@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

That problem matters as well, but my main issue with over-educating is that it basically means that by the time a couple is ready to settle down and is financially stable enough to think about having kids, they are too old to have said kids, or at best one or maybe two. Add in the much longer dependent stage means committing to a much longer project that’s actually quite resource intensive, which means that parents need even more resources to devote to their children. It’s actually insane how many obstacles we put in front of the couple who might want to have kids.

I think the education issue is part of the story as well. A teenager in 1600 could just start adulting at 14-15 and be just fine. You didn’t need to be able to read or do high level math, or even geometry. You just became a blacksmith, or a farmer by following dad around. Modern people need an almost absurdly long education in highly complex skills that massively cut into prime boot knocking years that happen in the teenage years. A 16 year old male and 16 year old female are biologically the most horny humans around. But, those kids are not free to indulge even if they want to. Instead, we make them sit in classrooms learning about mollusks in preparation for taking the SAT with a view to going to college where they will learn higher levels of skills that hopefully within 5-7 years after graduation will have them earning enough money to get a two bedroom apartment in which, by the time these humans are ready to have children in the financial sense, they have much lower libido and the woman has missed half to 2/3 of her fertility to the education system. Then everyone is like “wait, why no kids?” It’s because by the time a person stable enough to have kids, they’re too old to have kids. Hence fewer kids.

See, I think it’s computers and communication. In 1726, an event happening in New York might not be known in Los Angeles for months. In 2026, an event happens in New York and the news reaches Japan within 10 seconds. As such, the amount of information is much much higher, and the time you have to react to it is much smaller. Waiting a week in 1726 isn’t slow because the time between you doing a thing, putting it in motion, and seeing a result is longer. In 2026, waiting a week is waiting an eternity. Your ability to do things quickly is much bigger, and the news cycle is so much shorter that everyone is like “it’s been three days, we must be losing the war, because we haven’t won yet.” Wars in the past lasted for decades, yes in part because of transport, but also because the computer age allows you to do things faster. I can order a strike in the time it takes me to answer a text. The order reaches the front instantly. The order will be executed in seconds.

You can in the sense that a country can simply decide not to have an army. You will end up losing to those who refuse to abide by the restrictions. You won’t campaign for 6 months, okay cool. The guy running against you is, and so he gets his name and message out there, he gets the eyes of the public, and probably wins. It’s an arms race that’s really hard to stop and it’s getting worse because of the media landscape that leads to very short attention spans and memories of what you actually did.

Most congressmen will seek reelection. It’s also part of the system that no, or very few congressmen actually serve only one term.

I mean civilization itself runs in cycles and greater cycles. Not just the concentration of power eventually leading to a Uniate system, then dividing, but the cycle of rising and falling empires, civilizational collapses. Honestly, history is very cyclical and it’s really pretty clear to anyone who read it. I think the cycles are much faster now than in the bronze and Iron Age because technology makes things move fast enough that the breaking down happens in decades instead of generations because things change that fast.

I mean I think especially for #3 a lot of this is baked in. Partly because of the short terms as compared to the time needed to gear up for the next election. The term is 2 years, the campaign season is about 6 months, leaving about one and a half years to actually do things. But that neglects two important aspects of the campaign: funding and name recognition. If nobody knows who you are, it’s hard to convince them to vote for you, obviously. And without a horde of gold to spend on campaigning, you lose. But both of those things take a lot of time. You have to make appearances, you have to get interviewed by the media, you have to have a social media presence, all of that stuff, and you have to get big donors to believe in you enough to fork over the cash. So this probably takes about half of the remaining time, leaving about 9 months to do anything actually productive.

My immediate suggestion is that really, if you want to get congress back to doing legislative work, you need much longer terms. A minimum of 6 years in office would allow the official the ability to stop campaigning and do the work.

