Plans you're not supposed to talk about • Hacker News Board

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#671

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 8:46 PM UTC

Viliam1234 wrote: post #636

mensetmanusman wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women’s rights historically aligned well with gdp/capita growth.

> Women’s rights historically aligned well with gdp/capita growth. How much of this is simply a consequence of the fact that if you take care of your kids, it is not counted as a part of GDP, but if you pay someone else to take care of your kids, it is a part of GDP. So the GDP would increase even if the kids get exactly the same care, and even if all the money the woman makes is spent on paying the babysitters. The…

[deleted]

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#672

Post by pdonis » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 8:48 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #649

pdonis wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by definition, the bloody revolutions would not have been bloody if the people in charge just acquiesced to the demands of the revolutionaries, and gave up without a fight. In other words, if the actual facts had been different, we would use a different word to describe what happened. Yes, indeed. That's why we have different words: to capture meaningful differences in the facts we are using the words to describe.…

My point is that when a revolution starts, the participants have zero idea of whether or not its going to be bloody or relatively bloodless. If you're going to condemn revolutions as a whole, you have to condemn the bloodless ones as well, for that same reason.

> when a revolution starts, the participants have zero idea of whether or not its going to be bloody or relatively bloodless.

I think that's rarely the case, at least not when the people starting the revolution are reasonably sane (by which I mean they have a reasonably good grasp of reality and use that to guide their actions). I think the people in Eastern Europe who started "revolutions" when the Soviet Union fell had a pretty good idea that little or no bloodshed would be required.

It's quite possible that the people who started the French Revolution didn't realize how much blood would be shed, but to me that just means those people were not reasonably sane. And there is plenty of other evidence that they were disconnected from reality.

(By contrast, I think the people who started the Russian Revolution, and the Communist revolution in China, were well aware that much bloodshed would be required, and they were perfectly OK with that. That makes them reasonably sane by my definition, but it does make them "insane" by other definitions--psychopathic or sociopathic, for example.)

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#673

Post by DarylZero » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 7:47 AM UTC

nickpp wrote: post #501

DarylZero wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Markets are also created and sustained by governments.

Nope. Markets require just a couple of free participants willing to exchange goods or services. No governmental involvement there.

"Markets are" vs.

"Markets require" <-- some kind of logical construction

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#674

Post by jlawson » Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 4:34 AM UTC

calf wrote: post #594

jlawson wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple example, but racism is simply a form of genetic ingroup preference. Can you imagine, perchance, how groups who practiced ingroup preference would, over time, come to outcompete and ultimately defeat/destroy/dissolve groups that didn't? Does it seem clear to you why all historical societies practiced ingroup preference, and the vast majority still do? Or are you confused on how that works? Our society's concept…

Have you ever experienced racism or do you have friends who have experienced it? Imagine telling your friend what they went through was simply evolution.

Yes I have experienced racism, of various types and many times over the years.

The fact that I understand why it happened doesn't harm me. Does it make you feel better to believe that the bad things that have happened to you are due to spiritual evil? Personally I find a mechanistic, value-neutral explanation more conforting (and far more useful since it's, yknow, correct).

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#675

Post by AvesMerit » Tue, Dec 21, 2021, 5:15 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #598

monodeldiablo wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except as regards gay or abortion rights, military funding, and drug policy. Right? I know that's the case for every conservative I know, at least. They stand for those values in the abstract, as an ostensibly philosophy to undergird their politics... But oppose those values in practice.

Under the current Roe v Wade regime, abortion law is centralized to 9 judges on the Supreme Court. Republicans want to decentralize this to democratic decisions in each state.

Why not decentralize this democratic decision further - let individuals choose whether they're pro-choice or pro-life?