Philorandroid (u/Philorandroid)

Philorandroid commented on Did California's fast food minimum wage reduce employment? nber.org/papers/w34033... · Posted by u/lxm

tossandthrow · 7 months ago

> More to the point, not every skill level or job is _worth_ that kind of compensation ...

This is a fair stance to take, but you need to accept the consequences of the stance when people get desperate.

> attempts to circumvent market forces by making lower wages illegal at some arbitrary point have substantially more damaging externalities than 'low wages'

A population of people who can not feed themselves are going to kill you on the street for the canned tuna you might have in your bag.

> Having lost a job suddenly, any employment is better than none.

While this is true for you it is not true for the society as a whole.

This entire comment seems be written with a complete disrespect for macro dynamics and taken right out of a hunter gather society.

It completely ignores everything modern governance - and it is quite frightening.

Philorandroid · 7 months ago

In catastrophic circumstances perhaps, but the metric for actual starvation in the US is so low that finding a solid figure is difficult. Malnutrition, while higher, seems strongly correlated to child/elder abuse/neglect, and not homelessness. Street muggings for nourishment by a starving underclass is a fantastical and disingenuous narrative. And, surely, you see the dissonance in suggesting that poverty leads to crime, while also suggesting criminalizing low-wage labor?

> While this is true for you it is not true for the society as a whole...

Why isn't it? What about using the legal, practical market means at your disposal is exclusive to some privileged section of society, and why does it include me and nobody else in hard times?

Your 'rebuttal' is just a broad, dismissive gesture to theory and platitudinous insults.

Philorandroid commented on Did California's fast food minimum wage reduce employment? nber.org/papers/w34033... · Posted by u/lxm

Glyptodon · 7 months ago

I find it weird how people care so much about employment overall rather than sufficient employment. Like if a job doesn't pay enough for people to comfortably have a family and leasure time, to me it's somewhere in spectrum of slavery, indentured servitude, and poverty trap, and not compatible with a society of equals and representative government. Which is to say it's a job that shouldn't exist. While I don't think minimum wage is really the ideal mechanism of determining this, it's obvious that paying somebody federal minimum wage is an immoral exploitative joke... But also it'd likely be even worse without it.

But more to the point, why do these people obsessed with work and jobs always think anything that creates any kind of job is "good" no matter how bad, dangerous, or poorly compensated? Jobs that amount to licking poison for nickels in a country where you we could probably quarters the lowest currency denomination without issue somehow being "good" for the lockers is ludicrous. Low wages have massive negative externalities for society.

Philorandroid · 7 months ago

Having lost a job suddenly, any employment is better than none. A perfect job that provides everything you need is pretty far detached from "this is sufficient", or even "this will slow my fall while I work something else out", and this kind of bitter resentment towards anything less than a job that pays out an idyllic American existence is what causes them to be priced out by legislative fiat like the minimum wage.

More to the point, not every skill level or job is _worth_ that kind of compensation (as uncomfortable as it might be to entertain), and attempts to circumvent market forces by making lower wages illegal at some arbitrary point have substantially more damaging externalities than 'low wages' -- which are as much a system of slavery as gravity or magnetism, and just as resilient to ideation.

Philorandroid commented on Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia twitter.com/nexta_tv/stat... · Posted by u/aquir

fc417fc802 · a year ago

Your disagreement essentially amounts to "it's appropriate because it accomplishes my goal", or do I misunderstand? In a discussion of ethics that seems specious to me.

> Those looking to escalate will use any police activity against them or their group as justification to do so.

As I previously pointed out, once rioters escalate against the officers themselves most people are unlikely to raise objections to targeted use of force. That's quite different than a paramilitary force lashing out violently at anyone perceived to be up to no good.

Philorandroid · a year ago

> Your disagreement essentially amounts to "it's appropriate because it accomplishes my goal", or do I misunderstand? In a discussion of ethics that seems specious to me.

My disagreement is that the ongoing or imminent unlawful destruction of property should be allowed to be met with _appropriate_ deterring force, whether by law enforcement or by the property owners. I argue that because in a system of individual rights that include property ownership, the position that an impassioned crowd has more right to that property than the owner (by damaging or destroying it in this case) is morally indefensible.

> once rioters escalate against the officers themselves most people are unlikely to raise objections to targeted use of force.

That is untrue for at least the last decade or so. After the 2015 Baltimore riots, President Obama couldn't even popularly get away with referring to rioters as "thugs"[1] after ~300 businesses were damaged, 60 buildings set on fire, 113 police officers injured and 27 drugstores looted. Since then, there have been plentiful riots and mass demonstrations that either turned violent or otherwise sheltered violent activity, including the moment in 2020 that spawned the "mostly peaceful protests" meme of the reporter with a building burning down behind him because of the rose-tinted glasses public analysts used in their coverage. Mayors and governors gave lip service to violent demonstrations like CHAZ/CHOP [2] while violence was taking place, and only tepidly supported law enforcement's presence to curtail it after the fact.

_To this day_ those actions are routinely and popularly dismissed as racial outrage, justified, etc. largely along political boundaries, all to the detriment of the thousands of individuals whose livelihoods were damaged or destroyed as result. The idea that good consciences will win the day and protestors will distance themselves from n'er-do-wells among them is, as a standard, irreconcilable with the countless recorded hours of protest footage that exist.