My issue with background checks and sanity checks is that they really are easy to put things on the record, and hard to get them off, such that unless the law allows for a statute of limitations, something that you did or were treated for 25 or more years ago will still show up. That DUI at 18 might, unless the law limits the ability for a felony to remove your gun rights, mean 65 year old you cannot have a gun. Nor does the system have any way to tell the difference between a violent criminal act and a white collar crime. A guy who robs a store is probably a poor risk for legal carry, however I sincerely doubt that someone cooking the books is therefore going to go out and knock over a convenience store.

I think claims of left-liberals being accelerationists is a bit uncharitable. And really, I tend to find even within the families I know who are liberal, they are much more permissive in parenting than the conservatives I know. They’re the ones who let their kids do things they don’t like, who don’t limit their kids or insist on chores etc. conservative parents are authoritarian in a good sense, they insist that kids do chores and limit their bad behavior or vices. Conservative parents are more prone to force an adult child to move out than a liberal. Even when the child is failing to launch because of their vices, liberals will make excuses and maybe say something about it, but not really confronting the issue head on. Their child could be gaming for 16 hours a day and have no job or education they’re working on, the kid can still be living at home for a decade.

Yes, but unlike trans stuff, we were generally very very careful about allowing kids to do such things. We require kids to go to school until at least 16. We preach against those bad decisions. We put up all kinds of roadblocks where possible. We do not allow let alone celebrate it. We do not tell kids who want to be teen mothers “hey, look at how cool teenage single mothers are! Here’s how you get pregnant! And a whole week or month dedicated to making sure all of my friends think teenage mothers are super cool and brave.” We don’t do that for dropping out of school. The culture has made dropping out of school synonymous with “Loser”. It’s not okay and not something, in most cases, that kids think is cool.

With trans stuff, we kinda do the opposite. We celebrate the bravery of those who do it. We kinda make it cool, and make sure that people around them think it’s cool. We give kids a roadmap to actually doing that stuff, and make it as easy as possible— including removing obstacles to doing it. The parents who say “no” or “not yet” are threatened, the doctors are coached to never ever imply that this kid isn’t right about who they are and what they want. Hormones are given out to kids who need parental permission to go on a field trip to the history museum.

I get that naturally trans kids probably exist. I just don’t think going whole hog into a pathway that will have the kid sterilized before he hits puberty makes sense. At 17-18 I think it’s much more reasonable as the personal choice of someone who I might disagree with but is capable of making that choice. At 12-13, they have no idea what being an adult is like or what will matter to them at 30 or 40 or 80.

I don’t think it’s really about the climate. If these people were really concerned about limiting climate change, there are lots of things that you could do that would make an impact. I don’t see them limiting their ownership or use of modern technology. I don’t see them choosing to live without fashionable clothing, hair and skin care products, or modern home decor and appliances. They have all of that, but apparently having a baby is bad for the environment. I have long suspected that they really don’t want the baby because it would require changes to their lifestyle.

I’m fine with 18 as the age of adulthood mostly for practical reasons— if you wait until 25 or more, the average person would have been living independently for at least 5-7 years by that point, they can join the military etc. and so it makes no sense to say “military, sure, renting a place or living on your own in a dorm is fine, but no contracts and no beer.” If you’re able to live on your own, you should be treated like an adult.

I’m the same. The left has the difficulty of being unable to actually set and keep a boundary or standards of any sort. It’s not just identity stuff, but immigration, welfare, drug policy, crime laws. The default answer is radical hedonistic individualism and if anyone tells you you aren’t allowed to do anything you want to do, or says it will lead to poor outcomes or harm other people (or yourself for that matter) they are evil oppressors.

The right when it errs tends to err on the side of control, law and order, and so on. Some of which might be simply a reaction to the leftward push of the left liberals who want everything legalized and available, no ages of consent, no barriers, etc.

