7 Comments
User's avatar
Torin McCabe's avatar

We could just talk about how systems can have multiple purposes and also have multiple second order effects. But our side is kind of dumb and would prefer something simpler and more conspiracy based

Expand full comment
Shawn Ruby's avatar

Every side thinks their side is dumb — that's liberalism!

Expand full comment
Anonymous Dude's avatar

I'd say NOSIWID, if you're going to go for strict accuracy. 'Unintended consequences' have been a big idea on the right for a while.

I tend to think it's more that the bureaucrats in these areas see racism as a bigger threat to society than rape of invididuals, so when moral directives conflict they go with the one they see as more important. (Insert picture of liberal and conservative heatmaps here.) But POSIWID doesn't apply because they're not truly pro-rape; look at how eager they are to ruin men's lives over dubious accusations, for instance. It's probably more useful to understand the morality in terms of the well-known intersectionality framework where someone gains moral value the further they are from being a straight white cis male, for instance.

Rhetorically, well, you guys are better at this kind of thing than me. ;)

Expand full comment
Yuri Bezmenov's avatar

That’s what Scott Alexander looks like? Explains a lot…

Expand full comment
The Futurist Right's avatar

Have him lift weights, put him in a trench-coat and he could totally pull-off the gangster look to be fair.

Expand full comment
Sectionalism Archive's avatar

Scott Alexander: I'm a rationalist!

Gottfried Leibniz: Nope, yuor a bitch! Now complete this integral and STFU!

Scott Alexander: Bu-bu-but--!

Rapacious lion: Did I just hear... Bark, bark, bark?

Expand full comment
Shawn Ruby's avatar

Jesse wth are you talking about

Expand full comment