OP might be speaking from a german perspective. Germany has recently gained a large population of arab/muslim immigrants, whose views on Israel (open celebration of the Hamas attacks) have now opened a new conversation on "do we really want people like that in our country?" The issue has given a clear example of what can be bad about unrestricted immigration, disqualfying unrestricted immigration optimism and validating the points of the right.
It being about antisemitism also means that the normal oppression hierarchy doesn't apply, and that it's harder to dismiss the critics as Nazis, which helps the topic along.
Voyager
1yr ago
If he believes he is already doing everything he possibly can through his office, he can say that
But that only serves the purpose of covering his ass, whereas giving advice to potential victims helps solve the problem, which is his actual job.
The problem is framing the issue as something that is the victim's job to prevent, rather than a problem that society should be trying to fix.
The victims are part of society, and they have the biggest interest in preventing the crime. Excluding them from being part of the solution only makes sense if you're playing the blame game and want to make sure the "right"* people get the blame, not if your priority is solving the problem.
*IMHO, the people who actually deserve the blame are the rapists.
Voyager
1yr ago
Family is exceeding personal, and therefore incest porn is kinda distanced and meta. The guy watching mother/son porn isn't attracted to his mother - but the woman in the video isn't his mother, she's someone else's mother.
Voyager
1yr ago
If the chief of police responds to questions about a rise in sexual assault rates in the city and says 'women should be covering their drinks at bars' and then does nothing else to address the problem through their office, they are blaming victims instead of doing their job.
What does it mean to "do nothing else to address the problem"? What if the police is already doing (or is in the process of starting to do) everything they believe they can reasonably do given the available resources? Should they just sit it out to avoid "victim blaming" when they could give useful advice that helps them do their job and solve the problem? I mean, isn't educating people about safety part of the police's job?
Unless he's facing specific criticism and trying to deflect blame, "here's what you can do to help/protect yourself" doesn't strike me as unreasonable.
Voyager
1yr ago
But as you mentioned, the rate of victimization being a conserved quantity is not necessarily true. If we advocate running away from cheetahs, we could hope that it eventually starves to death. Or whatever incredibly strained analogy applies to real life human predators.
Indeed. For example, if all women avoid badly-lit routes, potential rapists will be forced to either stay home or attack on a well-lit route, which increases the chance of bystanders interfering, thwarting the crime as well as potentially leading to arrest. In the long-term, this leads to a situation where a large number of potential rapists are either in jail or law-abiding to avoid the risk, reducing total rape.
If all women cover their drinks and drink responsibly, rapist will have no opportunities to prey on unconscious victims. Potential victims will be aware and in control, able to fight back or scream for help. Same result.
Voyager
1yr ago
colorblind (or gay/trans-blindness? we need a better term)
I'd argue that given the symbolism of the rainbow flag, "colorblind" works fine.
Voyager
1yr ago
Why wouldn't you believe (or pretend to believe) something that isn't true
"Believe" and "pretend to believe" are very different things. The latter can be rational in many situations, if dishonest.
Voyager
1yr ago
The reason may be some compromising material, military secrets, or, if he had confidence in the loyalty of his people, the threat of a second "march of justice" from the Wagner PMCs. The latter scenario is unlikely, further complicated by the death of Dmitry Utkin
It seems plausible that this is no coincidence - Putin was worried about Wagner trying to take revenge, and he thought this would be led by Utkin, and thus he struck when he saw the opportunity to take out Utkin together with Prigoshin, decapitating Wagner and thus preventing a coordinated response from them.
Voyager
1yr ago
If all systems attempt meritocracy, we can still judge them by how well they actually achieve meritocracy.
Voyager
1yr ago
I don't think it's emotional damage so much as effects on role model. A father who abandoned his familial obligation, or went to prison, is a very bad role model. A father who died will is not present as a role model, but his idealized memory will be.
Also, becoming the man your dead father would have been proud of is more motivating than making a father proud who "clearly" didn't care.
Voyager
1yr ago
That's not comparable at all. The point of disability welfare is to provide them with the baseline of a life worth living, which we want to provide to everyone. Few proponents of meritocracy propose letting the useless languish.
AA, however, goes way beyond that. It gives blacks an advantage beyond that. It's fair to say everyone should live a dignified life. It's not fair some people to say some people should get unmerited success beyond what others get, based on their skin color.
I wouldn't say being a against a blindness quota for pilots is anti blind people.
Voyager
1yr ago
Fair enough, bad example from me, but there's a both qualitative and quantitative difference here. "Testicle-less" or any other example is just one property out of too many to list. Here the only reasonable thing to do is deal with exceptions as they come up. A trans man, however, is missing a lot of the properties of men, and a lot of what's there is artificial. Usually, a man naturally has a number of properties that can be deducted from knowing he's a man, with the exceptions being rare and surprising, because everything in nature has exceptions. A trans man does not. What's more, a trans man has a lot of the properties of woman, which in humans is the opposite of man.
Most of the time where it's not reasonable to distinguish between men and trans men, it's not reasonable to distinguish between men and women either.
Voyager
1yr ago
"Tall man" is just additional information: A tall man is for all intents and purposes a man, his height isn't affecting his man-ness.
"Trans man" is a qualifier. It doesn't just add information, it also removes information that is normally contained in the description "man". It's not just less information, it's also ambiguous.
"You're a man, so you should regularly get checked for testicular cancer" makes sense, because "has testicles" is part of "man". This is information you expect to have from "man", so the qualifier is required in the case of "trans man" to warn you that some qualities of "man" might not apply.
