Oceans Yet to Burn

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[theunitofcaring]

I wish there were a conservative party anywhere that was conservative in the sense of ‘it rarely gets the computer working to smash it and also it rarely gets the country working to smash it, our policies will all be reversible and tested before they are scaled up and we will treasure and reinforce stabilizing institutions like the courts and good diplomatic relations with our neighbors’.

[mitigatedchaos]

“We’re going to test this incrementally” is an admission to the clueless public that you think you might be wrong. It’s a very smart view, because given the history of politics there is a reasonably high probability of being wrong, but the political rivals will jump all over it instantly.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[justsomeantifas]

It’s very interesting that STEM bros worship men like Einstein, hail him as a god among men, but entirely ignore his economic views … like how he was a socialist … lmao. 

[mitigatedchaos]

Are you suggesting they admire him for his contributions to physics, which is his field, but not his economics, which is not his field? Maybe I should go ask the world’s most cited economists particle physics questions - after all, Hollywood said all scientists are supergenius generalists, and would Hollywood ever lie to us?

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

I’m not entirely against the idea of prisoners working on things - the question is, who benefits?

If exclusively the prisoners benefit and the state/corporations only benefit from a resulting reduction in crime, then it does not encourage high levels of incarceration.

If corporations or the state legislators benefit, it encourages high levels of not only emotionally-punishing but also counter-productive imprisonment that harm not only inmates, but also most everyone else who isn’t a crony.

Or at least have them training rescue dogs or repairing fire-fighting equipment or something that is more like a charitable social good.

I mean, if we had prisoners farming vegetables that were only served to the prisoners at the prison, I don’t know if it would reduce recidivism, but no one would be giving kickbacks for it!

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[ranma-official]

“They weren’t slaves because criminals aren’t people” is missing from this

[mitigatedchaos]

“Hey guys,” they said, “let’s have prisoners perform barely-compensated labor.  No way this will have bad incentives that encourage increased rates of incarceration.”

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[blackblocberniebros]

I mean if we’re even going to entertain the idea of minimum ages for shit like voting and serving office we should have to consider maximum ages too.

[ranma-official]

Disagree. Children can’t vote because 1) biologically incapable of making good decisions yet 2) parents are legally allowed to punish them for voting incorrectly.

Voting because of old age can only be a problem because of stuff like dementia, and then you’d have to disenfranchise all people who are not mentally capable of voting.

what’s currently being done if is a person is mentally incapable of voting, a handler votes for them, which is okay because handlers will probably trend towards voting for candidates that help people who are mentally incapable

we need to encourage more people to vote not disenfranchise them

[blackblocberniebros]

I’m saying the opposite. Since we won’t consider maximum ages, why are we considering minimum ones? Just let children vote. “Biologically incapable of making good choices” is exactly the same argument for taking away the vote from old people with dementia or the mentally ill.

[mitigatedchaos]

So what you’re saying here is just a roundabout way of suggesting we should disenfranchise the literally demented and the mentally ill.

And of course, taking your other reply into account, I, too, value the power of soft authoritarian technocratic dictatorship.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that because some limits are not present due to the dangers in imposing them, other limits which already exist and aren’t particularly dangerous to enforce should not exist?

Might I suggest that the lack of wide support for this policy by a group which consists entirely of people who were once teenagers might not be quite the same thing as the other two examples?

[blackblocberniebros]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Why are rationalists so impenetrable?

I’m saying let children vote.

[mitigatedchaos]

Am I a Rationalist? Hmn. Anyhow, Actually, banning the literally demented and the literally delusional from voting would improve voting quality. The reason it isn’t done is because political operatives, who are terrible people, would immediately begin trying to classify all opposition as either senile or demented regardless of whether they actually are. (See also: how ‘gently’ politicals have handled the word “Nazis”.) This does not hold in the case of children, as there is a fairly defensible line which is applied to all children, and thus political operatives cannot race to classify all their enemies as children in order to disqualify them.

So no, don’t let the children vote.

[ilzolende]

Not even for school board? Schools have basically no incentive to value students’ day-to-day interests and so will do stuff like block every bloglike website even during lunch hours.

Then again, student-elected officials decided to host lunch concerts and put loudspeakers by the library windows close enough to shake them.

[mitigatedchaos]

Not even for the school board, but gradually increasing levels of democracy, like gradually increasing levels of alcohol, might be appropriate in some way.

When I was a teenager, I campaigned against my high school’s ban on digital audio players, which were not actually a problem.  The question is, how do you separate out high schoolers doing away with bad restrictions and high schoolers doing the school equivalent of looting the national treasury (in this case, running at cross-purposes to education)?

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[blackblocberniebros]

I mean if we’re even going to entertain the idea of minimum ages for shit like voting and serving office we should have to consider maximum ages too.

[ranma-official]

Disagree. Children can’t vote because 1) biologically incapable of making good decisions yet 2) parents are legally allowed to punish them for voting incorrectly.

Voting because of old age can only be a problem because of stuff like dementia, and then you’d have to disenfranchise all people who are not mentally capable of voting.

what’s currently being done if is a person is mentally incapable of voting, a handler votes for them, which is okay because handlers will probably trend towards voting for candidates that help people who are mentally incapable

we need to encourage more people to vote not disenfranchise them

[blackblocberniebros]

I’m saying the opposite. Since we won’t consider maximum ages, why are we considering minimum ones? Just let children vote. “Biologically incapable of making good choices” is exactly the same argument for taking away the vote from old people with dementia or the mentally ill.

[mitigatedchaos]

So what you’re saying here is just a roundabout way of suggesting we should disenfranchise the literally demented and the mentally ill.

