Yahoo pushes idea of white, male, heterosexual, and non-disabled privilege..

Originally posted by Artol
I don't think BDSM is immoral. I do think indentured servitude is immoral. I think prostitution isn't inherently immoral but in practice often is.

Why isn't bdsm immoral to you ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Why isn't bdsm immoral to you ?

Because it is a consensual practice that generally doesn't do long term harm to the participants. We can of course go into where it goes from BDSM to something that should not be permitted, or we can talk about how certain power imbalances can make it into a non-consensual activity and therefore immoral, but at the base of it I don't see why it should be immoral really.

Originally posted by Artol
Because it is a consensual practice that generally doesn't do long term harm to the participants. We can of course go into where it goes from BDSM to something that should not be permitted, or we can talk about how certain power imbalances can make it into a non-consensual activity and therefore immoral, but at the base of it I don't see why it should be immoral really.

Nonconsensual sexual interaction would immediately leave the definition and move to rape, no ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Nonconsensual sexual interaction would immediately leave the definition and move to rape, no ?

Yeah, but obviously there's some grey zones in the legal processes of that. Like it may be hard to establish what is coercive and what isn't. But that seems like a bit of a sideshow.

Originally posted by Artol
Yeah, but obviously there's some grey zones in the legal processes of that. Like it may be hard to establish what is coercive and what isn't. But that seems like a bit of a sideshow.

Hmm, maybe using combat sports would be better.

If two men agree to mutual combat, think mma, and one guy punches the other guy hard enough to kill him and he died, should he, assuming he followed all the rules, be charged for anything ?

The answer to me is a simple and obvious no, because mutual consent is given. This idea can only be propped up via taking for granted that property rights are absolute.

I thought as much was clear with bdsm, but maybe not.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Hmm, maybe using combat sports would be better.

If two men agree to mutual combat, think mma, and one guy punches the other guy hard enough to kill him and he died, should he, assuming he followed all the rules, be charged for anything ?

The answer to me is a simple and obvious no, because mutual consent is given. This idea can only be propped up via taking for granted that property rights are absolute.

I thought as much was clear with bdsm, but maybe not.

If a combatant dies in a legal combat sport, and the opponent did not go too far as it had become apparent that the opponent was on the brink of death I do not think they should be charged. Similarly if the organizers took reasonable precautions to ensure such an outcome was very unlikely, I don't think they should be liable either, but cutting corners in some way or being dishonest in the communication might end to legal liability.

What I don't think should ever be legal is combat to the death. Or even certain combat sports with a very high likelihood of such an outcome.

Originally posted by Artol
If a combatant dies in a legal combat sport, and the opponent did not go too far as it had become apparent that the opponent was on the brink of death I do not think they should be charged. Similarly if the organizers took reasonable precautions to ensure such an outcome was very unlikely, I don't think they should be liable either, but cutting corners in some way or being dishonest in the communication might end to legal liability.

What I don't think should ever be legal is combat to the death. Or even certain combat sports with a very high likelihood of such an outcome.

This is reasonable and I agree. Now where we may deviate is here: the legal liability would be dispensed by private arbitration as opposed to a state.

Your views on bodily autonomy and accountability seem reasonable and I think I have a firm grasp where you stand. I'm going to respond to the longer post tomorrow, after I gather some thoughts.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
This is reasonable and I agree. Now where we may deviate is here: the legal liability would be dispensed by private arbitration as opposed to a state.

Your views on bodily autonomy and accountability seem reasonable and I think I have a firm grasp where you stand. I'm going to respond to the longer post tomorrow, after I gather some thoughts.

I don't mind private arbitration, but I think at some point if there are disagreements there must be a decision and an executing instance. Like if the wife of the fighter requests arbitration and the organizers deny it or do not comply with an arbitration agreement I think there should be an instance that can be appealed to that forces the compliance, and of course that mechanism should have some form of evaluating which claim to support, and then we are at least more or less at a state-like structure.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I'm glad I asked you ! You're right on most of it except conflating corporatism/crony capitalism/state capitalism/fascism.

Here is the definition I find is best and excludes everything except an entity providing value to another entity.

The conflation between a free market and crony cap is why all the anti capitalistic zeal exists. To me it was a clever bait and switch via the corporations that only exist as a result of the unlimited power of the state.

A 'pure' capitalist system (a Randian anarcho-capitalism) is the worst option, as that directly results in a neo-feudal scenario where corporations can do as much horrific stuff as they like, and are unable to be protested as there is nobody to appeal to. So capitalism in its purest form is indistinguishable from feudalism or fascism, really.

A socialist market system is not capitalism as I do not think markets are inherently capitalist, as they existed before capitalism in many other forms of state. Capitalism is not just 'individualism', after all, it's a fairly modern conception and I don't think many people have much of an idea how it is designed to function. That's not to say I'm a socialist, though.

