You’ve got some good points there, but it feels a little naive of nuance in parts.

Like, if these are natural rights, presumably this still counted before humans banded together to form the first societies. Before, even, we were small roving migratory groups that only just managed to climb out of the trees. humans, as they were, are basically animals at that point, right? I mean, we’re still animals, but you know what I mean. So we still have those rights? What makes us different than the other animals (or even other ape descendants) that we see as food? As a species, we were evolved to eat meat, which requires killing something else that presumably has these same rights that we have to violate to enforce our own right to life. Or did natural rights come later, when we were “better” and “more advanced” than the animals we hunted? Does that mean we get these rights when we reach a certain point in self-awareness?

It’s tough to argue with the base arguments you present, and I don’t disagree with them… but they can be argued against. Like your slavery argument. It goes against these natural rights that we have always had, yet we started taking our first steps toward stopping it, like, 600 years ago? Slavery predates writing. As far as we know, mankind was enslaving other people as far as we can track, and definitely hundreds, if not thousands of years before. So were they not aware of these natural rights or just didn’t care?

It sounds like you’re saying these are natural rights that everyone has because it feels right to you dues to the society you grew up in that appreciated these rights. They have to come from somewhere to be natural but only really count for some living things and not others.

Personally, I don’t believe in natural rights. We’re animals that grew opposable thumbs and learned to make tools. Human rights come about only because we live together in societies. In a way that sounds contradictory, we formed groups and gained rights among those other humans, and in the same instant traded some of those away for that group to function. Rights have to come from somewhere. Without groups agreeing on what those rights are, then the decider of rights is whoever is strongest. Might makes right started to decline only because we got into groups large enough to defend against outside forces, and even then it was only within the group in which those rights existed. Rights themselves are part of the social contract we all participate in when we exist in society and universal human rights is a relatively recent advancement, and we definitely haven’t come to a consensus as to what they all definitely are. But if society breaks down, those rights definitely disappear overnight. But I’ve always been the kind of person who needs reasons to believe a thing and have sound reasons to believe it.

I’m with you on right to life, and bodily autonomy are things that all humans should have. I think we just differ in their origin and universality.

So who decides what rights are natural ones and which ones need a government to enforce? And what are the natural rights? Not just that you believe it to be so, but why? And what you use to make that decision.

Forgive me, but I’ve been doing a lot of research lately on natural rights and their protections, limits, and origins. I’ve been reading a lot of philosophy on it and it’s extremely interesting. I’m genuinely curious how people come to these conclusions and I love hearing different viewpoints.

So where do these rights come from, if not the laws? I wonder if you may be taking free speech as a right as a given because of the time you grew up in. You speak of it as an absolute, but where does that belief come from? You say “rights” as if they’re something enshrined in our souls by a god, but like, how do you know that? Where does this information come from?

This is purely a philosophical question. I’m on the free speech wagon here. But realistically, Who gets to decide what’s actually an inalienable right that everyone has vs. rights that are encoded in laws?

That might be due to our heavy government surveillance system. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that a militia was arrested before they could carry out their plan to kidnap the governor of Michigan. The year before that a Coast Guard lieutenant was arrested before he could kill journalists and Democrat politicians. There was that nutjob who took a hammer to Pelosi’s husband’s head (Didn’t even catch that one in time!) There’s tons of attempts to assassinate presidents. Kinda feels pretty par for the course.

But the original point, I think, was that it’s kinda weird for someone to say it’s not surprising for it to happen in Mexico, as if it’s some third world country run like New York in Escape from New York while pretending it doesn’t happen in the US frequently. The US is just a bigger police state so they catch most of them before anyone dies. The FBI has plants in militias and groups like them all over the country specifically to catch this kind of thing. Most governments just can’t afford that kind of manpower. The US is not special or really that much safer, and comments normalizing this kind of thing for Mexico is why anyone even made that argument. It’s definitely shitty, and probably racist to think that it’s reasonable, when it’s in Mexico, people say "Eh it happens.”

What do you think the reasons are?

The stated purpose of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 is to maintain sanctions on Cuba as long as the Cuban government refuses to move toward “democratization and greater respect for human rights.” ^cite

If that was actually true, half the countries the US trades with should be embargoed. Saudi Arabia, a monarchy?

U.S. goods and services trade with Saudi Arabia totaled an estimated $46.6 billion in 2022. Exports were $21.6 billion; imports were $24.9 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Saudi Arabia was $3.3 billion in 2022. ^cite

Let’s not lie to ourselves, it’s always been about the Communism Boogie man. But if you want to cultivate capitalism in a country, cutting off the ability for free trade outside that country isn’t the way to do it. America’s influence stops other countries from trading there as well so they have no option but to rely on a government focused economic system as they’re the only ones with the ability to really participate in any market elsewhere. I agree that tankies can go fuck themselves, but you’re letting 60 year old propaganda get to you. The rest of the world has no problem with Cuba and it’s getting weirder and weirder that the US continues these unreasonable sanctions like a middle school bully holding a grudge well into middle-age. I can only assume you’re so sure because it’s just always been that way and you assume it’s for a good reason.

