Total posts: 2,855
Posted in:
In most cases when self-defense is discussed, it refers to killing or otherwise harming someone attacking you. Rarely is it applied to situations where people who don't pose a threat are harmed to protect oneself. For example, harvesting someone's kidneys without their consent to save yourself is not self-defense, presuming they have nothing to do with your own kidneys failing. Cops could arrest the family members of criminals to reduce crime rates, but arresting those family members wouldn't be self-defense.
Much is said about Israel's right to defend itself whenever civilian casualties are brought up. And of course the same argument is brought up for other countries whose attacks have high casualty rates. But if we've learned anything from the previous two examples, it's that self-defense only implies the right to kill the person attacking you, not the right to attack anyone at all. So while there might be potential arguments to justify attacks killing noncombatants, I find it hard to buy that self-defense is one of them. If an attack kills five terrorists and five noncombatants, you can argue self-defense to justify killing the terrorists, but not so much the five noncombatants.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
why it is such a big issue for so many people, can anybody explain?
Well, it's an issue for people with gender dysphoria, which isn't all transgender people but a significant number of them. No one with gender dysphoria seems to enjoy having it. Even among those who transition, dysphoria doesn't totally go away. Which indicates to me that we probably don't understand as much about it as we should.
If asking "How do trans people feel about terms that distinguish sex?" is somehow triggering to people, I don't know how any progress is going to get made understanding this issue. Don't they communicate their preferences, like, all the time?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It is the only non-transient cause.
Sure, but it's pretty useful to measure short term price changes too. Also measuring price changes wouldn't necessarily tell you just the effects of the money supply, since there could be short term factors like tariffs affecting the current price.
Government spending is always dead weight.
Public goods aren't always deadweight. It's good to have roads and schools.
It is justice and prosperity that matters most.
Predictability helps achieve prosperity. Companies like to know how many goods they need to produce and how to price them. Consumers like knowing how much to save and invest.
Why is 2% more predictable than 0%?
Well, either way would probably involve govt intervention but could be predictable. 2% is better because it's hard to control inflation exactly and it acts as a buffer against deflation. Deflation is likely worse for a number of reasons, one being that sticky wages can easily cause unemployment during a downturn.
Anything that can be charted on the supply demand curve is just moving weight around.
But those short term price increases matter to consumers, and they're what's directly measured by looking at the price of goods. Not that the short term is the only thing that matters, it's just a useful thing to measure.
Either you meant "a general increase in prices" which would be an imprecise definition of inflation
Prices don't always rise at the same rate, so the inflation rate is based on the overall trend.
What is the term for the increase in general prices due to an excess increase in money supply?
Increase in general prices is inflation regardless of the cause.
Reading as "the money supply is the main cause of general increases in all prices"What else can cause general (permanent) increase in all prices?
I agree that it's the main cause, just not the only cause in the short term. Inflation rates are measured over short periods, you have to account somewhat for short term trends.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's like saying pressure is often measured by the gravity force of a liquid metal, so there was some utility in using a definition corresponding to what was being measured.Oh wait, they kinda do, mm of mercury.
The price of goods is the direct effect on the customer. They don't care about the money supply otherwise.
Uniformly rising prices is the effect, inflating money supply is the cause.
It's one cause, not the only one.
They are definitely taxes and thus theft, not directly on the consumer (almost none of which have the first clue about importing)
The taxes are paid by buyers. Not really relevant which party pays the tax, but much of the incidence of the tax falls on consumers.
Define efficiency in this context.
Lack of deadweight loss or negative changes in consumer behavior.
Yet dips are correlated with inflation.
Hyperinflation, sure. So is deflation. Controlled, 2% inflation is fine, it's predictability that matters most.
They don't always make the price go up either. They can change behavior and thus shift the supply/demand curve drastically which means there are no absolute predictions, just a few absolute facts
Decreased supply/taxes increase prices. Even if there's some rare exception, we're talking about if they can contribute to price increases.
Yes it would, it's the increase in the cost of goods CAUSED by the excess increase in the money supply.
That's one cause, probably the main cause, but not always the only cause.
