If that addict on your street were your own son, what would you do? That is the defining question that guides my 5 step plan to fix the homelessness problem in LA. We *must* end this evil racket of corrupt politicians and NGOs who profit off the misery of these poor souls. They launder money and feed them more drugs, so they can keep their customers locked in this hell on our streets. We have a moral obligation from God to help them and make our city safe and clean for everyone. Karen Bass and Nithya Raman have forsaken this city. Time for real leadership. Time for real compassion.
It drives me nuts that both sides of this are presented in purely practical, outcome-based terms. The main reason not to do rent stabilization -- especially with no grace period and no between-tenant reset -- is that it's *fundamentally* unfair and extractive.
Most people think of philosophy as an abstraction that doesn't touch the real world, but they're wrong.
Most real world problems are philosophy problems, and most philosophy problems are "giving things the wrong names".
For example, if you call feral drug addicts "homeless people", then you can't solve the problem. You can only buy more houses for feral drug addicts to destroy.
In this case, we called the police and courts the "justice system".
But they're not. They can't be the justice system.
The function of a justice system would be to give everyone what they deserve.
Now, I deserve a hundred million dollars, a private Caribbean island, and a foot massage from Lauren Bacall in her prime, but I don't see the "justice" system lifting a finger to correct any of this, do you?
No, what we are supposed to have is a public safety system.
The function of a public safety system is to keep the public and their property safe.
If we understood that, we wouldn't care about what criminals deserve. We would care how likely they are to do it again. Or something worse.
In a public safety system, retardation and mental illness are not migrating factors. They are the opposite.
Because they mean that the criminal is more likely to pose a future threat.
We all understand this.
We all understand that the feral retard who stabs strangers on the train for being White and beautiful is a worse person than the man who murders his wife and her lover when he catches them in the act.
Not because of some abstract calculus of moral agency, of who is disadvantaged and who isn't, but because one is certainly going to murder more people if he can, while the other is a lot less likely to.
We've known for centuries, if not millennia, that it's the same small percentage of people doing all the robbing, raping, and murdering, over and over and over again.
And we've known for centuries that if you physically remove them from society, that's 100% effective in stopping them from doing it again.
The only hurdle is philosophical. Call it a "justice" system, and you have to argue endlessly about morality and redemption, and then some leftie thug-hugger weaponizes your own Christianity against you.
Call it public safety, and you confine the argument to likelihood of reoffense. Then you are in the realm of statistics. Which you can compute.
It all starts with naming things correctly, according to their actual nature.
Land Cruiser took direct hit from RPG-7 and kept moving.
Armored Toyota Land Cruiser was struck by an RPG-7 during an ambush in Philippines. The vehicle absorbed the explosion and continued driving away, allowing the mayor to escape unharmed.
@lackofsmiles Culture is literally a set of arbitrary rules/norms. That's what it is
If you truly have an issue with logical inconsistencies you can go to India and argue with them about how it doesn't make sense to think cows are sacred or w/e
On race:
* The US isn’t a racist country
* In fact, black Americans have many advantages in hiring and admissions
* Racial disparities in prison composition are downstream of differences in rates of offending
* We are no longer obligated to make closing racial achievement gaps a central factor in our politics (and it’s probably not an equitable use of resources)
On gender:
* There are on an average important differences between men and women
* Many social differences are downstream of biological differences
* Gender pay gaps and gender disparities across industries are probably not the result of discrimination
* Transgender metaphysics are not scientifically accurate
And so on and so on.
I’m not even trying to be rude here, but do you just literally not know about these things? Are you totally unaware of the contours of these debates? Are you not up-to-date on the points of contention about affirmative action, Black Lives Matter, racial disparities in the prison population and in achievement gaps, transgender metaphysics, the gender pay gap, and so on?
Do you think the only meaningful debate here is about explicit, de jure discrimination?
I mean, really, truly, do you just not know about any of this stuff?
Democratic Primary Debate:
“Raise your hand if your government plan would provide health insurance for undocumented immigrants.”
*everyone raises hand*
Ok, I’ve watched 40 Charlie Kirk videos at this point… none of them were outrageous.
His opinions were the exact same as the Catholics I grew up with (and was one)
I disagree with many of those traditional beliefs, but none are shocking… in fact, they’re extremely predictable for a Catholic
Hamas released a tutorial video on how to attack and murder Israelis on a civilian bus. Hamas doesn't even hide that civilians are their targets, it publicizes it!
You can understand why progressives wouldn’t be as horrified by that scene on the bus as everybody else. You just have to translate the scenario into something they can understand and would be revolted by, like for example if that white girl had turned around and said something racist, instead.
my theory: most of the west has had roughly the same easy-to-exploit refugee / asylum / lax illegal entry type laws for many decades. but the rapid and relatively recent adoption of internet throughout the developing world led to widespread dissemination of this information
Steph, I’m a woman. You’re a trans-identified man. Instead of celebrating that difference, you spend half your life persecuting women who point it out.
A plausible and well-sourced piece in this week’s Spectator alleges some army families now feel unsafe on bases where large numbers of Afghans have been relocated. It even suggests some soldiers have quit military service in order to escape garrison towns. Simply extraordinary.