Political Blog

"Scam" you mean people are fighting back against housing discrimination??? I don't think these people know what the word scam means

Scams are designed to trick someone into giving up money based on lies. This is just.. asking for information then legally enforcing the law??

This was triggered by a specific Tumblr post on marriage, but more examples came to mind while I was writing the reply to that.

There's Rawls' thought experiment about the way maximally risk-averse alien ghosts would want to restructure human society if they were playing a reincarnation gacha.

There's a kind of libertarian who is so focused on the theoretical perfection of his "consenting adults" system that he treats children as an annoying special case to grudgingly make allowances for, rather than a core feature of human society.

There's a related kind of leftist so obsessed with "power imbalance" that he thinks it's immoral for children to exist because they keep interacting with adults, and his ideal world involves new adult beings popping into existence by miracle.

but actually libertarians have perfectly solved the problem of children:

Try to base your morality around consent? Children have to be made to do things as part of growing up, or they will be worse off as adults, and may blame you for it.

Try to base your morality off "human preferences"? Children don't have fully-formed preferences yet, so you run face-first into the problem of which preferences are preferable to have.

Try to base your morality off of property? Children have no property through no fault of their own, and cannot reasonably obtain it through labor.

What if we say that children are good? Well, try to formulate a principle on the exactly correct number of children - if you get it just a bit wrong, oops, you committed to almost unlimited natalism (and therefore greater per-person scarcity)!

Children are born naked and without any means to support themselves, and will remain dependent for a long time, and yet, without them, the species will go extinct. They are both penniless and the most important thing in the world. Everyone will die eventually, and they can only give the world to someone else. No matter how great your material riches, you can only either destroy them or give them away!

“people who can afford homes —“ are typically 400-600k in debt for them. also if “can own your own home” is your threshold for the rich you are contemplating eating, i think you are genuinely stupid

This is why “eat the rich” confuses me but “tax the fuck out of Elon Musk” does not.

Who are we “eating?” What do we mean by “eating?” If it’s just about killing people, which is how the phrase sounds, then how do we make sure the next moves recirculate that wealth into the larger economy?

Like it's not even about being bi, but really about...having the nerve to like men (when youre also open to women). Like it's a lesser choice they expect you not to make. And to that I say:

Fandom Problem #5506:

thanks to radfems I can't write female characters without feeling some measure of guilt for not making them "empowering" enough. If I write a woman who receives emotional or any other kind of support from a man, I'm portraying her as weak and needing a man to save her. If I write a woman supporting a man, I'm portraying her as nothing but a tool in his story. If I write a scene where a man empathizes with a woman's struggles, I'm making it all about him.

GOOD! Fuck 'em!

"Why do you know everything about me?"

"Why do you think we're friends when I've never met you?"