Friday assorted links

1. Profile of Nathan Tankus.  And Clockwork Orange review.

2. The growing influence of Sci-hub.

3. Somerville, Mass. recognizes polyamory (NYT).

4. France bans Dutch bike TV ad for creating ‘climate of fear’ about cars.  “The French advertising code prohibits the exploitation of fear and suffering in commercials.”

5. “…a novel song sung by white-throated sparrows is spreading across Canada at an unprecedented rate. What’s more, the new song appears to be replacing the pre-existing melody, which dates as far back as the 1960s.”  Link here.

Comments

"3. Somerville, Mass. recognizes polyamory (NYT)."

The money quote: "The city of Somerville has broadened the definition of domestic partnership ..., expanding access to health care."

Would this even be applicable in a Medicare for All world? In other words, it sounds like the only purpose here is to try to help people who would be stuck without health care coverage or with crappy coverage.

"Would this even be applicable in a Medicare for All world? "

That's academic. Biden won the primary. Neither Bernie nor Sanders plans will ever see the light of day.

Short sighted. The current system where health coverage is a game of musical chairs is not stable, something will replace it. Probably not Medicare for all but probably some system where coverage depends less on having a steady office job.

Yes we will soon replace the best healthcare system in the world with a socialist system where we are all equally denied decent healthcare. Ironically Canadians will be the biggest losers. Today they can either wait 18 months to get a bypass or drive to the U.S. and get it within 48 hours. With Socialist healthcare in the U.S. they will be stuck dying under their own socialist health care system.

I live in BC, idiot. I was in the hospital for 120 straight days two years ago. My first operation, I had 5 hours after the tests showed I was about to die. I had the best doctors and nurses on the planet, and they saved my life. Not one bill. I pay taxes for a card. A friend of mine just had a knee operation. She had to wait a couple of months. My personal doctor always sees me the next day if I need him. I went to the ER about 50 times in 2018, no bills. In the US, I got bills the next year.
I used to live in Washington State. My last bills for Group Health were $550 a month, with a $6000 deductible. I'm retired, but not eligible for SS yet. At Group Health, when I was considering a knee operation, I would have had to wait a couple of months, just like in BC.
People need to stop lying about the difference in medical care between the US and Canada. I vastly prefer the system in BC to any health care system I had in the US in California and Washington.
Caveat...In the US, much depends upon how you get your health care. You can get excellent coverage. In Canada, each province has its own health care system. BC is very good. I don't know about others. Even if the US wanted to have a system like BC, it would be very hard to get there. The US system has its own history and special interests, and change must begin from what's in place. Crucially, many people won't want to take big chances with health care they basically like and are used to. Hence, only small changes at a time work. As for the Pandemic, we seem to be doing better in BC than the US. Comparing countries often ignores the reality each country is limited in choices by its history.

They are always telling their American boyfriends how horrible Canadian health care is.

It is common that Canadians don't know how bad their health care system is until they need it. My wife's grandfather (a proud Canadian) was told some years back that he needed a quadruple bypass or he would probably not live two more years. The Canadian health care system told him that at 74 they would not waste the money to give him a operation. He had $100,000 in the bank, he could have driven 6 hours South and gotten a triple bypass within a few days. He was stubborn and proud and couldn't believe his precious country had done this too him and decided not to seek care outside of Canada. To make it so that he could not change his mind he gifted his four children $25,000 apiece. I stood their and watched him do it and watched his lovely wife who is usually smiling sit there angry with a clenched jaw while he did this. He died within two years from a massive heart attack. If he had simply driven South to where he could get actual healthcare he would be alive today

You seem to think that you get a heart operation just for the asking in the US. My dad, in 1995, was turned down for a heart operation in Fresno, California. Of course, he didn't have the money personally, but, as I recall, the doctors had a hand in the decision not to operate, not just the insurance.
On the other hand, my roofer has had two heart operations in Victoria, BC, in the exact same cardiac unit I had my two operations. It's one of the best in the World. I had US care for 60 years, now I live in BC, so I can't be BSed. Plenty of people I know in the US are turned down for various procedures by their insurance. In fact, had I wanted a knee operation for my knee a few years ago in Washington, it would have had to be approved. I couldn't just demand an operation on my knee. Are you kidding me?
I spent 120 days in the hospital, and wasn't released until it was determined a could function at home. Of course, it's not perfect, no system is. But her I am, in BC with great medical care. If that doesn't suit your prejudices, too bad.