The one plus, as I said before, is that it is a system designed to collapse after it reaches terminal capacity.

As a bit of background to where I came to these conclusions: Up until basically this year / late last year I considered myself a 'capitalist' economically, I was more-or-less a 'capitalist realist' in that I couldn't see any other model working, despite still being a critic of the system. Through these Covid lockdowns I had time to see what was happening in the world, and examine my knowledge of capitalism through various Marxist and Post-Marxist lenses, and these are my conclusions. Economically I am not a naturally-inclined leftist, but more of an extremely jaded capitalist.

Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah, I use 'capitalism' as a catch-all because it accurately describes where corporatism etc. comes from. Capitalism as a system is designed to have smaller and smaller interest groups amass capital and become more powerful over time, so any capitalist system ends in corporatism, without exception, so they are indistinguishable to me.

A 'pure' capitalist system (a Randian anarcho-capitalism) is the worst option, as that directly results in a neo-feudal scenario where corporations can do as much horrific stuff as they like, and are unable to be protested as there is nobody to appeal to. So capitalism in its purest form is indistinguishable from feudalism or fascism, really.

A socialist market system is not capitalism as I do not think markets are inherently capitalist, as they existed before capitalism in many other forms of state. Capitalism is not just 'individualism', after all, it's a fairly modern conception and I don't think many people have much of an idea how it is designed to function. That's not to say I'm a socialist, though.

The one plus, as I said before, is that it is a system designed to collapse after it reaches terminal capacity.

As a bit of background to where I came to these conclusions: Up until basically this year / late last year I considered myself a 'capitalist' economically, I was more-or-less a 'capitalist realist' in that I couldn't see any other model working, despite still being a critic of the system. Through these Covid lockdowns I had time to see what was happening in the world, and examine my knowledge of capitalism through various Marxist and Post-Marxist lenses, and these are my conclusions. Economically I am not a naturally-inclined leftist, but more of an extremely jaded capitalist.

So you're pro lockdown ?

Originally posted by Artol
I don't mind private arbitration, but I think at some point if there are disagreements there must be a decision and an executing instance. Like if the wife of the fighter requests arbitration and the organizers deny it or do not comply with an arbitration agreement I think there should be an instance that can be appealed to that forces the compliance, and of course that mechanism should have some form of evaluating which claim to support, and then we are at least more or less at a state-like structure.

In a free market, there would be many many arbitration businesses and businesses that review things, think yelp, google reviews etc.

So if you had an org like ufc, they had a fighter die under negligence, then didn't take accountability, then people would watch someone else like dream or bellator.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
So you're pro lockdown ?

Originally posted by Scribble
No. All lockdowns have achieved is to make the rich richer and poor poorer. Small businesses have tanked whilst the largest companies have consolidated their power and place in the market. Amazon is the most horrifying example. Plus also I just don't think social authoritarianism is moral (for the most part).

The lockdowns are an example of totalitarian control. The rich getting richer, as a result of welfare/subsidy, taking advantage of state policy etc, is part of my argument for a free market.

This would not have happened under a free market, as people in a free market can only become rich by providing value to customers.

P.s. your evaluation of what happened is spot on

Originally posted by ilikecomics
In a free market, there would be many many arbitration businesses and businesses that review things, think yelp, google reviews etc.

So if you had an org like ufc, they had a fighter die under negligence, then didn't take accountability, then people would watch someone else like dream or bellator.

Yeah, I get that, I just don't think it is really realistic at the complexity of society we are talking about. People just don't have the time, access or ability to perfectly research, so people have to outsource some of that and have trust. It would be a similar problem we see now with investigative journalism and with whistleblowers, they often aren't heard at all or even actively attacked.

In the UFC example, I think it would be much more likely that most outlets (newspapers, rating agencies, etc,) would just not cover it, and then those outlets associated with UFC would drive a propaganda campaign (perhaps the fighter can be claimed to have been on drugs, or it was just an unrelated heart attack) that will convince many people, who don't have much skin in the game. And the momentum of having a giant powerful corporation will just carry it forth. I think it is pretty unlikely that anyone will switch from UFC because of that, I mean we all sort of know in what monstrous, sweat shops our clothes are made, but most of us still buy them anyways.

I do like the idea of the utopia that ancaps describe, I just don't think it would ever work out that way, and on the road to it we would be dismantling the few safeguards we have against the domination of a small minority of super wealthy.

Originally posted by Scribble
Sorry, I have no reason or desire to speak to you, Adam. You argue in bad faith, have consistently treated me like shit and harassed me, and once purposefully tried to induce me into a mental breakdown simply because you don't like me. Go spin on a dick, chuck.

And tbh, your post is so idiotic that it doesn't deserve a response anyway. Go read some theory, lmao.

