Jiro
12hr ago
I would add "don't dox" to that, including technically-not-doxing doxing.
Also, don't support lawfare.
Jiro
1d ago
She enjoys being part of the hookup culture, and preferring white dudes is simply optimizing for the unlikely case that a hookup nets her a long term boyfriend (whom she would prefer to have a Western passport).
Weird Internet guys drastically change their actions based on tiny optimizations. Nobody else does. That suggests she thinks the chance is unrealistically large.
I would agree that if your scenario is correct, it's not exploitation.
See what I did there?
It's not what I did.
"There is no such thing as ethical or unethical, as long as nobody is at gunpoint" is an extreme minority position. "There is such a thing as ethics" is not. The more extreme your position is, the clearer you need to be that you actually hold that position, and the more you need to explain it. This also applies if you are making arguments that can be easily and reasonably mistaken for that extreme minority position.
I haven't expressed such an extreme minority position myself, so that doesn't apply to me.
So your position is that if two people have sex, but their idea of what a 99th percentile good outcome might be (say, "he falls in love with me and marries me, so that I can move to the West" vs "she brings another hot girl along and we have a threesome"), exploitation is taking place?
This sentence isn't parseable. If you mean what I think you're trying to say, the "exploiter" is entitled to make reasonable assumptions about the other person. If the "exploited" has unreasonable expectations, but hides them, the"exploiter" isn't exploiting. If the exploited has sufficiently unreasonable expectations, and the exploiter does or should know about them, yes, it's exploitation.
Jiro
1d ago
Would these people also be vile exploiters?
Fiirst of all, yes.
Second, the whole argument should start with "is such a thing as exploitation at all?" A lot of the extreme rationalist arguments on this subject aren't really about sex, they're about the idea that exploitation isn't real unless you're forcing someone at gunpoint.
If you believe this, it's an extreme minority position among pretty much everyone that isn't a weird Internet guy, and really needs to be defended on its own terms, not taken for granted.
If you don't believe this, you should lay out exactly what you do think counts as exploitation before trying to argue that something can't be exploitation, especially based on a principle that you don't believe anyway.
Jiro
1d ago
It's OK for a 20 year old woman to take a loan or a job from a 60 year old man, but not to have sex with him?
For most normal human beings, sex is tied up with emotion in such a way that these other things are not.
Jiro
1d ago
I would argue that it should be in the interest of anyone who dislikes sex slavery to have legalized (and somewhat regulated) prostitution instead.
By this reasoning pretty much everyone should be in favor of legalized-but-regulated rape too. (Or legalized, regulated, bank robbery.)
Jiro
2d ago
In D&D, drow are evil by culture anyway, not inherently evil. Good drow were prominent as far back as Drizz'zt was introduced, which is 1988.
Jiro
2d ago
If "stuck at the lowest levels" doesn't include a range of capabilities, it would be impossible for black people in those positions to be more functional than white people, unless being more functional doesn't affect their ability to do the work at all.
If "stuck at the lowest levels" does include a range of capabilities, then it is possible for the lower level to have a different distribution within that range for blacks than for whites, so blacks having higher IQ is still possible.
Jiro
3d ago
My working hypothesis for that would be that for socioeconomic reasons, black people in those jobs would include more higher IQ workers than white people in those jobs, so the blacks actually do have higher IQ.
Jiro
3d ago
You brought up the Chinese person.
What makes it good is that the government of China is not subject to the free market. It's a government; it collects money by force, it controls what people do on its platform using the threat of force, and it performs actions (such as espionage) that wouldn't be very useful to a company that only made money by voluntary transactions.
Jiro
3d ago
I think that's quite outspokenly anti-trans (or at least against the mainstream of trans activism
It's buried inside a big post and a lot of obfuscatory verbiage. The point of saying something like this is to communicate it to others. Saying it without communicating it may as well be not saying it, even if some Internet weirdos might parse it mechanically and figure it out.
Jiro
3d ago
Namely that there's a profound difference between a person who is 60 IQ in a population where that's the norm, versus someone who is 60 IQ due to disease in a population with an average of 100.
I believe at least one person (maybe on dsl) responded with "No, I've worked with them and most of their inability is due to IQ, not other disabilities". The problem is that it's easy to say this, but it's much harder to prove it or even give reasonable evidence for it. On the face of it, it looks like special pleading to explain away what would otherwise be pretty good counterevidence.
Jiro
3d ago
Singling out an owner doesn't make it automatically good, it makes it good on a case by case basis, and the Chinese person wouldn't qualify.
Jiro
5d ago
A cartel is not a country. If you go to war against a country, civilians are going to get hurt, because that's what going to war against a country is like. You can't avoid it without opposing all wars. And you especially can't avoid it when your enemy deliberately puts civilians in the line of fire.
Jiro
6d ago
It's only coercion in the sense of coercing the person who is directly doing harm. It's not coercing the pavement owner because the pavement is usually not private property and even if it is, forbidding the bum wouldn't impose costs on the property owner.
Jiro
6d ago
It's an alternative, but it's not a non-coercive alternative. It's a differently coercive alternative. Still coercive.
Sure, assume that sex is the worst thing in the world that any employer will ask you to do,
It pretty much is, because some employers are very motivated to ask for it and most employees value very very highly not having to give it. Humans are like that. There's nothing comparable except maybe for some extreme forms of dangerous working conditions.
I'm trying to get a proper explanation of women's power of consent in an employment context.
A definition of consent that captures what most people mean by "consent" excludes cases where failing to "consent" results in a high cost imposed by the party asking for consent. You can try to claim that nobody owes you a job, so the employer hasn't imposed a cost by firing you, but if the job isn't sexual and the demand for sex is suddenly sprung up, the employer has committed fraud. Not committing fraud and not imposing costs through fraud is something the employer owes the employee.
Jiro
6d ago
I would hope that if American citizens are fighting back against people who are shooting rockets at them, we wouldn't punish those American citizens.
Jiro
6d ago
My proposal isn't making anyone do anything.
"If you don't do this, we will take some money from you at gunpoint" is making people do it.
But the perceived or actual unpleasantness of any given task isn't for you or I to opine on. It is for people making the deal to decide whether they want to accept the deal or reject it.
On the contrary, the unpleasantness of the task is exactly what's for us to opine on. If we're going to have the concept of right and wrong at all, how much people are harmed is going to be important, and how unpleasant the task is is directly related to that.
My question is and remains: why is sex the one part of the deal for which women/employees apparently lose all ability to utilize their agency and make logical cost-benefit analyses?
Because sex is a really really unpleasant task to take on in this context and many employers are also highly motivated in the real world to demand it. This combination is pretty much unique to sex.
Jiro
7d ago
Isn't it genuinely considered wrong for a boss to order their employee to do something that's wildly out of their job description?
I feel like this is a very urban-corporate-PMC attitude towards employment, where many small business owners take more of an attitude of "I'm paying you for eight hours of your time, during that time you do what I tell you to do." If that means helping with putting up Christmas lights at the owner's house, that's your job description today.
The problem isn't really "it's wildly out of your job description", it's "it's wildly worse than your job description".
Putting up Christmas lights is not so distasteful a job that few people would do it (at least without an orders of magnitude pay increase if at all). Having sex with your boss is such a distasteful job.
I wouldn't count that because the left was around, but modern wokeness wasn't.
More options
Context Copy link