose an election.

I believe voters would punish a defection on a very simple unambigious sworn promise like that. Ok, maybe many/most people wouldn't but with elections being decided by razor's edge margins it wouldn't take a lot of them to effectively put victory out of reach.

And in the realm of sexual sociopolitics, I'm rather skeptical that the progressives considered the conservatives to be people mostly on the same page and with similar ideas about what "victory" looked like, just with different ways to get there.

If you zoom out far enough, sons and daughters living happy fulfilling lives is what everyone is after. At least, for people who invest themselves into social policy making with impacts on that kind of timescale. There isn't really any personal gain to be made, the people who pushed the changes that led to the current environment are by now too old to personally benefit from it.

My point is not that the colonel who cannot ever manage to implement his strategy is worthy, but that it's a fair complaint if another person ostensibly working for the same objective is actively making things worse for no other reason than to not see him succeed. If the other colonel really was shooting his country's troops in the back, pointing it out to the brass is not pitiful whining, it should be investigated and that colonel arrested and tried for treason. If, in progressives' mind, conservatives are making everyone live miserable lives for generations for no other reason than to spite progressives, they should make that case to the population as best they can so that the population rightly shuns conservatism. It's not argument I can see them making convincingly, but they absolutely should try it if they truly believe that conservatives are that nasty and petty.

Which strikes me as akin to a colonel saying "I did absolutely everything right when I ordered my men to rush that hill; those damn enemy combatants with their machine guns in bunkers are the ones at fault here."

You're not seeing it from a consequentalist standpoint, which is probably the one the people complaining that their movement was failed are taking. I think there's an important distinction because technically the people they accuse of holding them back aren't seen as enemy combatants in the context of making the world better. They might be adversaries in the context of getting a policy implemented internally, like that colonel might be a big fan of human wave style tactics while another colonel is arguing in favor of softening the enemy up with artillery, both arguing and trying to convince the brass of approving their preferred tactic, bickering and going as far as doing some political manuvering to try and edge out the other, but still fighting on the same side of the war. So their accusation is not that their tactic would have worked but for the enemy, but that they are being machine-gunned in the back by the other colonel who would be putting winning his small argument about tactics (disapproval of sexual liberty) over the overarching goal of winning the war (of making life better for everyone).

Whether the argument is accurate or not is different, but the accusation is of sabotage, not of facing resistance from the enemy.

He can swear it publically and drop out of the race before the pardon. As for running in 2028, he's gonna be 5 years older, obviously and unambiguously breaking a sworn oath by running, facing a more established candidate (an incumbent Republican president, quite possibly), that's probably enough to guarantee him a loss. If Trump believes he's gonna win 2024 he might not go for such a deal, but his stated position is that the last election was rigged; does he believe he can win, enough to risk jail? Enough to refuse an offer to make it a draw and walk away with dignity?

I think what makes it appear suspect is simply who feels the impulse to drink calorie free sodas. It's just correlation, not causation.

As a wise man once said:

I've never seen a thin person drink diet coke

The meaning is altered in that a very salient objection can be raised that these things should not be given to those who don't work for them. But that's not different groups' interest competing, it's still mistake theory. It hits a crucial mistake people believe others are making; everyone should be in a nice part of town, but how many ressources should be allocated to helping people who don't help themselves (and their community), even if just to keep all parts of town nice? At what point does those ressources create incentives for freeloading and ruin that part of town?

Only if you make eye contact

It depends what kind of criminals you're thinking about, but most of them don't do any kind of reasonned risk/reward analysis. They simply believe punishment doesn't matter because they won't get caught. It's like reckless driving; a likely result is death, the harshest punishment, but it's infrequent enough that the people doing it discount its possibility to zero. Or teens and unwanted pregnancies, even when there wasn't an easy way out, it still happened all the time because the punishment was infrequent enough as to seem unlikely to happen.

Are you selective with your votes or do you vote on most/all posts you see?

I'm selective, about 1 post a day get a vote from me each day, except answers to my comments (I tend to vote these more systematically except for the situation I'll explain on the 3rd question)

Do you find yourself upvoting people you disagree with due to the quality of their argument, or vice versa?

Yes. I routinely upvote posts I disagree with because they were well argued, and downvote posts I agree when I feel the poster argued it poorly or in an unproductive way.

Do you downvote people you're arguing with or do you leave judgement entirely to the masses?

Depends on whether I feel my reaction is emotional or not. If I feel like my negative opinion of the post is due to defensiveness about my position, I try not to vote (or I upvote to reward engagement).

