Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1d ago
This is a post in itself but a substantial reason why so many work outside the home today, and why women working outside the home is correlated with wealth and technological development, is because having access to labor saving devices heavily shifts the economic calculus in favor of women working outside the home. It requires far fewer hours today to achieve what would have been a full time job providing goods for a household historically. One of the few areas where this is not true is child rearing and i s part of why daycare is so expensive and why people sometimes quit work to care for children. Otherwise we have largely automated the tasks of homemaking, freeing people's labor up for other productive uses. Related to this is the idea of a "gold digger." A woman interested in a man for his wealth but who does not proportionally contribute. It's much harder to proportionally contribute without a job when technology can automate most of the things you're supposed to be contributing!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1d ago
I think part of it is government regulation but another part is that we often have higher standards for entities we outsource these things to than we have for ourselves. Compare home cooking to eating out a restaurant. I generally want the restaurant food to be at least as good as what I could make or I wouldn't bother going. On top of that the restaurant has to comply with a bunch of food safety regulations I probably don't abide when cooking at home. This makes things more expensive!
On the parenting front, I suspect a lot of parents who would be fine giving their kid an iPad or some other device for entertainment would be mad at a daycare they pay for doing the same.
I think the author needs to take his schizophrenia medication. (I deserved the warning).
Up-efforting my comment:
I don't really see a lot of the connections the author makes in the piece. I think the excerpts in the post here are some of the more cogent parts and even those are questionable. The piece seems committed to the idea that there is some shadowy they out there that are responsible for various culture shifts but it does little beyond vibing to actually make that case. What particular entities are responsible for Kelce's rise? For his dating Swift? How did they do that? What is the evidence that they did this? You will search this piece in vain for answers to these questions.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
6d ago
My wife and I were married for nearly a decade before we bought a house. In the US.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
13d ago
I think the bigger problem for shady companies switching to crypto is that they are going to have expenses they cannot pay in crypto, necessitating entities that will swap their crypto for fiat. These entities are almost certainly, if they do business in the US, required to abide by KYC and AML laws. Maybe randos looking at the blockchain don't know address X is Pornhub, or whatever, but whoever is changing Pornhub's crypto into dollars has a legal obligation to know. So the angle of attack can easily shift from payment processors to whoever is doing their currency exchange. Crypto is censorship proof as long as you only ever have to use crypto but that's not a sustainable state of affairs for most people or businesses.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
17d ago
Farmshine has learned that these fines were ignored on advice of their former attorney, so as not to admit guilt. After all, why should Herr and Wentworth admit guilt for actions that have become commonplace and are open to interpretation of the state’s vague and archaic veterinary law in regard to defining ‘diagnosis’ — especially since pregnancy is not a disease to be diagnosed, but rather a condition to be observed?
This advice is so fucking stupid they should be suing whatever attorney gave it to them. I am not a barred lawyer in PA but I am confident that the proper response to "a state executive agency has inappropriately levied a fine and injunction on me" is "file suit challenging the action in a court of competent jurisdiction" not "ignore it and hope it goes away." All that notwithstanding, reading the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act, it sounds like the board has not followed the legally required procedure for enforcing its judgements. Unless there have been some proceedings initiated in a PA court that are not being mentioned.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
12d ago
What's this?!?! A distinction between "having an urge" and conduct?!? In the realm of sexuality? Say it isn't so! How many times can The Lefties That Be just boldly admit that the entire slew of homosexual behavior to gay marriage cases were based on a fundamental lie?!
I'm a little confused what the lie is supposed to be. In both Lawrence and Obergefell the state was discriminating against people because of their status. If two people of the opposite sex wanted to engage in some conduct they could, but if the two people were of the same sex they couldn't. The conduct wasn't at issue, the status of the participants was. Unless the idea is being a particular sex is conduct rather than a status? Or that the conduct is different if different people are doing it?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
21d ago
One thing that I don't understand is why nobody "inside the kitchen" don't notice how weird their attempts at propaganda seem.
