Report comment

Report comment

For the first one, in my view, the major lasting mental damage that SJWs do is to make other people SJWs — to impose cultish conformity on others — to make them incapable of simple moral distinctions and incapable of seeing evidence for what it is, to cause people to interpret events through a received ideology on their own terms, to cause people to divide the world and their views of people into good/evil (often extremely poorly, so that certain people are allowed to get away with some very bad behavior that hurts a demonized other) and to make people incapable of understanding the true nature of social power. (None of that has to do with PTSD.)

As far as the damage that SJWs do to non-SJWs on a personal level, I don’t think that is (usually) as significant, nor do I think it is primarily “mental.” The SJWs sow conflict and break apart or strain relationships; they do damage to other people’s social standing and reputation; etc.. Perhaps, through these indirect means, PTSD could result, but I’m fairly skeptical; it certainly couldn’t be common. Yet, the social/reputation/material damage is a real thing all the same.

The most severe kind of damage though is political. At least to the extent that SJW analysis displaces more realistic political analysis, it hurts everyone by generating bad policy.

Report comment

That would require me to believe that you don’t hold the same standards. I’m pretty you would not have used that phrase in a normal conversation.

“Nope. That’s straightforward tit-for-tat. ”

Those aren’t mutually exclusive. Passive aggressive is indirect hostility. Tit for tat is done when you don’t trust someone to the point where you aren’t willing to give them any benefit of the doubt and will immediately respond negatively if you think they are.

“And I note that you’ve now called me a “jerk”, which I’ve never called you. ”

How about this? You be polite because the rules of the blog rules of the blog require it and don’t view it as a zero sum bargaining chip to barter around.

Report comment

Report comment

Why would I?

Because you want me to be kind to you by your standards, and this is a way of achieving that goal.

(yes “I’ll go back to being an insulting jerk if you don’t meet my standards” is passive aggressive).

Nope. That’s straightforward tit-for-tat.

And I note that you’ve now called me a “jerk”, which I’ve never called you. So now I’m going to stop responding unless you either agree to take my offered deal or make a proposal of your own aimed at finding a way we can both be kinder to each other by our standards. Because in my experience once words like “jerk” get tossed around, the conversation is probably going to degenerate fast.

If this is the end then, thank you, it’s been stimulating.

Report comment

Why would I? You were passive aggressive and I reserve the right to ignore anyone talking about politeness while being passive aggressive. (yes “I’ll go back to being an insulting jerk if you don’t meet my standards” is passive aggressive).

“And if the warlords are still making money, then why would they come to the peace table? (Also, if they have all of these attractive alternative options, why are they not exploiting them already? Fighting a war is expensive.)”

They don’t come to the peace table. They run out of money, can’t afford troops or weapons and the government strikes. We crush them until the remainder comes to the peace table.

Also the reason they aren’t using the alternate options is because they pay less. They will only go into them if labor is freed up.

“Which means you’re saying “Let’s take the option that involves depriving them of their livelihood.””

Yeah, being shot in a civil war doesn’t deprive people of anything vital.

“Charitable aid can be stolen. ”

And? I’m claiming charity is a better option than funneling money directly to warlords. Even if ALL the money is stolen it is a better choice- you know, since it isn’t being spent on ways to kill people.

“Also, people who buy expensive jewellery for the purposes of showing how much money they have are not going to get the same effect by buying cheaper jewellery and donating money to charity, otherwise they’d already be doing it. ”

Yes, selfish jerks are selfish. That’s why you try to get their behavior socially disapproved of so they change it. You know, like the entire campaign against blood diamonds is about.

“Pretty much yeah. Although drugs do have direct health effects on the buyer that precious stones don’t, so, my position is a bit more like “If you’re going to buy drugs, and the quality is the same, then consider buying them from poor people in third-world countries.””

The Angolan civil war was fueled by diamonds and killed half a million people out of a total population of 24 million. Why are you ignoring “people killed in civil wars and by warlords”?

“if you weren’t then your original claim about how people didn’t care about individual diamonds was entirely unsupported”

…
Me previously
“Additionally diamonds aren’t like other mining ventures- only recently did it stop being under monopoly control and people care about individual diamonds.”
…

“Nope, turning an ill-defined word into an adjective does not magically make it well-defined. ”

monopoloid in bing (first hit)
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

Yes, it has a definition that means exactly what we are talking about. If you want to exclude the ones that are related to true monopolies, you can put a qualifier in front of it. Or say monopoloid but not a monopoly.

