MercuryCobra
@mercurycobra.bsky.social
Attorney. He/him. Anti-fascist.
I mean, not to be crass but isn’t part the problem here part of the solution? These men aren’t having much success with the opposite sex, so I’m not sure they’ll have many opportunities to pass on their immaturity.
December 7, 2025 at 5:10 PM
I mean, not to be crass but isn’t part the problem here part of the solution? These men aren’t having much success with the opposite sex, so I’m not sure they’ll have many opportunities to pass on their immaturity.
I wonder whether this is true or whether this is a problem that will fix itself, so much so that I wonder if intervening will make things worse. It strikes me as probable that many of these men will eventually mature, and that in any case the next generation probably won’t have these problems
December 7, 2025 at 5:04 PM
I wonder whether this is true or whether this is a problem that will fix itself, so much so that I wonder if intervening will make things worse. It strikes me as probable that many of these men will eventually mature, and that in any case the next generation probably won’t have these problems
Saying “imagine you had an arbitratily large but fixed amount of money to spend. What would you spend it on?” IS TELLING PEOPLE TO IGNORE COSTS.
Your formulation is more like “imagine you were wealthier than God and could reshape reality in your image. What would you do?”
Your formulation is more like “imagine you were wealthier than God and could reshape reality in your image. What would you do?”
November 26, 2025 at 2:48 AM
they are equally valid interpretations of the question, sure. But one produces answers while the other is completely incoherent. between the two I know which interpretation I’d pick both as a respondent and as an interpreter.
November 26, 2025 at 2:47 AM
they are equally valid interpretations of the question, sure. But one produces answers while the other is completely incoherent. between the two I know which interpretation I’d pick both as a respondent and as an interpreter.
Saying “imagine you had an arbitratily large but fixed amount of money to spend. What would you spend it on?” IS TELLING PEOPLE TO IGNORE COSTS.
Your formulation is more like “imagine you were wealthier than God and could reshape reality in your image. What would you do?”
Your formulation is more like “imagine you were wealthier than God and could reshape reality in your image. What would you do?”
November 26, 2025 at 2:45 AM
Saying “imagine you had an arbitratily large but fixed amount of money to spend. What would you spend it on?” IS TELLING PEOPLE TO IGNORE COSTS.
Your formulation is more like “imagine you were wealthier than God and could reshape reality in your image. What would you do?”
Your formulation is more like “imagine you were wealthier than God and could reshape reality in your image. What would you do?”
Now now that’s not what I said is it? I said someone could be thinking “if I had like $10 mil to spend would I rather own a house in the suburbs or a place in the city.” That’s how I approached the question and I’d argue the only realistic way to approach the question without rendering it farcical
November 26, 2025 at 2:34 AM
Now now that’s not what I said is it? I said someone could be thinking “if I had like $10 mil to spend would I rather own a house in the suburbs or a place in the city.” That’s how I approached the question and I’d argue the only realistic way to approach the question without rendering it farcical
So you agree that it’s entirely possible ever respondent responded in a way that already bakes in the tradeoffs you’ve insisted they can’t possibly be considering?
November 26, 2025 at 2:29 AM
So you agree that it’s entirely possible ever respondent responded in a way that already bakes in the tradeoffs you’ve insisted they can’t possibly be considering?
I think it’s much more likely people approached it the same way I did. Not by imagining fantastical, impossible living arrangements. But asking themselves “would I rather have a really nice apartment in the city or a really nice house in the suburbs?” and we’re therefore already baking in tradeoffs.
November 26, 2025 at 2:23 AM
I think it’s much more likely people approached it the same way I did. Not by imagining fantastical, impossible living arrangements. But asking themselves “would I rather have a really nice apartment in the city or a really nice house in the suburbs?” and we’re therefore already baking in tradeoffs.
Your formulation of the question allows people to engage in pure fantasy based on a truly unlimited amount of money—“Xanadu in Central Park.” That requires us to imagine there is no upper bound, which as I’ve argued before renders the question incoherent.