I don't think most people think "white woman protagonist with black man love interest" is "propaganda." Like, propaganda for what? Would it be propaganda if they were both white? If it was an asian woman and a white man? What is the non-propaganda interracial pairing? What makes such a pairing not propaganda?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
12d ago
Technically no, but that's because the logic of Lawrence would extend Griswold and similar right-to-privacy cases to prevent the state from criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults of either the same or opposite sex. Quoting Lawrence:
As an alternative argument in this case, counsel for the petitioners and some amici contend that Romer provides the basis for declaring the Texas statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. That is a tenable argument, but we conclude the instant case requires us to address whether Bowers itself has continuing validity. Were we to hold the statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause some might question whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants.
The opinion then goes on to discuss various right to privacy cases and ultimately come to the conclusion a prohibition on sodomy would likely be unconstitutional applied to basically anyone. Quoting Lawrence again:
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
20d ago
Lately, I've noticed that the tone of the discussion regarding Ukraine both on the Motte and on X has changed considerably. Notably, it seems that people are taking a much more pessimistic view of Ukraine's chances. The default assumption now is that Ukraine will lose the war.
I don't think this is surprising. A lot of Ukraine's ability to resist was predicated on US assistance, which has become increasingly rare due to resistance from House Republican leadership.
User @Sloot shared this nuclear-grade propoganda. While Ukrainian men fight and die in some trench, an increasing number of Ukrainian women are finding new homes (and Tinder dates) in Germany. Concern about female fidelity has always been a prominent feature of wartime propaganda. But, this takes it to a new level, since the women are in a different country, making new, better lives for themselves. How many will ever even return to Ukraine?
This is so bizarre to me. Ukrainian women are... people? They are not the property of Ukrainian men. They are not obliged to restrain from forming relationships or otherwise trying to live their lives because they happen to be refugees.
Ukrainian men are getting a raw deal in an effort to reconquer lost territory, whose residents probably want to be part of Russia anyway. Why should Ukrainians fight and die for some abstract geopolitical goal of NATO?
I do not think "maintaining the territorial integrity of Ukraine" is an "abstract geopolitical goal of NATO."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
13d ago
I am not sure what you mean by a "cut-out." Like, a third party that works with the crypto exchange doing the conversion instead of Pornhub? Unless that third party is also paying all of Pornhub's cash bills it seems like that would be the same as working with the exchange. I guess the idea is the exchange might object to Pornhub but not the third party?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
13d ago
Yes. The problem isn't the Pornhub customers identity (although that is a general problem in crypto) it's that whoever is doing the crypto->fiat conversion for Pornhub needs to know who Pornhub is and so needs to at least tolerate their business. The benefits of being anonymous (or pseudonymous) when using crypto disappear once you need to turn the crypto into cash.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Probably my favorite article on this topic is BloodKnife's everyone is beautiful and no one is horny.
And muscles—giant, pulsating, steroid-enhanced muscles—returned to screens. But the new muscle era lacks the eroticism of Eighties action cinema. Arnold Schwarzenegger showed his glutes in Terminator; Sylvester Stallone stripped for First Blood and Tango & Cash; Bloodsport shows more of Jean Claude Van Damme’s body than that of his love interest.
For the most part, though, today’s cinema hunks are nevernudes. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is strictly PG-13, as one expects from a Disney product. And even in the DC universe, there’s very little of human sexuality. Capefans’ demands for more “mature” superhero movies always mean more graphic violence, not more sex. They panicked over Dr. Manhattan’s glowing blue penis in Watchmen, and they still haven’t forgiven Joel Schumacher for putting nipples on the batsuit.
Today’s stars are action figures, not action heroes. Those perfect bodies exist only for the purpose of inflicting violence upon others. To have fun is to become weak, to let your team down, and to give the enemy a chance to win, like Thor did when he got fat in Endgame.
