@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

3 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC 

				
User ID: 359


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
OracleOutlook


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

				
				
				

				

					3 followers  

					follows 2 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 359


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 24, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
People seem to misunderstand the suit comment. It's not like Zelenskyy cannot afford a suit. It's not a class commentary.


World leaders dress to send a message. Zelenskyy knows this, it's why he has been wearing his black outfit since the start of the invasion. The black outfit shows that he is a wartime president, fighting an existential threat to the last man.


Trump doesn't want the Ukraine to fight to the last man. He wants a peace. Suits are the clothing of negotiations and treaties.


The clothing is one of many things that caused yesterday to break down.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It was sent out Saturday night and has a deadline on Monday night. There could be people who work Saturdays and have Mondays off who will not see it until too late.


I can get behind the idea of explaining what you do and how it serves a specific directive from Congress (everyone should be able to explain this much). I have to send my boss a similar missive every week. But the way Musk is doing this seems solely for the purpose of upsetting people without thinking it through.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
As you build your shiny, state of the art system you are purchasing items from other businesses and those items will be taxed.


If you're just saying that, "As things get less expensive, VAT will decrease," then yes, that's true, but so will the amount of UBI needed to maintain a standard of living.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


preventing immigrants from making better lives for themselves also qualified.




This is not actually inherently evil.  The Church teaches that there are many justifiable reasons to secure a border and not accept all newcomers.


Killing a baby in the womb is inherently evil whatever the circumstance.


I understand the confusion surrounding "what side should a Catholic take?"  The truth is, don't.  We live in a time of Exraordinary Antipolitics and should be content with calling out evil when we see it without actively hoping for evil that we're more comfortable ignoring to succeed.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for February 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Ever wanted to learn more about congressional hearings on UAPs and the proposed coverup, but most sources either avoid going into depth or assume that you already know lingo and who's who?


Jimmy Akin's Mysterous World recently did an episode on the secret government program Immaculate Constellation.  As always, it's pretty informative and measured.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


First of all, it’s dependent on getting the money in the first place, and it’s probably pretty trivial to renounce citizenship and bugger off to a tax haven today, and given that “owning AI” doesn’t require you to be in the country at all, there’s nothing tying the guy who owns the company to the country the AI is in.




Say what you want about Andrew Yang, but his idea to tie UBI to a VAT might work.  It doesn't matter where the wealthy are, if they want to buy or sell in the American market it pays into the system.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I see calls from the Right to sufficiently ostracize Bannon for this, and I wonder if that's the wrong tactic.  Instead of defending his right to free expression (which in this context begins to sound like a defense of his ideas) or act like the sky is falling the way the left does, can't we just mock Bannon?  Take the power out of it. His gesture wasn't funny or deep, he's pathetic, etc.  (I'm trying to provide an example of mockery, but without breaking the rules and actually getting into it.)


The left tried the "Act like the sky is falling every time someone does something Nazi-ish" tactic for a while and that didn't help anything.  I vaguely remember a time when people would just roll their eyes or add layers of sarcasm.  Something like the way /r/TumblrinAction mocked otherkin.  That is how seriously I take Bannon, as if he had just proclaimed he was an otherkin on stage.  If he wants to stop pretending to be an otherkin and start eating at a human table any time soon, then he's welcome back on the Right. (Now to make actual Right influencers act this way.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There may have been a logic to the Blitzkrieg beyond what we can obviously see.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I agree, largely because of #3.  I'd rather have a President with this power than an "Independent Agency," though I'd rather have more rules made as laws in Congress instead of rules made as regulations by the Executive.


Basically, the Legislative Branch should never give the Executive authority to make regulations that the Legislative isn't comfortable changing every few years.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I agree on this point, and that's exactly why I liked that these agencies were independent.




Ok, then let's rephrase.  Can we agree not to delegate so much to unelected bodies unaccountable to anyone either?  I don't want Independent agencies or a Executive with so much regulatory power.  I don't want either to have so much regulatory power.  I want Congress to stop awarding either with broad powers that are easily abused and difficult to be held accountable.




net increase in deaths caused by droughts, floods, famines, and famine-related-instability.




Do you have evidence for this?  I have seen reviews that show that, while the amount of property damage has increased over time, this is not due to storms getting worse, but rather that things have gotten more expensive.  It doesn't seem like there has been an increase in deaths as a percentage of population or severity of storms.


If we wanted to reduce the Earth's temperature, we could do it very quickly with some basic geo-engineering.  That we don't is a sign that nobody seems to think the problem is very severe yet.