Yes, I will guarantee you that if you need a bypass operation in the U.S. and either you can pay for it or your insurance will that you will get it very quickly. Some people get it within a few hours after showing up in the emergency room. Of course there are hospitals that are not set up to do this and generally they will either transfer you or refer you to the correct hospital and doctor.

+1, yes that's likely true. Health insurance shouldn't be linked to employment.

Scott Alexander [redacted] would be proud. His poly lifestyle is far ahead of the times.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200304021502/https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/06/polyamory-is-boring/

Aside from cost-disease and trolley-car dilemmas, one of my favorite SSC moments was when Scott noted he was feeling down because he had just lost his "main," or "primary" or whatever polys call their go-to person in their poly pod

Were such people previously denied health care? Or is this a matter of insurance - fewer payers, more people covered?

Yes. Somerville offers health insurance to its employees, including to their domestic partners. While I'm sure they'll make additional domestic partners pay an additional fee, they'll still be on the one Somerville employee's plan, and will be receiving a subsidy from Somerville taxpayers.

I would have to presume that if somebody decided to declare 15 friends and cousins domestic partners, eventually the accountants would point out the hit to the budget. Even if the 'extra' domestic partners were paying the full cost of a typical person's healthcare plan, there is an incentive to bring friends and relatives with chronic and expensive medical conditions on board as domestic partners. It's hard to see how this isn't abused long term without some sort of Medicare for all that takes it off the city's books. Somerville is being fiscally irresponsible with the taxpayer's money in an effort to signal their 'progressive' social values.

You're surprised that a government has found a creative new way to give away other people's money?

I understand poly relationships but I do not think this is an innocent attempt to have a nonconforming lifestyle "recognized." They do not need it recognized. It is all about the money.

It’s certainly an interesting framing, to include something that has a strong emotional and moral valence for a large percentage of the population.

Polyamory being legally recognized was the obvious next step after gay marriage. It will take its place in the Culture War.

We’ll see a Supreme Court case on it by 2030.

Legal recognition requires some idea of what polyamory you are talking about. See my comment below, this does not make sense the way it did for gay marriage.

See my comment below, this does not make sense the way it did for gay marriage.

That’s not a good argument for restricting marriage rights based on a triviality. All of the same moral arguments are still applicable.

“It would be slightly confusing” is not a valid argument to restrict rights enjoyed by everyone else.

Only the Boomers are going to push back on this.

“It would be slightly confusing” is not a valid argument to restrict rights enjoyed by everyone else.

Not the issue. The issue is which rights? Since there is no 3+ person marriage system in the US there's no rights being denied.

If you invent a system of 3+ marriage, I could invent a 3+ system that is different. In granting your 'right' which system would it be? Mine or yours?

People who make the argument have been demonstrated wrong as polygamy has gone nowhere since SSM and if it ever goes anywhere it would have to be via legislative routs since there is no way to just get there via court ruling.

Curious. For the longest time, Mormons have been ostracized for their (apparently now considered) "inclusive" views on what constitutes family, i.e., their polygamy, so much so that they were eventually pressured to renounce those views. As I have noted before, progressives' oppressor-oppressed language --- see Arnold Kling's Three Languages of Politics --- can be applied to anything, including its opposite. When Somerville legitimizes polyamory, it's inclusive. When Mormons (and Middle Easterners) do it, it's sexist.

Umm, they don't use the language of oppressor-oppressed. They use the rather bog standard libertarian concepts of small government and consenting adults:

"I’ve consistently felt that when society and government tries to define what is or is not a family, we’ve historically done a very poor job of doing so it hasn’t gone well, and it’s not a business that government should be in, so that guided my thinking on this."

Ha. Only in the progressive Orwellian world is there a "standard" small government concept that government should not have the power to limit government employee benefits! That's right up there with "denying health care" to mean "not paying for someone's health care".

"The *most important aspect* is that the city is legally recognizing and *validating* people’s existence." (Emphasis added.) Unless, of course, those people happen to be socially conservative Mormons and Middle Easterners.

With respect to the bigamy oriented Mormons, the 'consenting adult' thing is disregarded. As it usually is when conservative (read patriarchal) groups practice bigamy. Polyamory can be different, with consenting adults on all sides, and no restriction on the gender composition or roles. Can be. Triangles and more tend to be rough sailing for at least one of the parties.

-1

In Islamic Law both parties must consent to the marriage or the marriage is illegitimate.

For Mormons both parties must consent to the marriage as well.