The short version is that our bodies are not a thing we inhabit, the medium to experience the world. Instead we objectify ourselves. Our bodies are another Attribute To Be Maximized, dissociated from any purpose. Our art merely reflects this change in orientation.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Some university will sue the relevant entities in federal court (or some student will sue a university in federal court) and the order (or universities compliance with it) will be permanently enjoined. The policies the universities are to develop are straightforwardly content based restrictions on speech. This means they must satisfy strict scrutiny. There is no way this order, or policies flowing from it, satisfy strict scrutiny. Especially if the IHRA's definition of antisemitism is to be a guide to sanctioned speech.
No, because that pairing actually reflects reality rather than distorting it.
I don't see how this is true. According to PEW (as of 2017) 11% of interracial relationships in the US were white/black compared to 15% that are white/asian. Black men are twice as likely to have a white spouse as black women, while about 50% more asian women have a white spouse compared to asian men. That's 7% of all interracial marriages that are black man/white woman compared to 9% of interracial marriages that are white man/asian woman. Hardly a substantial difference.
Obviously not.
Why not? Surely it would be propaganda against race-mixing then.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
I mean, he did try to get his Vice President to unilaterally throw out Electoral College votes so that he would be elected President. Not sure if that counts as "nefarious electioneering."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Your first quote is from some university administrator who is, obviously, wrong about how the law works. I also note none of the students in question seem to have actually sued over their punishment. They should have. I think they would have had an excellent chance. Courts do not just insert themselves in disputes to vindicate rights, someone has to ask them to. Here is a pretty good breakdown of how Title IX actually works from the congressional research service.
Freedom of speech went up against Title IX, and Title IX won. The only reason I can see this being any different is that it's not supported by the Biden admin.
There are many differences. Title XI, for example, generally requires some individual(s) be subject to discrimination or harassment. Abbott's order contains no such language.
If the government can require that a school investigate and expel a student for "misgendering," why can't they require the same for yelling "gas the jews"?
Can you give me some examples of the US government requiring a student be expelled for misgendering?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
On the one hand I am inclined to be sympathetic to this genre of complaints. I think the proliferation of Trusted Platform Modules and Intel's AMT are real problems with user control of the software running on their computer. On the other hand, I don't really see how these complaints relate to the White House advice on using memory safe languages. Rust is licensed under the MIT license. Python's license is GPL-Compatible. What is un-free about those? C and C++ do give you lower level control over memory but lots of developers mess that part up and write insecure code. Unless you need to be managing that lower level memory for some compelling reason you probably should use a language that provides more memory safety.
All code will need to be signed. Maybe you can self sign code you've written on your local system, but nobody else will be able to run it. Unless they go through the added hoops of adding your key to some sort of key store for "recognized" code. But eventually the self signed qualities of the code will catch up to you, and Windows may just refuse to accept self signed code certs anymore. But no fear! Maybe Github or other organization will offer to sign your code for you. Assuming it meets their TOS, nobody on social media has cancelled you, and their AI hasn't rejected your project for hallucinated reasons. But eventually, however well relying on a 3rd party like Github to allow your code to run on your locked down operating system and your locked down hardware starts off, it will become a barely viable solution. And then free and open software is over.
Maybe once upon a time "it's hard to get a cert" was a valid complaint but today there exist fully automated services like Let's Encrypt. Their root certificate even comes default as trusted on my new windows installation. They even issue certificates to websites that may be phishing or malware. There is not really any excuse for your site to be lacking some kind of cert for auth and signing in 2024.
My response is that we have no objective reason whatsoever to believe the scientific method is worked in hindsight -- not for the purpose of discovering universal laws of nature, anyway! I will grant that we have had pretty good luck with science-based engineering in the tiny little spec of the universe observable to us. I will even grant that this justifies the continued use of engineering for practical purposes with relative confidence -- under the laws of statistics, so long as, say, one anomaly per hundred thousand hours of use is an acceptable risk.
