johnfabian
4hr ago
Certainly. No disagreements here. I have been very vocal about this in Canadian politics, which is all the worse given that we (ostensibly) have parliamentary supremacy and the means to enforce it.
johnfabian
6hr ago
Children of foreigners, aliens, and diplomats were not intended to be covered by the 14th by the very author of the amendment.
Is that how you parse that quote? It seems to me he is referring exclusively to the children of foreign diplomats. Not three different categories of people (i.e., foreigners AND aliens AND those who belong to families of ambassadors...).
Howard in other instances seemed to very clearly anticipate that the 14th would apply to the children of people from other countries who were not (yet) American citizens. In any case, the amendment as written very obviously does not make the distinction you are purporting Howard to have made.
johnfabian
6hr ago
Yes. I think that legalizing gay marriage is/was a good thing, but I am skeptical of doing it via tenuous legal mechanisms rather than via the elected representatives of the people or referendum. I don't think that ruling was as tortuously reasoned as Roe v Wade (or the dissenters in this judgment), but it took an issue that should've been decided by legislatures and instead hinged it on a 5-4 decision on shaky grounds. At this point it does not look like gay marriage is particularly at risk of being undone but we've been through this before and it's no guarantee of it surviving forever.
It is clear that in the aftermath of Obergefell both the left and right wings of American politics have decided to use the courts as their primary means of advancing their "big issues" rather than Congress, or god forbid, actually persuading the public.
johnfabian
8hr ago
This being anything other than 9-0 is an ominous level of partisan hackery. Like it or not, the Constitution is unambiguous with respect to birthright citizenship.
Expect future decades of the big issues of our time being decided by judges because legislatures have abandoned their responsibilities, and declining civic participation and partisanship frustrates any attempts to amend constitutions.
johnfabian
1d ago
Fairly easy. You do naval blockade on Somalia until they accept them. Their welfare is none of our concern. You arrest Somali politicians. If needed military strikes. You change the constitution that only Swedes have human rights in Sweden. You go with the least amount of cruelty to achieve your goal, but you shouldn't let the cruelty itself distract you.
Sweden is going to have to rather decidedly alter its armed forces if this is the plan. Time to start building nuclear-powered supercarriers.
johnfabian
3d ago
It wasn't uncommon for elective monarchies in Europe, for example, to pick foreign nobles as their King - better to have someone from outside the existing system who is not party to any of the various internecine squabbles come in and rule you, rather than risk somebody from the other camp gets in.
johnfabian
6d ago
I had previously wrote a comment about how there are certain events that are "culture war nexuses" that somehow seem to bring a million things together into one incident
johnfabian
8d ago
The UK will soon be awash with quiet batpeople.
I suppose it depends how narrow the "short term" is, but to my mind jumps the example of Pearl Harbor. The American fleet loses a bunch of obsolete (even if they didn't know it) battleships and learns the power of naval aviation in the process. Instead of trying to fight the new war with the old one's tactics, the US Navy significantly re-orients its procurement and campaign strategies and their doctrine. This builds the force that reverses the war in '42 and wins it in '43 and '44
This isn't just my opinion either. I've read several historians say that Pearl Harbor was a net gain for the Americans even in the immediate term
johnfabian
15d ago
So far, if you've approached everything Trump has said with respect to his dealings with Iran with the expectation that the opposite will happen (deal = expect more attacks, threats of destroying Iran = deal), you would be 100% correct.
So I'm not expecting things to be resolved just yet.
johnfabian
1mo ago
This is a pretty low form of contrarianism. You can't possibly apply this level of skepticism to everything.
johnfabian
1mo ago
This is what you say when you’ve failed to model someone’s views correctly.
The irony in this is palpable, because I remembered you saying something that embodied the sentiment so perfectly.
"I guess I trust whatever Trump wants to do. He knows better than I do."
After all, you are his most loyal soldier.
johnfabian
1mo ago
If the Israelis really wanted to disprove allegations of abuse at their facilities it would be absolutely trivial to organize some sort of impartial third party investigation. Even the Nazis had the sense to bring in the Red Cross and get out of the way when they were falsely accused of committing the Katyn Massacre.
The Nazis even had a "model ghetto" that they invited the Red Cross to inspect.
johnfabian
1mo ago
Mostly I’m curious because many gender critical people seem very invested in this issue, certainly more than I am, and it’s hard for me to understand why if you don’t have a personal link to it.
Sometimes I pose to people a hypothetical: how willing would you be to vote for a political party, if in general they align with you quite well, and endorse all your niche little political positions, and seem to be competent and reasonable... but also, they want to redefine pi to be equal to 3.
That's the only problem. They think pi being 3.141 whatever is a bunch of stupid bullshit for nerds who've never had sex, and life would be much easier if it was 3.
It's an interesting hypothetical to pose, because a lot of people (especially left-liberals, in my experience) do see this as a deal-breaker. I don't know if it would be in actual practice, but they realize that they are supposed to say they believe in science and experts and whatever, and vocalizing that they would support a party committed to something so unambiguously, objectively wrong tugs at them the wrong way. Especially because it is a sort of nonsense idea that would never happen in reality (see a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the red vs blue button debate).