Inb4 prior’s autism, no, pointing to anecdotes does not mean it’s representative of the whole or in line with teachings.

Yes. I have read about Beijing's refime's criminal behaviour.

https://www.timesnownews.com/international/article/vietnam-slams-china-for-military-drills-in-disputed-waters-says-it-could-impact-ties-with-asean/615513

That is a good point, Mr. Sallisbury. Fortunately, Beijing's regime's righteous neighbours have risen against its aggression and the peace-loving nations of the world support them innthe defense of their rights.

https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN2431GN

Possibly it's not just Somerville recognizing poly partnerships: a number of municipal jurisdictions recognize domestic partnerships from other jurisdictions.

I (with my friend Jeff) wrote about this here: http://jefftk.com/p/poly-domestic-partnerships.

We also covered what the actual effect of allowing this is in more detail than any other coverage we've seen, although we're not lawyers and don't really know.

2. More on the travails of Sci-hub at Wikipedia.

It is obviously a broken situation. Inflexible publishing regimes meet the old adage "information wants to be free."

Note that the PLOS model works, and is legal. We just think up reasons not to flip.

Pay to publish models.....no. Think through the incentive effects and try again.

Sci-hub alleviates all of the negatives from the current model nicely. Everything is free unless you need it for an official reason through an official channel.

What, are you setting yourself up as smarter than Gordon Moore?

What a Boomer response. Argument from authority fallacy with a dash of irrelevance.

Has this particular 91 year old man kept up enough to understand how Sci-Hub addressed his prior concerns about open access to research ?

Or are you simply pasting quotes from Moore from back when you were in your 50’s, before Sci-Hub even existed?

It’s 2020 Boomer

lol. All you bring to any argument is your own inflated self-worth.

When presented with a smart and famous guy believing in an idea you suddenly think that somebody *else* is relying on argument from authority?

On top of that, you're actually making the completely immoral argument that theft is the solution?

I am so sorry it took me so long to connect the dots ..

but the guy who is famous for lamenting "a low trust society" is the guy recommending breaking laws and ethical standards as a solution!

Rather than an ethical and legal redesign of the system to achieve the same public access.

You guys...

Anon, given PLOS exists, what do you mean by "flip"? Other publishers which researchers seem prefer, somehow cease to exist, by magic?

My take is that as far as I've been able to tell, most scientists are happy to share a preprints which are identical to the print and only kept from doing so by publishers who prohibit preprints. So just find a way to stop publishers doing that. No need for some sort of centralised move of all papers to a single pay to print publisher.

That Russian girl is doing good for society globally. Those Institutions that can, pay the publishers. Those that can't get it free. Seems a good norm to me.

Keep your eye on the sparrow. I assume Paul McCartney is upset about the loss of royalties from the now defunct 1960's tune. :-)

I do not think there are enough stable polyamorous relationships with kids to make reliable statistics.

By the way, it is probably too late, but can't we change the name? Instead of "polyamorous relationship", why not use the phrase borrowed from French "ménage à 3", transformed into "ménage à n" for the sake of generality?

This was supposed to be an answer to catinthehat below. I am sorry.

Let me add that if the hypothesis to be tested is "presence in a family of an adult genetically unrelated to the child or children raises the risk of child abuse", it can be tested in all recomposed family, heterosexual and homosexual couples with a kid adopt by one or both of the partner.
The marginal polyamorous family with kids are statically marginal, I suppose. By the way, what's the current evidence on the above question.

Yes, polyamorous gamilies are probably quite rare compared to the single mother with a boyfriend situation.
In that situation the abuse risk seems to be higher

https://www.phillyvoice.com/child-abuse-single-parenting-divorce-marriage-new-partners-advice/

"Yes, polyamorous gamilies are probably quite rare compared to the single mother with a boyfriend situation."

Ok, but the fair comparison is with remarried widows/divorced mothers.

I suspect the kid stays with the biological mother and that the relationships with the father(s) and other mother(s) are quite flexible. Child abuse is probably not that prevalent with so many eyes on the child.

#3 I wonder if polyamorous families have a higher incidence of child abuse. I think family structure is important. Children living in families with genetically unrelated adults may be more at risk.
Anyone knows ?

Good luck finding out. Getting a representative sample is basically impossible and I still have not seen a competent one for gay families. If gay marriage or interracial marriage are anything to go by we will need at least a generation after general public acceptance to see the long term outcomes. It is fiendishly hard to get people who are from socially disapproved groups who also beat their children or whatever to join the studies.

