I’m trying to dodge the asexuality discourse that seems to be starting elsewhere by vagueblogging about it here and hoping the links dont get linked too strongly into it. But there are two things that really really bug me about it.
1. “Asexuals aren’t oppressed”
what the fuck happened to intersectionality and the idea that you can’t simply discern people’s position in the hierarchies of bullshit and bias just by “summing” their individual positions and the idea that the hierarchies modulate each other so strongly that they sometimes even invert and all that complexity which the very word itself originally was about? oh yeah, people who don’t rtfm but instead rush into action too eagerly
but anyway, evidence; from now on, anyone claiming that asexuals aren’t marginalized in at least some ways relative to otherwise comparable normative heterosexuals needs to have a damn good explanation for this data
2. “If you aren’t marginalized, you are an oppressor who benefits from oppression”
what the fuck there are very few people who benefit from this bullshit system absolutely and not just positionally; it’s like the idea that I as a western person benefit from closed borders, well fuck no, my position in the hierarchy of “where one was born at” is better than the position of most people, but if there was no hierarchy even I would be better off
the idea that the world can easily be turned into a zero-sum game of “us” vs. “them” is certainly tribally appealing and easy but it’s not true, it’s not kind, and it’s not necessary. I’m usually averse to arguments like “you aren’t helping your cause” because oftentimes people actually just need to vent and shit and aren’t 100% focused on doing the Optimally Effective Social Justice Advocacy™, but goddamnit this is my cause and people who do this thing are hurting me and my cause and my equality and my people by giving pro-marginalization people free ammunition
like, which one do you think would actually be more likely to make people interested in solving the problem? “There are no win-win gains, you must lose a fuckload of a huge lot” vs. “you know, even you’d win if we did this thing, even though we aren’t really focused on you but instead on the people who are worse off”?
it’s like fucking primitivists; if you force me to choose between ecocidal extermination instincts or social darwinism, yeah I’m on team grey. if you force me to choose between transhumanism and a ridiculous ~sustainability~ “””utopia””” where tech is rationed and people die happily at 80 ~for the environment~ and no progress can ever happen because ~infinite growth is impossible on a limited planet~, you shouldn’t be too surprised if I’d rather try techno-utopianism instead
If I put a beverage in the freezer long enough for only some of it to freeze, is there any difference in the composition of the frozen and liquid parts? That is, will the frozen bits have a lower concentration of flavoring or alcohol or whatever in a way that will affect the taste?
Anonymous asked: I think one deals with disliking their assigned religion at birth (ARAB?) in much the same way as disliking their assigned gender at birth - they transition to a better one!
Well yes. And I did transition away from Christianity at 15. It’s just that on some level I feel that I’d better fit as Assigned Jewish At Birth instead. Still atheist (or “moloch-eluaist”) though, but just with a different set of personal background experiences, something I precisely cannot transition into.
My brain is strange. Don’t blame me I didn’t make the rules and I’m still working on how to sudo my brain’s conf files.
