PeepinGoodArgs

@PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Since cats don't pant like dogs how do they release trapped heat?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s cute af too, with their little tongues sticking out

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If Donald Trump was black, would he have made it this far in politics?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The current Lt. Governor of North Carolina is black and worse than Trump. Idk about the sexual assault stuff, but he’s still an absolute piece of shit.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anyone else feel like Trump has a much higher chance to win then Presidency than Kamala?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  While he had fake electors last time, they weren’t as widespread as they’ve become over the last 4 years. He also didn’t have the coordination of the Heritage Foundation either like he does now. He also didn’t have a House of Representatives willing to steal the election last time.

  He has a lot going for his machinations this time.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How much salt water to kill a tree?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  What did your neighbor say about it?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why doesn't the American market provide efficient and effective health insurance like it does for car insurance?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You’re only partially right. There was a penalty for not having healthcare that was reduced to $0 where it has stayed since 2017. When that happened premiums shot up because healthier people decided to not get insurance. Considering health insurance is about pooling risk, healthier people left weren’t there to subsidize the relatively sicker folks. So, it’s also a problem of incentives

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s racism with extra steps

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Are there any complete foods recipe builders still working?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Cronometer? It’s more for calorie tracking, but it’s recipe builder does what you want.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New method turns CO2 emissions into clean fuels with 100% efficiency | This process allows the use of affordable zinc as a catalyst, making the conversion of CO2 into fuel more economically viable.⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Am I missing something? This process just reuses carbon dioxide (and creates methane, which is worse that CO2). Don’t get me wrong, this is cool chemical engineering, but…it’s not a solution.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Against the Proliferation of Sofa Ownership and Use⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Amen. Get futons instead so you can sleep anywhere in your home.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How come there aren't any moral geniuses?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Actually, that’s a good point! I brought it up in another comment, but there are mathematical geniuses, piano geniuses, scientific genius, etc. But everybody know and can agree on what math is, what a piano is and how difficult it is to play well, what science is and the long road to mastery of a sliver of human knowledge that entails.

  But not with morality.

  Personally, I think you’ve suggested an answer that satisfies me: people have no idea wtf morality or spirituality are. Plato and Aristotle once may have been able to point to someone and say, “So and so is more virtuous than us!” or “The king of a foreign nation is full of vice and worth less than coward who turns to bravery.” But it’s like modern American society cannot conceive of such a concept as moral superiority.

  I mean, some people can, and then often go on to be significantly worse than normal people. They are often the definition of immoral. But, as a general rule, saying that you’re morally superior to others barely makes any sense and, even if it did, would demand an impossible type of proof.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How come there aren't any moral geniuses?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Since you wrote this post, you probably have some idea of what a moral genius is supposed to be. Can you describe what makes a person a moral genius and maybe give an example?

  I mean, that’s interesting in and of itself. The concept of a moral genius isn’t clear. Others have brought this up, too.

  A genius is someone who generally displays some exemplary skill. Terrence Tao, for example, attended university-level mathematics courses when he was nine. Most people couldn’t have possibly have done what he did. In contrast, Pablo Picasso was also a genius, creating artistic masterpieces, among his many other talents. Many of his contemporaries didn’t achieve what he did.

  So, at least we know that geniuses can be recognized as such at any point in their life, and it seems more about achieving a level of mastery or insight into their field or practice that others aren’t privy to, even other practitioners.

  People keep saying morality is subjective, which is true, but so is art. Still, Picasso was recognized as genius. Still, there are widely recognized universal moral values, like don’t kill other people. So, I’m not sure moral subjectivity is sufficient to dismiss what I’m asking.

  Other commenters have brought up various moral philosophers like Kant and St. Augustine. Different moral frameworks, both geniuses. Sure. The same commenter brought up Buddha, and I think that’s closer to what I’m after. Buddha attained “enlightenment” and then everybody and their god came to him for moral guidance.

  I think it’s this beacon of guidance as a genius that really captures my concept of a moral genius. Like, if you’re a professional mathematician and you get stumped on a proof, you may turn to Terrence Tao to see what he thinks about resolving the apparent problem. Similarly, if you’re trying to understand some aspect of art that eludes you but you see in Picasso paintings, you might engage in-depth study of his artwork until you get what you’re trying to find.

  But let’s say you’re widely understood to be at least a good person, then who do you turn to? Who is widely understood to be a morally superior person that exceeds even the normal best to which they turn? Such a person would fit my understanding of a moral genius.

