MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
The problem is that having social sports essentially closed off to most normies is that it closes off a lot of social and health goods to people who are not sporty enough to even make a team at eight years old.
For socially awkward boys, participation in team sports allows them to socialize with other boys their own age, to develop social skills, and to develop self confidence in ways that few other activities can. Cutting off all but the most athletic players from basic participation in a social activity creates lonely and disaffected boys who grow up into lonely and disaffected men. Men who lack the confidence and social skills and status to succeed in dating, the job market, or anywhere else.
Then you have the same issue in general health. The youngsters who internalize the message that they just aren’t good at sports often end up living pretty sedentary lives and don’t bother to try something athletic. They then are much less healthy than they could be if they weren’t made self conscious about their ability to do athletic things. For every kid drummed out of little league in 4th grade, maybe 1 in ten would find ways to be active and fit later on.
As a matter of social goods, having kids participate in sports and thus learn to appreciate being active, develop social skills, and form friendships and community with neighbors is an important things to have, and tge destruction of that system is creating lots of problems for young men especially who need that system to properly socialize and to be healthy. Girls benefit from sport, but they often have other avenues for socialization and so it doesn’t affect them as much.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
The problem for the thesis that Trump is going to usher in an era of “unfair elections” is that the system has worked this way from the literal inception of the American government. The electoral college has long overpowered urban areas in elections, to the point where California with 50+ electoral votes, alongside other large urban centers like New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, etc. are so important to the presidency that they spend most of their energy trying to win those states. The last election hinged on three states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia. If you live in Wyoming, your vote literally doesn’t matter. Your whole state gets three votes. If Pennsylvania and Michigan wanted to have Wyoming nuked as a major election issue, pack your bags, because you’re getting the bomb.
To be honest, this is the veneer rubbing off to the point that most people can now see what our Republic always was. We were always a nation ruled by the coastal elites, pushing those concerns and values. The question is what to do now with a brief window in which the peasant population in flyover states is given brief control over the levers of power. And this is where the “our democracy” rhetoric is coming from. Not because we are losing democracy, we never really had it. But now the left is on the side the right is usually on, and they don’t like it. They don’t like having alien values forced on them, or having their institutions disempowered. So this is the end of democracy.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
The argument against that is that if I have funding and I think I won’t next week, if I get a reprieve by “putting medical devices in bodies”, then I might just do that. Or maybe a drug that needs to be strictly monitored, again, if I will lose everything if I don’t and I get to maintain funding and my job if I just start the trials and hope that the funding doesn’t dry up, why not?
And this would actually be worse for those patients who are being asked to start said trials knowing that the funds might not be there to finish. I’ll be honest, any doctor at the moment trying to recruit people for a NIH trial on a serious disease like cancer knowing that the funding won’t be there should have his license yanked. We know these trials will be stopped, and we know that those recruits will waste time and possibly risk health doing a trial that will stop. And those patients lose time for treatment.
That’s where ripping off the bandage helps. We know the trials are stopping mid trial so people signing up now should know better.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
I would contend that we are headed for an economic collapse simply because we are spending so much more than we produce in GDP, often by simply printing more dollars. To an extent, we can get away with it for now, simply because we’re the World Reserve Currency and oil is traded in Petrodollars. I don’t believe that’s going to last as long as we think it will, and large amounts of liabilities are going to make the process much harder because we’ll be dealing with several crises at once.
First, Theres the inflation from trillions of dollars that will be eventually dumped when the world switches to Petroleum-Yuan or whatever currency we eventually trade oil in. Then you have people and even entire countries suddenly not getting the expected benefits as they’ve long since become dependent on them. You also have millions of people who have been doing essentially make-work jobs and have few marketable skills.
The combination is going to be a poly crisis that will probably crater the US economy and possibly the world economy as well. Add in people used to the government tit no longer getting their benefits, government workers looking for work with no skills that mean anything outside of the government/NGO environment, now needing help or working minimum jobs, needed services no longer happening because the costs are too high to justify showing up. Teachers get low wages now, but if we have 20% inflation and no teacher can afford to be a teacher.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
The end run around the “tone” thing is what makes it useless in a state — the way to prevent criticism is to be offended easily. Islam has weaponized the concept as any negative statement about Islam is blasphemy and therefore rude. Any criticism of certain parts of woke are offensive just because those things have been defined as sexist, racist, X-phobic. And thus you can rudely defy it (and risk arrest) or simply remain silent and let them win.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
The problem is that because we’re stepping in all the time, first of all, it’s just expected that every global problem is our responsibility to fix. And it isn’t sustainable to keep doing this. We have finite resources, limited by not only how much we can produce, but how much our own people need.