The problem is the equivocation of inflation with any increase in prices whatsoever
That's not a problem if that's the definition we use now. People know that it's referring to a change in prices, even if that change might be temporary.
In other words this is one of the rare instances where people's shallow understanding is actually exactly right, they are calling "all the prices are going up" "inflation" and that is exactly what it is even if they don't generally understand why.
So the definition isn't misleading.
It's not open taxation, it's not war, it's not disease; it's money printing.
Sometimes it's all four.
Then what is the new term for inflation?
The new term for what you call inflation? An increase in the money supply. The term for prices going up? Inflation.
Is this new term on the lips of every citizen when they shake their heads at the totals in stores? If the answer is "no" that would mean the subversion has succeeded because that IS the cause of that bottom number going up and up and up.
The money supply is the main cause of inflation but not the only supply. If anything, we understand this better now. People used inflation to mean "prices going up" since forever, their limited understanding of why that is hasn't changed.
Created:
For those reading this in the future: WyIted changed his profile picture to Mao Zedong
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
because CPI wasn't a redefinition of a "useful concept, one which if forgotten would leave people unable to understand critical dynamics of fiat currency systems".
Again, the economic understanding of fiat currency hasn't been lost. Inflation was commonly measured as the rise in prices, so there was some utility in using a definition corresponding to what was being measured. If anything, this is less misleading, since the old definition could lead people to assume that something other than the price of goods was being measured.
subvert thousands of years of cultural baggage, legal implications, and social privileges
I know it's not really the topic, but aren't the "cultural baggage and social privileges" the basis for gender theory (i.e. the "social role" view)? I mean, I agree that the newer definition of "woman" is not very consistently defined, but it appeals to the "cultural baggage" that you're mentioning. If you want a definition for woman based strictly on biological sex, then none of that matters.
That's why everything is getting better. <- sarcasm
Again, not really the topic, but living standards are generally going up in the long term. The stock market is crashing now, but overall it tends to go up.
I claim countries die from hyperinflation. Which is a particular form of government theft.After a variant of a disease is named, there is no honest reason to change the name.
Are tariffs not government theft too then? It's a direct tax on consumers that makes them have to pay more. A particularly inefficient form of theft, too, because of how much deadweight loss it incurs.
Taxation and direct destruction of the means of production can increase some prices, but in that case the price of labor goes down until a critical point after which the black market becomes the only means of survival and which prices mean nothing.
Tariffs don't always make the price of labor go down. And even if they did, tariffs don't always force huge black markets. They don't tend to be this broad anyway.
it doesn't matter if the new definition is interesting, all that matters is that there was no good reason to use that word, only subversive reasons.
It's not misleading, though. It would be misleading if we said inflation was the cost of goods but only measured the money supply. Or if we said it was the money supply but measured the cost of goods (what happened with the old definition). Since what inflation is called and what is being measured are the same thing, it's not misleading.
To attempt to redefine inflation after the people's mind was made up is pure sophistry.
The understanding that price increases are strongly related to the money supply (and to a lesser extent, other factors) hasn't changed. Terms used for different things have adjusted, but that's like saying people who speak English have a different understanding of economics than people who speak Spanish.
an attack on conceptual clarity
The definition is clear and consistent with what is being measured. It's not a contradictory or confusing concept. People aren't incapable of understanding the most common definition any more than they're incapable of understanding what "bully" means.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
by that means attempt no redefinition
The definition has already changed. Changing it back requires more hassle. You don't object to the term "CPI," so why object to the term inflation? The Federal Reserve tries to hit a 2% target for inflation, and the current definition is most useful for that end.
I think the average understanding was much better, due in large part to people describing themselves as "economists" being significantly more honest on average.
Economics has advanced since the 60s, in part due to having more data to work with.
When we see countries dying of hyperinflation it is never because of the other transient and insignificant factors that could affect CPI. It hasn't been tariffs, or covid, or ukraine that moved the CPI of the western world this past decade.
Well, according to your definition no, but that's not really saying anything because your definition doesn't take anything in to account except the money supply. And I don't think I claimed anyone was "dying of hyperinflation," just that prices were generally going up. Tariffs and covid and wars can increase prices.