  And while children are often lauded for being innocent and pure, it’s like their untainted understanding of morality isn’t recognized as proper moral decision-making. In contrast, the Dalai Lama is often respected as spiritual leader, but I think that stems more from what the Dalai Lama is and the tradition around him rather than the inherent goodness of whoever is the Dalai Lama. The same goes for preachers/the Pope/etc. That might be unfair to discount them, though…idk.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How come there aren't any moral geniuses?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, but who is today’s Buddha?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How come there aren't any moral geniuses?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Art is subjective too, but artistic genius is a thing (but takes longer to develop, I guess. I can’t recall any young artistic geniuses)

• How come there aren't any moral geniuses?
  Submitted ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩ | ⁨30⁩ ⁨comments⁩
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Joe Biden Hands Out Obamacare to Illegal Immigrants⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The only reason I’m a citizen of American is because of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:

  Section 1.

  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

  That is, the law of the U.S. defines my status as a citizen of the U.S. by virtue of my being born here.

  Still, there are four other ways to become a citizen of the U.S.

  • by naturalization
  • by marriage
  • through parents
  • through the military

  These pathways are all outlined in various laws.

  Again, the status of immigrants who are now citizens is determined by law.

  I said earlier that “the ‘We support a legal path to citizenship for immigrants that go through the proper channels’ people do not, in fact, support a legal path to citizenship for them”. That is, Republicans generally refused to grant citizenship to immigrants by passing the DREAM Act. In their inability to govern, they did not pass a law.

  You make it seem as if citizenship is an inherent characteristic of being born in the U.S. It is not. Repeal the 14th Amendment, and birthright citizenship goes away. Change the immigration laws, and lesser or greater numbers of immigrants can be granted citizenship. You’re right, “They are not citizens of America.” But they could have been (and could be) at the stroke of pen. It is the law that determines citizenship. While I’m both an American citizen and identify as American, dreamers only identify as American. It’s only because of xenophobia that dreamers are not citizens.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Joe Biden Hands Out Obamacare to Illegal Immigrants⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It is sending a citizen of that country back to their country.

  When you say “their” country, what do you mean?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Joe Biden Hands Out Obamacare to Illegal Immigrants⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Exactly. That’s why it’s abusive. It’d be like sending a random conservative to Hungary. Though CPAC attendees may love Hungary, I doubt they’d like to be sent there forcefully when they identify as an American through and through.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Joe Biden Hands Out Obamacare to Illegal Immigrants⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Abuse for abuse is not a cure.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Joe Biden Hands Out Obamacare to Illegal Immigrants⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  No, they didn’t. They were given a chance to “protect the innocent”, as they call kids, and decided to betray them anyway.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Joe Biden Hands Out Obamacare to Illegal Immigrants⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Under the initiative, more than 100,000 illegal immigrants will be granted free healthcare under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The so-called “Dreamers” will be able to enroll in the program’s health care system beginning next year.

  Who the eff are Dreamers?

  From the pro-genocide Anti-Defamation League:

  young people impacted by DACA and the DREAM Act are often referred to as “Dreamers.”

  The recipients of DACA are young people who have grown up as Americans, identify themselves as Americans, and many speak only English and have no memory of or connection with the country where they were born. Under current immigration law, most of these young people had no way to gain legal residency even though they have lived in the U.S. most of their lives.

  Since DACA began, approximately 800,000 people have been approved for the program. To be eligible, applicants had to have arrived in the U.S. before age 16 and lived here since June 15, 2007. They could not have been older than 30 when the Department of Homeland Security enacted the policy in 2012. DACA applicants have to provide evidence they were living in the U.S. at the prescribed times, proof of education and confirmation of their identities. They also had to pass background, fingerprint and other biometric checks that record identifying biological features.

  Well, now we know who they are, but ARE THEY LEGAL? That’s the fundamental question in this carnival of marginalization.

  No. No, they’re not. But by law, they are protected from deportation, authorized to work and go to school, get a social security number, and some other stuff. And the only reason they’re not legal is because the “We support a legal path to citizenship for immigrants that go through the proper channels” people do not, in fact, support a legal path to citizenship for them, with a bit of help from weak-kneed Democrats.

  And now, this article has the audacity to stoke the fears of illegal immigration? Standard Republican politics: Republican solutions for Republican-caused problems.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Republicans / conservatives are winning the immigration and values game. Am I misguided? (read post)⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t understand how this can be so powerful, but so many people believe it and vote accordingly. It’s not rational, it is identity, it is tribe.