(Also, as a Catholic you should know it's not about the effect of paying for an abortion, it's about the remote material cooperation with evil. Being made complicit in the murder of a baby is the thing that really upsets us and Congress explicitly tried to protect us from.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Democrats are staring down the barrel of that right now and believe me, it is terrifying. You better hope republicans have a plan to rig every future election because otherwise that gun will be turned on you.




I mean, I've been staring at that barrel half my life as well, so my sympathies.  Maybe we can agree at this point to not delegate so much to the executive?


What do you think it's been like to be a Conservative this whole time?  Do you think we like not having the Comstock Act enforced and have our taxes go to killing babies in their mother's womb?  What are you worried about that tops that?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Maybe we're talking past each other.  One of the reasons it is desirable for the members of the Senate to have longer terms is because it provides "some stable institution in the government."  This shows that there was consideration of making the Senate a stabilizing institution in the government, which is in the Legislative branch.


If the objection is that I referenced treaties in my first post, I can pull a reference for that as well.  Regarding Treaties, Federalist Paper No 64 has this to say:




They who wish to commit the power under consideration to a popular assembly, composed of members constantly coming and going in quick succession, seem not to recollect that such a body must necessarily be inadequate to the attainment of those great objects, which require to be steadily contemplated in all their relations and circumstances, and which can only be approached and achieved by measures which not only talents, but also exact information, and often much time, are necessary to concert and to execute....






There are a few who will not admit that the affairs of trade and navigation should be regulated by a system cautiously formed and steadily pursued; and that both our treaties and our laws should correspond with and be made to promote it. It is of much consequence that this correspondence and conformity be carefully maintained; and they who assent to the truth of this position will see and confess that it is well provided for by making concurrence of the Senate necessary both to treaties and to laws.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Are you sure about that?  I'd say Federalist Paper No 62 supports me when it discusses the Senate:




IV. The number of senators, and the duration of their appointment, come next to be considered...






Fourthly. The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions...






It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?






Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The president doesn't have to enforce laws he doesn't want to




While there is some discretion, I would not go that far.  I actually really hate it when a president deliberately refuses to enforce a law.  There is a problem of enforcement - the president cannot dedicate 100% of resources to enforce 100% of laws 100% of the time.  But a president explicitly setting a policy where they refuse to enforce a law should be an impeachable offense.




independence of independent agencies




What is an Independent Agency?  What does the word Independent mean?  Does it mean something like, "Not accountable to civilian-appointed leaders?"  If so, what makes it desirable?  People use the word "independent" like it should have positive connotations, instead of horrific ones.


The justification is typically that Independent means non-partisan, but that is naivete. Everyone who makes policy has a side they prefer, a side that gives them more power or makes policies that align more with their own preferences.


There are Judicial Agencies.  There are Legislative Agencies.  These exist with direct oversight of the bodies that control them.  If Congress wants to make another Legislative Agency, that's fine to do so.  If Congress wanted to put the rule-making portion of the FCC's scope under themselves, assign a committee to do so and make laws that way, they are free to do so. I would welcome it.  As they refuse, we are instead left with a dysfunctional and unbalanced government.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Yes, this is exactly my point. This executive order shifts power from the conservative to the-- as you call it-- "dynamic" aspect of the government. And conservatives are happy about this? What?




Yes, I am happy with more accountability in government.  I'd be happier with the Legislature passing actual laws instead of delegating regulations to the Executive.  The Legislature should never give an executive department (department implementing laws) the authority to make regulations that they are unwilling to have change every presidency.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


but that would increase their workload in reviewing what agencies are up to.




One of the many reasons we should expand the House.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The Legislature is meant to be the conservative aspect of the government.  It is supposed to codify things that last, because it is very difficult to get a majority vote on something.  This is why congress is supposed to ratify things like treaties.  If we want stability, it needs to be explicitly enshrined in Congress.


The Executive is meant to be dynamic.  It responds to events as they arise and is supposed to be under the control of the elected President.  It should work this way.  The new President comes in, representing the will of the entire American people, and determines governmental policy not codified in Law.  What the executive does should change every time the President takes control.


A lot of things that are "regulations" should be laws, if they are something Congress can agree on.  If Congress cannot agree on them, how is it reflective of our Republic to put unelected, unaccountable people in charge of making them and nothing the American people can do to stop them?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Actually, for Dresden Files don't bother reading books 1 through 6.  Just pick up book 7 and read in order from there.  I did this by accident (it was what the library had at the time) and it's what the author recommends.  If you fall in love with the series, then you can go back and read the first books if you want to know what happens.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think we're experiencing a restoration of what was the typical attitude of Americans to Europe.  You are asking for American Vibes, so what I say may not be representative but it is how it appears to my family:


The first American settlers knew that they were leaving behind a continent full of aristocratic in-fighting, abuses of human dignity, and religious persecution.  When Americans first crafted their government, they did so in response to European governments. They were explicitly thinking, "This is what went wrong in Europe (mostly England and France) and here's how we're going to avoid it."


