/townhall/ - Townhall

Bob believes, politically speaking, in "equality of opportunity". He knows that in practical terms an individual's status can seem to convey certain inherent advantages or disadvantages, such as someone in a wheelchair having difficult in reaching to pick up things past a certain height as well as someone without hearing having trouble driving cars in certain traffic. However, Bob inherently thinks that people are all fundamentally both "equal" and "good" at an ethical level and thus wants a system of government in which every single person realistically has a chance to advance in social terms from birth onward. He knows that hard work pays off and so thus what happens in terms of actual outcomes can vary, but that's fine as long as everyone has decent respect for each other.

Is this "left wing"? Is this "centrist"? Is this "right wing"?

Steve believes, politically speaking, in "equality of outcomes". It's not enough that everybody is in something like a footrace with every participant at the same starting line. Everybody needs to finish at about the same place. Thus, the system of government should ensure a level field of success in which all people basically have the same amenities, same enjoyments, same perks, and more.

Is this "left wing"? Is this "centrist"? Is this "right wing"?

Donald believes, politically speaking, that "equality is a hoax". He firmly asserts that some people inherently choose to debase themselves due to poor moral worth to the point of which they don't deserve empathy from others. He strongly insists that certain ethnic groups, religions, sexual orientations, and so on deserve a higher status in society compared to others due to their innate superiority. He wants government to recognize this natural aristocracy in how people live.

Is this "left wing"? Is this "centrist"? Is this "right wing"?

Those following legal related news in the U.S. have probably seen various updates on the Georgia case of black jogger Ahmaud Arbery and the three white men on trial for killing him (them having regarded him as a robbery suspect when they spotted him running and thus chasing him while armed until they were able to corner him, execute him, and call him a "f*ck*ng n*gg*r" as he died). It's a controversial case to say the least. Sadly, the same old divisions have occurred again in terms of Americans of the political center, left, and right taking different sides on what the judge and jury should do.

One complication is that the defense team for the murderers have pushed for an all white jury, and they've nearly succeeded in doing so. In the end, the case will go through with one black person on the jury and everybody else being white. The judge in the case publicly stated that the results were ethically wrong, labeling the situation "intentional discrimination", but decided that on technical legal grounds he's unable to change things. The legal process will go on.

For me, personally, I find it basically impossible to view the killers as anything but guilty and deserving of the book being thrown at them. This appears to be an open-and-shut case. However, of course, this is America and those on trial must be given a fair defense such that they're innocent until proven guilty.

Details: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052435205/ahmaud-arbery-jury

I do wonder though about the biggest points, the particulars of the Arbery case aside: do all white juries represent a serious problem in America? Is something fundamentally ethically wrong with having racially segregated juries in a normally racially integrated country? Or is this not really that big of a deal? Might this be a case of social justice warriors complaining about a non-issue, as conservatives often charge, since a racial segregated jury can still come to reasonable conclusions?

It should also be mentioned that, as the case of the murder of George Floyd has demonstrated, America is most certainly not an fundamentally racist country (at least, well, not in my opinion): violence against minorities can and does result in fair justice.

(Image from the excellent film To Kill a Mockingbird.)

I've been thinking for awhile about creating a pony social site.

There are a lot of reasons not to, mostly that it's going to be a ghost town.  Although as an introvert, I could not moderate a group of any substantial size anyway.

Sites like ponyville.us intrigued me.  I like that they don't collect personal information and I like the image board style.

I gather we effectively have user accounts and identities serverside.  But we just have very little capacity to view or control them.  (I mostly want to earn control over my name, but this can be a general opportunity to change anything.)

Some of it is that I want to play around and see what I can do, and learn a bit more about development.

Maybe I want reaction images to be stored in the server, so they can follow me across devices.

Maybe we should create our own art on the site so we don't have the pesky copyright issue.  I don't know how that would go down.  It's much easier to steal -- like I did for this post.

This thread can be for general ideas about social sites, what you like and don't like.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Well, it happened again just a bit ago. Twitter suspended the account of a senior conservative Republican member of Congress, named Jim Banks, and triggered another episode of a long-running culture war. This is just one in an extremely long line of instances of prominent right-wing voices facing censorship on social media. Public displays of prejudice made due to their conservative values keep getting push-back.

Story: https://time.com/6110023/twitter-jim-banks-rachel-levine/

In Banks' case, he attacked a transgender member of the Biden administration, not just condemning her personally but also misgendering her. Banks remains defiant. No apologies seem in coming.

Broadly speaking, Twitter, like other forms of social media, prohibit users from making statements of incitement to hatred when it comes to race, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability status, and so on. This is a pretty common moral stance. It's also, I think, fairly popular among social media users generally, many of whom either are minorities themselves or otherwise strongly against prejudice.

However, conservative politics in the U.S. frequently involves not just making statements about the inferiority of certain groups and individuals compared to others but also taking policy actions based on said inferiority. A conservative attacking somebody for being gay, Muslim, Jewish, transgender, disabled, et cetera is just doing what their political ideology tells them to do, really. It makes sense given that conservative actions in lawmaking put certain groups on pedestals over others. Given that, say, everything from prohibiting anybody but Christians from public prayer statements to kicking transgender people out of certain restrooms to forcing certain non-Christians to have official registry status as suspicious persons subject to special restrictions are both central conservative policy goals... and... well... it goes on.

Is such social media censorship really a good thing? Should minorities really be protected against conservatives attacking them due to their minority status, or does such restriction on speech essentially make social media a no-go place for conservatives? What about the conservatives' claims that they're being bullied and treated unfairly? Worth considering? Or is social media no place for bigotry?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/peter-navarro-calls-fauci-evil-says-he-urged-trump-to-fire-him

Is gain-of-function research evil? Should public bureaucrats who encouraged it be removed from office now that we have the benefit of hindsight? Should we also remove officials who continue to defend it or is a general ban sufficient?