1b. Not great. There is no indication from the movie that the Ludovico method was doomed to fail "from the start". The end is ambiguous, and may suggest it has failed, but this is a surprising, and happy, ending. We are supposed to prefer the main character as a rapist/murderer/ultra-violemt free person rather that an as a robotized obedient citizen. This is Burgess' Catholic vision: free will is a gift of God, and trying to remove it, event to prevent horrible crime, is the worst transgression we can do.

3. Great news. Polyamorous is very nice life style, at least it works well for me in the past (I didn't use this awful name, though, which mixes up Greek and Latin), and a real equality supposes that the sate recognize all the forms of amorous life -- or none.

4. If I were consistent, I would defend the ad in the name of free speech, but it is so boring I am happy I will be spared it. That being said, the French government knows everything about "creating a climate of fear", as it has shown during the Covid crisis.

1b. I think there's something else going on in ACO. The defining theme of the film, it seems to me, is "old age having a go at youth". The novel and film posit an eternal intergenerational war between brutal youth (tip of the hat to Elvis Costello) and resentful old age. The young are free to fight and fuck -- the oldsters hate them for it, and do everything they can to clamp down on this savage freedom with schools, prisons, churches, and so on. Thematically, it's very similar to Joe, which was released one year earlier in 1970.

The Ludovico Technique effects a unilateral disarmament in this war, leaving Alex unable to defend himself against the violent depredations of the jealous oldsters, who beat him, humiliate him, and eventually torture and almost murder him. In the novel, of course, the final chapter sees Alex beginning the transformation into one of the enemy. The film gives us a happier ending.

3. Polyamory means fewer people dependent on welfare. How so? Compare the alternative in which a wealthy person has a spouse and a paramour. If the wealthy person dumps the paramour, the paramour has no claims for support. But if the paramour is considered the equivalent of a spouse, he would have a claim for support. Interesting: what appears on the surface as a further descent of American morality, is in fact an advancement by the God-fearing monogamists. Get it on!

1.a. And what are this young man's "really good knowledge of the plumbing of the monetary system". Plumbing might be an appropriate metaphor: monetary policy has become an exercise in pushing up stock prices to achieve prosperity. The Fed floods the market with liquidity, which draws capital away from investment in productive capital to the stock market; thus, the paradox of rising stock prices while the economy collapses. Our Neo-Fisherian friends believe that when the Fed floods the market with cash and reduces interest rates, the Fed is signaling bad days ahead for the economy and discouraging investors from investing in productive capital. The plumbing view is that by flooding the market with liquidity and reducing interest rates, the Fed is signaling a rising stock market ahead and discouraging investment in productive capital while encouraging investment in the stock market. Scott Sumner's view is that, I don't really know Sumner's view it's so confusing (something about the Fed not doing what Sumner wanted the Fed before).

5. From 3 notes to two, so this represents a huge step backward, like [rap, twitter, or fill-in-the-blank].

4.the dutch are finally updating the Batavia!
aka the 45 lb tiger tank of bicycles.

1b. The US version of A Clockwork Orange only included 20 chapters of Burgess' book. The original book and UK version had 21 chapters. Perhaps the book reviewers should read the whole book before doing a review.

Doesn't a large part of this review acknowledge and deal with this point?

It does, it's clear that B didn't actually read 1b.

In addition, it wasn't even a book review, it was a movie review. So yeah, B didn't read it.

I hadn't known that bit about the missing chapter 21 in the American edition. I'm a bit surprised that the American publisher thought that the American audience would prefer the darker version of the novel.

An interesting take the review didn't note was the question of whether anyone else was all that good? He left prison to discover his thug friends had become cops. Supposedly good members of society now but happy to indulge in sadism when they had a chance to get away with it. His earlier victim wanted to exploit him for political gain and take revenge on him by torturing him.

If Alex had been released into a good world of good people he probably would have been fine and happy. He instead was released into a world of bad people without any ability to defend himself.

Whatever the potential pros and cons of poly, you can confidently expect the media to loudly cheerlead any alternative to the traditional family unit

Do you need a safespace? You wanna cry?

There's no crying in economics

Known Fact made a falsifiable interesting prediction. I am not sure he is right. Eight years ago, Romney in a meeting in front of University students in Vermont (or was it NH, I am not sure) suggested a government recognition for polyamorous relationships. He was booed. We'll see what happens now.

