1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
nuclearspaceheater

Anonymous asked:

Is there any way to get Muslim immigrants to Western countries to integrate better, or are the cultures just totally incompatible?

sadoeconomist answered:

I don’t think they can integrate and stay substantially Muslim, no, but I think they can integrate just fine if they drop Islam or water it down into meaninglessness like most Christians and Jews in the West have with their religions. And for that to happen I think people need to be way less *socially* tolerant of sincere Islam and recognize it as the enemy of any free society instead of virtue-signaling about how they’re not racist against a religion. Like, on the basis of how badly its claims have been debunked and how immoral its teachings are, I’d put Islam well below even Mormonism and Scientology on the religion tier list, it’s somewhere swimming in the deep abyss along with the Christian Identity Movement and Aum Shinrikyo. That’s how you should treat serious Muslims - their ideas are worthy of nothing but mockery, the principles they teach are vile, their religious traditions absurd. If you made it to the West, you’re free, you don’t have to pretend you believe in that self-contradictory nonsense any more, and you shouldn’t be bringing it with you. Ex-Muslims, though, should be especially praised and respected, like people who grew up in a cult but were strong enough to free themselves from it as adults. And beer-drinking bacon-eating cultural Muslims should just be shrugged at.

The alternative to integration, though, would be having distinct Muslim residential enclaves like Muslim Chinatowns, and I think that could also be somewhat practical - but Western states would have to allow voluntary self-segregation and greatly increased local autonomy for communities to make that happen, and they’ve spent the last half-century forcibly integrating and atomizing everyone and centralizing power. You’d need to let them enforce their abhorrent religious laws at the local level to keep them from forcing them on the country at the national level - I’m not sure that that’s something that should be tolerated, either, though.

If not either of those voluntary-leaning solutions you’d have to start doing serious 180s on a lot of the Western democratic consensus and start stripping voting rights from them, or expelling them from the country by force and becoming explicitly nationalist, or just banning Islam, if you didn’t want to wind up being reduced to dhimmi status by the inevitable consequences of the combination of democracy and a Muslim majority.

mitigatedchaos

I’m honestly really surprised to see someone else say this.

Source: sadoeconomist politics
ranma-official
ranma-official

The Bible posits that the circumference of a circle in the Temple was three times its diameter, but π≈3.14,

tired: therefore gods don’t exist

wired: therefore circles were smaller back then

mitigatedchaos

This is just a statistical error.  The circumference of the median circle is π times its diameter.  The Cosmic Negacircle which rests in the Vaults Beyond Time and has a circumference of -1*(10^2470) times its diameter is an outlier and should not have been counted.

shtpost georg
argumate

Anonymous asked:

Why do communists seem to think that competitive markets and providing a standard of social welfare for people are mutually exclusive?

argumate answered:

Well, not all of them do, see market socialism, but there are aesthetic and political yearnings for a more communitarian approach which run much deeper.

mitigatedchaos

Also, some of them think markets will inevitably subvert public ownership of the state, since they tend to accumulate wealth, and wealth is a form of power.

politics
collapsedsquid
collapsedsquid

There’s an interesting dichotomy between the “in a capitalist system, you can do whatever you want“ and a “The capitalist system will optimize everything for maximum efficiency“ lines. It’s one of the things that I think of whenever I see sharing economy stuff, I’ve seen the occasional quip mentioning old complaints about how in a communist system you wouldn’t have a car, you’d have to share one, which is totally unlike our current system with uber. 

That baugruppe discussion reminded me of it, it’s an attempt by libertarian-leaning people to build a commune to solve problems they have with the housing market.  Feels like it really should be built at sea though.

xhxhxhx

mitigatedchaos asked:

Do you support the President's relocation of Oprahists that violate the National Freedom Policy to the California Special Autonomous Region? (I think it's a bit heavy-handed, tbh, but good luck getting the AFP to reconsider it.)

xhxhxhx answered:

I like the old liberties, but we have to admit that the Oprahists have provided aid and comfort to the insurrections in our cities and the rural rebellion in the Deep South – so the old liberties are no protection of our first freedom – freedom from fear

that said, I prefer the old policy of tracking, monitoring, and punishing individuals, and suppressing the uprisings when they come; collective punishment seems like a return to the dark old days, led by the worst elements in America – the cruel irony of ‘American Freedom’ isn’t lost on anyone now, I hope

when peace returns, we’ll look back on this in shame

mitigated future mitigated fiction
ranma-official
internalscreeching

Challenge: find a blog that criticizes tumblr culture, but doesn’t make fun of completely innocuous kin stuff.

internalscreeching

#or nb people #or mogai labels #or legitimate sj concepts

funereal-disease

OH HEY this is right in my wheelhouse! I recommend:

And myself, if you don’t mind sifting through the dross of complete shitposts and Maleficent fanart for the occasional gold of a real post.

fierceawakening

omg thank <3

cromulentenough

what really annoys me is when people to about the subreddit tumblrinaction and are like ‘i liked it when it was just making fun of otherkin,now it’s all about SJWs’

really? the ONLY bit you were ok with was making fun of the people pretty much trying to do their own thing and even if misguided weren’t harming anyone?

ranma-official

When it was a baby subreddit (i remember those times) it was way less mean-spirited and we were even fans of some otherkin bloggers (but also, I’m going to note that a lot of otherkin bloggers were super vile for no reason)

mitigatedchaos

What’s the SJ value if I think Otherkin is ridiculous and undermining transgender people, but also support their morphological freedom in the awe-inspiring/terrifying Transhuman future?

Source: russian-hackers-official
skinnersboxy

The Trustee Model of Child Care

mitigatedchaos

There is an idea, in some circles, that parents effectively own their children.  This risks leading to various abuses, and also doesn’t line up with all moral intuitions.  On the other hand, most children do not have the capabilities, including executive function, to adequately evaluate and act on long-term preferences that will become important when they become adults.

I propose a rather simple-but-vague model that has no doubt been proposed before.  The child is effectively held in a trust owned by their future self.  The duty of the parents, therefore, is to safely deliver a well-developed adult to be inherited at the point of hand-off.  They are the trust’s operators, not the trust’s owners, and thus they have a variety of duties, abilities, and limitations.

A parent can have vaccines administered.  They can’t remove a significant portion of the child’s body, or demand a tattoo of their choice.  They can enact ordinary disciplinary measures, but not abusive ones.  They can require that the child attend school and do well at it, but they are not allowed to engage in pure ideological indoctrination.  And, if they fail to meet the terms, they can be removed from administration of the metaphorical trust.

The exact details might vary.  In many ways this is what people are acting on already - thus why Child Protective Services exists in the first place - but it isn’t explicitly specified.  I outline it here mostly so that it can be brought up as a counter-model when people suggest either ownership of children, or treating children as atomistic adults with fully-formed executive functioning and experience.

skinnersboxy

In practice, the child wouldn’t be held in trust by the future adult, but in trust by society at large. What counts as ordinary vs abusive discipline and education but not indoctrination is inevitably defined by the local monopoly on force, because they’re the ones with the ability to remove the child in cases of breach of trust. This feels like it would gravitate towards parents being contracted childcare for the state, and a too empowered CPS could greatly restrict the space of valid parenting styles without huge outcry because they’re “protecting the children”. To some extent this is already happening e.g. the Maryland parents who almost had their kids taken away for letting them walk to school.

mitigatedchaos

I’m not proposing this as a formal legal model, but rather an intuitive moral one, and mostly to counter the two other models I mentioned, which could result in child abuse or exploitation.

Source: mitigatedchaos