Secondly, it’s actively working against getting countries to clean up their own messes. Why would Africans demand their government give them better education or health care when Americans show up and do it for them? For that matter, why would Ghanaian government officials bother to not steal education money when we’ve already given them money to build schools and buy books? Why spend money you could put in a Swiss bank account to buy TB drugs when Uncle Joe Biden will just give them to you for the asking?
It doesn’t even give us good will. The programs don’t seem to make other countries respect us or even like us. They see us mostly as the stupid people who give them stuff no strings attached. We’re suckers. Iraq hates us, but despite that, and despite the fact that they don’t like us, don’t like democratic values, we’re going to fund them.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
Except that “doing it on a rational basis” means getting information about the programs, having public criteria, and sitting down with the heads of the various programs. Word of mouth will quickly out what kinds of programs (say defense) that Trump won’t cut. Then suddenly for no reason at all, everything in USAID is defense related. If you cut than later perhaps restore, there’s a good chance of most of the cuts sticking because you didn’t start out negotiating, you started by laying down the law.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
The other side of that is that leaving room for arguments just leads to the deed never actually getting done.
Imagine a situation where a patient is morbidly obese. He weighs 500 lbs. if he doesn’t lose weight, he dies. Do you start by “negotiating” about how many cheat days he gets? How many sugary drinks he’s allowed to have? How many times he gets to eat dessert? Or do you hand him a strict diet plan that tells him that if he wants to see 2035, he needs to drink only water, not eat more than 2200 calories a day, and he can’t go over. When you start from the position that the cure is negotiable, you end up coming up with excuses to continue the behaviors or in this case the spending habits because if there are loopholes, then you’ll tend to find ways to squeeze more and more programs into the loopholes and not end up doing any actual cutting. If things that are national defense are okay, everything becomes national defense. Just like if you start allowing people to declare cheat days, every day will eventually meet the criteria for a cheat day.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
I think it’s a good strategy because the left has long since weaponized empathy to the point where any cut to government anywhere is going to hurt the empathy puppy. Which effectively means that if you start acknowledging the “do no harm” principle, you effectively cannot ever cut spending. So heartlessness is the only defense against the weaponized empathy. It doesn’t work on people who state openly that they don’t care about the empathy puppy.
And at this point, we have no choice. We cannot sustainably be the world’s sugar daddy, protector, doctor, infrastructure manager and nature conservator. We probably have many more domestic programs than we can actually afford to sustainably support. If we keep that up, we’re going to end up in a mess when we can no longer produce enough value to support this. We might already be there.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
The thing with Hitler as the new Satan is that the narrative has been a dominant narrative because it’s a very good origin story for the Rules Based International Order (RBIO).
That story goes something like this:
Once upon a time, there was an Evil German guy named Hitler. He was mean to everyone, invaded several countries in Europe, killed a bunch of political enemies, and genocided Jews and Gypsies. This is all of course very bad. He was winning for a long time, and hope was fading, until all of the Allies banded together to fight this very evil man and his very scary regime full of soldiers wearing Hugo Bass. And the allies won! The world was saved from German Nazis (and Japan, who was actually equally bad if not worse, and never apologized, but just ignore that) rebuilt by the RBIO into a peaceful prosperous place.
This does a few things.
First, it’s a post-Christian system of morals and ethics. It’s secular and makes no reference to any religious beliefs. This is critical because religion tends to get in the way of things people really want to do. You can’t quote scripture to justify doing one thing without bringing along everything else in that text. The Bible forbids being gay, excessive interest, exploiting the poor, among other things. And people don’t like some of those rules. But it’s a lot easier to make a case if you can just point to New Satan and say “you know who else didn’t like gay people? Hitler.”
