RenOS
something is wrong
No bio...
User ID: 2051
Let’s assume you’re a car mechanic. You love your job, even though it is dirty, hot and physically straining. You go through a bookshop, and stumble over one book in particular: “Why being a car mechanic is great”. It explains the importance of the job for society, it talks about the perks, and so on. You look up the guy who wrote it and yep, he runs a car shop. You buy the book and recommend it to many of your friends, maybe even some teens who might consider the path.
Fast forward, the writer is on some talkshow. Somebody asks him how he handles all the grease. He reacts, uh no, of course he doesn’t get greasy, that’s his staff. He just really likes talking with customers. Maybe he does one car once in a while, if the work isn’t too hard and the car is really nice.
I can’t help but think this after reading Scott’s latest book review of “Selfish reasons to have more kids”. No, we don’t have nannies and housekeepers. In fact, almost nobody we know has them. Some have a cleaning lady coming … once per week, for an hour or so. Tbh, this significantly lowered my opinion of both Scott and Caplan. If you want a vision of a more fertile, sustainable future for the general population, it should not involve having your own personal staff. Two hours is nothing.
And I find this especially frustrating since I think it’s really not necessary; Yes having small kids is really exhausting - after putting the kids to bed around 8-9, my personal routine is to clean the house for two hours until 10-11 every day, and then directly go to bed with maybe an audiobook on (but often I’m too tired for even that, and enjoy falling to sleep directly) - but it’s doable, and the older the kids are, the less work they are, at least in terms of man-hours. The worst is usually over after around 3 yo. And the time before that in the afternoon can be a lot of fun.
At least for me, one of the biggest draws of kids is that it’s, to use poetic terms, “a glimpse of the infinite” that is available for everyone. Everyone wants to leave something behind, political activism is sold on making a change, careers are sold on becoming a (girl-)boss managing others. Yet, the perceptive (or, less charitably, those capable of basic arithmetic) will notice that only a tiny sliver of the population can ever cause the kind of innovation that really changes culture, or who can come into positions of substantial power over others.
Kids, however, everyone can have them. And they really are their own little person (especially my stubborn little bastards). And they will have kids as well, who will also carry forward some part of yourself. I’m not just talking genetics here, though that is a large part, the same will go for how you raise them. Unless you leave that to the nannies, I guess, but that’s your own fault.
I wouldn’t have written this since it’s mostly venting tbh, but I’ve seen some here mentioning wanting to discuss it, so I thought may as well start. What do you think?
RenOS
something is wrong
26d ago
Lack of political will sounds like cope. If one can do it and it is beneficial, there would be a will.
I have to admit, this sounds completely wrong to me. The connection between capability, benefit and political will is tenuous at best. There is plenty of will for the impossible, or for the harmful.
RenOS
something is wrong
26d ago
I basically agree, though I'd prefer an exponential function with a half-life of 25. But I guess that will be too complicated.
RenOS
something is wrong
26d ago
And even if you, for the sake of argument, assume Erbschuld is a thing, you're still a long way from actually establishing a connection to the current countries. As far as I know, my ancestry is entirely lowborn small-scale local farmers and workers, with a small admixture of lowborn inter-european wage immigrants. Let alone me, wtf do my ancestors have to do with what some aristocrats got up to? Why do we have to pay penance & higher taxes now to assuage your guilt?
Quite revelant is his official position for mental illness. I don't even entirely disagree with it - I think some people definitely actually just prefer some really odd things - but as someone who does struggle with addictive behaviour somewhat, I think he is missing a large part of the picture. The mind imo should not be modelled as a singular thing, and just because one part of you wants to compel you to do specific things, that does not mean that the rest really wants that. For a trivial example, if you have some malfunction that makes your stomach constantly sent extreme, starving hunger signals, so that you can't think straight unless you eat constantly in a way that is very unhealthy, it is not at all unlike being forced to do someones bidding through painful beatings. Your consciousness is certainly very strongly influenced, but not identical, with your body and it turns out your own body can violate the NAP if it wants to.
On immigration, he is probably right in aggregate for the US, especially since you don't have such a generous welfare system. But the situation is quite different in the EU, and my experience is that furthermore there is often a pick and choose attitude for academics on immigration - it's easy for them to insulate themselves from negative externalities in a way that is not possible for the average citizen, while enjoying the benefits.