Do you remove the auto self-upvote on your posts/comments?

No, does anyone do that? I mentally account for it on my posts.

The problem is that no automatic updates is also a terrible idea, as a majority of systems don't get patched, ever. The ideal is manual updates but responsible companies/admins testing before deployment, and sadly I don't think that's gonna happen. The second best is gradual/tiered deployments with the ability to opt out, which is more realistic but still require more effort than many companies are willing to provide.

I guess it comes down to whether the regime is all in on teaching kids to be trans in public schools. And if they actually care about black people as saints or would mostly be fine with treating them the same as white people. Those are useful tools to bash maga but I don’t know how many in the PMC actually believe that stuff.

There's also the possibility that Desantis himself personally doesn't care that much about these things and that as he got into power, he would pivot his priorities into ones that get bipartisan approval (read: the priorities of the PMC/cathedral) so he can line up some quick wins and would only make weak ineffectual gestures at placating his base on these topics.

Of course these duties are much less grand than making the perfect society. You just have to be a good whatever it is you are. Neighbor, husband, mother, worker, student, businessman, beggar; it doesn't really matter what or who you are, but you have to play the cards you have as well as you can. Only because to not do it is a waste.

That is quite important, yes. If you're in actor in the middle of a play and you think that the play sucks, you're not going to make it better if you start stealing lines from another actor because you think you can say them better than he can. That will only ruin the play even more. The only thing you can do to improve the play, is to play your own role as best you can.

I'm glad Florida won it because I don't want any other canadian team to have won the Cup before our next one.

Something we can all relate to

Yes, but that does not mean the opposite people are not also successful.

I know about the "drawing on the right side of the brain" already

Before I read this sentence I was already preparing to mention it. Any reason why you'd need something else? For me, it unlocked a "non-verbal" mode in my brain that I didn't even know it could do.

Oh, okay, yeah that makes more sense.

I don't think anyone would need to stop at considering the specific goal achieved; the healthcare that the absolutely poorest westerners can get by showing up to a hospital today, even americans, is orders of magnitude better than that which kings and emperors could get only a few centuries ago. We all want to see that trend continuing, and it will continue to be a treadmill, one on which I hope everyone agrees on the direction, even if they disagree on speed, technique, etc...

Of course, I never claimed there was such a thing, or that it was relevant to my argument that there is only a single level of healthcare.

Is your point that since caviar is expensive, poor people should starve? Or that you don't want caviar to become cheap because then poor people could eat it and somehow that makes you lose? Because otherwise I don't see how it relates to mine.

Healthcare price is not just a fixed amount that has to be paid, it's reactive to policy and social factors, to policies influencing supply and demand of healthcare, to the legal environment around it, to the general health of the population, to the hygenic habits of the population, to socioeconomical factors, to genetics, to economies of scale, etc...

I think everyone, left and right, would be satisfied with the outcome of "healthcare is very available and almost everyone can afford it with the few remaining edge cases unable to pay being either taken care of by the government or by charity".

Whether you get there by single payer or not is a huge part of the question, but it's not a zero sum game.

Broadly speaking, "you can get healthcare if you work/pay for it." already is the selfish position

I would formulate it more like "I want good healthcare to be available and affordable to everyone". Seems unselfish, and a rather universal proposition. I don't think it's altruism necessarily, people want to live in a place where they don't have to be driven in armored cars from gated enclave to gated enclave through a wasteland filled with roving gangs of dying sick panhandlers. Seeing only healthy people around me has value not because I'm altruistic, but cause it's more pleasant than the alternative, and for that I'm willing to compromise on maybe the speed or the cost of my care.

And Im not sure in what sense you think people dont have access to jobs, unless its an immigration thing.

I think they do too in the west, broadly speaking, but it's something that good or bad policy can influence (by running employers out of town, for instance), and that a vast majority would probably agree they want everyone to have.

For its own sake no, but I can see it as a way of denouncing sinful celebrity worship, once warped through the mind of someone with a bad understanding of how his actions are percieved by others?

I don't think it's necessarily against conservative values? I can easily imagine there's some type of point they're trying to make about celebrity culture being a form of prostitution and selling their bodies. It came out about as lucid and legible as you would imagine it would when someone with mental issues is in a situation where no one is able to stop him.

I guess it's true that people who insist on interactions have run me out of MOBAs, but that's just because effective teamwork requires more interaction than I'm comfortable with, but that doesn't address the point with fighting games, another competitive genre, which I still do play online as long as I can disable text/voice chat.