The sole purpose of such a redefinition is to decouple the objective evil with the already identified cause of the evil.
Except wars and tariffs and sickness have identifiable negative effects on the economy, even if they aren't the main source of price increases. If anything, an increase in the money supply is the most tolerable cause for price increases since it's possible for wages to keep up and avoids deflation.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A useful definition of a useful concept
The consumer price index is a useful thing to measure, though. It's more directly applicable to buyers.
one which if forgotten would leave people unable to understand critical dynamics of fiat currency systems.
You can still use the term "money supply," which economists commonly do, to describe the concept you're talking about. They're not denying that monetary causes exist. And it's not like people understood fiat currency systems any better in 1960.
The original definition
Not always the more useful one. "Nice" used to mean foolish, for example. "Bully" used to mean sweetheart. Now they mean other things, so it's more useful to use their new definitions.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If your sources for that definition are a radio personality and a dictionary from 1960, it's probably the less common definition.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"An increase in prices" is the most common definition of inflation (and pretty much the only one that I can find). Here are the first five results when I google "what is inflation?"
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Tariffs do not cause inflation.
If you define inflation as an increase in prices, tariffs can cause inflation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
savant softed Wournos
Actually I didn't, I just made up some stuff and figured there was probably a serial killer who fit the criteria. I figured there would be fewer female serial killers, making it easier to fake claim.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Politics is half branding
Well, that might not be a good thing.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Obama esque style
It takes a lot of charisma to rattle off a bunch of cliches and sound like you're saying something.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If it's not objective there is nothing to debate.
I mean I'd like to hear one person who feels the way I described give some insight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
He hasn’t kept the game moving
I think you meant to say "he has," but he hasn't. He's stalled. Not the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
name 5 things you have done
I've given reads on
1. Bullish
2. Casey
3. Austin
4. WyIted
5. That2User
Also pushed WyIted for a claim and forced him to reveal his character. But I don't have 2 votes like you. As they say, with great power comes great responsibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You see I didn't even have time to verify the information I got from chat GPT last game and it got me caught.
So you're avoiding posting...so you don't get caught as scum like you were before? Sounds about right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I have been agreeing with whiteflame moves a lot and also voting how he votes
Buddying does not help your case. You're usually more proactive than this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@AustinL0926
@WyIted
Why exactly would I give any claim to somebody who is the most likely lynch, particularly when that's the only vote I have on me?
Yes, rather convenient for you that town found someone to lynch without you having to contribute. Do you have no reads? No opinions? You're just fine lynching any player who isn't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Time is limited. How do you read WyIted?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
We don’t have time. It’s you or That2 as of right now
We do have time, and I don't want town to fumble this just because we got anxious. We still have 12 hours. You have 2 votes, don't be lazy.
you’re doing the exact same thing you’re accusing Wylted of doing
No. WyIted talked about things irrelevant to finding scum. Me accusing WyIted is directed at finding scum. Not the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
i have a gut town read because in the last game where Wylted and I flopped as scum he was really pissed at Luna for being a theme-aholic and trying to meta analyze every theme and I think as a way of venting he might just be doing the same thing here which makes me he's a town lean
I have a hard time seeing what he's posted as theme analysis...has he posted anything you would classify as scum hunting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
Honestly I barely remember last game. Guess I can check.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Push first. I know we've got limited time, but I'd still rather give him a chance to claim. Unless he's something like doctor, I'd probably still prefer him as a lynch though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
I don't remember, I'm talking about this game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
he has definitely claimed his character.
I'm going back to see if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he hasn't. A lot of fluff posting though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
he hasn’t had a chance to claim either
Ok, so make him claim. You have two votes. You can put pressure and have a lot of power to direct the conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I will point out that you know that my current alternative is you, right? Your current vote's on WyIted. Convince me that that's the right choice.
I've made the case before, but here it is: WyIted's usual meta is something like 50% trolling, 50% contributing to town. Right now, I think 0% of his posts have actually contributed to scum hunting, but he's posting a lot. Easy way to waste time. I'm also more inclined to vote someone who's posted a lot while giving very limited info about their role. All WyIted has said is that his character rapes separate from murders. That's almost entirely designed to be vague and describe like 100 different serial killers.
