sleepy

doomscrolling

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@syntheria313056 @SadLexify @TrueSlazac @PalmyrPar I’m aware of the margin. From how I understand it, the minority position is unreasonable. And I’m not entirely sure youre a great judge of it since you seem to have the problematic approach to legal interpretation I was referencing.

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@syntheria313056 @SadLexify @TrueSlazac @PalmyrPar Wrong and wrong. Laws are laws, not suicide pacts. And they should be treated as laws.

If you want things to change then advocate for an amendment. It’s not a good thing to want the courts to reason backwards from non-legally relevant desired outcomes

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@syntheria313056 @SadLexify @TrueSlazac @PalmyrPar This approach to the law where we don’t like a law’s effects so we decide to argue with that as motivation for our positions is genuinely a bad faith approach to legal theory, and we should hope courts don’t perform this way. 2/2

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@syntheria313056 @SadLexify @TrueSlazac @PalmyrPar There is no reasonable reading of “jurisdiction” that undermines birthright citizenship. 1/2

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@nerdadampunx @vocem_meam @TheOmniLiberal You can’t mind read people for their allegiance, and I don’t see why we should assume illegal immigrants would be any more allegiant to their countries of birth than legal immigrants would be 2/2

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@nerdadampunx @vocem_meam @TheOmniLiberal No, the exception is children of diplomats. Not anyone with questionable allegiances. Jurisdiction isn’t dependent on allegiance it’s dependent on agreement between legal bodies. Even if its what motivated the court to except diplomats,this allegiance point just isnt relevant 1/2

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@Mankosmash @ZakMndebele @ArtemisConsort On your false-signaling of intelligence point, this doesn’t happen in Philosophy at least in the way you suggest. Intelligence is expressed verbally pretty obviously which might be what youre noticing. Do you not believe intelligence has a verbal mode?

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@AGroyper42 @guyinohio77 @Randomguy09086 @prolifefrenchie @FiliaInChristo So weird to watch groypers larp as Catholics. What do you mean by “bad”? You should do a better job of distinguishing between what is sinful and what you find aesthetically displeasing. Producing a mixed race child is not sinful. Intercourse out of wedlock is.

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@lily72177495 @wbhohw @SRV_Ash_ Maybe a bit more like: “the existence of a wrench (maybe within the context of a piece of art) totally invites my recognition of it being a tool”
Maybe I could choose not to see the wrench as a tool,but seeing it as a tool would be a natural reading of the object even in context

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@LikeAPhoenician @atta_berry @peeyuuuuuuuu @SRV_Ash_ I didn’t say it proved Marx wrong? It doesn’t. I was making a pretty narrow point about the moral loading of language and the philosophical framework. I feel like the way you’re replying is pretty unwarranted.

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@LikeAPhoenician @atta_berry @peeyuuuuuuuu @SRV_Ash_ I didn’t say that? If you imagine a victimized class as necessarily being more noble then you’re ironically kind of lending yourself to my point in a way that I think you actually could be faulted for.

Structurally the proles are victimized, do you disagree with this?

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@LikeAPhoenician @atta_berry @peeyuuuuuuuu @SRV_Ash_ Yeah I assumed whoever would be reading my responses would’ve been charitable enough to assume that I knew that without me having to say it. “Exploitation” is used in English for a reason. The German word he used was “Ausbeutung” which also has negative valence.

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@atta_berry @peeyuuuuuuuu @SRV_Ash_ Marx was intelligent and philosophically well-read. I imagine he had a reason why he chose “exploitation” in particular rather than other more morally neutral terms, even if it is the case that in his writings “exploitation” has a more particular meaning. 2/2

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@atta_berry @peeyuuuuuuuu @SRV_Ash_ I think maybeeee you’re too quick to reject the moral angle. It seems true that classical Marxism resists sentimental moralization. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the Marxian framework is amoral (it’s certainly normatively loaded in a more general sense). 1/2

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@wbhohw @SRV_Ash_ The bourgeois are the agents of those processes no? Right or not I feel like this victimizer-victim dynamic totally invites moral evaluation of the classes themselves, not just the processes.Though I do think the clarification you make here is reasonable & a good one to make

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@atta_berry @peeyuuuuuuuu @SRV_Ash_ Do we not consider terms like “exploited” to have normative and moral weight? Don’t know if someone could be faulted for coming away from hearing a Marxian analysis with the understanding that the proletariat are a victimized class

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@wbhohw @SRV_Ash_ Is this not in part an issue of the theoretical language that Marxists use? Terms like “exploitation” & “alienation” have real theoretical weight, but they also are normatively loaded and at times necessarily invite moral judgement.

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@TylerJamesNS @testosteroneHAV @JohnnyD22345 @CatRedFront Relying on Giovanni Gentile’s explanation is weak. The Hegelian axioms he relies on (and you rely on by proxy) are both extremely arguable and have very little to do with mussolini’s own reasoning during the inception of the movement.

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@JohnnyD22345 @testosteroneHAV @CatRedFront Giovanni Gentile is not necessary reading to understand fascism. Gentile’s work is a retroactive intellectualization of fascism, fascism predates Gentile’s doctrine. There’s a reason the frameworks of people like Evola, Gentile, and Schmitt are incompatible with one another.

[sleepy @sleepyy80]

@TylerJamesNS @GadNagh @viltrox_x @KeasarNor @Reddbirdy Its not just a Marxist term. The term “reactionary” has meaning within (and even originated in) a liberal paradigm. Fascism is reactionary, even with futurism in mind. It repackages a largely older social order into a futurist aesthetic. The substance is still reactionary