@MaiqTheTrue's banner p

MaiqTheTrue

Renrijra Krin

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

				

User ID: 1783

MaiqTheTrue

Renrijra Krin

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1783

The controversy on Reddit was that the writers on that particular episode must be Nazis because the villian of the story was particularly in Starfleet and had dialogue that suggested he believed that Nazis were on to something. So obviously the only reason that you could possibly make a character say something positive about Nazis is that they were obviously Nazis. Which, to me seems like a bizarre way to approach literature where the artist is incapable of imagining a belief he doesn’t actually hold. It’s like saying imagination doesn’t exist. But given that understanding of literature I can easily see why the message tends to be smack people on the head obvious simply because they cannot be anything else.

I think this is broadly true, but I think there’s another serious problem which is that starting with Gen X, there’s been a steady decline in literacy in the sense of having read and absorbed enough written fiction to understand how to use things like symbolism and metaphor and subtext to tell good stories. It’s actually weird, but for artists, they are not subtle at all. One conversation on Reddit sort of crystallizes this. There’s a very famous episode of old series Star Trek in which Kirk lands on a planet full of literal Nazis. As in full on swastika wearing, goose stepping Nazis. Turns out that this Nazi planet was turned Nazi, deliberately by a rogue Starfleet officer. Now, lots of people on Reddit, college educated, supposedly literate had a huge problem with the episode. They could not grasp that you could have the bad guy defend a bad idea unless you secretly hold the views that the villain is espousing. And of course if you can’t imagine other people telling stories without having to explain that X is bad so that you understand that they don’t agree with it, telling a story where you don’t hit people over the head with your own views lest you be accused of heresy becomes impossible. First because you don’t want to be mistaken as a heretic, as you kinda need to be able to work in mainstream media, but second because you have no idea how to use subtext or metaphor or symbolism to get a point across. It’s a skill issue.

I mean so was the printing press. I don’t see this as a huge problem, as eventually we will learn to deal with it. And I find that in almost all cases, the dangers of censorship and centralized clearing houses of information is that not only does it make organized lying possible— in fact easy — but it makes countering the official lies nearly impossible.

The danger of too much contrarianism is being exposed to crazy ideas that fail on critical examination. This is at least possible because the truth is also available.

I think what will force the reckoning is not sincere questions, but losing ground in the business. Not just “people don’t go see the Palestinian genocide narrative supporting Superman, but people actively choose to support superheroes who espouse things they actually believe in. Create a pro-American superhero narrative that gets released to the same theaters that Woke Marvel goes to and I think they’ll at least downplay the Message. Have a pro-American, pro-Western Oikophillic Space Opera (maybe a revived Flash Gordon) release at the same time as Star Wars Old Republic, and when Star Wars flops, they might get the message.

For much too long, the Cathedral institutions have not faced an actual challenger. There are no real classical education modeled colleges and universities to challenge the chokehold that modern universities have on the student population. There aren’t many movies in mainstream distribution that really have traditional themes in them.

I find it useful to know what people like, and I upvote interesting ideas. I wouldn’t say that most people here are bright red MAGA, but we do lean a bit conservative in most issues.

So where exactly are they talking about it? They don’t say that as their agenda in most public facing platforms. Kamala didn’t run on “let’s be more socialist” nor was there a Socialist Agenda 2025 that would get that to happen. Kamala and most of the apparatus ran specifically as Anti-Trump, referring to the agenda as dangerous fascism, scaremongering about white Christian nationalism and Project 2025. They started calling JD Vance weird. And keep in mind that this was the Presidential Election Campaign, and they were pouring everything into winning, but they never really said “we want universal healthcare” or “let’s build a bunch of infrastructure” or “the government should raise the minimum wage.”

To me, this points to one of two things: either the agenda is unpopular and they know it, or they don’t have an agenda to run on. It just doesn’t make sense to say that socialism is popular and they want socialism, but they are running on Orange Man Bad Evil Fascist With Kooties.