In any case, Known Fact didn't ask for a safe space. But sure, a space without the L., J., O., etc that have bloomed on this comment section lately would be nice, thank you.

The usual media template for such stories is: Author signals curious, open-minded optimism about new cultural experiment... Author acknowledges skeptical and pessimistic viewpoint (so even-handed!), treated as more plausible if feminist, less so if from trad viewpoints... Author closes with reassuring themselves and readers again on reasons open-minded curiousity and optimism, and with positive humanisation of subjects.

Most of the folk who read such articles are rather basic, and mainly want such a human interest story to confirm their self image as an neophile who is open to cultural experiments and unconventional life choices. They don't seek any real critical attempt to look at these structures, grounded in history or anthropology. The media then, by and large, just gives them what they want.

Then the market works.

3. Mormons can now push for bigamy laws. They can thank the gay marriage crowd. Who knew that ancient lifestyles can be so progressive and conservative at the same time?

1. Poor review.

“Parasite” is about a family that strives to be rich and never succeeds No, it's about a family that's trying to get by.

"Barry Lyndon" as a Thackeray novel and the same as a Kubrick film don't seem to be even distantly related. Thackeray portrays the Irish finagler as a typical but perhaps exceptional man of his time and genre. A garrulous, dark-haired semi-rogue always on the look-out for an advantage, a typical view of his type shared in general by the English of that era. Kubrick's Barry is a blonde, taciturn, reflective introvert that Thackeray wouldn't have recognized. A horribly miscast movie.

It's interesting that Kubrick picked "A Clockwork Orange" as an Anthony Burgess work to put on the screen. His 1960 novel, The Doctor Is Sick would have been a better choice.

I remember about a decade ago I would debate same sex marriage opponents and they insisted polyamory was right around the corner. As we all know those who opposed SSM disappeared about 10 years ago when the UFO came and took them all away. They are now an extinct species, with some fossil evidence left behind on old backups of servers of blog comments.

The argument I had against them was structural. Marriage law is pretty complicated but it does work on a two person partnership. You could have an NFL team composed of all women. They would get slaughtered but a referee wouldn't have any real confusion calling the game. But if someone said let's have football with 3 different teams on the field at once, a referee is going to say "wait a minute, there's a lot of possible rulebooks you could write for a game of 3+ team football but I can't just apply the current rulebook, you have to write one to tell me how to call this game".

So while normally I would have looked forward to debating with SSM opponents who probably would be wanting to say to me "see I told you so", the UFO took them all and I don't think they have wifi on it. Sigh. Still it seems they would be wrong.

You could take an aspect of benefits like heath coverage and toss polyamory in, but if you really want to have it apply as marriage you actually have to write new rules. Once you try that, though, you have to decide which rules. There's a lot of different rules one could imagine. For example, say 3 people are married to each other and one dies. Are the 2 remaining people still married or does death dissolve the union? If one person in a 3 person marriage wants to add a 4th, do they need the other 2 people to consent? A majority? Can they form a separate marriage outside of the first plural one?

In business law partnerships have all those questions addressed. Some traditional polygamy societies also had those questions answered (for example, originally in Mormonism and in Islam the man can marry multiple wives but the wives are not married to each other so the death of the husband dissolves all the marriages but the death of an individual wife alters nothing). In the US, plural marriage is off the table unless you have a sustained movement that has a proposal for how to implement it.

That sounds nice, but is not how societal change works. Plans are written and laws are passed only after the change is sufficiently widespread to disrupt society. If we are headed to polyamory, it will be all around us before we have laws that adequately deal with it. We had same-sex couples openly partnered for decades before the first gay marriage law was passed.

True but again you have to provide the change. If it's just people sleeping with people outside of who they are married too, that's already here...it's either an open marriage or cheating depending on how honest everyone is.

If you want marriage and marriage law then you're talking about many more issues. For example, do you want to be legally responsible for your spouse(s) credit card bills? If you win the lottery do you want to split it with how many spouse(s)?

While polyamory has existed in history it doesn't exist in US legal structure so to plausibly believe it is right around the corner and just needs a Supreme Court ruling to get here you have to tell me which polyamory you're talking about from all the infinite variations and why.

Same-sex marriage was never about legal treatment; it was about social status and legitimacy. If it was about legalities, then proponents would have been satisfied with "civil unions", which had the same legal treatment as marriage, or at least could have been made to. The point of insisting on using the term "marriage" instead of "civil union" was to remove a stigma that gay relationships were less legitimate than straight ones. That's also why there is so much passion over wedding cakes and photographers: the point is to characterize any differentiation between gay and straight relationships as a form of bigotry.