Second, it provides an easy justification for war. Basically, if you can point to something the Nazis were doing being done by modern states, you get to bomb the crap out of that country, you get to invade, you can impose sanctions on them, anything you want. It’s insane to me how often such stories are told about countries we wanted to invade. Iraq, Russia, Serbia, Iran, Israel and Palestine (depending on whose side you’re on in that conflict) and so on. If you hear comparisons to Nazi germany, chances are that Theres going to at least be sanctions, if not an invasion.
Third, it’s a message to unaligned countries that you want to be on our side. After all, we defeated the Nazis, and therefore we can protect you from anyone who’d invade your country. We have the manpower and the will to protect shipping lanes, and we can solve disputes with the UN.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
I think the Statist and Libertarian approaches are naive in opposite directions. Libertarians tend to be naive about people abusing the lack of control to exploit the weak. Statists tend to be naive about abuses of power.
So a libertarian wouldn’t worry too much about things like the power differential between an employer and employee, or between a strong person and a weak one. Or between a teacher and student. And they assume that no one would exploit a knowledge gap to make more money. So they don’t see a need for any government intervention in those things because employers would never exploit an employee’s desperation for a wage to get them to accept unsafe conditions or longer work hours. A pharmacist wouldn’t give you a substance they knew was addictive just to get a repeat buyer.
On the Statist side, they tend to assume that anyone in government is protected by magic good-guy dust and thus would never use their power to reward friends, punish enemies, or enrich themselves. They assume that no cop ever abuses power over a person he assumes is a criminal.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
I think there are a lot of the true believers in government posts, because the person most likely to take a job in government is the one with the least realistic outlook on most issues mostly for lack of experience. They’ve never been to a ghetto at all with or without police, they don’t know anything about people who live there.
Second, excluding the very top tiers of government, the job is one that you take as a middle class job of last resort. Thus those in the government are likely to be uncritical of anything popular that they’ve been told. They went from their communications degree at some middling university to answering emails on behalf of the government because the6 honestly cannot get a middle class position in the private sector.
Put those together, and you end up with isolated mandarins who believe exactly what the cathedral has told them about the world and who know that not toeing the line is dangerous anyway.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
Individual states would have laws about things that only are made, bought, and sold within that state. So if I own a restaurant with locations only in Alabama, using ingredients sourced in Alabama, then nothing about the situation would be subject to interstate commerce laws. That’s the world of the original intent of the laws. And a huge benefit is that such a thing offers protection to small businesses as any large conglomerates would be subject to a lot of federal laws that a small local business isn’t. It would allow local restaurants to compete against the chain restaurants by giving them enough of a break that they can stay in business because they don’t have as high of a cost to own or run a business.
The problem is that the definition of “interstate” has been stretched beyond all reasonable definitions. There’s no way that a person living in the United States even today would come to the conclusion that wheat grown on your personal property with no intention of selling it has anything to do with interstate commerce, heck, there’s not even a cause to call it commerce— nothing is being sold. There’s a case perhaps if you sell to someone else who has the intent of reselling across state lines that anything sold to such a reseller could be covered under interstate commerce laws, but things that don’t enter or leave the state are not interstate.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
I don’t think that’s the case. It’s not that America First has no plans, it’s that most of them run on the premise of lowering taxes and regulations and reducing government involvement. The reason they don’t have a government plan (which is what most commentators mean when they say “what’s the plan?) is that they don’t think government should be doing those things. They aren’t communists, and therefore their housing plan is “lower the tax burden so people have money, remove the zoning laws and the environmental regulations that prevent homes from being built, and let Americans do their thing.” That’s not going to show up as a plan, because the plan is to get out of the way.
