Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
No bio...
User ID: 290
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
Not one cent of it should benefit Israel or Ukraine until there are no more problems to solve here.
There's always a relevant xkcd....
Also, every bit of Ukrainian clay seized by Russia will undermine the post-WWII standard against wars of territorial expansion, which will almost certainly cause more problems here.
As for Israel, as long as the US, or nations in general, maintain border and immigration controls, the State of Israel must continue to exist as a haven for Jewish people persecuted in other countries. (If everyone had open borders, Israel might not be necessary because Jews unsafe in their homes could always go somewhere else, as occurred many times prior to the 20th century, and could have occurred in the counter-factual 1930s and 1940s absent the post-WWI implementation of modern passport and visa systems.)
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
That's not what I asked.
Aiden is going through puberty. While the other boys in his class are starting to notice girls, Aiden is noticing boys in the same way.
On Earth-764, 16M/16M is held to the same standards as 16M/16F.
On Earth-932, 16M/16M is regarded with the same vitriol as 55M/12M, and the former is only tolerated in sub-cultures which also tolerate the latter.
If you're trying to keep Aiden away from paedophiles, are you likely to have more success on Earth-764, or on Earth-932?
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
Sure, you can tell yourself that, but being actually gay wasn't a problem in the 90s or 2000s. It was faking manliness that was as far as high school kids were concerned.
I don't think they drew much of a distinction between those two things, or between any two non-heteronormative characteristics.
Admittedly, this may have varied between regions; some areas (the 'fly-over' states) would have been more hostile than Boston or San Francisco.
Of course, there is the overreaching issue of pederasty in the gay male community.
And if gay teenagers are shunned and rejected by the broader society, are they more likely, or less likely, to associate with that community?
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
And that's why platforms are supposed to 'articulate specific policies', rather than gesture at applause lights.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
how can Congress pass laws that are good for all Americans when it's full of white men?
They can do so perfectly well when the interests of white men align with those of women and minorities; it is when they diverge that there is an issue.
Can an all-white Congress be trusted to forgo a bill that would result in +0.001 util/white person and -10,000 utils/black person?
point of limiting the vote to a cohort like the suggested one is to make sure all those voting are people of good character
There are many, many married fathers of bad character; forgiving indeed is the one who would not include at least one U. S. President in that category. There are also many women, single men, and childless husbands of far better character than the aforementioned married fathers.
The idea that male heads of households would vote against the interests of their wives is pretty cynical
Male heads of households would vote against the interests of their wives, when those interests are at cross purposes to their own. A man who wishes to be allowed to legally beat his wife if she dis-pleases him in the slightest way is unlikely to vote for a candidate promising a crack-down on spousal abuse, even though it would be to his wife's benefit.
in the type of society that is being suggested here I would expect these voters to be more concerned with the well-being of their whole family
Expect in one hand, [excrete] in the other, and see which one fills up first.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
I'm comfortable biting the bullet and saying that people like DINKs, single people, and the very poor deserve to have their interests less represented in society.
And where will you stand when someone says that you, your wife, and your children deserve to have their interests less represented in society than those of another man, his wife, and his children?
But for your other objection- historically male heads of households have valued the well-being of other members of their households above those of other male heads of household, to the extent that different members of the same household can have their wellbeing clearly separated.
Counter-example: domestic-abuse laws.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
the last platform of theirs I looked at said to refer to the King James Bible rather than articulate specific policies.
So they're open-borders (Leviticus 19:34) gender-neutralist (Galatians 3:28) welfare liberals (Ezekiel 16:49)?
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
So you suggest we invoke Hanlon's Razor?
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
There are many, many ways to do that. You could restrict it to people who pay the poll tax, or to those who own property, or those who are married with children, or only people who have been in the country for twenty-one years, or only people who have been resident of the state for twenty-one years, or...or...or... You can read history and come up with your own way, but limiting who is allowed to vote is a normal suggestion and has been implemented in some form everywhere voting occurs.