RenOS
something is wrong
27d ago
People do know that this stuff will often get taken by the employees if it isn't collected, or even donated, right? So even on consequentialist grounds she is quite likely to be stealing from someone poorer than her for small immediate gratification. It's pretty minor as things go, but I agree with others that I wouldn't perceive this as positive. Also, if everyone was like this, lost and founds would literally not exist.
RenOS
something is wrong
28d ago
Afaik aztek human sacrifice tradition also held many of the victims in high regard.
RenOS
something is wrong
29d ago
I'm all for further subdividing groups to get a better understanding, and it always should be kept in mind that different countries will have somewhat different problem immigrant groups due to geographical and political realities, but it doesn't really change my point. Somalis are very common here in germany nowadays, one of the most problematic groups and usually grouped as sub-saharan african.
FWIW, before the recent asylum waves that especially the Somalis, but not only them, took advantage off, sub-saharan black immigrants in germany also were somewhat of a model-minority, though also extremely rare. As a child, the only black girl I personally knew was an adopted, extremely bookish nerd, and otherwise would occasionally see a black priest from some mission.
RenOS
something is wrong
29d ago
My impression is more that there is a somewhat indirect, but stable link between these two: If you're part of the elite, you usually already consider yourself more a cosmopolitan who just happens to life in this particular country. You have lots of elite friends from other countries, you have lived yourself in other countries. You profit from lower-class immigrant workers suppressing salaries. You should be able to live in the good part of wherever you are insulating yourself from most problems. All this together means is that you have a very strong positive disposition towards ethnic diversity. Any negative mention of any ethnic group except your own is frowned up on to such a degree that it is near-impossible to publicly acknowledge even obviously problematic minorities, it's always just specific people or at most this particular clan. Not being able to acknowledge a problem leads to that problem proliferating.
There is also the problem that some groups are simultaneously supplying useful cheap work, but are also high-crime. Some of this is even systematic, such as using legal low margin work companies as a front to do illegal side work which can range from merely supplemental to being the actual income stream. I think that's as usual a spectrum, with extreme cases such as east asian immigration at "great work, no crime, high willingness to fit in", the middle is something like east europeans "low-value work, often significant illegal side work, medium willingness to fit in" and the extreme other would be something like sub-saharan "very little work, income almost entirely illegal or from state support, no willingness to fit in". The middle groups are here for work, but still cause issues and some loss of trust, but just not as much.
RenOS
something is wrong
30d ago
+1 We were told the same (Applied Math in North Germany). That culture seems to be changing though.
Kind of. As I understand it, Timmy is more about "dumb" big flashy stuff, Johnny more about "brainy" subtle off-meta strategies. Similar to Spikes, Johnnies still play for a challenge, but the challenge is about making some weird game mechanic work, not straightforward winning. In my experience, Timmy is the most derogatory term in practice, basically saying someone plays like a five year old or at best "just for fun" with no effort whatsoever, Spike is in the middle, sometimes used negatively for tryhards, sometimes positively for straightforward good playing, and Johnny is the most positively connotated, the kind of person who doesn't "netdeck" but still wins often enough due to their good deck building & playing.
RenOS
something is wrong
1mo ago
A question back: How much spam calls do you get for this to be a significant issue? I get one every few weeks, if not months. It's nothing like mail.
This is just simply not in the realm of things answerable by simple slogans. It's all about the details (alwayshasbeen.jpg).
I can't help but always circle back to the relatively uncontroversial example of the car salesman. If he tells you a car is "a great bargain", you don't just take him by his word; You look at the technical details of the car model, you take a look at the actual car right in front of you whether it shows signs of deterioration, repair or even manipulation, you ask around for the reputation of the salesman or the greater dealership he is part of. And you only buy if it looks like at least an OK deal based on the totality of the evidence.
You ought to do the same for any claim. "Temporary migrants" are only that if there is a mechanism to get rid of them, otherwise they're just migrants, likewise with asylum. "Developmental aid for [country/location]" is often, in practice, mostly free money for whoever is currently in power of that country. And more on topic, for the police and the DA, they absolutely love the justification of just protecting the innocent and helpless, a baby being about as archetypical as it gets. Do they do that? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
That said, I actually mostly like the training exercise, at least as a very first test of character. It's clearly contrived (IANAL though), who uses a wicker basket for fishing? In the middle of the night? And it's just about looking into the basket, not a full-on house search or anything other more private. If you can't even muster the bravery for this, you're not fit for the job. It's about mindset; Police and DA should have thinking that is directed towards catching criminals while infringing on rights as little as possible, but not necessarily zero. Just looking into a basket is about as minor as it gets, compared to the severity of the possible crime and in consideration of the sketchy circumstances.