From my perspective, and I suspect the perspective of most people who care about the scientific method, this gives the whole game away. Sure, the things we call the "laws of nature" may not be the true causal description of the universe at some level. What matters is that the universe acts as if they were universally true, as best we can tell. Sufficiently so that we can use them as a basis for intervention in reality and accurately predict the results in advance. Crucially any refinements to these laws will need to explain all the same observations that the laws they are replacing did. This has happened with scientific theories before. Newtonian mechanics was supplanted with various relativistic mechanics explanations for objects that are very large, or very small, or very fast. To put it another way:
Ah, again this is the result of a confusion. The laws of the universe are not like the laws of man - they do not dictate to nature what it should or should not do. The so-called "laws of nature" are descriptive only. If what we did "violated" the laws of nature, we would not call that action free from the laws - we would merely say that our laws were not correct, and try to modify them to match this new behavior. So you see, one cannot even speak of "violating the laws of nature", for those laws are simply whatever occurs.
Scientific laws are not the source code of the universe, they're just formalizations of observed relationships.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
26d ago
Much like how it supports the Jewish settlers in the West Bank I don't see why Israel can't support a resettlement project of the Gazans into the West Bank too. It'll cost billions sure, but that's still worth it if Israel annexes Gaza once it's done with its operation. Instead we don't really have any good plan for what will happen to the civilian Gazans after Israel razes their entire land to get at Hamas.
Israel cannot do this because they also want to annex the West Bank and moving more Palestinians there will make that harder.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
First, your rights are not obligations. A right is simply an option that you can choose to exercise or not. The obligation pertains to others, who are obliged to get out of your way. The right to have a homeland is not, therefore, an obligation to have one. Some peoples may be content within multiethnic states. If they are, they are not obliged to change anything. However, if they aren’t happy — if they believe that independence is necessary for them to maintain their identity and way of life — then they have the right to exit and create their own homeland, and everybody else is obligated to get out of their way.
Then it seems like Johnson should have no problem with the state of affairs as they exist! Speaking strictly empirically, it would not be impossible for various states he imagines as potential white ethnostates to become less racially diverse. If the ethnics he imagines wanting their own state sufficiently desired it they could make it happen. They merely don't. Indeed, since countries have been much more ethnically homogeneous in the past it seems clear it was their will to become more ethnically diverse since that was the actual result of the policies they preferred.
The nice thing about sovereignty is that peoples get to define themselves.
...
An Irishman can become an American, but a Nigerian simply can’t.
What if the people who constitute "Americans" believe a "Nigerian" can become an "American?" I guess Johnson must know better than the ethnics themselves who can or cannot be a member of their ethnicity.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
As a car consumer: sounds great! I've been thinking about trading mine in for a while now. Excited to see what's on offer. Hell, GM already sells a truck I'd like to buy, but only in China. Maybe Chinese competition can get them to bring it over here?
Why should I, and every other car buyer, pay more money for cars so that Mary Barra can keep pulling down $30M/year?
I think one angle missing here is why women want the ability to have their own careers, income streams, etc. This post seems to reduce it to a kind of cultural brainwashing which is far too simplistic. Women want the ability to have their own careers and income streams for the same reason men do: they want to have some control over their lives. They want to be able to mitigate the downside risk that comes with being completely financially dependent on someone else. Imagine you're a woman. You give up your career, education, etc to become a homemaker for a man. Half a decade in (perhaps with two or three children) he becomes an abusive alcoholic. What kind of options do you have for protecting yourself and your children? For exiting the relationship? I know, as a man, I would be pretty uncomfortable being completely dependent on someone else due to the potential for abuse. it seems totally rational to me that women feel similarly. I suspect many women have heard stories from family members or friends about such relationships and so the concern seems especially salient to them. How prestigious does motherhood have to be for women, as individuals, not to care about that downside risk?
More options
Context Copy link