Trump Derangement Syndrome: The refrain from Biden and his handlers throughout the process was monotonous. We need to beat Donald Trump, Donald Trump is uniquely dangerous, Joe Biden is the only one to beat Donald Trump in an election (there’s a good chance he retains that honor forever). Democrats convinced themselves that Trump was so uniquely evil that they had to throw out all sense of decency to beat him; this kept them from beating him. Democrats convinced themselves that voters would reject Trump so thoroughly that it didn’t matter they were running an empty shell of what was left of Joe Biden; this destroyed voter trust in the Dems as a whole and cost them the election across the country. The Dems lost the plot completely due to TDS, and started to think they could or should do things they never would have thought of otherwise.

I think this in various forms is why democrats won’t be winning anymore. Not so much that it’s TDS, but that the entire strategy of their politics is negative, not just because they don’t like Trump or the Republicans. They’re negative in the sense of *negative space”. We aren’t evil like those guys, those guys want to do [insert evil thing here]. But that’s not a vision. There’s nothing to build toward, no city on the hill, no “once we do these things your life will get better.” Republicans, whether you agree with them or not, absolutely have an idea of what they want, why they want it, and how it’s supposed to make the median person better off. It might or might not work, but they absolutely have a plan, and furthermore a plan to actually do what they said they wanted to do. So when people go into the booth, they know if they vote Republican, Theres a actual agenda that’s supposed to help them, where a democrat mostly is going to thwart that plan in favor of the status quo. If you’re looking for change, you want republicans, even if you’re not completely sold on what those changes are, at least it’s not the stuff you already know doesn’t help.

I see things in sort of the opposite direction. I think shutting the great art behind the enormous paywall of university means that only members of the elite will ever see it or get anything out of it. It made sense in the era before printing, video, or the internet to keep the high classical artwork and literature behind the walls of a university. But just because I, a peasant, can buy and read a copy of Aristotle’s metaphysics doesn’t mean that you can’t. Nor does being outside the system mean that there are few helps to make the thing easier to learn. Furthermore, how does a culture keep interest in things that most people will never see?

It’s not just looking good for an employer. The main benefit is that while study-maximizing might help you get into a better school, it’s not very good if the lack of work-ethic, time management, prioritization, or working with other people to solve a problem mean that you end up failing or underperforming because you lack the skills to capitalize on the opportunity given to go to the elite school. It’s the difference between optimization to get the first date and optimization to get a fiancé. You can absolutely find advice about how to get through the dating app grind — and it is important to do so. But that advice doesn’t necessarily work when the game changes and now you want to keep the relationship. Getting into Yale is a skillset unrelated to staying in Yale. If you spend all your time training to get in, but none learning the skills that allow you to thrive in an environment where no one is around to give you the step by step instructions on how to do everything and stay around to see that you actually did it.

And actually this is the thing that I’m seeing lots of high school and college educators complain about with the younger generation. They don’t have the skill of doing things without being told, they don’t have the ability to work ahead on projects. And a lot of them don’t know how to problem solve when there are no explicit instructions on how to do that. As I said above,im not convinced that only a stint as a fast food drone will teach those kinds of soft skills. In fact sports and volunteer work can do so as well. But unless kids learn those skills to do things without the adults walking them through every step, they cannot possibly do well in college and probably even after college.

I think this is probably more accurate, and really of society as a whole. The dominant position seems to be “if you didn’t get college credit, it doesn’t count.” I get it for job skills, as college credits and degrees mean someone verified that you actually did the work. It never made sense to me in art, literature, history, or other liberal arts. Those things can be easily learned by simply reading tge texts, or practicing drawing or writing. If I had a kid who wanted to be a writer, im not sure I’d make him go through university— in fact it’s a waste of time. Instead, I’d have him write on substack or some other blogging platform and learn to communicate with an audience. Same with art. There’s enough instruction out there that you could learn the techniques of your chosen medium, and the rest is down to practice and getting feedback. But it seems like so many people want to get those kinds of degrees even when they don’t make sense.

But our society somehow bought the university marketing that told them that only learning something in a university classroom taught by a TA who has 500 students a day counts. If I pass a course on WW2 history, that counts as learning history. If I read every book I can get my hands on for that topic, read first hand accounts, looked at raw footage, etc. it doesn’t. Problem being that I’ve actually done a lot more work than the kid sleeping through their lectures in Turner Hall. And unlike him, I’ve actually done all the reading.