If you drop it because it doesn't seem useful in context (leaving aside that that's controversial almost everywhere) then you're still implying information that isn't there, and once it does come up, there will be confusion.
You don't say "president" if you mean "vize president" or "year" if you mean "half-year" either.
Voyager
1yr ago
No, I mean that a choke physiologically CANNOT last longer than about 5-15 seconds. If you have a choke on someone and they are still struggling after that long, it is either autonomic flailing and their brain is about to die or you are actually strangling them.
-
"Choke" has been used, by me and the people I responded to, to mean "the act of choking someone". You can, physiologically, very easily hold a choke on someone who is already dead.
-
If your point is the distinction between choking and strangling, that's just a terminology nitpick.
-
I'm pretty sure you actually got it mixed up. Wikipedia:
"A chokehold [or] choke […] is a general term for a grappling hold that critically reduces or prevents either air (choking) or blood (strangling) from passing through the neck of an opponent."
Two is if you squeeze someone's throat for more than the x amount of time (which is quite short actually), it is +/- equivalent to shooting them in the chest or stabbing them.
But there isn't an "x amount of time". Even when properly applied, you yourself give ranges of time, but when not (as clearly the case with Penny and Neely) it can take much longer. And you typically have the warning of unconciousness before lasting damage. The proper thing to do is to release the choke on that, not after a countdown regardless of whether he's weakly twitching or trying to gouge your eyes out.
All this is going waaaaaaaaaaaaay off track from what I started reeeeeing about though; that being that manslaughter charges are appropriate for someone that does something that commonly results in death without premediating or intending to kill the other dude.
The "something that commonly results in death" is "keep holding the choke after unconciousness". You don't expect choking someone just until they stop resisting to result in death, regardless of how long it took.
Voyager
1yr ago
Strangling is continuous, choking isn't (from a wrestling perspective).
A choke has a defined end; which is a tap, unconsciousness, or death.
No, a choke ends when it's released, which can be at any time. What happens afterwards isn't part of the choke.
A choke leads to unconsciousness somewhere between 5 and 15 seconds
That clearly didn't happen here though. Neely was fighting back for much longer.
Holding a choke for 10 minutes isn't excessive if the target is still fighting back at 9:50, just like shooting someone 14 times isn't excessive if the first 13 miss.
Voyager
1yr ago
Unlike stabbing, choking is a continuous action. If you choke someone out, the expectation is that they will start to recover once they're released. "Choking someone to death" is generally expected to mean holding the choke until they're dead.
So if Penny choked Neely out, but released him before he died, that makes the excessive force and negligence claims much weaker. It certainly sinks any accusations of intent.
If he had punched him out, then he hit his head on the ground when falling and died, "beat him to death" could be said to be technically true, but wouldn't exactly give an audience an accurate picture of what happened.
Voyager
1yr ago
I can't really begrudge women for not making that argument any more than I begrudge myself for not making the argument that all gyms should be banned so fewer guys are buffer than me so I can get more chicks. I would like it if they were but I can't make the argument.
But are you making the argument that gyms should be banned because of toxic masculinity or [insert made-up argument]? If so, that's unethical, if not, the comparison doesn't work out.
Voyager
1yr ago
If men wanting attractive women to sleep with them is a harmful notion of masculinity, I'm rather concerned about the future of humanity.
Voyager
1yr ago
I've been wanting to write an essay tentatively titled "Following Godwin's law: In Defense Of Nazi Comparisons". The core thesis being that an example used to illustrate your position should be as uncontroversial as possible to avoid debate about the example. Everyone agrees Nazis are bad, so an example involving Nazis leaves everyone on the same page.
There is this idea of "everyone who invokes Godwin's Law automatically loses the discussion" that I believe is worth pushing back against, but this needs a lot of in-depth discussion which I don't feel prepared for and am not sure I have enouh content for.
Also, it might end up too similar to Scott's High Energy Ethics.
Voyager
1yr ago
The right is skeptical of the state's ability to improve test scores and career outcomes for women and (non-asian) minorities but thinks the state is quite capable of convincing people to cut off their own genitals.
I think there's a fundamental difference in that career outcomes are measured over the entire population, whereas "making people trans" only affects a (more suggestible) subgroup of the target group.
The government can convince some people, particularly confused teenagers, to transition, and there are also surely some women who respond to a women-in-tech program.
The government can not convince everyone to cut off their genitals, and equally not convince women as a group to make life choices indistinguishable from men as a group.
Voyager
1yr ago
For this to have any effect, you would need to ban condoms too. This means you're not only increasing fertility, but also STDs.
Voyager
1yr ago
This. You can't reject an argument if you have no idea what the argument is supposed to be (because the text supposedly containing it appears to be gibberish). You can say "please clarify your argument" and leave it at that until they do.
Voyager
1yr ago
"Imagine it's culture war and nobody goes there. Then the culture war will come to you!"
Voyager
1yr ago
Are we sure about that? The prompt just says "flight to another planet." It's consistent with the available information that the planet already has a self-sustaining human colony populated by carefully selected astronauts with all the expertise needed to keep it running.
This would explain why the list has no engineers, botanists or (fully-trained) doctors - it's not about giving humanity a chance, it already has one. Instead, they're trying to save some of humanity's "diversity", and our task is to decide what diversity is worth saving the most.
Only if you think reparations are just and good but you just personally don't want to pay for them. If you are against reparations for fundamental or even pragmatic reasons, then "vote against a proposal that will have bad consequences further down the line" is perfectly reasonable.
Note that "it will cost money without achieving anything useful" is also a valid reason to be against something, even if it doesn't come out of your pocket.
More options
Context Copy link