But you shouldn't consider this training a good reflection of real cases you're going to work on. They're probably going to be much more complicated, which I hope gets reflected in some later training.
RenOS
something is wrong
1mo ago
Tbh I'm primarily familiar with the catholic vs protestant split in germany, but here that distinction is very much real. I know several (university-educated) women holding official positions of power within protestant church offices who have explicitly told me that in reality they do not believe except for some undefined spirituality. One even hired a non-christian into the church office, despite a christian denomination being a requirement to be hired. Worse, I don't even have the impression she is worried about being caught, there seems to be a widely shared culture of just not caring. Not coincidentally, these are among the wokest people I know.
I'd have to take you on faith that liberation theology is different, but at least some of the more explicitly communist/marxist-aligned seem to me like the same type.
RenOS
something is wrong
1mo ago
I don't think it's about denial, it's about what the basics of faith are. For a different example, If climate change is conclusively shown to not be real, old-school greens fall apart, new greens keep on chugging on social policies.
RenOS
something is wrong
1mo ago
From my experience talking with women about it, many hate men vividly imagining them naked just the same, they just can't do anything about it. If a mindreader was created tomorrow, I'm pretty sure a group would get together to lobby to outlaw sexual fantasies about a person without their consent the day after.
Add the risk of circulation (even by accident!) and the implied threat from the possibility of people mistakenly believing it to be real, it's obvious why the women react so badly.
RenOS
something is wrong
1mo ago
I'll just copy part of a very recent post which mostly encapsulates my view of polyamory (contrasting it with other alternatives to monogamy):
Ironically, this is also why polyamory is imo by far the worst for a functioning society; It's basically expanding the dating period of many young people's life to the entirety, with all the anxieties, drama and labor it entails. If you have work & kids, you just don't have time for that. Since work is usually necessary for all but the richest, that means you skip the kids. Communes often have similar problems but to a lesser degree, and as long as they're not too large and have clear boundaries to everything else, can be made to work. I don't like the intrinsic inequality stemming from Harems, but from a practical PoV they work just as well as traditional couples since the boundaries and expectations are simple and clear.
Listening to some of the stories, that may even be to charitable to polyamory; Even the regular dating period for most young people had clearer expectations and less drama.
RenOS
something is wrong
1mo ago
Sorry, I should have mentioned: Currently I'm only listening to audiobooks, since it allows me to do household chores, cycle, etc. simultaneously. With small kids + full time work I don't really have time to properly read. The limited spare time I have I unfortunately already waste on substack/theMotte. But it sounds interesting enough that it will go on the list of things to read later.
RenOS
something is wrong
1mo ago
Still trying to separate the chaff from the wheat in LitRPG and adjacent, I finished Mother of Learning and started The Wandering Inn. Mother of Learning was great, not quite high literature but among the best, most consistent world-building I have ever seen in fantasy so far. I was mildly annoyed by some parts of the story and it's kind of obvious that the author struggles to write anything but aspergers with different preferences, but that's something I just accept as a given at this point for good fantasy/SF.
The Wandering Inn, on the other hand, is trash, at least to my preferences. It's defenders are correct that there is nothing quite like it, so if you like that kind of thing it is probably unreplaceable. But it is best described as "juvenile progressive Soap Opera in Medieval Fantasy", which doesn't really appeal to me much. The world and the characters don't really seem to follow consistent rules except for whatever random thing the author wants to contrive to happen next for the purpose of drama or to make some point.
And one specific thing was especially grating and repeated itself over and over: First, I notice that the MC behaves stupidly. This is fine, if lampshaded properly. Even other characters in-story explicitly mention that yes, this is stupid. Then I go look up online discussions of the event in question and even the defenders of the MC basically just say yeah, this is stupid, what did you expect of a teenage girl teleported into medieval fantasy? So I read further, and ... the MC turns out basically right. And again, and again. It's frustrating.
RenOS
something is wrong
1mo ago
kids are the ultimate karma - no matter what pissed off others about you, you will get to experience it all day, everyday, in a mini-mirror.