I mean, yes you improve past age 12, but if I started violin at 6-7 and you start at 13-14, I have somewhere between 6-8 years of practice ahead of anything you could do in the time between 14-18 and I will be much better than you. It’s that way with sports. If you want to have a chance of playing high school sports, you have to be playing select sports by 8 because otherwise you’ll not get enough quality practice to compete with those who did.

I’m one who at this point doesn’t care much. Unless you’re really going to perp-walk whatever celebrities are on the list as well as anyone who provided the girls or the money — which isn’t going to happen— the list is academic. It’s pointless to waste mental bandwidth on guessing who is on the list, what they did, who paid for it, and what they’re getting out of it when none of it will change anything. Game of Thrones happens all through the political systems of every country that has ever existed or ever will exist. Stuff like this is what elites do.

As far a China — I’ve no doubt that most elites or potential elites are on very similar lists.

I’m sort of torn here because some of the things you learn on a job are things that will very helpful once you pass through all the testing and actually get to college. Things like showing up to work on time, doing tasks as instructed, going to work even though your friends have something more fun in mind, time management. Now what happens with a lot of kids is that the6 got used to the handholding that happens in high school where the teachers basically walk everyone through that big paper or assignment with every step checked off and multiple reminders about when the thing is due. And the6 start college where the midterm paper is in the syllabus but never mentioned, or maybe mentioned once or twice in passing— until the TA is collecting them. A kid who never learned to do the work will probably forget until the last minute.

I don’t think that con only happen at work. Sports teams can do the same. Maybe math camps? I never went to one.

Entryism can be undone by a second group of entryists doing what you did. To keep an open society traditionally catholic, you’d have to limit the number of nonbelievers allowed in, and certainly keep sharp eyes on those who enter “cathedrals” in your community. Harvard was started as a Christian university. It no longer is, and is oftentimes hostile towards the ideology of its founding.

I’m not sure how sinful it is, but most of the people who talk about it seem a bit off. Like they don’t really seem to care about anything else.

Well, if anything I think we’ll see a lot more “orthodox” religious expression than anything else. The thing that seems to be happening is that people join churches with stronger dogmas and less ecumenical practices and a sort of “purity culture”. For example there are a fair number of converts to orthodoxy that seem to push for rebapism as if they’re joining a new religion. On the Protestant end, the number of things that are “demonic” are growing really fast. There are influencers who are convinced that fast food is demonic, or that relatively common symbols are demonic. Fast food is unhealthy, but I think most people would have laughed at the idea of McDonald’s being satanic (the teen spitting in your food might have been a “satanist” in the goth bug your parents sense when I was in high school, but nobody thought that McDonald’s itself was demonic. Catholics have always had sedavacantists and traditionalists.

I expect that these groups will basically push to create places where they can live in religious communities perhaps something on the order of the Mennonite or Amish communities where those religious values and interpretations are at least social expectations if not codified in local laws. Convinced that these groups want religion to play a very large role in how life is lived. They want to have I.e. orthodoxy and those rules inform every aspect of their lives.

I’m positive that most people whining about this are not even aware of what the changes made will actually do. Reddit especially is the land of *people who freak out without bothering to find out what the changes actually do. Outside looking in, my answer would be “not much.” For the 99% of American veterans and their families using the VA, the gender column is a redundant sex column. Its deletion changes very little. For the 1% who are diagnosed as trans, noting it in the chart is probably trivial and will happen much like other medical history information.

But hatred feels so righteous, especially the pure hatred that comes from having no idea how anything actually affects anything else. It’s a deleted checkbox, and really that’s all that happened.

I mean if you’re doing a female centric hobby and your video content is mostly watched by other women, you might be able to get by with doing that, but even “disembodied hands” videoed will read “woman! Who happens to do X hobby,” when the audience contains more men. Even their voice over the internet, or a chosen screen name in gaming and they become a Woman and thus get treated like an object of desire rather than “just another dude playing an online game.”

I’m not convinced you can treat people differently on the basis of any hard to change property. Human society values roles and creates hierarchy or several. My physical appearance marks me out as a member of dozens of such groups whether or not we want this to be true. I’m female, im white, im American, im working class, im Christian. All of these things a person can find out quite quickly simply by looking at me, and they do and will always color how im expected to behave, the places I can go, and so on.

