if I could live off a UBI, I would write a book using this post as my framework

My education is more syntax and phonology and less semantics. We didn't even have a proper semanticist to teach us about the meanings of words like neocon-- I had to take logic in the math department even for some sort of semantics component to my education.
Still though-- neocon relates to foriegn policy and not domestic policy.

I mean this isn't true because it is a group of politicians who, in fact, had domestic policy positions.

You have to look at the history of where the movement came from--largely out of the anti-communist US "left" who had "progressive" domestic position but supported the Vietnam war.

This differentiates from the principled leftist stance of being both against the Vietnam war and for progressive domestic policies.

Neocon is definitely more about foreign policy, but you have to differentiate it from something like classical conservatism etc. The defining characteristic is not its domestic policy, which is why I was pretty vague in that neocon are more "flexible" when it comes to domestic policy since foreign policy is their focus.

The entire US political landscape is pretty much both neocon and neolib at this point. With some rare exception of people like Sanders who is a social democrat.

Fair enough. I was aware of its origins as supposed leftists unhappy that the left didn't want to kill people.

http://readsettlers.org/

mass domestic surveillance and rededication to fossil fuel both seemed pretty important to the W admin

these were principally domestic policies with incidentally international repercussions

The neocon movement had authoritarian features that set it apart from the neolib reaction to 1970s neoMarxism.

What have been the just wars?

Or is it just the defender is always justified?

You won't like my answer.

War is sometimes justifiable and necessary.

It is never just. There is no such animal as a just war. All wars represent a horrific waste of human life and involve countless atrocities, often at the behest of people in power who risk nothing themselves.

I would potentially argue similarly about imprisonment.

Augustine is the final authority on just wars. Next to God of course!

Aiui, paying some sort of penalty for a crime committed can be an important part of rehabilitation for the perpetrator, but a criminal justice system focused on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism is ldo a better idea than one built primarily on punishment. There's a lot of talk in the UK about how effective our prison can be in making criminals more violent.

I would say paying a penalty towards society and being used as a means of detterent shouldn't be an ends in themselves.

Something like removing people who are "dangerous" and rehabilitation are better rationalizations. But to some degree those are removed from committing crimes, anyway.

"Night of" sort of had the narrative of prison turning people into criminals.

In which Mets continues to stump for these ****ing ghouls who continually downplay his people's plight.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ocaust-kansas/

In reference to the above

I don't have any psychological research for this, but as someone who has struggled with guilt and has done my share of things wrong in my life, I find something rehabilitating about the very act of paying a penalty. It's as if I've restored some cosmic balance and now I can move forward.

I recognize that literally nothing stops me from moving on without the penalty, but I can get stuck.

I have no idea if this is at all representative of other people's mindsets or if I am just a unique and special snowflake.

That said, we definitely need a better solution than mass incarceration or fines, which allow the wealthy to flout the law with impunity and burden the lower class with a cycle of escalating and/or never-ending legal penalties that they can't escape.

I've seen people treat it in a darker manner than that as well. They rationalize doing bad things because only they are noble enough to have such a stain on their "soul" when doing something evil they need to justify. Or just because they'll be punished regularly. I use religious words here but I don't think of it as exactly a religious phenomenona.

Also I see lots of people rationalize why pain is good. Obviously it's important to deal with it but still delusional.

Another subtly toxic one I see sometimes is in regards to sharing emotions, but the only emotions recognized as being legit are negative ones, eg sad, anxiety depressed etc. Seems like a pivot from anger to other bad things.

I don't really like the concept of punishment but I will admit to feeling sort of cheated the times I've willfully gone too far wrt 2p2 rules and had the mods only give me a warning. Just give me the damn points if I earned them.

pretty big ruling by scotus today. they were ruling on whether they should take away the land in oklahoma. the land they are talking about is the land at the end of the trail of tears btw.

Looks like there were a couple 7-2 rulings on trump Financials, a 7-2 to allow businesses to discriminate on contraceptives, and a 5-4 with gorsuch joining liberals on the native case. The actual case that went to court to challenge looks pretty grim.

People on reddit (and apparently Twitter) love to spaz about language in headlines.

language in headlines is important

Just important and unscientific enough to make up narratives to fit what you already believe.