  Who we are and how we see ourselves is extremely powerful. Take me for example: I cultivate a self-identity of an aspiring intellectual. I generally want to be seen as rational, with evidence-based beliefs, and having spent time thinking about my own thinking. I go to great lengths to shore up this identity for myself. This may not make me popular with the ladies, and I may not be able to easily converse with my friends on pop culture topics because I prefer analyzing arguments, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.

  In contrast, some people want to be seen as loyal. This irrational to me, but it’s not like being an intellectual with properly weighted beliefs has ever been particularly useful. Being loyal means adhering to the norms of the group because it’s your group. Fundamentally, it’s about identity for those that value loyalty and want to be seen as such. They’ll side with their SO even if their SO is wrong to demonstrate that loyalty. They’ll terrorize the out-group, believing themselves virtuous, because being loyal is virtue to them.

  Republicans are winning this game. And we’re becoming increasingly tribalistic in the U.S., where loyalty is more valued than a belief in democratic pluralism. What is public transport, public healthcare, unions, expanded medicaid, access to abortion, etc, in the face of belonging, being valued as a member of a greater community? The latter is existential; the former, just policy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[Serious] Any high-quality right-wing media, books, explainers?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Oh, you wanted that, too? Shoot, I’ll save you some trouble:

  • These three below are the academic powerhouses of conservatism. The Heritage Foundation (and their news arm, The Daily Signal) are your standard rage-bait, but they still put out influential stuff)
    • Heritage Foundation (Project 2025 folks)
    • Cato Institute—Actually more Libertarian, and has praised Biden before, but generally sides with conservatives
    • American Enterprise Institute
  • Family Research Council—They hate abortion and everything to do with it. The Washington Stand is their news arm.
  • Alliance Defense Fund—Current Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, used to work for these ghouls as a lawyer.

  That’s all I got off the top of my head. I used to have RSS feeds of all of these organizations, but reading their headlines was infuriating. It was like a shot of hate every time they popped up. So, if I’m looking for arguments, I know where to go, otherwise, out of sight out of mind.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[Serious] Any high-quality right-wing media, books, explainers?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Mises’ Socialism and the economic calculation problem threw me for a loop for a while. It really rocked my preference for socialism at the time. Then I realized modern corporations with modern computing power are doing exactly what Mises says a theoretical central planner can’t do.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[Serious] Any high-quality right-wing media, books, explainers?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  While I don’t disagree exactly, the way he puts his arguments is far better than Shapiro. Reading or listening to Sowell is a lesson in uncovering sophisticated conservative arguments. It took me a while to understand how Sowell reasoned, so that’s why I include him and think he’s a great example of conservative thinkers.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[Serious] Any high-quality right-wing media, books, explainers?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, that’s what they do and say.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[Serious] Any high-quality right-wing media, books, explainers?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  For Gingrich, you can read his memo Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[Serious] Any high-quality right-wing media, books, explainers?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes! I’ve been on this journey!

  Thomas Sowell bibliography is easily the best starting place. As a prominent conservative economist, his books actually make good arguments. It takes actual effort to deconstruct his arguments and identify where he’s wrong. He’s widely and highly respected in conservative communities and tackles a lot of the common cultural war issues.

  Then there’s granddaddies Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek. Also economists, they were directly impacted by the Cold War, and make intellectual cases that capitalism is the only economic system that leads to real individual freedom. And they also try to prove why the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union undermines liberty. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom and Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom are staples.

  Castigated by modern conservatives because they’re not serious about anything, sociology’s Emile Durkheim is a cornerstone of the discipline. I’ve never read it, but his book *Suicide *concerns individuals within community and the institutions of it. He talks about a type of suicide derived from moral disorder and lack of clarity, anomic suicide.

  One book that I found incredibly insightful was Yuval Levin’s The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left. This book is genuinely fair to both sides, and it shows the historical roots of conservatism and its relation to the French Revolution, when the right and the left as political stances first became a thing.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Biden must remember the reason Jordan, Egypt, and the rest of the Middle East don’t accept Palestinian refugees⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  So, dark pluralism is just the assertion that there are no universal truths?

  Talk about cowardice…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Biden must remember the reason Jordan, Egypt, and the rest of the Middle East don’t accept Palestinian refugees⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Many of them are spent blissfully on many other things, thankfully.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Biden must remember the reason Jordan, Egypt, and the rest of the Middle East don’t accept Palestinian refugees⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Gaza’s population is uniquely unfit to thrive in a pluralistic population.

  This from a newspaper with the antidemocratic ideology of the modern American right. The real concern is having to add more pluralism to squash for the former president, current criminal defendant.