I’d agree very strongly with balanced budget amendments as good. But I don’t see any way to slow the growth of regulatory agencies other than having the government — be it executive or legislative — have to manually re-approve the agency (with the default being no) at regular intervals will at least allow for review and revision and avoid mission creep. If we have a department of horse welfare in 2025, it doesn’t need to exist anymore because few people need horses for transportation.

I tend to agree with this. I think also that in any case, “freedom” is more of a marketing strategy than a reality. No one is actually free, or at least anyone who is actually “free” lives naked in the woods somewhere. If you are powerful, you are unfree because the wolves and the jackals hunger for your position and any show of weakness is at least a road to losing power. The weak are not free either as they need protection from the strong and they need to survive in the world the powerful created. The rich need you to make them richer, but if you want to eat, you’ll have to do whatever your bosses want.

But I think in answer to the question, a lot of position-jealousy is that people tend to over estimate other people’s benefits while discounting their costs. So a woman who thinks men have more freedom than they do see things like more interesting work, being able to go out and golf on weekends, or whatever. What they don’t see is the work behind it, the stress of needing to chase after promotions to things they don’t really get the luxury of thinking about whether they even want the next job, or even enjoy the work they do because they have to feed, house and clothe the family. When you see the benefits but not the cost, you think they have a good deal. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has a lot of cool cars, multiple palaces, jets, and goes on lots of vacations. Of course, he has the sole responsibility of running Saudi Arabia, and fighting jihadists and trying to thread the needle on trading with rich Jews in Israel while not pissing off the good Muslims supporting Palestinian people. The people who think those on benefits have it easy have never had to live in poverty.

I think honestly any future government would do well to have an automatic sunset to the creation of new agencies. Once a generation we really need to look into whether or not the laws, mandates, regulations, and agencies we built for the crisis of the moment even make sense generations later. It would also prevent those agencies from deciding on their own to do things that harm the country. If you know that in five years your environmental agency will be called to defend its right to exist, you might well think twice before regulating carbon and other common chemicals, or at least keep the regulatory regime as light as possible.

I mean again, you’re still stuck with having a guy point a real gun at a person’s head with a real bullet in it and really pulling the trigger. It’s a thing you can’t just gloss over. If Trump decided to fake it, he’s either stupid or crazy because if even the slightest thing goes wrong. He moves tge wrong way suddenly, the wind changes, the sun pops out from behind a cloud, tge scope is a few millimeters off, the shooter gets nervous, or he for some reason has to rush tge shot, there’s no way to be sure that this very real bullet fired from a very real gun doesn’t end up in Trump’s very real brain. We know it was a real bullet fired because it hit people in the crowd behind him. And all of this assumes it’s not at 19 year old dietary aide and community college graduate using a rifle he shoots paper targets at in a gun club once a week. A professional sniper wouldn’t dare try it, an amateur would undoubtedly kill his client trying something like this even at close range, let alone off the top of a building several hundred yards away. If you had a top sniper at gun range distance try to graze the ear of a baliastics gel head that’s randomly moving without hitting the rest of the head, I’d be shocked if anyone could do it even 1/20 times.

The idea of “authentic art isn’t made for money” comes from the early days of art when the artist had patrons. If you made art for money, you either didn’t appeal to elites enough to have a patron, or worse, were a dirty poor person. Only aristocrats and people they hired could afford to not think about money, ergo, thinking about money was a mark of poverty and poor quality.

To me, the “he faked it” argument doesn’t really pass the laugh test. No one sane is going to hatch a plan in which a guy climbs a roof and shoots a real bullet at his head. No sharpshooter is going to attempt that shot especially outdoors where wind and glares can be a factor. It’s not a reasonable theory because the shot probably 99% of the time ends with the target hit rather than grazed.

The SS wanting a failure I could be convinced of. The reports by rally attendees over at least an hour that went completely unchecked is a pretty big failure. As in any sane person trying to protect a famous person would have at least checked it out sometime between the rally goers reporting the unknown guy on the roof and the actual shooting. I’m completely at a loss for an explanation that isn’t either “these guys are incompetent” or “they set him up.”