I think what they're saying, is that, for there to be logical consistency within the concept of states' rights, that it should be both, or neither, in the context of the original statement:
> that states should be allowed to regulate AI, but should not be allowed to regulate health?
To rephrase this:
States should be allowed to regulate both AI and health, or neither.
This is not my argument, but I do intend it to be a good faith interpretation of what I think OP had in mind.
Either/or is a somewhat confusing phrasing due the way it causes sentences to become hard to follow, and because it can refer to two different concepts. I think most of the time and in this case, either/or refers to exclusive or, but it can also refer to logical disjunction.
However, it's possible that they meant logical disjunction, in the sense that the GOP doesn't think that states' rights to regulate AI and health should be an either/or distinction simply in order to not be hypocritical, because the GOP sees no problem with legislation and lawfare to achieve the goals of the GOP; the GOP will use arguments that may be lacking ideological justification or consistency out of pragmatism.
The ends don't justify the means in this GOP reading, but rather, the means are the ends: states' rights as a concept can be a means to a particular end legally or legislatively, and an end unto itself as a way to preserve bastion states of GOP rule and jurisprudence during periods of non-GOP federal power.
So when you said "I think a lot of other people are hypocritical in the opposite direction" did you mean that Democrats focus too much on ideological justification and consistency instead of being pragmatic, or that their ideological focus on justification and consistency leads them to "play by the rules" against a pragmatic GOP opponent that isn't themselves bound by such notions?
>So when you said "I think a lot of other people are hypocritical in the opposite direction" did you mean that Democrats focus too much on ideological justification and consistency instead of being pragmatic, or that their ideological focus on justification and consistency leads them to "play by the rules" against a pragmatic GOP opponent that isn't themselves bound by such notions?
Neither.
When I said that sentence, I was replying to mixologist. I thought mixologist was saying that it's inconsistent for the GOP to promote states rights for women's regulation health but not for AI regulation. I was saying that if that's an inconsistency, then there's a similar inconsistency (but in the opposite direction) with people who promote states rights for AI regulation but not for women's health regulation, and I thought that was the position mixologist held.
Maybe I misunderstood what mixologist was saying. If mixologist was saying something else, then my comment doesn't make much sense.
> When I said that sentence, I was replying to mixologist. I thought mixologist was saying that it's inconsistent for the GOP to promote states rights for women's regulation health but not for AI regulation.
But if the GOP just wants to win and doesn’t care about hypocrisy or ideological consistency then this doesn’t matter, as I alluded to. Your point might have responded to mixologist but not to me.
"The other people" are however not using the flat "everything should be decided by federal goverment" claim. GOP does hide behind states rights when it suits them.
"The other people" are saying abortion bans harm women physically and are removing their freedom. They are saying AI should be regulated in certain way.
None of that is hypocritical. It is not even opposite direction.
Maybe I misunderstood mixologist's point. I thought mixologist's point was that there's a logical inconsistency if someone wants states to regulate one issue, but not another issue.
You seem to be fine with allowing states to regulate AI, but not abortion. So either you disagree with mixologist, or I misunderstood mixologist. If mixologist wasn't making that point, then my previous comment doesn't make sense.
>GOP does hide behind states rights when it suits them.
It's an interesting situation. Prior to 2024, the GOP's policy was that abortion should be banned at the federal level. Trump disagreed with that, and in 2024, Trump convinced the GOP to change policy, and defer it to the states[1].
AIUI, the previous policy was based on the idea that abortion is morally wrong due to killing a person, and thus should be banned. I think the new policy is based on the idea that abortion is a moral uncertainty: the
GOP doesn't know whether the fetus is a person or not, so it's unclear whether abortion is morally wrong or not, and because it's unclear, there shouldn't be a federal decision one way or the other on it, it should be deferred to the states. You could call that "hiding behind states rights", or you could call it "deferring unclear issues to the local level instead of making sweeping laws on unclear issues".
AIUI, the GOP's policy on AI is different. The GOP doesn't think AI has the same moral uncertainty as abortion does. Instead, the GOP views AI under an economic lens, not a moral lens. And under an economic lens, consistent laws across the states help economically.
The debate in all of this what are national interests and what are local ones? What rights can be universal and what can vary state to state?
But, data and algorithms don’t stop at state lines so national standards would be more effective. We don’t know if a standards or policy setting org is looking at it not. I hope so
Sure. I asked that question to mixologist. I think you have a different opinion from mixologist.
I'm fine with you providing your answer to the question. In my reply I just wanted to make sure that it's clear that your answer is only your answer, not mixologist's answer, because I think you disagree with mixologist.