SSM opponents now appear to have been right that, indeed, there now appears to be a movement to elevate polyamorous relationships to the same social status and legitimacy as monogamous ones. (They were also right in predicting that gay marriage would lead to widespread adoption of children by gay couples.) Recognizing that these predictions came true neither legitimizes nor delegitimizes gay marriage, gay adoption, nor polyamory. The polyamory proponents themselves say that the issue is about rejecting traditional notions of family: "Defining families is something that *historically we’ve gotten quite wrong as a society*, and we ought not to continue to try and undertake to do so. (Emphasis added.)"

Legal treatment was hardly irrelevant. The actual case that decided it concerned a woman who couldn't inherit her wife's estate, I believe.

But I agree social acceptance was part of it but the problem was that it was clear social conservatives would not settle for Civil Unions. Every "Marriage Protection Amendment" included open language that made Civil Unions vulnerable. Some even seemed to include the possibility that private contracts meant to try to simulate legal marriage could also be barred. By rejecting a 'separate but equal' track advocates of SSM recognized that only by being included in legal marriage could they have real legal protection.

Recognizing that these predictions came true neither legitimizes nor delegitimizes gay marriage, gay adoption, nor polyamory.

Agreed but the predictions haven't come true. My predictions were proved out, unless by 'come true' you mean if you set your Google news alert for 'polyamory' you'll sooner or later get an alert. But that's not much of a 'prediction'. Keep in mind there were polyamory advocates before there were even SSM advocates.

Yes, legal effects is big. The civil union rules were ignorable under ERISA, federal tax law, many states' probate rules, etc. But, they all recognized and had rules for handling marriages recognized by a state.

Civil Unions would have essentially created two types of marriage, Marriage and 'Marriage-Lite' , which would have been more socially disruptive since 'Marriage-Lite' would have been open to heterosexual couples too creating all types of gamification elements to marriage choices. OR law would have set Civil Unions exactly equal to marriage which would have been nothing more than a different label to use just for gays.....but then would social conservatives have been happy with that? It is remarkable IMO that by simply settling gay marriage as a clear loss for social conservatives about 85%+ of the debate is gone. While they don't celebrate it, it no longer seems the object of click baity campaigns.

I fully expect polyamory to be the next culture war battle.

As last time, the only consistent position will be to let consenting adults do their thing.

I think that was done in the mid 1970's. Legally right now 'consenting adults' is pretty much the legal norm in the US plus a general cultural norm. You'll find swingers, for example, in every corner of the Bible belt.

Marriage, though, is a more complicated legal and financial relationship so in order for this to be a culture war you really need people lining up on all sides demanding, say, the right to be held liable for the unpaid credit card bills of everyone they are sleeping with and vice versa.

The moment you start thinking about that you realize there are multiple types of polyamory you could have which means a culture war on behalf of one would require choosing which type and making a case for it versus all other possibilities.

You’re making it infinitely more complicated than it needs to be.

so in order for this to be a culture war you really need people lining up on all sides demanding, say, the right to be held liable for the unpaid credit card bills of everyone they are sleeping with and vice versa.

No, you really don’t. In fact if this forces a more rational financial liability system on all of us hetero nuclear family types, so much the better.

Is it a joint credit card? Then it’s joint for whoever signed it. Is it a joint mortgage ? Then it’s joint for whoever signed it. Is it a joint custody kid? Then it’s a joint custody kid for whoever signed the birth certificate.

Honestly the only issue I see at all is how stupid the current set up is for “assuming joint”. Get rid of that and Bam! Problem solved

OK you know nothing about marriage law but let's pretend it is as simple as you play.

A man and woman marry, then the man marries another woman and then another man & woman making for a marriage of 2 men and 3 women. Now one man decides he wants out and goes for divorce.

What is divorced? The original marriage? The plural marriage? Is everyone now single requiring the 4 people left to enter into a brand new marriage?

I'm not saying you can't come up with a system. The problem is the present system can't handle this. Ask a judge how he handles a gay couple that sues for divorce, he will shrug and tell you he just applies the marriage and divorce laws on the books, no big deal.

Consenting adults can already do what they want; it's the contracting aspects that are difficult, not the sexual, romantic, or social aspects, which people can work out for themselves. Boonton discussed this already in some detail so I don't have to.