“I did re-read as you requested. It didn’t improve on a second encounter. Really, you’re comparing poor African diamond miners to rich oil drillers in a “humorous way”?”

No, I’m comparing your CONCERN about how poor diamond miners will be tied up by paper work with worrying about poor oil drillers. Diamond miners get beaten and killed and your worry is that the paper work will be too complex for them to fill out. War wages, millions of people get displaced and you worry about people being able to get a paycheck. I’d say starvation, but all the other people screwed over by civil wars face starvation and don’t mention a glance so that doesn’t seem to be your true objection.

Report comment

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/04/so-youve-been-publicly-shamed-trevor-noah-and-why-everyone-needs-to-quiet-down-about-everything/389360/?utm_source=btn-twitter-pckt

This case happened in 2013, but it’s so crazy: http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spiraled-way-out-of-control/

Cheers.

Report comment

Why would they have nearly as much money? They just need to be making more than what it costs to pay the miners subsistence wages.

And if the warlords are still making money, then why would they come to the peace table? (Also, if they have all of these attractive alternative options, why are they not exploiting them already? Fighting a war is expensive.)

Omelas is magic utilitarian consequentialism. This is “people are going to die no matter what option we take. Lets not take the one that involves paying for the guns to kill them”.

Which means you’re saying “Let’s take the option that involves depriving them of their livelihood.”

And while we’re at it, we’ll compare them to rich oil drillers in a “humorous way”.

Since mined diamonds are used almost solely to make expensive jewelry and show they are expensive, you can help kids a lot more effectively by donating to charity and buying artificial diamonds or fake jewelry.

Charitable aid can be stolen.

(Also, people who buy expensive jewellery for the purposes of showing how much money they have are not going to get the same effect by buying cheaper jewellery and donating money to charity, otherwise they’d already be doing it. They’ll buy something else expensive, eg diamonds from some nice stable country like Botswana or Australia where a detailed paper trail is much more achievable.)

Buy drugs kids or else Colombians won’t be able to feed their kids!

Pretty much yeah. Although drugs do have direct health effects on the buyer that precious stones don’t, so, my position is a bit more like “If you’re going to buy drugs, and the quality is the same, then consider buying them from poor people in third-world countries.”

No, but were are using it in the vernacular “dominates the market”. Precision doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion.

On the contrary, precision is essential. It’s one thing to use “monopoly” in the sense of “dominates the market”, but you were equivocating between the loose vernacular sense of “dominates the market” and the also loose vernacular, but different, sense of “is the sole supplier” (if you weren’t then your original claim about how people didn’t care about individual diamonds was entirely unsupported). It’s a logical error, the equivocation fallacy.

“Firstly, economics doesn’t have more exact jargon.”

Sure it does. Monopoloid.

Nope, turning an ill-defined word into an adjective does not magically make it well-defined.

Read my statement again.

I did re-read as you requested. It didn’t improve on a second encounter. Really, you’re comparing poor African diamond miners to rich oil drillers in a “humorous way”?

Report comment

Why would they have nearly as much money? They just need to be making more than what it costs to pay the miners subsistence wages.

“Yes, and we are back to the problem of The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. ”

Omelas is magic utilitarian consequentialism. This is “people are going to die no matter what option we take. Lets not take the one that involves paying for the guns to kill them”.

“just that not buying blood diamonds causes suffering of kids on its own. ”

Since mined diamonds are used almost solely to make expensive jewelry and show they are expensive, you can help kids a lot more effectively by donating to charity and buying artificial diamonds or fake jewelry.

“And cut those off and they also don’t have the funds to feed their children. ”

Buy drugs kids or else Colombians won’t be able to feed their kids!

“So what? We’re not having a discussion about the historical evolution of the term “monopoly”. ”

No, but were are using it in the vernacular “dominates the market”. Precision doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion.

“Yes, but if something is a difference, how is it relevant? In this case, the ban on tin, gold, cocoa and oil was effective enough to cause prices to drop sharply, and what happened was an increase in conflict. ”

Tin and gold. Cocoa and oil were other case studies they mentioned; in those case studies different effects were seen and the effects changed based on what other commodities were also being produced in the area.

“Firstly, economics doesn’t have more exact jargon.”

Sure it does. Monopoloid.

Me
“It was a humorous way of highlighting the thing you are worried about is the opposite of the problem on the ground (which are that people have an incentive to cover up atrocities against miners in order to keep the money coming in).”

You
“Huh? Because oil drillers are rich, therefore diamond miners must all be rich?”

Read my statement again.

Report comment