I mean the issue is that once you get on the transition train, it’s very hard to get off. And I’m not just talking about surgeries, but cross-dressing and hormonal treatments as well. Kids just don’t have the mental capacity to understand that whatever they do today their 80 year old future self will have to live with. Most 15 year olds cannot imagine being 80. They can’t even imagine being 30. Ask them about their plans for a career and it’s not based on things that athirty year old would think about like pay and owning a house and having kids and wanting time off etc. kids at 15 just think about a job that they think sounds cool or unique. They want to study stuff they like even if there’s no real prospects for a good middle class job from a lit major. They like books, and they want to study books.

So I think trans stuff, because it’s permanent and kids dont understand that, needs to be treated with extreme caution. I’m not going to say absolutely nobody should ever let a kid get surgery. But this is the same psychiatric system that manages to massively over diagnose lots of other mental illnesses to the point that it’s crazy. I don’t think the WAPATH model works because it’s done by a system that assumes that because someone said it, that it’s a reality.

I mean once a person cannot trade on body or mind, there’s kind of a problem. The difference is exactly that. Because of Industrial Revolution 1, most people Don’t trade their time by doing physical labor as factories are largely mechanized and so is farm production. So when the same thing happens again, you can’t go back to “hey, let’s make everything by hand”, but a large percentage of mental work goes away in the same way in Industrial Revolution 2, then you have to find a way for millions of people to find jobs that pay liveable wages that are not either physical labor or mental labor. What’s left might be emotional labor of various forms. But what demand for that kind of thing exists? If everyone is a therapist, how does that even work?

That only works when the thing that destroyed your job doesn’t destroy all the jobs your skills are good for at the same time. But the AI is specifically aimed at replacing skills. The skill of recognizing patterns in pictures is something AI can already do. It can recognize my face, my emotional state, detect cancers, and read road signs — all things that require recognizing patterns in images. So when AI is deployed in hospitals to detect cancer, the same image recognition machine can be trivially reconfigured to translate documents from photos, read faces, and read emotional states. It can probably drive my car if coupled with robotics properly. Where does the human go? And again with other sectors. Not only do you have the problem of “the AI can replace the skills you have”, but there’s a problem that will be caused by any sectors AI doesn’t yet have skills at being absolutely flooded with applicants from sectors AI just destroyed. When accounting gets eaten, those with the skills pivot to something else, as will spreadsheet jockeys and so on. They’re going to try to get in where there are jobs. The wages for the remainder will thus fall compared to inflation as the market gets flooded. Why give raises when there are hundreds trying to get every opening?

I don’t expect demand for human work to expand indefinitely as there are often no benefits to expanding them. If everyone starts suing for trivial things, eventually there’s no benefits to be had if every I.e paper cut or hurt feeling can be sued over. Add in that the system itself will tamp down just to get stability (how much insurance would a business need if even the slightest problem results in a lawsuit, and how long until laws are tightened to prevent that?). And as for accounting and other forms of analytics, I don’t think you have infinite demand simply because after a certain level of detail, you capture so much noise that it adds no information, or at least no useful information. Walmart might be able to determine exactly how much rain must fall in a given area to depress sales .001%. It’s not very useful, and when coupled with dozens of other potential factors, teasing out that from “car accidents in nearby roads”, “squirrel chews power lines”, “local sports all team on a losing streak”, and on to dozens of other potential factors for depressed sales (few of which can be predicted or acted upon) it’s just not worth gathering or collating that data. Jevon’s law in my view probably has a curve at some point. We just aren’t there yet.

I’m sure it would, but my point is mostly about the plausibility of finding records of any type thousands of years in the future. David, or whoever David was based on lived 2500 years ago. Even if you assume the archeologists of 4526 are great at their jobs and have more sophisticated techniques, if paper records are lost or the hard drives storing the data are compromised, and the buildings referenced are destroyed, piecing all of that back together and finding the historical evidence of a human being, or knowing what that human did at the time is going to be tough.

I’d agree if it weren’t for the debt. The idea of a government supported rumspringa available to all adults is probably better than college for almost everyone. It would be cheaper to have kids live in cheap rooms, socialize, hopefully meet their spouse and form friendships.