That is a lot of words to say you cannot address the content of the post. Spare us the pity party.

Originally posted by cdtm
Sure. Like a homely fat man will have less success then a guy built like a movie star.

The problem with trying to "fix" something like that, is you can't really do it without taking an opportunity away from someone else.

Maybe that black guy would have gotten more call backs if not for racism. That doesn't justify quota's, or points systems, for blacks. All that does is substitute a natural injustice for a man made injustice.

Wrong. Equality is not a zero sum game. Elevating people who are disadvantaged does not require lowering people who are not.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Is the divide between the believers of privilege and people who don't think privilege is a legitimate construct is because the lens each side is looking through ?

The people who endorse the idea of privilege seem to think more on an aggregate/collectivistic level, whereas the people who don't endorse it as a construct are looking at things on an individual level ?

It's easy for an anti privilege person to say they know a poor white guy, therefore privilege is a bad metric, when someone endorsing the idea of privilege say whites have privilege.

Personally, everything i believe is underpinned by individualism - from my views on economics, to interpersonal relationships, therefore I think the idea of privilege is a very unsophisticated heuristic for judging anything.

Thoughts ?

People who do not believe that priviledge exists are the same people who think the existence of an exception disproves the rule.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
The lockdowns are an example of totalitarian control. The rich getting richer, as a result of welfare/subsidy, taking advantage of state policy etc, is part of my argument for a free market.

This would not have happened under a free market, as people in a free market can only become rich by providing value to customers.

P.s. your evaluation of what happened is spot on

That said, I am not particularly economically learned and so getting into the nitty-gritty of how markets work isn't my forte.

Originally posted by Artol
I do like the idea of the utopia that ancaps describe, I just don't think it would ever work out that way, and on the road to it we would be dismantling the few safeguards we have against the domination of a small minority of super wealthy.

Originally posted by Artol
Because it is a consensual practice that generally doesn't do long term harm to the participants. We can of course go into where it goes from BDSM to something that should not be permitted, or we can talk about how certain power imbalances can make it into a non-consensual activity and therefore immoral, but at the base of it I don't see why it should be immoral really.

Consensual non-consent is a fetish.

Read some blogs from 24/7 slaves. Seemed pretty domestic and ordinary, between the bits where the wife said she REALLY hated something or other. Had a fit running outside in the snow in her bathrobe in one incident.

Originally posted by Artol
Yeah, I get that, I just don't think it is really realistic at the complexity of society we are talking about. People just don't have the time, access or ability to perfectly research, so people have to outsource some of that and have trust. It would be a similar problem we see now with investigative journalism and with whistleblowers, they often aren't heard at all or even actively attacked.

In the UFC example, I think it would be much more likely that most outlets (newspapers, rating agencies, etc,) would just not cover it, and then those outlets associated with UFC would drive a propaganda campaign (perhaps the fighter can be claimed to have been on drugs, or it was just an unrelated heart attack) that will convince many people, who don't have much skin in the game. And the momentum of having a giant powerful corporation will just carry it forth. I think it is pretty unlikely that anyone will switch from UFC because of that, I mean we all sort of know in what monstrous, sweat shops our clothes are made, but most of us still buy them anyways.

I do like the idea of the utopia that ancaps describe, I just don't think it would ever work out that way, and on the road to it we would be dismantling the few safeguards we have against the domination of a small minority of super wealthy.

The alternative are the public courts where litigation can last year's, enriching the legal class, which also puts the smaller guy at a disadvantage in a legal war of attrition. The public courts aren't beholden to other correction mechanisms, the opposite is true for private courts, because there's competition between courts as well. Cases handled by mediators are much cheaper and are more satisfactory to the people using it, because they're consumers. If you give consumers a shitty product you won't be open long.

Yes, the people who don't have time would outsource to aforementioned arbitration agencies/conflict dispute agencies. If these companies are for profit then it would follow they would provide arbitration to the best of their ability or be out competed by cheaper or more efficient ones.

The reason whistle blowers are attacked is because legacy media plays defense for the big institutions that fund them. The cia has been involved with the news and the papers forever.
So this problem is the States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

In the case of the ufc, both the fighter and the ufc would sign a contract that would recognize a conflict resolution agency.
The resolution agency would be selected because of it's good reviews. If either party backed out or broke contract, they would be categorized as oath breakers, then no one would want to do business with them.

How many fighters would want to fight for a company that signed a contract to, say, reimburse his family if he gets hurt/dies, then doesn't honor that ?

The obvious answer is that they'd fight for competing mma companies, like pride or dream.

Anarcho capitalism isn't utopian whatsoever and has been castigated as such by statist propaganda.

Anarcho = no state.
Capitalism = free market aka people only making mutually consented trades/contract.

https://mises.org/wire/libertarianism-utopian

Read this article, it dispels alot of the arguments one could make that it's utopian