Now, sometimes this is a preamble to me explaining that progressive dogma on trans people sometimes feels like declaring pi to be 3 to me. Or maybe I'm talking to someone more conservative about global warming or vaccines instead. But the point is that it feels very difficult to endorse someone for a leadership position when they are so nakedly willing to stare truth in the eyes and declare it a lie. They are so obviously choosing to preserve the structure of their worldview than admit an uncomfortable truth. That's the kind of thing that can breed the worst kinds of radicalism.
Maybe it irks me to an unreasonable degree, but it seems to me a particularly salient example of this kind of thinking.
johnfabian
1mo ago
There are two separate issues you've mixed together. The increasing supply crisis. And your hate for the West, the US and Trump. Trump didn't block the strait. Iran did. Only putting blame and responsibility on Trump is a sign of bias.
If I was your older brother, the appropriate response to this would be to grab your arms, give you a couple good whacks, and tell you to stop hitting yourself.
johnfabian
1mo ago
Because I think there are moral truths; whether you see them as absolute or society-contextual doesn't matter overmuch. And sometimes people need to be reminded of them. It may be rational in some situation to do X and there is no argument against it except that it is wrong.
johnfabian
2mo ago
But I am careful not to let it become a fully general counterargument. Surgery for cosmetic purposes is not as qualitatively different from working out or getting a nice haircut as it seems (and the latter does involve cutting off parts of yourself). You can break your back at the gym. A bad diet can give you brittle bones. Once you have broken it down into risk versus benefit, then there is little else to add that isn't moralizing.
I would disagree that there is little qualitative difference; I'm not inclined to psycho-analyze otherwise I might wonder at the glibness of comparing surgery to a haircut. But I would also disagree that moralizing is unimportant, or is irrational, or actively harmful.
Even more important is that self-image and self-regard are not the only pertinent metrics. If I end up depressed again, I'd rather be fit and depressed. If I'm suicidal, I'd rather be hot and getting laid while feeling suicidal. As I've insisted, I am neither depressed or suicidal right now (and you better believe I'm grateful for that).
This rationale will persist after your first surgery. You could still be depressed and incrementally hotter, should you get just one more. Think how many more chicks you'll score with that extra edge. Who knows how your life will be transformed tipping yourself from the 84th to the 85th percentile in looks?
johnfabian
2mo ago
If a friend came to me and said "I want surgery to change X part about me" my concern would not be based in this notion that looks don't matter, or that one is necessarily wrong to have issues with self-esteem, or that I am somehow blind to my own charms and blessings.
My concern would be that for someone who gets up in the morning and doesn't like who they see in the mirror, that surgery will not fix what ails them.
Are you being honest with yourself that you could just get one surgery, and then you would be happy? That it would remedy what gnaws at you?
I may be somewhat biased as I have seen a relatively large number of people who obviously could not stop at just one. Maybe I have been blessed with whatever set of nature/nurture impulses to have arrived at the point where I wake up and like who peers back at me in the bathroom. I am perhaps lucky to fit into the right social/demographic niche such that I am not bombarded with messages telling me I must find myself inferior to my better peers all day. Yet I cannot convince myself that I am wrong to have this base skepticism that (outside certain specific instances) surgically altering oneself will lead to greater happiness.
johnfabian
2mo ago
I think it's a good heuristic for young men too. The manias are different but the causes are the same.
johnfabian
2mo ago
Because of its euphemistic use on censored social media spaces, hearing someone described earnestly as "highly regarded" never fails to make me smile.
johnfabian
2mo ago
I'm not thrilled about the age gap situation. The trouble is that it's just so hard to find a woman in the West who is (1) not obese; (2) not a single mom; and (3) not into woke progressive nonsense. Sadly I am not 6'2" with a chiseled jawline, so I have to compromise.
Whatever your degree of "compromise" is, it's not nearly as significant as the compromise the woman marrying a man 30+ years her senior is making.
johnfabian
2mo ago
My point was that SS thought they were "kangaroo courts", which was ironic (and displayed his ignorance on the subject) because they convicted no one.
johnfabian
2mo ago
I don't quite understand; why would traffic be rerouted from the Strait of Hormuz be going around the Horn of Africa? That's what you'd expect if they were trying to avoid pirates/Houthis in the Red Sea or if the Suez was closed. The Strait of Hormuz isn't a general global shipping lane, it's specifically for ships going to/from the countries with ports there. I'm questioning the premise of this.
johnfabian
2mo ago
My point is that the Truth and Reconciliation commission in South Africa cannot have been a kangaroo court in any definition because they convicted zero people. That was very fundamentally not their concept or purpose.
Because it's not a list of three categories. It's a description of one category, of which all three are needed to qualify. I.e. that citizenship is not withheld from aliens AND foreigners AND children of foreign diplomats, but rather children of foreign diplomats who are also aliens and foreigners. (Otherwise, for example, someone who had say, a foreign diplomat father and an American mother, born in America, would not receive birthright citizenship.)
I think semantically it is meant to be understand this way for a number of reasons: the alternative explanation is not consistent with Howard's purposes otherwise OR the final wording of the amendment, it doesn't make sense to describe newborn children being born as foreigners or aliens within the context of the rest of the amendment, and if it was a list it would certainly be more clear if there were ors/ands in between the items.
If I were to say to say, for example, to a car dealer that I only liked cars that were "red, fast, fuel-efficient"; I would expect him to understand that I want a car that is all three, rather than one car of each.
More options
Context Copy link