[Religious people: ironically, this post is not going to be welcoming to you guys, because it takes atheism as a base-level assumption.] I pretty fervently believe that effective altruism should make deliberate efforts to reach out to religious people, to the point that my litmus test for whether I take someone seriously in the perennial Effective Altruism PR Wars is whether they agree with me on…
Not by any means an expert on Islam (I’m that embarrassing assigned-christian-at-birth whitey who knows “the” one muslim they could personally ask on such things, (but at least I recognize it)), but this wikipedia description sounds awfully EAish:
Scholars have traditionally interpreted this verse as identifying the following eight categories of Muslim causes to be the proper recipients of zakat:[17][50]
Those living without means of livelihood (Al-Fuqarā’),[17] the poor[50]
Those who cannot meet their basic needs (Al-Masākīn),[17] the needy[50]
To persuade those sympathetic to or expected to convert to Islam (Al-Mu'allafatu Qulūbuhum),[17] recent converts to Islam[16][50][51] and potential allies in the cause of Islam[50][52]
To free from slavery or servitude (Fir-Riqāb),[17] slaves of Muslims who have or intend to free from their master by means of a kitabah contract[50][52]
Those who have incurred overwhelming debts while attempting to satisfy their basic needs (Al-Ghārimīn),[17] debtors who in pursuit of a worthy goal incurred a debt[50]
Those fighting for a religious cause or a cause of God (Fī Sabīlillāh),[17] or for Jihad in the way of Allah by means of pen, word, or sword,[53] or for Islamic warriors who fight against the unbelievers but are not part of salaried soldiers.[50][52][54]:h8.17
Wayfarers, stranded travellers (Ibnu Al-Sabīl),[17] travellers who are traveling with a worthy goal but cannot reach their destination without financial assistance[50][52]
Zakat should not be given to one’s own parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, spouses or the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad.[55]
I’m pretty sure you can easily see which categories GiveWell, GiveDirectly, AMF etc. would each fall in. The rules even seem to acknowledge that administrative costs may be a legitimate factor in charity! And one should help people further away instead of one’s immediate relatives or high-status causes. (Although that means that EY would have to choose between being the rightful caliph and being eligible to receive zakat…)
Your daily allotment of Rojava spam from promethea
There’s just something incredibly æsthetic in the way…
…that when you ask the question “how do we put an end to the patriarchy”…
…while western feminists are often like “let’s establish massive amounts of bureaus and regulations and shit, and when they don’t achieve the intended aims we’ll just increase them”…
…Rojava is like “we don’t know, but giving all women* assault rifles might be a good start”
It’s like, regardless of what one thinks of Rojava’s solution (I think it’s at the very least among the best ones such large-scale organizings of people have actually managed to attempt), one must give credit to the fact that they certainly look like they are genuinely trying to solve it.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a badder guy with a gun.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a bad guy with a bigger gun.
The only thing that can stop a nice guy with a gun is the friend zone, apparently.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is agents of the state monopoly on legitimate violence, who have legitimate-violence-guns.
If guns are outlawed by the state asserting a monopoly on the use of force, then only outlaws and agents of the state whose sworn duty is to oppose outlaws will have guns.
If states are outlawed, only outlaws will have states
who’s going to stop ‘em tho
I’m here to ask you a question. What can stop a bad guy with a gun?
“A good gal with a gun,”say the constitutionally gender-balanced pair of spokespersons from Al-Qamishli,“and the fact that she is not alone, as everyone else too has been trained in enforcing the maintenance of a positive social order so that they don’t need a specific class of agents of the state to do it for them and also rob them because nobody can stop the agents of the state.”
“The fact that the existence of institutions to solve that problem is economically efficient and thus the institutions will exist,”says the man from Santa Clara.“In addition, the existence of institutions to solve the free-rider problem one would naively expect in the previous institutions is also economically efficient and thus such institutions will also exist.”
“A welfare society,”says the woman from Stockholm."Early intervention into the factors that make people bad in the first place, because extremely few people are actually born bad, and most badness is actually the product of environmental conditions pulling people’s levers in a way that makes them act destructively, and thus acting early to stop the process and redirect people into more pro-social paths is far more productive than trying to figure out what to do when the guy has become bad and obtained a gun.”
“A well-regulated militia,”says the man from Philadelphia,“being necessary to the security of a free State…”
Is it weird if I feel some kind of a “why is my Assigned Religion At Birth the only abrahamic one without cool nerding-out over the Rules” thing? All I got was “haha fuck you, you’re scum simply for being a human and you better feel really sorry for that, no, we won’t give you rules the following of which would let you feel okay about yourself because you mustn’t feel okay about yourself that’s the entire point, human scum don’t deserve that”. Is the warranty on my assigned religion still valid? Can I exchange it for a better one? Where do I complain, or do I just keep taking estrogen until the manufacturer dies?