And whichever criterion you choose, wherever the interests of that group differ from its complement, the elected officials will then be incentivised to discount the latter in favour of the former.
This is not, to put it delicately, a recipe for a peaceful society.
Frankly I'd settle for paying people not to vote, as anyone who would rather have $100 than cast a vote shouldn't be voting anyway.
This runs up against the diminishing marginal utility of money. $100 means a lot more to someone of lesser means than it does to a billionaire.
Would you like to suggest a way, or were you thinking I wouldn't bite the bullet? Do you care about the differences, or are you just expressing disdain?
It was more of a Socratic method question; however, one could select a number of residents at random and pay them enough that they could devote themselves full-time to political issues....
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
· Edited 1mo ago
male heads of property owning households with children
That would result in a government which undervalues the well-being of
- wives
- households of very limited means
- people without children
where their interests conflict with those of well-off fathers.
Considering this acceptable under-mines one's standing to object to FOO attempting to reserve the vote to FOO, and steering the government to ignore the interests of BAR where they conflict with those of FOO.
The political process then becomes a game of musical-chairs where every group tries to grab the government before their enemies do.
Whichever groups end up losing this conflict then have less incentive, and reason, to regard the government as legitimate; and being unable to influence it peaceably, are more likely to attempt change through violence.
I would prefer that political violence be avoided.
I can therefore conclude that it would be wise to extend the vote to single people, wives, non-child-bearing husbands, and fathers without property.
assuming no evidence of treachery, criminality, or immorality
And how long would it take before 'supporting policies I don't like' became 'evidence of immorality'?
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
And how do you decide who those fewer voters should be?
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
That was not the case in the 1990s.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
gay club
More of a "gay-people-shoudn't-be-under-constant-threat-of-violence-intended-to-force-them-back-into-the-closet" club, or a "shift-the-societal-response-to-gay-people-existing-from-violent-repression-to-minding-your-own-d*mn-business" club.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
14 foot high bolsheviks
What about 14-foot-high Left-SRs?
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
some not-IVF but medical procedure
It was my understanding that the majority of these procedures are performed when a husband and wife have been trying and failing to conceive in the traditional manner....
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
hard coded male sensibilities
Can you elaborate on the meaning of this term, as you understand it?
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
idk how to strikethrough
Put a tilde before and after.
(tilde = ~)
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
· Edited 1mo ago
A War-of-Southern-Treason-era Unitedstatesian being both a leftist and a Democrat would be as incongruous an as a current-year Unitedstatesian being both a leftist and a Republican. (Also, Booth was a Know-Nothing, not a Democrat. The Know-Nothings were right-wing on their loudest issue (immigration) but also had some left-wing positions.)
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
[I] called him a leftist and a [D]emocrat
In 1865, the Democrats were the right-wing party.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
Modest proposal: Automate the ports, but keep paying the longshore-men until they reach retirement age, and then just don't hire any more to replace them.
We'll get the efficiency benefits right away, the financial benefits over the next 47 years, but no-one will find themselves suddenly struggling to put food on their families.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
Linda, 52, six years of experience; Louise, 52, hobby triathlon runner, six years of experience, applies for an admin position. Which do you pick, no other information?
If I can't get more information?
Heads, I hire Linda; tails, I hire Louise.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
I am suspicious of a theory that happens to be embraced mostly by fat acceptance activists.
I am suspicious of any hypothesis which allows people to think their cruellest instincts justifiable.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
A British citizen living in the US is substantially affected by political goings-on in the United States. Should [if RAND < 0.5 print "he" else print "she"] be entitled to vote in US elections?
(This isn't entirely intended as a 'gotcha' question, by the way. I can see the argument that people should vote where they live currently; I reject the notion that there are certain kinds of people who don't deserve any voice anywhere.)
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1mo ago
Why do you think some people are able to lose weight, then?
Exactly how long-term?
More options
Context Copy link