collapsedsquid asked: I've seen you talking about sortition a few times, and I'm curious, how seriously do you take it? How worried are you about issues of legitimacy?
Serious! I think forms of government can be arbitrarily weird and yet considered legitimate as long as there’s appropriate ritual around them and they people’s lives are about as good as they expect them to be, and I don’t think sortition is that weird - it’s fair, it’s representative, it’s been done before.
Those who see voting as expressing the “consent of the governed”, maintain that voting is able to confer legitimacy in the selection. According to this view, elected officials can act with greater authority than when randomly selected.[55] With no popular mandate to draw on, politicians lose a moral basis on which to base their authority. As such, politicians would be open to charges of illegitimacy, as they were selected purely by chance.
Wait a goddamn second political alignment charts are literally the same exact thing as D&D alignment grids. What the shit
Lawful Good: True State Socialism
Lawful Neutral: Left-leaning liberals
Lawful Evil: “moderate” liberals, neocons
Neutral Good: [Impossible due to the nature of politics?]
True Neutral: South Park libertarians, Legal Weed Capitalists
Neutral Evil: people obsessed with “states’ rights”
Chaotic Good: Anarcho-communists, the Yippies
Chaotic Neutral: Vermin Supreme
Chaotic Evil: militia groups and anarcho-capitalists
tag yourself I’m true neutral
I’m seeing that Neutral Good is unoccupied territory and seizing it to be the refuge of all “I don’t really know the specifics but we should have post-scarcity and freedom and niceness and 3d-printers for all and nobody voting on anyone’s body” people
I thought given it’s between between state socialism and
Anarcho-communists, “Social Democracy“ was the obvious idea to slot there.
No, socdems are LN in this one; NG is a continuation from “states’ rights” to “weed capitalists” to X so it’s some kind of egalitarian minarchism which is close enough for these purposes.
Wait a goddamn second political alignment charts are literally the same exact thing as D&D alignment grids. What the shit
Lawful Good: True State Socialism
Lawful Neutral: Left-leaning liberals
Lawful Evil: “moderate” liberals, neocons
Neutral Good: [Impossible due to the nature of politics?]
True Neutral: South Park libertarians, Legal Weed Capitalists
Neutral Evil: people obsessed with “states’ rights”
Chaotic Good: Anarcho-communists, the Yippies
Chaotic Neutral: Vermin Supreme
Chaotic Evil: militia groups and anarcho-capitalists
tag yourself I’m true neutral
I’m seeing that Neutral Good is unoccupied territory and seizing it to be the refuge of all “I don’t really know the specifics but we should have post-scarcity and freedom and niceness and 3d-printers for all and nobody voting on anyone’s body” people
“The authors conducted two experiments which looked at the effect of two different types of motivational intervention – a controlled form (telling people what they should do) and a more personal form (explaining why being non-prejudiced is enjoyable and personally valuable).
In experiment one; participants were randomly assigned one of two brochures to read: an autonomy brochure or a controlling brochure. These brochures discussed a new campus initiative to reduce prejudice. A third group was offered no motivational instructions to reduce prejudice. The authors found that, ironically, those who read the controlling brochure later demonstrated more prejudice than those who had not been urged to reduce prejudice. Those who read the brochure designed to support personal motivation showed less prejudice than those in the other two groups.
In experiment two, participants were randomly assigned a questionnaire, designed to stimulate personal or controlling motivation to reduce prejudice. The authors found that those who were exposed to controlling messages regarding prejudice reduction showed significantly more prejudice than those who did not receive any controlling cues.
The authors suggest that when interventions eliminate people’s freedom to value diversity on their own terms, they may actually be creating hostility toward the targets of prejudice.”
Pretty concise explanation of why I think a lot of SJ tactics work exactly opposite to how they’re intended.
TL;DR: evidence suggests libertarian forms of SJ good idea
That… is an interesting level of fucked-upness. Cronyist regulatory capture *and* bioethics explicitly simultaneously is not something one sees every day.
Remember, if a man gets a woman pregnant and he doesn’t want that kid it’s his responsibility anyway. If she wants to keep it, he’s fucked. He needs to pay even if he was tricked into fatherhood. If he doesn’t pay he goes to jail. He shoulda kept it in his pants, amiright?
