Jiro
1d ago
Are we damaging our international relations or putting a stop to low-life's trying to come here take 'Murican (comic book) Jerbs.
If we wanted to write a law saying "you can use a non-work visa to work, as long as the industry or the quantity of work makes it laughable that they're taking someone's job", we could have. I hope the reasons why not to have such a law are obvious.
Jiro
9d ago
I mean this girl is in her mid-twenties and has already had seven messy breakups.
Not by non-comedy standards.
Jiro
15d ago
I wouldn't accept "mom he hit me first" from my kids
This attitude leads to schools punishing kids for being bullied because it takes two to start a fight, and they dared try to fight back against the bully. Self-defense and initiation of force actually are things.
yes he did say ' in the universe' , what the hell is going on?
Unless he's claiming there are aliens, "in the universe" is the same as "in the world". It's just a rhetorical flourish, it doesn't actually mean anything different.
Jiro
15d ago
This is Bulverism.
I'd give the alternative theory that Musk moved to the right because of his son going trans. It was a socially approved thing and the left never apologized....
Jiro
16d ago
Im' pretty sure that that link you gave for Great Messianic Kingdom wasn't made up just for your analogy. You don't just get away with sneaking things like that through just because you're making an analogy about something else.
Jiro
16d ago
Using this for an analogy is like saying "imagine if it's just like the alien reptiles ruling America now, except they're ruling the world instead". The question is secondarily an analogy about South Africa, and primarily a way to preach to the unbelievers about how the alien reptiles are taking over America. You should not be violating "Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be" by sneaking your inflammatory claim in as "oh, this is the real world part of an analogy about something else".
Jiro
17d ago
But either way, I do not think it is too much to ask for those arguing for more support to clearly identify what results we should expect from that support, and where they're willing to draw the line if the results they predict are not, in fact, achieved.
If you are asking about falsifying results rather than falsifying factual claims such as "there was a Holocaust" or "Russia started the war", then Dean answered you: strategies are not falsified by results.
Jiro
17d ago
I would argue that if you want to align rational entities through punishment, it is crucial to establish likely causal pathways.
And if you're an ideologue who believes that companies are evil, you want to punish them, period, so punishing them for things that they didn't cause doesn't seem so bad.
Moral considerations aside, I would argue that this would be much worse for setting incentives against murder.
Your scenario makes it easier to punish suspects in some ways (no trials) but harder in others (the suspects can get away if they can last five minutes). So a cop who just wants to punish people on a whim wouldn't like it. The EPA scenario only makes it easier; if the EPA wants to be able to punish companies on a whim, it's great for them.
Jiro
18d ago
Everyone here knows examples of when the Blue Tribe does this anyway, so I'll just point out a Red version, which is squeezing of public figures over past sexual indiscretions (ex: Kavanaugh)
That's a blue version.
Jiro
18d ago
Deciding between exact amounts or types of aid is like deciding whether Burger King or McDonalds is better. Deciding between no aid and aid is like deciding whether raw sewage or McDonalds is better. You need a lot less judgment for the latter decision than for the former.
I'm no military analyst, so I couldn't tell you the exact details of what aid is appropriate. But I can safely say that "none" is not in the right ballpark even while lacking the expertise to give you those exact details.
Is there an end-state or a potential event in the war that you think would falsify your understanding of the war, and convince you that providing aid was a bad idea?
A Holocaust denier could ask the same question. Is there evidence that could convince me that the Holocaust didn't happen? Not really. You'd have to go through all of the evidence for it piece by piece and show all of it to be wrong in some manner. There's so much evidence for it that it could only be wrong in some weird scenario like being a brain in a jar who is being fed completely fake information about the outside world.
Jiro
19d ago
I think a lot depends on how likely it is that SF was causally responsible.
Determining that someone is causally responsible takes work. Far simpler to look at the pollution and say "it doesn't matter whether you're causally responsible". Yes, the government probably wouldn't levy a penalty for radiation from Fukushima, but it would be because they haven't chosen to do so, not because they aren't allowed to.
Jiro
21d ago
The protestors often don't make fine distinctions like that. American Jews have been targeted.
A woman walks in and says "holy crap, your dog can play chess?! That's amazing! What a brilliant dog! "
The man says "you think my dog is brilliant? Pffft. Hardly. He's pretty dumb, I've won 19 games out of the 20 we've played."
Beware fictional evidence.
The joke works because we have assumptions about what it means to be able to play chess, and we know that a dog playing chess with any significant chance of success implies a much greater jump in intelligence than the jump between playing poorly and playing well.
If the dog was playing chess using some method that was not like how humans play chess, and which couldn't generalize to being able to play well, the joke wouldn't be very funny. Of course there isn't such a method for chess-playing dogs. But we know that Claude doesn't play Pokemon like humans do, and this may very well not generalize to playing as well as a human.
(Notice that your assumptions are wrong for computers playing chess. My Gameboy can beat me in chess. It has no chance of taking over the world.)
Jiro
21d ago
My rules > your rules, fairly > your rules, unfairly
Your rules, unfairly: Public health covers non-health things like gun control and environmental justice but cannot be used to push back against the woke.
Your rules, fairly: Public health covers non-health things, but at least both sides can use it.
My rules: Public health has to do with health.
Jiro
26d ago
Our "lifeboat" is an entire freaking continent.
The country has limited space. It cannot absorb everyone who wants to come. That's why the lifeboat metaphor works in the first palace.
Jiro
30d ago
People react to your behavior. The amount of harm done by bad faith actors won't stay the same once you've settled on a policy about false negatives and false positives. The bad actors will see your policy, and act in ways that the policy incentivizes.
Jiro
30d ago
I'm trying to identify the optimal social norms for generally pro-social law-abiding people to adopt among themselves to ensure their mutual happiness and fulfillment
If you do that these norms can be exploited by people who are not pro-social and law abiding.
Jiro
30d ago
A transwoman is a woman in the same way and to the same degree that an adopted child is their adoptive parent's child.
By this reasoning you should accept transracial people.
If you're a prominent Jew in early-20th-century Germany and you find conclusive evidence that this Jewish banker you know has been defrauding some goyim clients, you would be insane to publicly accuse him and call the state police.
If I was a prominent Jew in early 20th century Germany and had a gun, I would be justified in finding the local Nazis and killing them in cold blood.
If the situation is bad enough that you are justified in shooting people dead, you're also justified in doing a lot of lesser things that you normally wouldn't be justified in doing. And if you're deluded into thinking the world is that bad, you're a menace to society; this isn't some minor disagreement.
The theory that transgenderism as a movement is secretly very permissive of sexual assault on cis women doesn't survive contact with reality.
"Permissive" doesn't have to mean "deliberately intends to". It often means "has standards which rule out being able to handle". You don't have to be intentionally trying to bring about X for your actions to enable X.
Jiro
1mo ago
If you don't want to send that message don't make a Nazi salute. Not even accidentally.
You can't "not make a Nazi salute accidentally". First of all, by definition, an accident isn't done deliberately. Second, it's easy for a motivated leftist to find Nazi salutes everywhere; it's impossible to not do something that with the appropriate camera angle and out of context still image can be called a Nazi salute.
Taking that to the logical conclusion, we shouldn't be able to deport immigrants for anything whatsoever, since that would be unequal treatment that is analogous to treating the Devil unequally.
More options
Context Copy link