Rights aren't trumped by implicit public vote to destroy your property, any more than two thieves can vote that they need their victim's wallet more than them, or a gang of rapists can hold a 5-1 vote for consent. QED, immediate and active threats against property should, morally and legally, warrant an appropriate amount of force to defend it.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/us/baltimore-riots-thug-n-wor... [2] https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/chop-seattle-mayor-walks-b...

Philorandroid commented on Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia twitter.com/nexta_tv/stat... · Posted by u/aquir

fc417fc802 · a year ago

> Why can't some reasonable degree of force be used

No one said that. It was suggested that physically injuring someone in direct retaliation for property damage wasn't appropriate. Add to that the fact that riot control measures are hardly targeted.

There are many non-violent options available. Sometimes rioters will escalate violently against the officers carrying those out. It's far less likely anyone objects to proportionate and necessary use of force in such cases.

Philorandroid · a year ago

If threat of injury is what stops someone from destroying your car, then it's appropriately leveraged.

I'm also curious, what kind of effective, 'non-violent' means are there to control the initial mob-martyrs, and ensure level-handed justice is served? Those looking to escalate will use any police activity against them or their group as justification to do so.

Philorandroid commented on Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia twitter.com/nexta_tv/stat... · Posted by u/aquir

giraffe_lady · a year ago

> There's no amount of pushback or repercussion that a rioter will feel is fair or humane

I mean you're talking about using violence against people to stop or prevent property damage. Most options are off the table in the moment, in the same way you can't execute someone if you catch them vandalizing your car. Smashing their fingers with a hammer wouldn't probably kill them but you can't do that either.

After-the-fact repercussions like criminal charges or civil liabilities, well, it doesn't matter how they feel about it? That's not how court works.

Philorandroid · a year ago

This reads like you suppose the only thing to do is let rioters vent their outrage against whatever objects happen to be in their way at the time, and hope that there exists some legal comeuppance after the fact.

Why can't some reasonable degree of force be used to prevent property damage? What moral dilemma exists that makes protecting property deserve a comparison to executing someone?

Philorandroid commented on Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia twitter.com/nexta_tv/stat... · Posted by u/aquir

__MatrixMan__ · a year ago

If you were at a protest that was starting to get a bit rowdy and somebody used one of these on you, what would you do? I'd either come back prepared for actual violence, or switch from protest to sabotage.

It just screams "escalation" to me.

Philorandroid · a year ago

Are chemical irritants preferable, then? Or just LEOs in riot gear with rubber batons? There's no amount of pushback or repercussion that a rioter will feel is fair or humane, and the mindset of "I'll turn violent and/or destructive if my participation in civil unrest is punished" is a perfect justification for these systems to exist.

Philorandroid commented on Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science reason.com/2024/11/18/how... · Posted by u/Bostonian

BadHumans · a year ago

I think it is fair to say that through the nomination process, whoever is voted to run as the Republican nominee for president is considered to be the best representative for the party. Looking at the president-elect and all of the leaders of the party, saying they have "fringe beliefs in some cases" is severely downplaying it.

Philorandroid · a year ago

That's a naive way to see it. People vote _against_ the other candidate, against what they fear is worse. And, if the theory that the frontrunner is the best representation of the party holds true, it speaks quite poorly for the Democrats appointing Harris despite Biden winning the vote of his party, no?

And, again, tu quoque; even if the GOP was exhaustively comprised of reality-evading lunatics, voters and all, it wouldn't excuse stooping to their level -- the DNC's _explicit_ support of racial identitarianism, benevolent racism, and biological denialism run in direct opposition to this supposed moral high ground they tacitly hold.

Philorandroid commented on Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science reason.com/2024/11/18/how... · Posted by u/Bostonian

UncleMeat · a year ago

This is not "some cases." This is core policy of the party. You can see major leaders within state and federal legislative and executive bodies actively denying climate change research on a daily basis.

Philorandroid · a year ago

So biological denialism is a morally superior position to hold, then? Democratic leaders can't ever seem to acknowledge biological differences between the sexes, certainly not with regards to competitive advantages.

As for it being "core policy", I'd need to a see a citation, otherwise it's conjecture. The 2024 GOP platform [1] doesn't mention climate change, global warming, IPCC, et al. once, whereas the DNC's platform [2] discusses it at length.

[1] https://ballotpedia.org/The_Republican_Party_Platform,_2024 [2] https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTE...

Philorandroid commented on Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science reason.com/2024/11/18/how... · Posted by u/Bostonian

felixgallo · a year ago

[flagged]

Philorandroid · a year ago

Unequivocally. Remember that the parties aren't diametric opposites, and are capable of evading reality simultaneously.

Philorandroid commented on Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science reason.com/2024/11/18/how... · Posted by u/Bostonian

wolfram74 · a year ago

We have such low standards for republicans, it's amazing. We complain that democrats are increasingly acknowleding that science is done by humans and humans will tend to ask questions based on what phenomena they've encountered and what explanations they've been given in their lives up til then, but totally give the republicans a pass on catering to groups that deny global warming, evolution or even that the world is more than 6000 years old.

Philorandroid · a year ago

Tu quoque; Republicans harboring fringe beliefs in some cases isn't a response to Democrats' mainstream acceptance of beliefs that the scientific method doesn't accurately reflect reality.