PeepinGoodArgs @ PeepinGoodArgs @reddthat.com

Check out my digital garden: [The Missing Premise](https://publish.obsidian

---

Read more

Posts

64

Comments

1,626

Joined

2 yr. ago

Lina Khan should be valued by both conservatives and leftists. She understands competition better than Larry Summers.

...what were you reading?

Aye, those are preferences and largely entirely subjective (because I prefer vanilla over chocolate).

So at some point the question arises, “do I respect the individual?”

This question is always there.

I know exactly what you mean!

But there's a really easy way to solve that problem: ask for clarification and then check to make sure your understanding of the concept matches theirs.

For example, when you say "We may appear to be communicating but we really aren’t quite", the meaning of the word ' 'communicating' slides between different meanings. From my understanding, in the first case you mean a shared understanding of the terms under discussion, and in the second case you mean talking past each other, where people don't really address the substance of the discussion.

Right? And you're saying this is a problem of language and the internet?

If so, then I agree that it's a problem of language, and one that language can just as easily solve. I don't think it's a problem of the internet, though, but the social dynamics of internet certainly don't help.

If your perspective differs, then to the extent that it's not extremely outrageous, all the better!

Argumentation doesn't require a shared perspective and shared axioms (except concerning the conduct of arguing). Fundamentally, it requires that we be willing to be taken on the perspective of others and lead them to where we are, or allow ourselves to be led to where they are. This isn't common on online discussions because of the incentives of online "debates", which isn't to be persuaded or to spend time typing out thoughtful responses with which someone can bite and chew on to serve up something equally worthwhile.

In other words, it's not that people disagree that's the problem. It's how we disagree that leads to the cesspool that internet discussions often devolve into. If you want to argue and try to understand another person, then there's no reason that can't happen.

Yes.

A reasonable position and uncritical acceptance of a narrative are indistinguishable without the reasoning behind it. And I sincerely wish I could give others the benefit of the doubt that they reasoned their way to their beliefs, and I used to. But that assumption has been repeatedly violated that I'd be stupid to maintain it.

My favorite thing about this book is that it covers every right and left wing talking point about men. All the concerns about men I've ever heard were at least mentioned in this book. In most cases, they were resolved satisfactorily.

Well, I guess it's better that Google enable mass murder than employees oppose it, according to your logic.

What's funny is that after the atrocities of WWII, there were all these books written about "How could they do that?!" Well, if they thought like you, it's pretty clear: it was always warranted. The only thing that really mattered was whether people did their jobs.

Well, they did leave...by force. But that still leaves Google supplementing genocide and them out of job. Ideally, they'd still have a job, and Google would uphold the human right to life. But Pichai sidesteps that contention altogether by decree: "Don't talk about it!"

In a Marxist country, you’d be put in prison for disagreeing.

In a capitalist country where life is cheap, you'll lose your livelihood refusing to contribute to murder on an industrial scale. So, trade-offs, I guess.

Trigger Warning: Communism

See, this whole conversation is why Marx's theory of alienation is a thing. It assumes that the employees are at work purely for the sake of working, as if employees consent to how other's use the product of their work by virtue of their employment. But the relationship between what a worker does and what a company does with it is important. For those of that aren't genocide supporters and can't square the circle by abstracting our work from those that use it for murdering other people, talking about it challenges the underlying justification for permitting it in the first place. Like yeah, Google is invested in information technology and all that, but why does that necessarily mean they must have a relationship with Israel to more effectively target Palestinians using Google Cloud for artificial applications? Not being allowed to talk about that is quintessential alienation in the Marxian sense.

If Palestine were using Google Cloud for AI applications like identifying and murdering Israelis, then Pichai would also be justified in telling staffers to sit down, stfu, and get back to work?

I just want to make sure we're not engaged in identity politics here.

When you're backed by a lead-fueled delusion that you know god, you can decide anything.

Probably not without cause. And if the cause is potential threats to your life, then yeah, probably.

how do you enforce the voting requirements?

I guess we're both going to learn something today, because, as of writing this, I have no idea. So let's dig in! Assuming a non-citizen immigrant attempts to vote in Arizona, how do they enforce voting requirements, namely, that only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections?

My first thought is the process of voting itself.

First, the non-U.S. citizen immigrant must register to vote. Pretty hard to do for someone that isn't a U.S. citizen, a resident of Arizona, and isn't 18+ years old.. Proof of citizen is required merely for registering. So, unless mistakes happen, then all registered voters in Arizona are U.S. citizens.

Right, but the picture above says it's not required. In that case, you're given the Federal Voter Registration Form (this is the same link shown at the bottom of OP's pic). When you get the PDF it asks for an ID #:

Federal law requires that states collect from each registrant an identification number. You must refer to your state's specific instructions for item 6 regarding information on what number is acceptable for your state. If you have neither a drivers license nor a social security number, please indicate this on the form and a number will be assigned to you by your state.

If I were an election auditor, my first thought would be to look at box 6 for "None".

Holy crap, this is beyond confusing. If I were a non-citizen immigrant willing to throw away my opportunity in the U.S., I'd be racking my brain about how to vote for Biden to open the border. Because, this is tough. You should try it. Walk through the steps of registering to vote. Even on the federal voter registration for it explicitly says:

To register in Arizona you must:

• be a citizen of the United States

• be a resident of Arizona and your county at least 29 days preceding the next election

• be 18 years old on or before the next general election

• not have been convicted of treason or a felony (or have had your civil rights restored)

• not currently be declared an incapacitated person by a court of law

So, like...are they going to ask for proof of citizenship anyway? Super unclear.

A better question is how are non-citizen immigrants voting in Arizona in the first place? lol

It's going to healthcare. Boomers will spend a fortune to stay alive for another year at 87

From what I can tell, is that 7.2 million immigrants have been released into the U.S. under Biden's administration.

But the proportion of that 7.2 million outside of Arizona are irrelevant in this conversation. They're not voting in Arizona. And what I said earlier applies to the proportion that are in Arizona.

What? 7.2 million votes of what in 3 years?

Here's the website where it also says

A person must be a U.S. citizen in order to register and vote.

So, let's say, somehow someone that isn't a U.S. citizen votes in an Arizona election for a federal office, say...the president. How will that be verified?

Well, first of all, this is Arizona we're talking about, which barely went to Biden during the 2020 election. So there are plenty of "election integrity" watchers or whatever they liken themselves to be. And, for this to be a concern, an immigrant or several, documented or otherwise, would want to jeopardize their chance in the U.S. to vote in an election at the federal level under the conspiracy-addled eye of Arizona republicans. Because if they're undocumented, they will almost certainly be deported. If they are documented, their legal status could be stripped, and they still be deported.

And for what? To be a lone vote in a sea of 150 million to decide the presidency?

Conservatives are wild with their fears. Immigrants are both desperate to trek hundreds of miles through treacherous territory for life in the country on a hill, only to risk it all for the most insignificant method of tipping the scales in a federal election.

Your imaginary villains are irrational.

That it's being eroded by capitalism.

Or have to deal with Kari Lake