It’s also not how I approached the question
It’s also not how I approached the question
November 26, 2025 at 2:17 AM
Your formulation of the question allows people to engage in pure fantasy based on a truly unlimited amount of money—“Xanadu in Central Park.” That requires us to imagine there is no upper bound, which as I’ve argued before renders the question incoherent.
It’s also not how I approached the question
It’s also not how I approached the question
No it doesn’t. I can think “well if cost wasn’t a factor would I rather have a nice apartment in the city or a huge house in the suburb?” It’s 100% possible to be making apples-to-apples comparisons on value while still not talking money into account, *unless* you insist there is no upper bound.
November 26, 2025 at 2:13 AM
No it doesn’t. I can think “well if cost wasn’t a factor would I rather have a nice apartment in the city or a huge house in the suburb?” It’s 100% possible to be making apples-to-apples comparisons on value while still not talking money into account, *unless* you insist there is no upper bound.
And what’s your source for what you think people will do? Why can’t I equally say “people will compare roughly equally valued properties even if those properties are qualitatively quite different.” Why is my supposition about how people are answering this question less valid than yours?
November 26, 2025 at 1:52 AM
And what’s your source for what you think people will do? Why can’t I equally say “people will compare roughly equally valued properties even if those properties are qualitatively quite different.” Why is my supposition about how people are answering this question less valid than yours?
I challenge you to go to any school playground and insist that all of the various forms of violence and coercion and arbitrary bigotry and bullying and social control going on between those kids is actually some form of capitalist exploitation.
November 26, 2025 at 1:35 AM
I challenge you to go to any school playground and insist that all of the various forms of violence and coercion and arbitrary bigotry and bullying and social control going on between those kids is actually some form of capitalist exploitation.
Existence is not coercive. But telling someone “you will be cut out of any warmth, comfort, and support unless you do exactly as I say,” is. I’m shocked you don’t see it that way.
Capital does coerce and exploit us. But not nearly as much as we coerce and exploit each other.
Capital does coerce and exploit us. But not nearly as much as we coerce and exploit each other.
November 26, 2025 at 1:33 AM
Existence is not coercive. But telling someone “you will be cut out of any warmth, comfort, and support unless you do exactly as I say,” is. I’m shocked you don’t see it that way.
Capital does coerce and exploit us. But not nearly as much as we coerce and exploit each other.
Capital does coerce and exploit us. But not nearly as much as we coerce and exploit each other.
Is a lynch mob state violence? What about two teens beating a third because the third is gay? What about a parent throwing their trans kid on to the street? What about domestic violence?
Are all of these things secretly state violence somehow? And if not, why would anarchy stop them?
Are all of these things secretly state violence somehow? And if not, why would anarchy stop them?
November 26, 2025 at 1:30 AM
Is a lynch mob state violence? What about two teens beating a third because the third is gay? What about a parent throwing their trans kid on to the street? What about domestic violence?
Are all of these things secretly state violence somehow? And if not, why would anarchy stop them?
Are all of these things secretly state violence somehow? And if not, why would anarchy stop them?
In general I find there’s a real unwillingness grapple with the fact that state violence is bad, obviously, but most violence isn’t carried out by the state. Most violence is interpersonal and arbitrary. The state has to give you a fair shake before hurting you; your neighbor doesn’t
November 25, 2025 at 11:29 PM
In general I find there’s a real unwillingness grapple with the fact that state violence is bad, obviously, but most violence isn’t carried out by the state. Most violence is interpersonal and arbitrary. The state has to give you a fair shake before hurting you; your neighbor doesn’t
it’s not a different topic, it’s all the same topic: how do you get people to do what you need them to do without coercion? And if the answer is “social consequences” then how is that not a form of coercion?
I trust the state to protect minorities more than I trust the bigoted majority.
I trust the state to protect minorities more than I trust the bigoted majority.
November 25, 2025 at 11:20 PM
it’s not a different topic, it’s all the same topic: how do you get people to do what you need them to do without coercion? And if the answer is “social consequences” then how is that not a form of coercion?