If a devoutly religious medical professional as an individual, or a group of such people, or a corporate organization under a spiritual mission refuse to give the same health care that would be given to somebody else to some victim because said victim is an atheist, a bisexual person, a Jew, a lesbian, a Muslim, a Satanist, a transgender person, or whatever else... should that be legal in the United States? Or should the federal government force the religious to defy their faiths by assisting those whom the divine have commanded them to be separate from? Is that justified?

What if the victims are to be provided substandard care, perhaps by paying more than a type of person viewed as more spiritually acceptable. Is that a reasonable compromise? Or is it insulting?

On the whole, is having so much of the U.S. health care system based around religious lines through spiritual organizations a problem as long as prejudice and sectarianism exists?

Is the FDA deliberately trying to injure and kill Americans by restricting booster shots?  The first two doses of the mRNA vaccines are apparently so safe that President Biden feels that it is ethical to *mandate* that people take them, but the FDA somehow worries that a third dose is so dangerous that it shouldn't be allowed except for the elderly and people who have certain pre-conditions or higher risk of exposure?  I have seen strong evidence that the third dose is just as safe as the first two doses. And I have also seen strong evidence that it greatly improves immunity to infection (which is especially important to people who are worried about being vectors who might infect more vulnerable loved ones).  IMHO, everyone at the FDA who voted against allowing boosters for the general population should be fired for gross incompetence.  

Over seven million people across the U.S. are now losing unemployment benefits today as pandemic related measures expire.

Article: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/570948-more-than-7-million-americans-to-lose-jobless-benefits-monday

I think that most individuals are rational when it comes to their personal planning. When living life on the edge, getting off benefits to work a new job involves a ton of risk, and the loss of benefits is effectively a large, punitive tax on doing the right thing. From an Econ 101 point of view, it's quite silly to punish people for doing something that's good for them. So, there's plenty clearly wrong with the past system of just paying people not to work (essentially).

At the same time, the pandemic obviously hasn't ended. Thousands clog the nation's hospitals. Mass suffering is still going on. Economic stimulus appears quite justified. And, at the very least, those who are economically severely disadvantaged have been disproportionately hurt by the pandemic and deserve disproportionate help.

What then shall be done?

https://twitter.com/johncarlosbaez/status/1440401813316931587 (warning: replies contain spoilers)

Would you prefer that one person be horribly tortured for fifty years without hope or rest, or that 3^^^3 people get dust specks in their eyes?  (See below link for what "3^^^3" means.)

https://www.lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/

How do workers in the US generally deal with the rules regarding to workdays?

I got basic info that there are no official rules regarding holidays and paid sick days, so to my understanding it mostly depends on the leniency of your employer.

Do people generally still have a positive experience in that?
Does anyone know people who have gotten the short end of the stick?
How easy is it to meet personal appointments during working hours? (like repair, administrative visits, planning a medical check up / emergency, being home when your kid has a sick day / vacation day from school)

So this got posted somewhere and it got me thinking.  What counts as "accepting" and "allowing" something?  Like for the purpose of argument, let's assume that white people are indeed overwhelmingly dominant and that black people are comparatively mistreated.  If you disagree with said mistreatment of black people...what are you supposed to do?  What are you morally required to do about it?

Is it enough to simply not mistreat people yourself?  Do you need to step in to prevent mistreatment when you see a friend or family member doing it?  How about a stranger?  Do you need to get up and actively seek out this mistreatment to remove it from society?  If so, is it enough to attend rallies and be a part of organizations that oppose these things, or should you go out on your own patrolling for these injustices?

A separate question:  how mistreated does a group have to be for it to trigger as actionable?  Does the severity of the mistreatment adjust the moral reaction?  What are the thresholds?

Should the U.S. federal government be in the business of forcing people to get the coronavirus vaccine, whether they like it or not?

Story: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/biden-vaccine-mandate-republicans-dont-believe-own-arguments.html

My personal opinion is that mandates are justified. Lives are literally at stake. Children have been suffering. The immunosuppressed have been suffering. They can't get the vaccine and rely on others for their own safety. We should care about them and protect them. Other reasons exist as well.

Even after the U.S. military has left Afghanistan, concluding the U.S.'s longest war, massive efforts remain in order to help stranded individuals who seek assistance leaving the country. They've much to fear given recent actions by the Taliban, including mass assault upon female protesters. This exodus still includes American citizens as well as many others. Desperate times.

Story: https://news.yahoo.com/blumenthal-furious-biden-administration-over-202200285.html

Given that it appears safe to say that the Biden administration has bungled the situation in Afghanistan badly, what if anything can be done to make things better past this point? What would accountability look like? And is all this likely to damage U.S. foreign policy moving on in other places?

The terrorist attacks that occurred two decades ago set into motion a profound bunch of changes in America that we're still grappling with today. Personally, most of these appear to have been misguided at best and nightmarish at worse. Still, history is history, albeit recent history.

Interesting report on some regrets from seminal foreign policy figure David Petraeus here: https://news.yahoo.com/gen-david-petraeus-2-regrets-032857899.html

Thoughts on what Petraeus said? And reflections in general? What does this anniversary mean to you as an individual?

To be honest, I don't quite see where to go from here. Although, looking back, I sure as hell would've done a gigantic number of things differently (i.e. avoided invading Iraq, refrained from linking the separate issues of Iraqi actions to that of Iranian and North Korean behavior via the "axis of evil" approach, worked to advance alternative energy so that fossil fuel dependence was less of a problem, et cetera). I don't feel safer than I did on September 12th, 2001. Do you?