If a woman gets pregnant, gives birth, and doesn’t want the kid there’s a box she can drop the baby into and she’s immediately relieved of all responsibility. She never even has to tell the father because fuck that dude. He doesn’t have a right to his spawn unless she wants that sweet sweet child support check.
*Equality*
Hey, this is an option that might discourage some abortion. I say good.
I don’t think anyone is saying it’s a bad idea, it’s certainly better than a dumpster. It just shows you only have options if you are the mother.
But that’s already taking it for granted (accurately, mind) that the mother is the one stuck with the baby if neither party wants it. A man can throw a baby in a baby box as easily as a woman. Go ahead, try it! (Do not actually try this.)
No he can’t, because the state will send men with guns to ransom or kidnap him if the baby’s mother is known and is on board with the “kidnapping and/or ransom” plan instead of the “put baby in box” plan.
If we as a society want babies to be taken care of, we give money to them (for use by their parents/guardians for their benefit) instead of ransoming people based on the copenhagen interpretation of ethics (your gametes were involved, it’s your responsibility now kthxbye). Or if we want to enforce contracts of “yeah, I totally will support you with the baby” then we should actually require such contracts to be consensually established instead of assuming that sex is inevitably implied consent to such with no way out even if participants explicitly agree.
We wouldn’t force people to take the risk of having to marry just for having sex, and consider those who try to enforce such things to be utter barbarians, so why would we expose people to the risk of losing substantial amounts of money for 18 years as the price of having sex?
I don’t have any strong opinions on policy here, though my intuitions aren’t too far from your own. My comments are limited to whether baby dumpsters amnesty (specifically) is unfair to men (specifically,) not anything else.
“No he can’t, because the state will send men with guns to ransom or kidnap him if the baby’s mother is known and is on board with the “kidnapping and/or ransom” plan instead of the “put baby in box” plan.”
But the same applies in reverse. If a legally recognized father found out that his child had been thrown into a dumpster by the child’s mother, you don’t think he could arrange to have her kidnapped?
I don’t know the specifics; probably yes, although I don’t know if she would be kidnapped and/or ransomed if she just renounced her custody and gave it solely to the father; it might be that the law is equally unfair in theory and simply lopsided in practice and she would have to pay, or it could be that the law actually works differently because I wouldn’t put such ass-backwardness beyond the capability of any american jurisdiction.
Remember, if a man gets a woman pregnant and he doesn’t want that kid it’s his responsibility anyway. If she wants to keep it, he’s fucked. He needs to pay even if he was tricked into fatherhood. If he doesn’t pay he goes to jail. He shoulda kept it in his pants, amiright?
If a woman gets pregnant, gives birth, and doesn’t want the kid there’s a box she can drop the baby into and she’s immediately relieved of all responsibility. She never even has to tell the father because fuck that dude. He doesn’t have a right to his spawn unless she wants that sweet sweet child support check.
*Equality*
Hey, this is an option that might discourage some abortion. I say good.
I don’t think anyone is saying it’s a bad idea, it’s certainly better than a dumpster. It just shows you only have options if you are the mother.
But that’s already taking it for granted (accurately, mind) that the mother is the one stuck with the baby if neither party wants it. A man can throw a baby in a baby box as easily as a woman. Go ahead, try it! (Do not actually try this.)
No he can’t, because the state will send men with guns to ransom or kidnap him if the baby’s mother is known and is on board with the “kidnapping and/or ransom” plan instead of the “put baby in box” plan.
If we as a society want babies to be taken care of, we give money to them (for use by their parents/guardians for their benefit) instead of ransoming people based on the copenhagen interpretation of ethics (your gametes were involved, it’s your responsibility now kthxbye). Or if we want to enforce contracts of “yeah, I totally will support you with the baby” then we should actually require such contracts to be consensually established instead of assuming that sex is inevitably implied consent to such with no way out even if participants explicitly agree.
We wouldn’t force people to take the risk of having to marry just for having sex, and consider those who try to enforce such things to be utter barbarians, so why would we expose people to the risk of losing substantial amounts of money for 18 years as the price of having sex?