Have you (collectively) ever split up with your live-in girlfriend or boyfriend? Well, combinatorial math shows how the problems multiply with the number of people involved.

#4) Natural endpoint of cancel culture, hate-speech-is-not-free-speech, anti-Zuckerberg boycotts, etc. This ad understandably makes automakers feel unsafe and excluded. Why shouldn't it be censored, fact-checked out of existence, etc.? Same reason as for Trump's tweets and other censorship efforts: because, contrary to what some claim, speech is not violence and anyone can, or should be expected to learn to, just brush off whatever speech they don't like.

In a society where everyone has the right to not be offended, anyone's speech can be censored. Eventually even the original censors will find themselves censored. At that point, only those who control the censoring authority will have the right to speak.

3. Polyamory, if accepted more broadly, will further extend an existing trend. Surveys show that an increasing proportion of young men are unable to find sexual partners (30% and rising) over the last ten years; the numbers for women are flat in the mid-teens. Women are using their economic independence and social self-confidence to marry less, and to only consent to sex with high quality mates. Inevitably, that means that they will be hooking up with high quality men who have several sexual partners. Many women seem to prefer a part-share in a top quality man to a full share in a low quality one. If polyamory is accepted, and these arrangements will be reinforced by law and custom.

What would a world be like where 50% of young men realize that they have little chance at finding a mate? Yes, those closest to the threshold will likely do their utmost to improve themselves w.r.t. how they are perceived by women, but the rest will tend towards behaviors that society dislikes (anger, misogyny, violence, porn, prostitution, video games, drugs and alcohol), and which will make many of them unemployable.

I don't question the individual wisdom of women behaving this way. I would encourage my daughter only to date high quality men (if she cared to hear my opinion). But the outcome of women acting in their best interests might be an expansion of ugly phenomena like the incel (involuntary celibate) movement. I don't see a solution without restricting the freedom of young men and women, which I do not favor.

A polyamorous household where one man is partnered with 2-4 women would actually be a good solution to some of today's problems with child-rearing and work. One adult at a time stays home to raise the kids (no daycare or latch-key programs), while the rest can pursue their careers; good arrangement for the kids, good economics for the family. If the adults can handle the complicated emotional ties, it could work.

In theory, this could work with multiple men in a household, but I think that is less likely. There are fewer marriageable men than there are marriageable women, and two men in that situation are likely to battle for dominance.

Historically this has not been the case. The most deadly war in human history before the World Wars was sparked in part because a combination of polgamy and female infanticide resulted in Qing China having millions of men with no marriage prospects.

We can further look at FLDS and other groups who use similar arrangements and in the past few decades such empirical as exists suggests that they do not achieve better economic outcomes than their LDS counterparts.

Perhaps there is a good set of data showing superior outcomes for this sort of polygyny, but in spite of this being the de facto norm for human history, it has a rather bad track record and was pretty much everywhere overwhelmed by monogamous societies (with quite a few polygynous societies becoming at least de jure monogamous by choice).

Or we could just have some type of generous child care allowance that would allow either more women or men to stay home or to make numerous small child care providers easy to pop up. Many day care centers are run by women and are small businesses so in a sense that is like the polygamous relationship where one man's kids are being cared for by 2-4 different women. But that doesn't say why this economic arrangement needs a lifetime marriage contract?

This may be but the article seems less about actual polyamorous groups and more about simple households...for example a couple plus an aunt all living together and raising a child. Does the aunt get left out in the cold?

Depends on how you read it. It seems that couples are being allowed to add extra domestic partners for employment benefits, which would seem awfully generous to me if I was a Somerville taxpayer (I was, briefly, in 1988-9). This may just be the Somerville city council's effort to achieve Medicare for all through a back door. But acceptance of unlimited domestic partners could well lead to more openly (and actual) polyamorous arrangements in the future.

Accepting actual polyamory arrangements is not a big deal I think to most people on the grounds that most people are ok with consenting adults from a legal point of view and aren't really advocating for gov't regulation of adult sexual activity.

Marriage get's more complicated. If your spouse wins the lottery, you're entitled to a cut. Likewise if your spouse runs up a credit card and doesn't pay you're liable. So definitely more complicated than just you living with two women and getting to sleep with both of them.

My point is that there's no obvious path from dual person marriage to polyamory the way there was from heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage. For example, how does divorce work for SSM? Same as it does for straight marriage. Just apply the laws on the books.