However, that still puts Europe in a privileged position in America.  They're our foil.   We didn't create a government in opposition to Chinese governance, or Ottoman governance.  We were Europeans trying to improve upon European political theory.


Throughout American history, there was this tension.  At first we were the underdogs.  Later, we became partners, and imagined ourselves the saviors in global conflicts.  We watched, amused, as Europe started to "catch up" to us in freedom.  While they didn't have anything close to a Bill of Rights, they did seem to start to understand the value of Free Speech, a justice system centered on the rights of the accused, etc.


However, we were always aware that they didn't see things as we did.  European rights and freedoms were not absolute, they still have "sovereigns" who aren't explicitly the citizenry, etc. We have a lot in common - more in common than the rest of the world - but we are not the same.  We can be on the same side, but our priorities will be different.


In the past 20 - 30 years, there has been a movement in the US to see Europe as "Just like us, only better."  Leftist commentators looked at Europe and said, "They have gay marriage and haven't fallen apart yet, we should have gay marriage."  They looked at Europe and said, "They have paid maternity leave, we should too."  Subsidized Healthcare, vacation days, worker protections, regulations.  America was no longer ahead of Europe, we were behind it.  Despite of being the center of culture, technology, and economics, we were told that we were a backwater.  "The world hates America." These voices gained influence over time and seemed ascendant during Obama's presidency.


The American people are tired of this messaging. We are tired of snobby Europe who prioritizes their citizen's low retirement ages over their contractual defense obligations and then mocks us for working into our 80s while we foot the Global Peace Bill.  We are tired of being lectured to by the Sages of Government Intervention and Safetyism while they prosecute people for praying silently in the wrong places.  We especially don't want America to grow any more similar to Europe as it is now.


Most Americans don't have any love of Russia.  Most Americans would probably agree that Russia shouldn't have invaded the Ukraine.  But most Americans are pragmatic, and understand that prolonging this conflict isn't going to right that wrong.  I see America as more pragmatic than Europe in general.


But I think that is the extent of it.  America is not actively hostile to Europe.  If Trump doesn't want Europe at the bargaining table, it might be because he thinks they will fuck it up.  There are some concessions that will have to be made, and Europe has proved that they find it more convenient to throw Ukrainian males at the problem to delay making these concessions.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
A male feminist makes the mistake of thinking a woman is like a man.  If a straight man (I'm less certain of gay men) was propositioned like Scarlett Pavlovich, he would be more assertive that he did not want sex with Gaiman.  As a male feminist, Gaiman would have expected that kind of reaction if Pavlovich really didn't want sex with Gaiman.  Because she didn't react the way a straight man would have reacted to being propositioned, Gaiman thought they were entering something consensual.


Alternatively:


BDSM and Feminism have a huge overlap with assuming the word "consensual" makes any sexual encounter acceptable.  Male feminists may be more into BDSM, and regretted BDSM sounds gross when put into a news article.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
At least cite Isaiah correctly, you are missing a 1 in front of your chapter numbers.  You are thinking of Isaiah chapters 13 and 14, not 3 and 4.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I'd be more convinced if there had been a clear effort to recruit conservatives, prior to this




Isn't that what Project 2025 actually was?  Not just the think-tank collection of essays that everyone was mad about - a large component was to have people apply over the last four years to be vetted.  https://www.project2025.org/personnel/ and https://www.project2025.org/training/presidential-administration-academy/ for example.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Unfortunately I'm not sure that's 100% accurate.  Most normies have a tipping point.  "Maybe a teacher should be fired if they post photos of themselves stripping on Facebook."  "Maybe a tech bro should be fired for posting that they would never marry someone outside their race."  Everyone draws a line somewhere.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If we want DOGE to be popular long term, so that Congress backs its recommendations and they become more permanent than the sitting president, we need to stick with things normies can understand and get behind.  If Edgy Tweets turns 5% of normie opinions against DOGE, then DOGE can lose significant ground in the theater that matters..


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't really care about Doge, I care about results.  Elon Musk can take care of the Doge staffer by hiring him at Space X or Tesla.  Everyone at Doge needs to be aware that success is everything.  If they win, they will have a great resume, many tech billionaires willing to pay them nice salaries, etc.  If they lose they may never be employed again.  They may end up in jail.


These are the stakes.  This is the mission.  They have one chance at this.