I trust the state to protect minorities more than I trust the bigoted majority.
I trust the state to protect minorities more than I trust the bigoted majority.
Up until now you’ve been arguing that the plain meaning of the words of the poll were that there was no upper limit and therefore people might be saying they would live in Manhattan on the assumption it could be in Xanadu.
Now you’re importing an upper bound, apparently also form the plain meaning.
Now you’re importing an upper bound, apparently also form the plain meaning.
November 25, 2025 at 10:46 PM
Up until now you’ve been arguing that the plain meaning of the words of the poll were that there was no upper limit and therefore people might be saying they would live in Manhattan on the assumption it could be in Xanadu.
Now you’re importing an upper bound, apparently also form the plain meaning.
Now you’re importing an upper bound, apparently also form the plain meaning.
But that’s just you pulling that out of nowhere. What evidence do you have that most people are approaching the question that way? Why would you assume they are?
November 25, 2025 at 10:23 PM
But that’s just you pulling that out of nowhere. What evidence do you have that most people are approaching the question that way? Why would you assume they are?
If money was no object I could simply spend that money displacing everybody and everything that drives up the land value and render it effectively worthless since nobody can afford to buy it back anyway. You have to read the question as having some limit for it to even make sense.
November 25, 2025 at 10:02 PM
If money was no object I could simply spend that money displacing everybody and everything that drives up the land value and render it effectively worthless since nobody can afford to buy it back anyway. You have to read the question as having some limit for it to even make sense.
I think this exposes that reading the poll question as having no reasonable upper bound is silly and breaks the question. If you could say “I want to live alone on all 49 square miles of San Francisco” then you’ve entered a world where land values cease to mean anything.
November 25, 2025 at 10:01 PM
I think this exposes that reading the poll question as having no reasonable upper bound is silly and breaks the question. If you could say “I want to live alone on all 49 square miles of San Francisco” then you’ve entered a world where land values cease to mean anything.
I will remind you that traditionally the quickest way to be isolated from society is not to be a jerk. It’s to be a persecuted minority of some kind. Worth thinking about.
November 25, 2025 at 9:51 PM
I will remind you that traditionally the quickest way to be isolated from society is not to be a jerk. It’s to be a persecuted minority of some kind. Worth thinking about.
Do you not need fellowship and community to live? I’m told we’re social creatures and that mandatory solitary isolation is one of the worst punishments we can inflict on someone. Is your take that as long as a mob is doing it it’s ok?
November 25, 2025 at 9:50 PM
Do you not need fellowship and community to live? I’m told we’re social creatures and that mandatory solitary isolation is one of the worst punishments we can inflict on someone. Is your take that as long as a mob is doing it it’s ok?
100% Little rain, no snow, plenty of opportunities for cool outerwear anyway. It’s win-win-win.
Man I miss the bay.
Man I miss the bay.
November 25, 2025 at 9:49 PM
100% Little rain, no snow, plenty of opportunities for cool outerwear anyway. It’s win-win-win.
Man I miss the bay.
Man I miss the bay.
Who said they were?
I ask again: is intentional social isolation, or intentionally withholding the benefits of community, ever just? If no, how is the threat of social isolation for a transgression not a form of coercion?
I ask again: is intentional social isolation, or intentionally withholding the benefits of community, ever just? If no, how is the threat of social isolation for a transgression not a form of coercion?
November 25, 2025 at 9:44 PM
Who said they were?
I ask again: is intentional social isolation, or intentionally withholding the benefits of community, ever just? If no, how is the threat of social isolation for a transgression not a form of coercion?
I ask again: is intentional social isolation, or intentionally withholding the benefits of community, ever just? If no, how is the threat of social isolation for a transgression not a form of coercion?
That’s an argument in favor of more granular polling not an argument that this poll does not say what it purports to say.
November 25, 2025 at 9:30 PM
That’s an argument in favor of more granular polling not an argument that this poll does not say what it purports to say.