But with debt in the picture, I think college only makes sense for kids smart enough and hard working enough to do the work of getting the grades and internships and building a portfolio of good work to show an employer.

Even with knowledge, I find it questionable simply for the timeframe. If he got the tattoo at 18, he’s had it for 20+ years, and it’s not very likely that he has the exact same beliefs that he had at 18-20 years old. People change and tats are permanent more or less. If he thinks nobody will recognize the tat, he might not bother, but it doesn’t mean he’s a current Nazi, it might plausibility mean he was one, but most people have cringe tendencies at 18.

I mean the biggest problem is that it’s almost impossible to know what is true or false about a person who lived several thousand years ago. Most of the physical evidence would be gone just by virtue of people building over and reusing materials and land, plus the difficulty of preserving written materials for that long even under ideal circumstances.

I find it a rather interesting thought experiment to imagine just what our distant descendants would think true or false about our current era. Would they find the Trump ballroom thing likely a myth? Would we question whether or not there was a “historical Barack Obama?” Would we find historical parallels between a future president JD Vance and some mythological legend and thus conclude Theres no evidence such a man actually existed? He does sort of parallel “Mr. Smith goes to Washington”, given his poor background and quick rise to power. Obviously no one should take the historical JD Vance seriously.

What enclaves tend to mean by “be a heretic” is “agree with us, but take it farther.” Right-liberals Don generally want you to be a heretic by being socially liberal, they want you to go farther, and thus Moldbug is their kind of heretic where Siskind is not because he’s probably less conservative than most right-liberals. Left liberals want their heretics to go further left, so Luigi shooting the CEO is a heretic, but their kind of heretic, zemdani is a heretic they like proposing state owned grocery stores, but they hate Fetterman because he isn’t heretical in a more left leaning way.

Im mostly Politically homeless. I get my ideas from Moldbug and Confucius and other weird places, so I don’t really fit modern politics.

Most of the actual solutions are pretty well heresy for the left. There’s no backing down from the position of “support trans rights and the transition of anyone of any age who wants it” because this is the orthodox left liberal position. This is why that Trump ad was such a coup — the general public is not on board with the radical position of transgendering of children and only the most left-liberal people want transgender to be normalized in society. Trump or his team was able to win with the ad. She couldn’t respond in any way that undercut the effectiveness of the ad, as the far-left would reject her for anything other than full on support for trans rights. So the ad says “she’s into trans rights over the wants of regular people”, and she could only either keep silent or agree.

I don’t think Ukraine can hold out forever. They don’t have enough people to maintain both the infrastructure and fight the war. Their ability to continue to send drones and shoot artillery is dependent on the support of Western Europe. That support is dependent on the political will of those countries to continue sending weapons and money to Ukraine, probably less now with oil prices going up. Eventually without enough people, weapons, or money, Ukraine will have to take whatever deal it can get, and that at minimum means Donbas goes to Russia and they get minimal military support if any.

The university system hasn’t made it harder. In fact they’ve been actively dumbing down the curriculum. Study time haas been dropping since 1961 (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15954/w15954.pdf) and if the share of A’s has been going up as well, those A’s are easier to earn in 2026 than in 1966.

I think the only thing that would solve the problem is to have students forced to take national exams to show competence. If you’re giving A’s to kids that don’t study, you will get caught when your school gave them A’s in science and they don’t understand very basic science like germ theory.

This is the one thing I hate about modern corporate culture. It’s downstream of a similar concept in modern culture— that acting your age is now seen as being stuffy or something. And everyone must join in the mandatory fun of cosplay and coordinating outfits, and acting like you’re 12 years old. Like, if I’m the defense attorney, im looking at stuff like this as grounds for a mistrial. If they’re not taking the process of being on a criminal jury seriously enough to act like adults in the courtroom, how can they possibly be assumed to be paying attention to the case and taking the instructions to not talk about the case seriously if they’re coordinating cosplay outfits?