RenOS
something is wrong
1mo ago
As usual, it depends on your goals and the details of what is done. In our region, my parents' generation got the local language & culture beaten out of them by the greater german system, which resulted in me and my generation not being able to speak it (despite my parents still talking it among each other; I can understand it, though) and internalizing a more general "cosmopolitan" german culture instead, even if it still has some local flavors to it.
Now some of my old classmates are reviving the old language through "traditional theater" and similar events, but as far as I can see, they don't reject their actual internalized culture at all. I can't help but view it as pointless LARPing, even if they clearly are mostly sincere about wanting to reconnect with their heritage. Then again, I'm not really a traditionalist myself, so you could call my criticism dishonest itself.
RenOS
something is wrong
1mo ago
I think this is very related to an observation that has been pointed out for some time now: In most modern places, especially cities, the liberal or even progressive worldview is nowadays the de-facto conservative option in the intuitive sense of the word. What would you call the worldview of your own parents, of the entrenched powers, of the commonly accepted older moral guardians? The default opinion of the church lady archetype around me (to some lesser degree even where I grew up, and certainly where I live now) is some mix of environmentalism (which in itself is intrinsically conservative to some degree) and anti-fascism that many of them have by now been holding since the 70s or so. "Too far left" is to them equivalent to "too pious"; Maybe foolish or impractical, but never really bad or evil. Even if they may technically be part of a religion, they clearly hold their leftie creds in higher regard, often explicitly assuring everyone that no, they actually don't care about the teaching of their actual official religion in particular, they are more on the generally spiritual side and just wanted to be active in some religion in some form. Hell, the literal evangelische Kirchentage (church days organized by mainline protestants) have some great workshops (translated, obviously): "Queer animals on the ark", "brave and strong. Empowerment for BiPoC-kids" or "name blessing for trans*, inter or non-binary people".
This necessarily means that any rival ideology claiming to be conservative is actually at best regressive or at worst wholly unrelated to conservatism, since the de-facto conservatives hate being called conservative. In that sense, the LARP-criticism is correct, since one of the selling points of conservatism is the proof-by-demonstration intrinsic to the ideology that has been dominant for the last decades or longer. It's obviously a general problem also often observed on the left on different topics, but right-wing projects like to have it both ways: On one hand, they recognize they're the rebels organizing a new system, and on the other, they want to leech off the prestige of some old conservative tradition that they were never part of, insufficiently understand, imperfectly copy and which thus may or may not actually work the way it used to. People notice that.
I don't completely disagree with you, however. In my view, most of these right-wing projects need to be more honest they are not really conservative anymore, and lean more into the rebel frame. Nevertheless, as you point out, to some degree unapologetic LARPing is always part of how you create a new system. But it also includes more flexibility and adaption based on what works and what doesn't than many of them want to really practice. Creating something new is hard work.
RenOS
something is wrong
1mo ago
For me it's rather simple: It should be in a place no pedestrian would walk, independent of whether a pedestrian is currently present. Whether a pedestrian can see you from a distance doesn't matter, I wouldn't care.
At least to me, polyamory is defined by treating sex & romance as just another part of a friendship where you can have different degrees and kinds of sexual relationships with many different people, which can also change quite fast. A fixed group of say 4 guys and 5 girls living together, having kids together, etc. would imo be more aptly described as a commune. And, as you say, 1 man/x woman is 99% just a harem in practice.
Ironically, this is also why polyamory is imo by far the worst for a functioning society; It's basically expanding the dating period of many young people's life to the entirety, with all the anxieties, drama and labor it entails. If you have work & kids, you just don't have time for that. Since work is usually necessary for all but the richest, that means you skip the kids. Communes often have similar problems but to a lesser degree, and as long as they're not too large and have clear boundaries to everything else, can be made to work. I don't like the intrinsic inequality stemming from Harems, but from a practical PoV they work just as well as traditional couples since the boundaries and expectations are simple and clear.
Having 4 people with 1/4 of your genome is objectively better than just being one person because of the risk dilution (Nevermind that I don't plan to have so few grandkids).
On the second, my experience has been the opposite. A few big actors - often rather general memes than really the particular mouthpieces making the actual statements - are imo the winners on the cultural influence market. By far one of the worst places to invest in unless you're extremely confident.
More options
Context Copy link