A big part of this is of course not blowing trillions of dollars a year doing silly unproductive things for everyone else with taxpayers money. Funding Ukraine is a marginal case at best, it’s a billion dollars a month to prop up the Nebraska of Eastern Europe until they inevitably run out of people to kidnap for the front lines. Funding kids shows in Iraq is a loss because Middle East TV simply pushes Islamic fundamentalism and jihad. Going down the list most of these “aid” programs are basically grifting— pay an NGO full of PMC kids to pretend they’re doing something important overseas, while doing nothing more than paddling their pockets from the three figure salary they get for pretending to help out. At this point, freeing up the public money wasted on these grifter programs and giving the money to average Americans who would build businesses and make things and cure diseases and so on.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
On the other hand, consequences removed also remove any incentive to stop doing stupid things. Maybe cutting funds to treat active disease is a bad idea, but I do think that much more of the burden for these kinds of lifestyle diseases (not just promiscuous sexual activity, but obesity, drug use, smoking, and high risk trill seeking) that add burdens to the public, and often not nearly as much for the person who brought the problems on themselves. If they were to see others like themselves forced to pay for treatment after a lifetime of risky behavior catches up to them, they’d likely take at least some warning. It’s much like what’s happened in the student loan crisis— more and more kids are choosing options other than college because they see how much trouble their older siblings and parents got themselves in by going to college without a solid plan. If we’d actually managed to forgive the loans, that would not happen. And I think the same might well work to a degree for lifestyle choices that cause disease or injury— if you had to spend yourself into poverty undoing the damage of I.e. obesity, then a lot of people would look at people having to do that because they couldn’t put down their forks and decide to download a weight-loss app and control their eating and exercise plan. If they see their future as “I’ll just get free ozempic at taxpayer expense when it gets bad enough,” tge lack of negative consequences give them no reason to avoid the problem or take positive steps to fix it.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
Interstate commerce regulations are a big problem. Basically, Congress was given the power to regulate “interstate commerce”, which by now has been stretched by the administrative state to mean “anything a person can conceive of offering for sale, even if it never crosses sate lines, and even if nobody actually buys or sells it.” This redefinition of “interstate commerce” is the reason for most of the overreaching by the AS, because it allowed them to basically regulate all commerce anywhere. Which is why we have things like regulations on the kinds of toilets you can install in your house, or tge kinds of materials that can be used in mattresses. You name it, there’s a regulation for it, and most of it traces back to an insane court ruling that allowed the government to tax wheat grown on private property, and not only had no intention of selling it across state lines, but had no intention to sell it at all.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
True, but it’s also the problem that the system itself and the systems it touches are extremely complex. Democracy could work even with a decent sized population if the system is fairly simple and stable. 300,000,000 people could manage a simple tax code of five pages, or a transportation system that consists of horses, buggies, human feet, and boats powered by wind or oars. At this point, the American tax system is so complicated and has so many books of rules, it’s impossible to understand unless you are a specialist. The transportation system includes trains, busses, planes, boats, road maintenance, crossing points for trains and cars, management of the airspace for commercial traffic, rules for vehicle maintenance, traffic control and traffic laws, and probably dozens of other things im not aware of. Multiplying that by the number of things that the government does, and you have a system that nobody can understand with just a casual reading of the New York Times.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
I’d really like an explanation as to how hair braiding can cause serious injury or death or damage property significantly. Having someone giving you drugs, doing surgery, yes, if I don’t have the training necessary I can seriously injure people. Building a house that someone will live in, again, if I have no idea how to build a structurally sound house, it can fall and kill people inside. I’m not suggesting that even most cases of licensing are that today. In fact, most fall well outside of “messing this process up a cause serious injury or property damage or loss (the the case of financial mismanagement)” where I think the line should be drawn.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
At best, our republican system makes us a country full of hiring managers who get their idea of what the people they’re hiring actually do from a 3rd grade civics class they barely remember, and with an understanding of the issues that they glean from 30 minutes of heavily curated news be it newspapers, online news sources, or TV. The rest comes from Hollywood, through stories where certain people and certain acts are given hagiographic treatment, and certain other people are held up as villains and certain acts are considered evil. Or music celebrating causes, acts or ideas.
I don’t think it can work. It might work in the early industrial era when the world was small enough and simple enough that a person with basic literacy and numeracy could learn enough to let “common sense” be a good way to make decisions.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
I mean it depends on the profession and the risk of either crime or serious damage to property or health, I can make a case for having a pullable license, liability insurance that can pay for damages caused to consumers or for injuries to the customer, possibly to pay for injuries to the workers themselves so they don’t end up suing the customer who hired them. But for 80% or more of the licenses issued and required, no such risks exist. Outside of major home repairs and construction projects, the biggest concern would be medical care. In both cases, you can end up creating major, even life threatening problems, and the general public knows little about engineering or medicine so they can’t inspect the work themselves.