And of course, taking your other reply into account, I, too, value the power of soft authoritarian technocratic dictatorship.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that because some limits are not present due to the dangers in imposing them, other limits which already exist and aren’t particularly dangerous to enforce should not exist?

Might I suggest that the lack of wide support for this policy by a group which consists entirely of people who were once teenagers might not be quite the same thing as the other two examples?

[blackblocberniebros]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Why are rationalists so impenetrable?

I’m saying let children vote.

[mitigatedchaos]

Am I a Rationalist? Hmn. Anyhow, Actually, banning the literally demented and the literally delusional from voting would improve voting quality. The reason it isn’t done is because political operatives, who are terrible people, would immediately begin trying to classify all opposition as either senile or demented regardless of whether they actually are. (See also: how ‘gently’ politicals have handled the word “Nazis”.) This does not hold in the case of children, as there is a fairly defensible line which is applied to all children, and thus political operatives cannot race to classify all their enemies as children in order to disqualify them.

So no, don’t let the children vote.

[blackblocberniebros]

It’s not defensible though. Children make up like 25% of the population but get no voice. That undermines the concept of consent of the governed.

[mitigatedchaos]

Oh right, some people still believe that government is justified by such concepts instead of its effectiveness at delivering benefits to the national population.

It’s “defensible” in the sense that it isn’t going to be constantly moved around by Republicans and Democrats fighting each other.

I’d be more inclined to agree with you if most children were sinesalvatorem as children, but they aren’t.  Children are largely ignorant.  Often, the part of the brain responsible for evaluating long-term outcomes is literally underdeveloped in children.  It isn’t their fault, but that doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be a net reduction in voter quality - and even more constant political brainwashing aimed at children than is currently aimed at them.

Additionally, by the “consent of the governed” logic, children are also not responsible for the government and therefore are not valid targets in war.  Let children vote, and this status is lost.

Now you’ll say “but we let incredibly ignorant people vote” as if this weren’t a lesser evil in comparison to having politicals write knowledge tests which exclude only their political enemies, or not letting the conditions of the ignorant in society risk a backlash for politicians so that there is at least some incentive not to destroy them.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[blackblocberniebros]

I mean if we’re even going to entertain the idea of minimum ages for shit like voting and serving office we should have to consider maximum ages too.

[ranma-official]

Disagree. Children can’t vote because 1) biologically incapable of making good decisions yet 2) parents are legally allowed to punish them for voting incorrectly.

Voting because of old age can only be a problem because of stuff like dementia, and then you’d have to disenfranchise all people who are not mentally capable of voting.

what’s currently being done if is a person is mentally incapable of voting, a handler votes for them, which is okay because handlers will probably trend towards voting for candidates that help people who are mentally incapable

we need to encourage more people to vote not disenfranchise them

[blackblocberniebros]

I’m saying the opposite. Since we won’t consider maximum ages, why are we considering minimum ones? Just let children vote. “Biologically incapable of making good choices” is exactly the same argument for taking away the vote from old people with dementia or the mentally ill.

[mitigatedchaos]

So what you’re saying here is just a roundabout way of suggesting we should disenfranchise the literally demented and the mentally ill.

And of course, taking your other reply into account, I, too, value the power of soft authoritarian technocratic dictatorship.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that because some limits are not present due to the dangers in imposing them, other limits which already exist and aren’t particularly dangerous to enforce should not exist?

Might I suggest that the lack of wide support for this policy by a group which consists entirely of people who were once teenagers might not be quite the same thing as the other two examples?

[blackblocberniebros]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Why are rationalists so impenetrable?

I’m saying let children vote.

[mitigatedchaos]

Am I a Rationalist? Hmn. Anyhow, Actually, banning the literally demented and the literally delusional from voting would improve voting quality. The reason it isn’t done is because political operatives, who are terrible people, would immediately begin trying to classify all opposition as either senile or demented regardless of whether they actually are. (See also: how ‘gently’ politicals have handled the word “Nazis”.) This does not hold in the case of children, as there is a fairly defensible line which is applied to all children, and thus political operatives cannot race to classify all their enemies as children in order to disqualify them.

So no, don’t let the children vote.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

Proposition: Al Qaeda wanted to get the West to stop fking with the Middle East.  (”Terrorism is geopolitical, [not ideological].”)

Reality: No 9/11 likely means no Iraq War.

Three possibilities:

1. They were too stupid to realize invasion would be the response.

2. They were too drunk on ideology to realize invasion would be the response.

3. The proposition is false.  That wasn’t their actual goal.

[mitigatedchaos]

@greenrd

That’s not reality. 9/11 was ridiculously and falsely linked to Iraq by the lying liars then in the WH. But they wanted to do it anyway. Just because Bush claimed to be isolationist in his 2000 campaign, doesn’t mean he was telling the truth.

mitigatedchaos

Really.  You think they could summon up the political will to do it when Bush was just *barely* elected President in the first place?  9/11 is what gave them the power to engage in that level of mid-east meddling.

It’s correct that Iraq was not really involved in 9/11.  The problem is it’s in the same general area of the world, among other things, enabling the Bush Administration to falsely tie them in the public’s perception.

But Saddam wasn’t really pursuing WMDs, all that was left was stuff leftover from a long time ago that was missed in an earlier sweep.  So how do you gin up support for an expensive war against some random middle eastern dictator that isn’t even really arranging terrorism against you?

External image

Step one - get your shoddy approval rating spiked into the stratosphere by a massive middle eastern terrorist attack, massively boosting your low political capital, allowing you to even attempt to make this threat narrative without looking like a paranoid lunatic in the first place.