Why do people always do that? I agree it would be a good move, but because smoking is unhealthy and addictive and it’s existence in our society makes it collectively worse. But here I keep seeing people just say they’re glad because they think cigarettes are icky.

At 4 AM this morning I learned there was a smoke alarm in my office. Also that the beep it makes when the battery is dead is loud as fuck. Loud enough to wake me from a dead sleep in another room.

So I work with a lot of people from a variety of countries. Some of those countries have really bad governments. When we joke about each other’s countries, it’s about the governments. I remember this guy who used to work with me from the Philippines. It was near the beginning of lockdowns and just after Duterte was elected. He made fun of the shit Trump was saying and doing, and I got to joke that they had their own Trump(maybe worse) coming. Australian co-workers laugh along when we joke about their shit politicians.

What we don’t do is joke about the people or the culture. That’s shitty. All those people are just as much victims of their own circumstances as we all are of our own. But we’re adults who work with each other every day and it’s easy to remember that we’re all real people. The internet however…

I haven’t noticed Americans getting upset when people criticize shitty government policies or decisions. At least not from people who aren’t boot-lickers from jump. The problem is when people make fun of American stereotypes. Americans are fat and loud and whatever. Like, if all you heard was people talking about Canadians being stuck up about needing things written in French or topped with poutine, it would probably get old, right? “Go cry at your Tim Horton’s and take your polar bear for a walk.” (okay, so I had to google Canadian stereotypes and it’s a short list.)

I don’t like America’s gun culture either. And I hate when it comes up there’s always someone who comes in and preaches the gospel of the 2nd amendment. It also doesn’t feel great when people make that generalization about me. This thread is full of people saying Americans are dumb and racist. That’s just shitty behavior that no one bats an eye at because it’s normal to make those jokes. If I started making comments about like, French people smelling bad or (insert some other offensive thing. I don’t keep track of bad stereotypes and I’m done googling it) then that would also be bad and it’s a thing I think we should start calling out across the board.

Hold up. I’m not super experienced in reading studies, but I can read.

1. At best this is correlation. HRV increasing for these men doesn’t mean a high HRV is required to be good at chess.

2. Sample size of 16… And only male.

HRV was reduced in participants who achieved worse results. This could indicate the possibility of HRV predicting cognitive performance

If reduced HRV means lower cognitive performance and women have, on average, lower HRV, you’re saying women are less smart. At least in chess. I think that’s bullshit and this study isn’t incorporating enough/the correct data to show anything you’re stating.

But here is one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763411002077 that links HRV with stress response

And another: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763419310292 That shows women’s HRV responds less severely to stress.

Both meta-analysis, not a single data point.

So maybe men are just shit at dealing with stress and that’s why their brains go haywire during competition. But it’s so gracious of you being so kind to women and giving them a space where they can play among equals on a “MORE level playing field.”

By your logic, they should just be testing people’s HRV and ranking them that way so they all are on even ground. Give those dummy men a MORE level playing field.

I mean, the real answer is that chess is full of toxic people who’ve made it to the top to run the organization. The fact that this behavior wasn’t curtailed already shows that. Its just an accepted part of it. If the ones who would make the decision to ban those players don’t already see an issue they’re not going to start now to make the space better for women.

My poor understanding of this situation is that, of the team working on it, one guy was like “We need to hold off on publishing until we’re 100% sure.” Then another guy was like “lol, gonna publish anyway and leave you off the paper.” The hesitant guy gets wind and rushes to publish (with everyone included) so as to at least be included in the process.

Also, there’s a thing about the first published one only had 3 people on it, making it eligible for a Nobel, but more than that does not qualify.

But overall, I agree! It’s not like it being publicized stops them from working on it. They will still be working on it, and it’s definitely a step towards progress. Technological process tends to be lots of small improvements to the same system over time until someone comes up with a huge leap. Then the process begins again by constantly improving on that new technology. Hopefully, this is that next huge leap in energy.

Plus, with their process so far published, more people are able to work on it without starting from scratch. It would suck for the original scientists, but be a net good overall if the early publication led to someone else being able to move farther then them because they now have access to it.

You realize that most actors and writers are barely or not at all paid enough to live. This idea of the rich and famous actor is an edge case that you’re letting become your whole idea of them because they’re exactly that. Famous. But even you have to realize that there are countless others that will be and currently are being affected by the things their striking against. For too many years already writers have been shafted by production companies by hiring them as short term contractors to avoid paying them a fair wage or give them an option for royalties. And when literally everyone in the industry is doing that, then they have no choice if they want to get paid at all.

And being mad because some high profile rich fuckers are participating is insane. Their participation shows just how important it is. They’ll be fine. They have millions and they’re still out there on the picket line anyway because the things the industry does and wants to make worse is bad for humans. That’s what collective action is about and it’s beautiful.

But the first blockbuster movie is an arthouse masterpiece that really makes you look deep within yourself and wonder how big a shark could actually be.

Jaws. It was Jaws.

Yeah. Fuck collective action and an entire industry fighting for their own survival. You get yours!