As for the rest — cosmetology, simple home or auto repairs, food service, etc., the risk of serious damage or injuries are small enough that there’s simply no good reason for the license requirements. You don’t need an associate degree to stock shelves or cut hair or change the oil on a car.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
I don’t deny human agency. There are three issues here that create the teeming masses as easily manipulated.
First, most people don’t know or understand politics. Not just in the third grade civics class stuff (although I would seriously doubt that the median voter has more than a vague idea of how the government is supposed to work), but the informal mechanisms that make the sausage. And so most people could probably give a better explanation of how American football works and tge strategic planning of plays in football than could do the same in American politics.
And the world in which the political system is being used is hugely complex on top of that. In the best of circumstances, politics should be the job of professional leaders who not only know the system inside and out, but understand how the complex systems that the political system works within. The people working on trade and international relations in MENA understand the players, they understand the religion and more than likely speak Arabic, Hebrew, and Persian well enough to read newspapers and get an idea of public sentiment. People working on the tax code generally have degrees in economic theory and management. They talk to the movers in big industries and know how that code affects them.
The average person has an unrelated job that takes up 50 hours a week, kids, and hobbies. He is unlikely to have the time to sit down and become well informed about dozens of issues in politics. That’s assuming he actually wants to. Which most people actually don’t. Normies don’t watch Washington like even we do. They’re interested in TV shows on Netflix, sports, and other similar topics.
Add in the literal firehose of propaganda beamed into every home, car and business all the time, and often with a singular message and purpose, and yes, normies are easily influenced to believe whatever they want to believe about their leaders and proper leadership of their country.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
I’m not convinced that Jews in Israel would give up their only Jewish state for any reason, as I said, Jewish history isn’t one of success and power and so on. Its pogroms, expulsions, culminating in a holocaust. No Israeli will give up Israel to go back to that. And I think this is behind the response to Palestinians— if they lose Israel, Jews will be back in ghettos hoping that the rest of us don’t try to hurt them again. Better to be a pariah state than risk not being a state at all.
And Kamala Harris is hardly an evangelical speaking to evangelicals. Even so, the best they could come up with contra Israel is “we fully support Israel’s right to defend itself, and at worst we’re slowing down the sale of weapons (NB, not even stopping, just slowing). That in the face of protests and arguably at the cost of her winning the election. The elites are fully on board here.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
I think that underestimates Israel on two points. First, unlike other colonial powers the people making the decisions have no where else to go. Israel is the only Jewish majority state on th3 planet. Given the last 2000 years of Jewish history, if Jews lose the country they control, and their military ability to defend themselves they fully expect a return to periodic pogroms and expulsions. That’s what their history has been in Europe. That’s a lot different from most other colonial projects done by Europeans projecting power from relative security in Europe and thus could give up on a territory without putting themselves in danger. Jews in Israel will fight to the last man and woman to protect Israel because they have no other option.
Second, Israel has the full backing of the USA. Even in the face of huge opposition, neither party could bring themselves to offer more than pious mouth noises as they give Israel full access to the American arsenal and logistical and intelligence support on the side. Trump has, if anything provided more of this support, including strong arming Jordan and Egypt into taking Palestinians into their countries. Other countries in the region don’t have that.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4mo ago
Just because the liberals folded doesn’t mean that the Cathedral doesn’t exist. It means precisely that the liberals didn’t want to fight in the ways you mentioned. I’d argue that it’s because they don’t have to. As long as they have control of the university system, NGOs, and the administrative system, the damage that a Trump Presidency can do is limited and temporary.
Every student leaving a university has been trained to support DEI and redistribution of wealth. They’ve been trained to be globalist and to be if not atheists, at least very secular. And most of them, even if they don’t agree with that, have to go along with it because the DEI loving HR office won’t tolerate dissent.
It doesn’t matter if your a red tribe Californian as the state has three huge blue urban centers that outweigh the red vote, so the state is a lock for tge blues. The state isn’t competitive, but on a federal level, if you removed those few locked in states, the country is actually far redder than most people actually believe. Further, there are states that are only blue because of a huge blue city in an otherwise red state. Illinois has been this way for decades. 99% of tge state are red tribe. The state is solid blue because of Chicago.
More options
Context Copy link