Echoes of the Multiverse

So, the state of California has come up a few times videos I've seen and articles I've been sent. Amongst said articles are this older one from 2015-

https://thetechreader.com/top-ten/top-t ... r-move-to/

and this newer one from this year-

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/o ... nightmare/

If the data here is accurate, it doesn't paint a very good picture of the State.

There's also been some discussion about California giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses, and then enacting a law that automatically registers voters who obtain or renew a driver's license. According to a Snopes article I've found, the issue is a bit more muddled, because the wording of the law does not officially give illegal immigrants the right to vote, critics fear that such illegals could use loopholes to obtain such rights.

The latter issue is very concerning, as any State that would basically give people who are not citizens of this country one of the primary benefit and responsibility of this country, that being the right to vote and shape the leadership and laws of said country, is troubling.

So as I've done lately whenever I've got a conundrum I've decided to turn this over to you folks and get your input. I've only visited California a couple of times, so I can't speak with any real authority on the issue, but perhaps some of you are more informed.

I find it fascinating that..

On one hand, one of the local cities ran into some issues a few years ago when it decided to actually enforce immigration law by making employers and housing do green card/citizenship checks. Several lawsuits later, and it was declared that only the federal government could enforce immigration law.. or not.

On the other hand, we have entire states.. like California, that feel free to ignore immigration law.. and it's pretty much ignored.

For those curious, I think this is the Snopes article in question, which discusses a measure to allow non-citizen parents of citizen children to vote in local school board elections.

California makes it illegal to have an all-male board of directors for any companies based there.

Wow. Just wow.

Is this where we miraculously discover that half the board on leading companies actually identify as woman? For real though, it's rather messed just how actually sexist such a law is.

Doctor Malsyn wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:56 am Is this where we miraculously discover that half the board on leading companies actually identify as woman? For real though, it's rather messed just how actually sexist such a law is.

I just wonder how anyone can put that on the books and think its a good idea.

I'm clearly not against women being on the board of directors, and I'm against how things like nepotism in the work force can keep more qualified people down. But this is not the way to fix that. Because what is likely to happen is that a board will either bring in the bare minimum token women who can be counted on to just toe the party line, or they'll just pay whatever fine is associated with the law.

It also brings up the question of "what is the right percentage"? When will "you can't have just men" becomes "you need a minimum of X women on the board"? And what happens if you get more women than men? Will it need to be flipped? What about mandating a minimum number of ethnics on the board?

In both business and education, this country is suppose to be a meritocracy. You get where you get due to the time and effort you put in, not because of characteristics you were born with and had no control over, like your sex or the color of your skin.

Honestly Ares, the more I read from you when it comes to some of your sociopolitical opinions, the more I fear you're going down a dark place...

Voltron64 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:04 am Honestly Ares, the more I read from you when it comes to some of your sociopolitical opinions, the more I fear you're going down a dark place...

I'm not really sure how to take that. I'm a centrist who believes in things like Equality of Opportunity. I think that everyone should have the opportunity to enter whatever field they want, and however far they get in that field should be based on the time and effort they put into it.

This law strikes me as Equality of Outcome, where its decided there must be X amount of Y in every field, position, etc., or something is wrong. And I find these kinds of quotas di a disservice to everyone. It prioritizes things people have no control over, it places arbitrary percentages of what needs to be there, etc.

I think instead of being concerned with how many of what race or sex are in STEM or on a board of directors, we make sure everyone who wants to enter a field has the opportunity to do so. Which I believe is generally the case. And if someone is being unfairly discriminated against, the take the discriminating party's but to court. Because that kind of discrimination is illegal.

But my politics are not the boards politics. I don't want anyone to feel like disagreeing with me on anything is going to be bad for them. Echoes is not an echo chamber. I welcome disagreement, because that breeds debate, and that can lead to new info and changed minds. The only thing I require is that everyone is civil and respectful to each other.

Voltron64 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:04 am Honestly Ares, the more I read from you when it comes to some of your sociopolitical opinions, the more I fear you're going down a dark place...

"I'm not going to refute your opinions, but I'm going to act concerned about you for having them! They're clearly not reasoned positions held by healthy, well-adjusted people!"

Classy.

BriarThrone wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:56 am

Voltron64 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:04 am Honestly Ares, the more I read from you when it comes to some of your sociopolitical opinions, the more I fear you're going down a dark place...

"I'm not going to refute your opinions, but I'm going to act concerned about you for having them! They're clearly not reasoned positions held by healthy, well-adjusted people!"

Classy.

Yeah, did not think this one through.

Voltron64 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:19 am

BriarThrone wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:56 am

Voltron64 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:04 am Honestly Ares, the more I read from you when it comes to some of your sociopolitical opinions, the more I fear you're going down a dark place...

"I'm not going to refute your opinions, but I'm going to act concerned about you for having them! They're clearly not reasoned positions held by healthy, well-adjusted people!"

Classy.

Yeah, did not think this one through.

Hey, it's cool. I've said more than my fair share of stupid things on here and elsewhere, and that honestly read more like concern than anything. I was more legitimately uncertain how to take it. And regardless, everyone should feel free to give their two cents as long as its done respectfully.

I do think that it's always a legitimate thing to ask, "If we pass this law, how might its scope be interpreted in the future?" After all, we've had things like the Patriot Act, which have been used to justify some very broad invasions into privacy, or the Lexmark interpretation of the DMCA, which helped them to prevent other companies from offering the same printer ink for a lower price because, to do so, they'd have to break encryption.

