anon_
1d ago
"Tradition above all" is an empty formalism at best, and incoherent at worst. If tradition is your sole overriding source of moral truth, then we just wind up with the old Euthyphro dilemma
Well sure, that's a straw man that is easy to knock down. For one, I don't think "above all" adds much here -- it's a kind of still absolutism. Similarly "sole" and "overriding" are just adding fuel.
I'm not a hardhearted Burkean, but I think "respect tradition, afford it significant deference, do not lightly discard it" is a far steelier man than "tradition above all".
What if it's actively malicious? "Support tradition" is a formal principle because it makes no mention of the actual content of that tradition. If you are living in a Nazi or communist (or whatever your own personal avatar of evil is) regime whose roots extend back further than living memory, are conservatives obligated to support the existing "traditional" regime?
The reason I support the tradition of western civilization is that it has a long history of increasing good things and decreasing bad ones. This is an independent and alternate source of substantive ethical principles, yes, but it also informs a specific epistemic posture.
anon_
2d ago
You wrote this 3 days ago, and already my feed has various stories of first-worlders (Canadians, Germans) spending far longer than one might imagine reasonable in ICE detention rather than taking a commercial flight.
anon_
2d ago
The dwarves are there to demonstrate that, as a fair maiden, she has the power & duty to civilize the uncultured. She makes them wash their hands.
Based.
anon_
3d ago
I certainly won't write apologia for the half consistent plot line.
I was only pointing out that a given message (whether consistent or otherwise in this particular film) can be right-coded or left-coded.
Given how they apparently changed the way "fairest" meant in this remake, I actually wonder if the relative looks here was the point. Of course, they couldn't hire someone outright ugly as the lead, but making sure that she's significantly and noticeably less attractive than the Evil Queen (very easy to do when you cast Gadot as her) could have been consciously intentional for the purpose of sending little girls the message that good looks are bad, actually.
I think the message is that good looks are largely uncorrelated from good morals. Which is an overdone message, but probably a good one for the middling.
Heck, half the trad discourse on X is "stop chasing the thots just because they are the hottest chicks in your field of vision and instead seek out a woman of virtue (as defined thus)". Map it that way, and "who is the fairest of them all" could easily come out of the right, which bemoans a leftist culture of shallow beauty over virtue.
It's all so tiresome.
anon_
3d ago
Originally it was supposed to be Snow White and Evil Queen going toe-to-toe, but now she just falls off a cliff or something?
In the 1937 version, it's a bolt of lightning that precipitates her fall off a cliff. So this is pretty standard.
but they should have put a muzzle on Zegler
It's funny how the right played right into this. Hollywood made a dud and when the ship starts to sink the rats turned on each other and found a scapegoat. Her idiotic comments, no matter how daft, were not at fault.
anon_
3d ago
Thanks for actually addressing the object level contents rather than the 3rd degree "so-and-so got mad because they criticized such-and-such over their comments about why the movie flopped".
I also find it funny that what is easily the most "woke" movie in recent memory could plausibly be interpreted as endorsing dissident right ideals, Jews Bad, hereditary monarchy good, "the people" are sheep, etc...
There was always a far dose of noblesse oblige in the woke socialists. "From each according to his ability" is a moral duty rooted in privilege. They both demand awareness of ones station (modern: privilege) and to use it nobly (modern: wokely, towards equity, etc..).
anon_
4d ago
Poor Miyazaki?
Imagine seeing thousands of people use it your style to reveal the tenderness and beauty in their lives that the camera cannot capture.
anon_
5d ago
She’s enough of a snake that when it comes time to embrace a different message she will not skip a beat.
anon_
5d ago
I live in a deep blue area, I can confirm that while there is some renewed understanding of reality, its penetration has been very nonuniform.
anon_
5d ago
I thought that was the president, not secdef that had ultimate classification authority.
anon_
5d ago
The individual that is doing the most to make Republicans less likely to win in the future is Trump.
Certainly, there’s no Democrat even remotely effectual at this goal.
All the worse when they get into an actual shooting war and none of that shit works
anon_
5d ago
Presumably not if you dump them in an El Salvadoran prison.
If they were citizens of El Salvador then sure.
anon_
6d ago
Absolutely. I was not trying to address any of these three cases.
My limited claim here was that if an individual who is not convicted of a violent act is told to remove, they should get three days to remove themselves to a country of their choice. In all other cases cited, or once that three days is up, do whatever.
anon_
6d ago
Conceptually I absolutely don’t think about it that way, I think a non-citizen commits a crime and they get whatever the actual penalty is such as jail time. In addition, committing a crime makes them no longer admissible within the United States, and as a civil matter they have to leave.
Of course, if they then don’t leave when they were mandated to that is an additional criminal immigration offense.
anon_
6d ago
Also I fully agree about somebody being violent in my house.
Many of the examples of individuals I would like removed from the United States, do not pattern match to this hypothetical. In particular, I don’t think those here temporarily-lawfully under non-meritorious asylum claims nor those that simply didn’t have their visa renewed qualify. Especially if they’re entry was lawful at the time, it is very hard to justify treating them a Kin to someone who came and committed acts of violence.
anon_
6d ago
I guess I would probably prioritize it with (3) first, if the person and the receiving country both consent.
I do think you’re imagining somebody apprehended proximate to the active crossing the border, not the removal of someone that’s been here for a while.
anon_
6d ago
If they can arrange, at their own expense, a first class flight to a country that will accept them, departing within the next hundred hours, I would be inclined to let them take it.
And yes, I understand this to be customary.
anon_
6d ago
You're right in your statement.
Still, the relevant metric isn't security of proper usage, it's security when used by the bottom decile of expect users.
The approved messaging service is likely much harder to fuck up.
anon_
6d ago
The whole thing is really bizarre. Like the outsider added to the chat just so happens to be a journalist? What are the odds of that?
The obvious answer is that Waltz was already leaking speaking off the record to JG using Signal prior to this incident.
anon_
6d ago
Do deportees have the right to depart to a willing country of their choosing? Should they?
A lot gets muddied in the Culture War, in recent weeks the spats over deportations have conflated a number of distinct issues of immigration law: due process, the AEA, executive discretion and so forth. And it's quite hard to get folks to separate those topics. One topic that's possibly underexplored: if the US tells you to leave, do you the right to depart to a country of your own choice that will accept you?
I had kind of always assumed yes, at least as a naive matter. Obviously deportees shouldn't be allowed to invoke the right to prevent their removal or even delay it by any appreciable amount (say, 4 days), but at the core, I don't see any sovereign right for a country to dictate where an individual goes next so long as it ain't here. If they can't or won't find such a place, then sure, then the deporting nation can decide.
Analogies and intuition aren't always the best guide when dealing a the scale of nations, but thinking about it as alike to trespass confirms this understanding. This is especially true when an individual was here lawfully and then had that status revoked or expired -- if I invite someone into my house and then rescind the invitation (as I'm absolutely entitled to do), it's required that I give them a chance to leave in an orderly fashion before forcing them out.
anon_
6d ago
"This" here refers to the status of non-citizens. It's not a criminal matter.
I think you are confusing "law" more generally with a subset of it which is "criminal law". And in this case, the law is not criminal in nature, and it vests in the Executive discretion to award and revoke different statuses within the US according to certain processes, none of which involve a criminal trial (like, with charges and a jury). Some of it involves different kinds of judicial review (a good thing).
It really feels like we need a better name for this strain of thought.
Especially for those that endorse part of it (I'm firmly anti-blank-slate) and challenge part of it (that specific cultural practices invariably embody those truths).
More options
Context Copy link