Oceans Yet to Burn

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[argumate]

Just make all speech laws global!

Either you can say anything that is allowed in at least one jurisdiction, ie. there are no restrictions at all, or you can’t say anything that is banned in at least one jurisdiction, ie. you can’t say anything whatsoever.

Come and see the contradictions inherent in the system!

[rendakuenthusiast]

Seriously though I’m glad the internet was largely invented by Anglosphere people raised in a cultural tradition of free speech, and particularly Americans, who have a particularly strong cultural tradition of free speech even by the standards of the Anglosphere.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[argumate]

Now I’m wondering what if students could spend student loans on other things, like starting businesses.

[voxette-vk]

So you’ve come around to the radical libertarians calling for voluntary slavery?

[argumate]

Just highly suspicious of the American student loan system! Like most American institutions it seems to neatly combine the worst aspects of socialism and capitalism. Why not just have regular loans (allow bankruptcy etc.) or just socialise the system entirely like a sensible country??

[mitigatedchaos]

The money must be laundered through the private sector to prove that it isn’t Socialism™.

Nevermind that either doing it in a more capitalist, more socialist, or just straight-up better national centrist way would be more effective.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[rocketverliden]

The PewDiePie discourse seems to help illuminate two schools of thought regarding the inculcation of extremism and such.

One school of thought, favored by SJ and left-wing people, is that extremism is generative: if left unchecked, it grows.

The other school of thought, favored by less-than-left people, is that extremism is reactive: it is always growing in opposition to perceived overreach/overreaction.

@theaudientvoid @brazenautomaton @thathopeyetlives @argumate Thoughts?

[argumate]

what if elegant abstract general principles are insufficient to describe the full complexity of the world we inhabit

[mitigatedchaos]

No Argumate, you stupid owl, it works in exactly the way most convenient for my ideology.

*Monitors resulting level of pro-owl extremism in order to test hypothesis.*

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Regarding arguments around race and racism.

I would argue that we haven’t actually tried having social policy that doesn’t suck yet.  A combination of factors produced by our society and policies incentivize bad outcomes.

You get the outcome the incentives produce.  To change the outcome, one must change the incentives.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Some of this ongoing race issue in the United States could be fixed, but it would require stepping on about ten different ideologies, spending a lot of money, and being very pragmatic.  None of those things are realistically going to happen, except for the middle one, which when used just by itself would fail spectacularly.

(Before anyone gets too excited, I’m talking about things like school reform, wage subsidies, removal of welfare trap, etc.)

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[argumate]

what I’m trying to do is end the dominance of capital over all our lives, end the endless wars for profit, the system of white supremacy and settler colonialism that has resulted in generations of suffering, and end the actual destruction of our ecosystems. and since the only alternative to capitalism is communism,

I see this conflation all the time and I’m compelled to be bugged by it every time.

There just haven’t been that many wars for profit lately relative to historical standards, the ideology of white supremacy has little to do with adoption of capitalism across non-white nations, settler colonialism is orthogonal to all of these issues, and destruction of ecosystems is a side effect of industrialisation and ballooning population growth that needs to be addressed in similar ways regardless of economic system.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

How Rights Work

[reasonandempathy]

A common talking point that comes up in the healthcare debate is that having a right to healthcare is a right to the labor of another person.  That you can compel a healthcare professional (shorthanded to “doctor”) to act without compensation for their labor.

This is fundamentally wrong.  Rights can only compel inaction, not action.

To draw a parallel: you have the right to a gun (second amendment, yay).  Does that mean that you are owed a gun?  That gun manufacturers must make you a rifle?  No.  It doesn’t.  It’s a laughable claim to make and it stands contrary to hundreds of years of American history.  Having a right doesn’t compel others to action, at best it compels them to inaction.

The right to not be assaulted means you don’t get to punch me.

The right to self-defense means you don’t get to jail me for protecting myself.

The right to control my labor means you don’t get to enslave me.

The right to have kids means you don’t get to force me to have an abortion.

State’s rights compel the inaction of the federal government.

The state of a country to its internal politics compels the inaction of its neighbors from interfering with its domestic politics.

The right to a lawyer doesn’t compel people with law degrees to give you free legal representation.

Anyone trying to represent a right as the ability to force action is either a fool or a liar.

[mutant-aesthetic]

The right to free association means you can’t force my business to- OH WAIT LOL

[ranma-official]

the right to tell your free association meme to fuck off means you can’t discriminate against an entire race

[bariumsulfateacetone]

Except that the right to a lawyer DOES compel the state to provide you a public defender if you can’t afford your own. That’s been the accepted interpretation for centuries.

[ranma-official]

it compels the state to provide you with a lawyer but not to force this specific lawyer to defend you for free

[mitigatedchaos]

Why, that almost sounds like the state hiring doctors, who can leave the profession or emigrate, to perform medical services.

Unfortunately the actual reason there is such confusion is that rights theory is false, but under Consequentialism it’s quite acceptable for the state to procure healthcare for citizens if it does a good enough job at it. Man, it would be so nice to save 5% of the GDP.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anarcho-Capitalism and hardcore Libertarianism both assume the political and cultural conditions under which they can be created and maintained.  If some other group comes along that can undermine the cultural support for their ideals over the long term, or better unite to use force, they will inevitably be dethroned and replaced with something else.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

How is fascism going to survive past 2040 when whites are literally no longer even the majority and the GOP has lost the majority vote in every demographic outside of white voters?
Fascists can juke and dance all they want but if they can’t get the majority vote of POCs and women I’m not seeing a long-term future for them. Those numbers make for a very high and deep wall.

The definition of White has expanded in previous eras.  Trump’s goal of reducing immigration will help slow the rate of demographic transition, which will help the right-wing since many immigrants often slowly become more anti-immigration over time.

There are two other options, which can potentially be pursued simultaneously.

• Expand the definition of White again, possibly to include Asians, particularly East Asians, but others would be necessary to meet the population goals.  This depends on the SJ Left backstabbing them, but that process has already begun over race and academics, much like the SJ Left has started to value cis gay men less.  Expanding the definition of “White” is what prevented some demographic flip last time.
• Separatism.  We’re already seeing some inklings of this on the Left.

(tagging @sighinastorm since you reblogged the previous one.)

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

I’m not sure whether we’ll see an increase in it under the Trump Administration.

Nationalism and Social Centrism are both more defensible than Bush and Obama-era American Conservatism, which is part of why we’re seeing them rise, although they’re not calling it Social Centrism yet.  A less jingoistic Nationalism is also a better counter to the Globalism popular among the Left, more capable of exploiting the holes in modern Multiculturalism that have been made vulnerable by the increased stress on the system, but it seemed that for a long time the Jingoism was all we got.