How does it work for polyamory? Depends on how you make the rules. If one of the women decides to leave, are you still married to the remaining one? What if she entered a polyamorous marriage because she wanted you and her but not one or the other? Does one woman leaving end the whole thing requiring the remaining people to form a new marriage if they want to go on or does she just leave the club while the remaining members carry on?

All depends on how you write the rules which means a movement for either legal or cultural acceptance has to choose a set of rules and present it as part of their case which makes much more complicated than simply taking the gay marriage advocate playbook and applying it.

Why do you think "they" want to import sharia?

In all seriousness, "complicated" has never seemed to matter too much to the Democratic Party. There are plenty of jursidictions that allow for polgamy and it will be no more of a challenge to "import" those rules than it proved to be to do DACA after President Obama said that it was not something he had the authority to do. Or of course the infamous "we have to pass it to see what is in it." Let alone whatever on earth "defund the police" is actually supposed to mean.

My prediction is really quite simple. Somebody will decide this is a new essential part of enough people's identities. Whatever reasonable objections will become violence to the core identities of those self-identifying. Anyone who objects will be demeaned with some new derogation and then there will be a mad stampede to be the most tolerant on the left and a slow withering of opposition on the right for fear of being "intolerant".

We will then muddle through. Much like how we are currently doing for all the flavors of "transness" where somehow we are basically ignoring all the extensive law about sex segregation and making it up as we go.

Why do you think "they" want to import sharia?

Nobody wants to import sharia. Next.

Interesting comment in an interesting thread. But I am not sure the polyamorous relationship will become the next battlefield of the sexual culture wars, like transness is now or SSM was 10 years ago.

#1...Clockwork Orange dealt with Juvenile Delinquency, as it was called in those days. In the end, the juvenile delinquents get older, becoming adults . The film focuses more on the attempt at mind control, a sort of BF Skinner view of humans, and critiques that. The mind control uses images to do its work. I think that was one important part of the film, the use of film for mind control.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8471421/Mutated-version-coronavirus-stronger-spike-proteins.html

World's dominant strain of coronavirus 'is 10 TIMES more infectious than the one that jumped to humans in China' because it mutated so its vital spike protein doesn't snap as often in the body, scientists say
----
I am not scared. Once we have he technology o crack one shell we can easily adapt and crack shell variations. We will build a machine. Feed it the shell spike protein and it will generate a shell cracking immunoglobulin.

3: It's not that we social conservatives were right about polyamory after SSM. It's that it's not difficult to be right about this stuff if you have even the slightest interest in history and people and don't read your priors into everything.
It was always clear that polyamory is best for the Donald Trumps of the world. And that Western Civilization was built on pairing off as many men and women as possible and encouraging them to raise children. You can't have Imago Dei with a few guys taking all the women. And you can't have a viable civilization without giving some major status points to people who are willing to do the work to create and raise children, specifically beyond any other relationship type.
But Rights, I guess.

3: It's not that we social conservatives were right about polyamory after SSM. It's that it's not difficult to be right about this stuff if you have even the slightest interest in history and people and don't read your priors into everything.

Errr no dude social conservatives were just not right. No big court cases for polygamy rights followed. No mass movement. A prediction was made, it failed, yet no real accountability is to be had. Social Conservatives simply vanished on this issue, pretending it never really was one. Maybe that's for the best, a lot of crow that should be eaten ends up left on the plate and a decade plus is quite a while. A group of social conservatives have aged out, waiting for Covid to take them in their nursing homes while a younger generation is more indifferent to obsessing over gays. Still it is worthy of some reflection I think.

#1 Interesting juxtaposition. Remember Alex was 14 when he started into his ultra violence and Tankus is still a student of economics. Yes, they are kind of similar.

2. The situation with sci-hub is very interesting. The service itself is clearly very illegal and in many jurisdictions using it to to download copyrighted material is also illegal for the user, not just the service operator (not that there's a very high chance of getting caught, yet alone sued, for the user, but still). This makes a large fraction of researchers criminals (I don't know about other fields, but in physics sci-hub usage has become quite ubiquitous among graduate students and young researchers) .

And there is no easy way to make the situation "kosher". Moving aggressively to open publishing for new articles doesn't solve the situation, because all the old publications would still stay locked.

"“…a novel song sung by white-throated sparrows"

Can we please just have the word "new" back?

# 4 Not exploiting fear and suffering when it merges into fraud seems reasonable enough, but there wasn't any fear and suffering in the ad.

Who owns Sci-hub?

Comments for this post are closed