You want to know why we're feeling a lot of time pressure right now? A good chunk of that is due to WyIted derailing the conversation by asking about rape (which is a pretty limited way to narrow down characters). We get some blame for letting derail things, but he did, and now here we are. Any other player would be sussed for this, but WyIted gets the benefit of being a known troll, so his antics don't get looked at too hard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
the Hider role is just one that comes off as very safe with a perceived "validation" achieved by never being killed by hiding behind scum.
If hider claim is scum, then unless they hide behind their partner, they'll have to eliminate a town player from the PoE every day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
We can lynch the hider claim later. If they're town, then at least we got some utility from it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
role confirmation doesn’t mean affiliation confirmation.
Sure, but it's better than nothing. Nobody is affiliation confirmed. If we discover mafia have a role blocker or something, then you'll know I'm probably not that. Also why go after me? Does having a confirmable role make me more suspicious than everybody without one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
has also been more or less ruined by them claiming.
Only if scum has redirector.
Why do you care how I use my votes?
I wasn't sure if you had a role reason for only using one vote, and you are still a possible third party or scum.
That2 can town confirm people, and I know I'm town. I don't like these options. But you're right, we don't have much time. I'm going with my gut here. If WyIted is town, he's played pretty unhelpfully so far.
VTL WyIted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
I insta die if I hide behind mafia.
Well that sucks. If scum can redirect, you're dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
It's why I need more information on you. I can't trust my gut here
I mean I gave you everything I could without copy-pasting my PM. If I get lynched early again because I "feel off," I'm cursed or something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Savant feels more off to me TBH.
When do I not? lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
She’s been a lot more interrogative compared to last game
Players tend to be more interrogative as town and try to blend in as scum. Of reasons to scum read that2, I wouldn't say that's one of them.
Created:
I don't think most transgender people would dispute that sex exists—i.e. humans are generally grouped into a bimodal distribution of mainly being born with female traits (born with a uterus, XX chromosomes, etc.) or mainly being born with male traits (born with a penis, XY chromosomes). I say "bimodal" instead of "binary," since there are exceptions, but it's a pretty strong correlation. People are usually born with mostly male traits or mostly female traits, hence the grouping of the sexes. Otherwise there would be no reason to have different terms for "trans women" and "cis women."
And then there's gender. When trans women are referred to as women, this is using the term to refer to gender identity (which is arguably more nebulously defined). I'd wager that for a long time, a lot of people used the term "woman" to refer to sex and didn't know about gender identity at all. Some dictionaries define the word "woman" as referring to sex, but then some don't. Trans people aren't a monolith, of course, but I do know that many trans men with female traits would say that their sex is biologically female but object to being called a woman. In other words, they're fine using the term "female" to refer to sex but not the term "woman."
This might have something to do with the etymology of the word, but it might also have to do with how often it's used. If we has another word like "blargh" that was widely used to refer to humans born with female traits, would most trans men object to being described that way? Since both cis women and trans men are blarghs, would using the term "blargh" be different from saying they were assigned female at birth? Part of me suspects that many people would object to the use of the term "blargh" for the same reason they would object to using the term "woman" to refer to biological sex.
I guess a similar thing could be said for weight, where an overweight person might be fine being described as overweight but object to being described as "fat." On the other hand, I can't think of any woman with brown hair who would object to the term "brunette." It might be the case that gendered terms sometimes being intended as an insult (i.e. "you throw like a girl") makes some people not want to be referred to with that term, similarly to "fat" being used as an insult. So maybe people's opinion of the term "blargh" would depend on whether the word "blargh" had cultural connotations associated with it.
Maybe a trans person would be able to give their take on this, though it probably depends on the person. I did make some assumptions here about what trans people generally prefer to be called, and I don't know how accurate those assumptions are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I want to lynch That2. Something feels off with her compared to previous game.
I'm open to this lynch, but at least give a reason beyond "something feels off."
Created: