Opt-out
19d ago
I’m not even sure if Aella and her hoe friends count. I think they’ve all made like date me papers and want to marry an autistic tech nerd. So creating a website with a buy me now button for 4k an hour just filters for the exact social skills they already want to sleep with in a way an autistic nerd can filter thru.
It kind of depends on how many men they are sleeping with and whether it’s more sex more other stuff.
Opt-out
20d ago
Maybe. I might prefer the term sexual deviancy to sex crimes for a bimodal distribution of sexual deviancy. For both the poor and rich sexual deviancy is low costs. For the poor they have little to lose. For the rich the costs is money they have plenty of. For the rich it might be 300 prostitutes a year (technically illegal but not prosecuted) or sugar babies or whatever Charlie Sheen was doing. The middle class can neither risks jail (they lose families) or just buy a lot of sex. But for the poor and rich sexual deviancy is rather cheap. Though saying this also means there are a lot of female semi-prostitutes in the middle class.
Actually have a friend who’s got a trust fund, dad sent him to sex-rehab, and is probably up to around 300-500 a year semi or full prostitutes. So this definitely exists in the upper class. I found it funny when Aella tried to claim most of her clients were either virgins or married guys with wives who no longer want sex. I bet like alcohol and every other market who clientele is from high volume users and possibly semi addicts.
Opt-out
20d ago
Sorry but your analogy doesn’t work. Rich people don’t drink Mountain Dew because it’s an inferior product. Doritos are kind of good but it’s limited by other reasons (getting fat not money). And rich people do spend more money on food than poor people.
Both of those products have economic limiting factors that are not monetary - health. The pleasure of fucking 19 year old girls on birth control doesn’t have negative health consequences. But can be acquired with money.
Opt-out
20d ago
Sex crimes are likely bimodal. A lot at the low IQ/limited options side and a lot for the very rich. The rich have power and run casting couches and the poor just do weird stuff.
But the middle class people fear getting in trouble so far less degeneracy.
Opt-out
20d ago
I still think is “don’t lose”. You don’t kill 1930’s Hitler because he was Hitler without power. It’s the same reason I don’t go around killing internet communists living in their mother’s basement. They have no power.
But I do support Pinochet killing a bunch of communists because the communists threat was real and other countries had become communists.
Kirk is stochastic terrorism because he did in fact have political power. Something is terrorism because it’s using terror to attempt political change. So inciting people to kill Kirk is terrorism. There are real political motivations.
Perhaps you say this is just word salad. But I do think in the case of Kirk there is a difference between his ideas are bad and here’s x,y,z why they are bad and using incitement language. And yes of course all partisans do incite in the current environment. I am not saying one side is innocent of stochastic terrorism.
Don’t lose.
A successful traitor is a Patriot.
If you literally believe someone is Hitler then you should want him assassinated. And when you aim at the king the important thing is you don’t miss.
A stochastic terrorist who wins is the Administrations favorite pundit they leak things to on MSNBC.
Opt-out
20d ago
Perhaps. Being a realists we live in a world where this rhetorical device exists. Maybe it would be better if everyone chilled things out. But I am not going to agree to not use a useful weapon when my enemy has not disarmed.
But I also do think the left pushes the line on rhetoric that does increase violence. Using this device though is political mostly used to convince neutrals the left is a problem and tar all leftists with the actions of their crazies. This is likely why magical kitty doesn’t like it because it is in fact an effective rhetorical tool.
To Magical Kitty I take his view as translating “It’s not fair you use this kind of rhetoric because it works and wins you votes….i don’t want you to do it anymore”
Yes I do not see the issue here. The US is not discussing banning, imprisoning, torturing etc people who do the very real thing of stochastic terrorism.
People making accusations of stochastic terrorism seem to be doing it to recruit people to their side for things like let’s all vote together. It’s basically saying “the other side is evil and their rhetoric leads to a destruction of the political commons and death of opposing politicians”.
How is this any different than what the ADL did for decades by keeping lists of people who did bad speech and labeled them all “White Supremacists”. And the ADL is correct that my “Nazi” speech against mass migration HURTS all the people who want to migrate to America by in this case causing politicians to vote against mass migration. So yes the left has published lists of stochastic terrorists for decades.
This would be a different topic if Trump was going thru social media posts and sending 2k people who posted mean things about Charlie Kirk to the Gulag. But we aren’t doing that and it’s just normal century old political games of labeling your enemy tribe as bad people.
The point of accusations of stochastic terrorism is to establish certain speech as a taboo that the other sides politicians can’t say because the bulk of the electorate view it as wrong think and basically push certain rhetoric outside of the Overton Window.
Let’s note one thing - Scott doesn’t disagree with the concept of stochastic terrorism. He just thinks it’s a reasonable price to pay for having broadly free speech.
I see no issue with accusing my enemies of stochastic terrorism. YES they are doing it. And YES my enemies who blasted on Twitter that Charlie Kirk was literally Hitler or something contributed to his death. And yes MSNBC blasting Trump is Hitler for 8 years contributed to the derangement of all the people who shot him. And yes I want my enemies to be judged in the public square as contributing to Charlie Kirk’s death.
This isn’t a question of whether stochastic terrorism is a real thing. It is a 100% a real thing.
I was going to reply that I am not a free speech absolutists so sure I’m fine limiting some speech, but honestly Scott confirms stochastic terrorism as being real.
I would also not that there are milder ways to criticize Elon Musks axing USAID (which was good for America to do) like just doing costs-benefit analysis instead that tweet is more emotional. But yes because of stochastic terrorisms Elon Musks would be dead in 3 months if he took his security budget to $0.
But like I said I’m not a free speech absolutists and supported Pinochet killing 20k or so communists when they may have mostly been doing speech at that point because communism is bad.
Opt-out
21d ago
In all fairness who shoes based on her writing career were from semi-escorting….the milder version of gifts from guys. But of course NY TV shows always have unrealistic spending by there characters. In real life her background would be rich girl from midwest or boyfriends are paying for it. Boyfriends don’t normally give down payment money.
Opt-out
21d ago
Do you disagree that a commons of free public schools has declined recently? Or were the schools NEVER good? I follow Moses Kagan on Twitter who I just affluent liberal in LA and I remember one of his tweets were that he would have just paid up for a house in a suburb because of how much it would have saved him on private school tuition. This seems like a common thought to people today that you can’t send your kids to public schools outside of the right suburbs.
What caused this?
I point to migration both internally and externally.
Opt-out
21d ago
You are talking about it’s cheaper to have essentially a roommate - a childless relationship.
I was highlighting how it’s much more expensive today to NOT be single but have a child bearing relationship. Costs sky rocket in that situation because you need to live in areas safe for families with good schools or pay for private school. Family health care is expensive.
A childless relationship is really just being single with a roommate. And yes that’s cheaper.
IMO land isn’t a limiting factor in America. Segregated by price housing is rare in America but we have a silly amount of land to build on in America. Farming in America is not limited by available land but more like fertilizer prices for the international commodity market clearing price.
Chicago might be the easiest way to visualize Americas land abundance especially since it has water. The city could easily 10x its side. The reason some neighborhoods are expensive and some are cheap basically comes down to how easy is it for gun violence to come to you.
My gut would also guess food is cheaper today than decades ago. Far too much food tech improvement.
“Young adults are poor despite every metric which suggests otherwise” link
This is trending on Twitter so might as well discuss it here anonymously.
I know more than a few people say it’s just vibes and the data is good but I think this article makes a strong point that a real loss of social capital has actually made younger people poorer. And I believe this links into the fertility debate because the goods that you could buy before with social capital are especially needed with children. Having kids has gotten very expensive. I think everyone knows education, housing, and health care have boomed in costs. Being single means you don’t need to take on these costs. You can have kids if you are poor and live off government resources or you can have kids if you are rich but it’s a financial disaster for the upper middle class.
I largely come down to diversity (mass migration) and the Great Migration killing American social capital that the boomers had. Before these things occurred we had cheap urban housing because people weren’t afraid of their neighbors and cheap public schools. And homogenous urban environments have a lot of social capital for their residents. Also you had cheap babysitters because your neighbors were like you and you trusted them. Your kids could just go to the park alone. So childcare was free. I feel comfortable blaming diversity on rising housing costs (zoning the poor away from good communities) and for rising educational costs (falling public school quality).
So yes I think today’s generation is poorer in a lot of ways that really matter due to less social capital (but richer in other ways). And I do think the ways we are poorer today are especially bad for fertility where you now need to buy those goods in the market but they were free before.
I remember when I first started using Reddit I considered “neoliberal” to be in my ingroup since well I liked Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman. At some point I found out I believe it was Hillary Clinton was called a neoliberal which is a little true because Bill’s rise did involve before forced to adopt a lot of Reaganism to revive the Dem Party.
But neoliberal Reddit was NOT my ingroup. It wasn’t my nice smart Milton Friedman book club of conservatives. And I was quickly banned from neoliberal for wrong think.
I’ve noticed Reddit won’t let you read it anymore without downloaded app. I’m like all banned from Reddit. Since they became eyeballs for AI public company do they let people back onto Reddit? I may be low IQ but it’s too complicated for me to figure out why Reddit isn’t marketing to the people who all got banned since they’re now a public company. I guess I have Twitter.
That I think would be fairly easy. The migrants would benefit from better rule of law and the higher productivity from robots would make giving more people American level wealth trivial.
But I’ve never seen a leftist deal with racial productivity differences mentally. They just yell racists.
Opt-out
24d ago
There are two strong arguments against mass-migration for a smart liberal they need to consider provided they are open to HBD:
-
They want a European style welfare society. That doesn’t work if you have a large population with significantly lower productive and potentially higher crime rates ruin the commons to enjoy your European style welfare state lifestyle.
-
The Indian conundrum. I think at this point it’s obvious there are a lot of smart Indians. But domestically no innovation. Can having a society that’s 20% Einstein and 80% much lower productivity innovate? Or does dealing with social dysfunction sap a lot of a societies surplus to do tech/external things?
Opt-out
24d ago
Maybe. Maybe not. I’d prefer to cover it up if I were him because being a war POTUS would fundamentally change why we voted for him.
Opt-out
24d ago
Enforcing “you can’t touch Americans” can get very expensive. That’s basically the Iraq War. Which is why you might want to cover up “touched an American” so you largely preserve the taboo against touching Americans without needing to spend $10 trillion.
Opt-out
24d ago
Probably fine with current plan. But depends on more specific time horizon. Personally I like owning long term US rates here so maybe you could go 20-30% there. If it’s a couple years you might be able to do something like 30% equity, 30% mbs/tlt, 30% t-bill type things, maybe 10% REIT/listed private credit.
PC maybe a small amount here because of the high yields and discounts to NAV. Small equity + Fixed income I much prefer to try to get some returns instead of doing a listed covered call etf
Opt-out
25d ago
What are you disagreeing with?
I am saying Trump does not want to escalate either war so would have motive to cover up an assassination if it would greatly increase war risks.
Opt-out
25d ago
Whether you could successfully muzzle it is a different question than whether you would want to muzzle.
Trump is 100% would want to cover it up because he 100% does not want to be a war time President. Atleast at the group group escalation point of war.
His revealed personality is not to escalate to high casualty/ground force war which he’s done in both Ukraine and Iran. His revealed preference would be to cover it up.
Opt-out
25d ago
You said exactly why Trump etc would hide it.
“It would justify whatever with a large portion of the American public”
If your goal is to NOT have a Presidency defined by war then you do not want the populace inflamed for war. Reverse if your George Bush and you already decided to war Iraq.
Opt-out
25d ago
I would say we don’t have this self driving car pushback from the groups you speak. A big reason is that no one views themselves as a member of the uber driver union except maybe some semi-legal immigrants. No one views it as a career versus something they just do for money which absolute kills the ability to unionize. Taxi-cabs had medallion investments which 10k or so people viewed as a huge asset to protect and gave them somewhat of a union.
It’s probably also close to a constitutional valid arrest under the Logan Act. An actual arrest I believe would. A threat still kind of interferes with official federal foreign policy.
More options
Context Copy link