One could probably add into that anti-prostitution laws that have hamstringed efforts to prevent criminal organizations from human trafficking, or the hamfisted laws about possible child sexuality that more or less criminalized a fair amount of fanfiction because it deals with characters of an ambiguous age.

FuzzyBoots wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:51 am I do think that it's always a legitimate thing to ask, "If we pass this law, how might its scope be interpreted in the future?" After all, we've had things like the Patriot Act, which have been used to justify some very broad invasions into privacy, or the Lexmark interpretation of the DMCA, which helped them to prevent other companies from offering the same printer ink for a lower price because, to do so, they'd have to break encryption.

There's a question of how the law itself will be interpreted and applied, and also the question of the precedent that it sets. It's important to note that once you start legislating along certain lines, then that is proven ground upon which to build legislation. Many a legal institution was built through incrementalism.

I'm against the very idea of race and gender quotas. The best person for a position should fill that position. If you choose to fill the position with a person less than the best, then you're not maximizing the potential of that position. I thought all these people were supposed to be greedy. If they're greedy, why would they hire someone who wouldn't give the best return on investment? If they're more bigoted than greedy, then all the talented women and minorities will go elsewhere and out-compete them. Unless, of course, you're such a bigot that you think women and minorities are incapable of building something that could compete with white men...

There are perfectly valid reasons why fewer women choose to pursue the highest, most demanding, most stressful positions. From that reduced talent pool, there are fewer candidates qualified for the top positions. Quotas will do nothing but ensure that qualified candidates will have to be passed over for less qualified candidates, creating economic instability and resentment. It will also create an environment where any woman on a board will be suspected to be a "quota hire" and therefore probably the least qualified person available. EXTREMELY counterproductive for gender relations in the workplace.

FuzzyBoots wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:51 am One could probably add into that anti-prostitution laws that have hamstringed efforts to prevent criminal organizations from human trafficking,

I... oh, wow, this is actually extremely complicated. On one hand, I'm generally for the right for people to do whatever they like with their bodies. On the other, wow, is sex a much more complicated subject than people make it out to be. The trendy thing is to treat it like it's just a fun evening, as long as everyone's clean and birth control is properly addressed. Turns out, though, that there's all kinds of complex psychology tied to sex, mating, and pair-bonding. It may not be that bad an idea to discourage the treatment of sex as a commodity.

I'm not sure what the relationship between anti-prostitution laws and human trafficking might be, unless it's the Prohibition effect creating black market demand.

FuzzyBoots wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:51 amor the hamfisted laws about possible child sexuality that more or less criminalized a fair amount of fanfiction because it deals with characters of an ambiguous age.

Nnnnhhh... again, I'm generally libertarian, but if there's one area I'm willing to compromise on, it's child porn. Even if it's fictional child porn and there's no actual victim, it creates a sexualized narrative around that particular taboo, and if reinforced, it can encourage people to seek out that scenario. I mean, yeah, it seems like people are generally smart enough to distinguish the reality from the fantasy... but I've worked in the field of treatment of handicapped sex criminals. Not EVERYONE is smart or emotionally healthy enough to draw that line.

BriarThrone wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:27 am

FuzzyBoots wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:51 amor the hamfisted laws about possible child sexuality that more or less criminalized a fair amount of fanfiction because it deals with characters of an ambiguous age.

Nnnnhhh... again, I'm generally libertarian, but if there's one area I'm willing to compromise on, it's child porn. Even if it's fictional child porn and there's no actual victim, it creates a sexualized narrative around that particular taboo, and if reinforced, it can encourage people to seek out that scenario. I mean, yeah, it seems like people are generally smart enough to distinguish the reality from the fantasy... but I've worked in the field of treatment of handicapped sex criminals. Not EVERYONE is smart or emotionally healthy enough to draw that line.

Heck when you think about it, a hefty amount of life's problems come from the fact that too many people aren't smart or emotionally healthy enough to distinguish reality from fantasy.

Voltron64 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:24 pm

BriarThrone wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:27 am

FuzzyBoots wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:51 amor the hamfisted laws about possible child sexuality that more or less criminalized a fair amount of fanfiction because it deals with characters of an ambiguous age.

Nnnnhhh... again, I'm generally libertarian, but if there's one area I'm willing to compromise on, it's child porn. Even if it's fictional child porn and there's no actual victim, it creates a sexualized narrative around that particular taboo, and if reinforced, it can encourage people to seek out that scenario. I mean, yeah, it seems like people are generally smart enough to distinguish the reality from the fantasy... but I've worked in the field of treatment of handicapped sex criminals. Not EVERYONE is smart or emotionally healthy enough to draw that line.

Heck when you think about it, a hefty amount of life's problems come from the fact that too many people aren't smart or emotionally healthy enough to distinguish reality from fantasy.

Oh, hell yes. Know how models and hot actresses get stalkery fans? It sucks and it's awful and not-right, but the way these women earn a living is called "signalling sexual availability." Most of us understand that it's a fantasy, a character they're playing, but some people are damaged or otherwise non-functional enough that they take the fantasy-promises seriously. They feel that these women are promising them something personally. At a fundamental level, the human brain doesn't do well with abstraction. Sex is fundamental, but the weird ways we've created to communicate to remote times and places MAKES it abstract, and... ugh.

Then there's the tabloid phenomenon. People care about celebrities because we feel like we know them. After all, we see them often. Creates an emotional connection like they're part of our local tribe, instead of a ridiculous amount of literal and social distance away.