ResoluteRaven
No bio...
User ID: 867
The absolute last thing anyone here needs is more blackpills about dating. Yes, the apps suck. Yes, there are people who will always be more attractive than you due to the vagaries of genetics and society. Yes, birth and marriage rates are going down the drain. No one can deny these things; we live them every day and they have been discussed to death here and elsewhere. If you have some new data apart from Tinder screenshots, that would be interesting. If you insist that we must all accept our place at the bottom of the totem pole in our new de facto polygamous society, that could be an interesting line of inquiry too. After all, we have plenty of historical examples for comparison, as well as other analogous traits (e.g. will people respond any differently to being told they belong to a group with below average IQ vs. a group with below average reproductive success?). Just give us something to work with besides "we're cooked, gooners."
Russia and China's positions on Ukraine and Taiwan are first and foremost based on nationalism and what you could call ethnic sovereignty, and only secondarily based on pragmatic security concerns. You can read Putin's essay on the topic for a pretty clear description of what motivates him. Some excerpts below:
Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus, which was the largest state in Europe.
...
Most importantly, people both in the western and eastern Russian lands spoke the same language. Their faith was Orthodox. Up to the middle of the 15th century, the unified church government remained in place.
...
The incorporation of the western Russian lands into the single state was not merely the result of political and diplomatic decisions. It was underlain by the common faith, shared cultural traditions, and – I would like to emphasize it once again – language similarity.
...
At the same time, the idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians started to form and gain ground among the Polish elite and a part of the Malorussian intelligentsia. Since there was no historical basis – and could not have been any, conclusions were substantiated by all sorts of concoctions, which went as far as to claim that the Ukrainians are the true Slavs and the Russians, the Muscovites, are not. Such ”hypotheses“ became increasingly used for political purposes as a tool of rivalry between European states.
...
But in 1991, all those territories, and, which is more important, people, found themselves abroad overnight, taken away, this time indeed, from their historical motherland.
...
In essence, Ukraine's ruling circles decided to justify their country's independence through the denial of its past, however, except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of the Ukrainian people.
...
Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. Inevitably, there came a time when the concept of ”Ukraine is not Russia“ was no longer an option. There was a need for the ”anti-Russia“ concept which we will never accept.
...
It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us.
You can see that while the idea that Ukraine is a springboard for foreign powers to threaten Russia geopolitically makes an appearance, issues of national identity take precedence, including the idea that Ukrainian identity itself is a weapon that threatens Russia. This is not the kind of essay an American could or would write about Cuba in 1962, which is a case when there was a strategic threat from a foreign power without any shared ancient history or blood and soil concerns involved.
As for Taiwan, while it is not an ancient part of China the way Ukraine is an ancient part of Russia, its significance is that it is the last piece of territory (with a Han majority) taken from Qing China by foreign powers during the Century of Humiliation that remains outside of PRC control today. The CCP justifies its rule to a domestic audience by claiming that only they can undo the damage done by the Western powers and Japan during those years, firstly by making China too rich and powerful to be invaded or subjugated ever again and secondly by getting back all the territory that was stolen from them, including Taiwan. The fact that Taiwan is part of the First Island Chain with the potential to strangle Chinese naval trade in the event of a war is certainly of interest to their military planners, but it is a distant second in terms of motivations for invading or blockading the island.
I think Americans often have trouble understanding the way nationalists in other parts of the world think because it is quite alien to their own thought process, but imagine for a moment if most Anglo-Canadians were still diehard royalists who held a grudge against the US for expelling their ancestors during the Revolution and for being traitors who deny their true English identity, and would seize on any opportunity to punish them and force them back into the imperial fold. Sure, there might be offshore oil wells, cod fisheries, or Great Lakes ports of strategic importance involved in any dispute, but that's not really what it would be about.
There is certainly espionage happening that needs to be dealt with, but the wording of the announcement would seem to indicate that implementation of this policy will, like most things to come out of this administration, be indiscriminate, haphazard, amateurish, and probably lead to a worse outcome than if nothing had been done at all. If anyone thinks we can win a cold war against China without immigrant brainpower, they are out of their minds. However smart you think white kids from the midwest are, they aren't going to become ubermenschen who are worth 4 Chinese apiece just because we banned affirmative action and are kicking out all the international students.
The extent of most researchers in the hard sciences' capitulation to progressive ideology is that they filled out the mandatory "broader impacts" portion of a grant application and made up some shit they didn't believe about how whatever they're doing will incidentally improve the lives of women or minorities. It would have been simple enough to remove this requirement from all future applications and most scientists would have been thankful to whichever administration did that. Anyone who had ever been involved with the grant writing process could have told them this.
Denouncing every recipient of such a grant for doing what was required of them to obtain one is akin to punishing everyone in the Soviet Union ex post facto who praised the communist party to keep their job, needlessly making enemies of people who would otherwise be on your side. Should they have had the courage to stand up for their convictions despite the threat of censure or worse? Perhaps, but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. How many of us here fought the advance of wokeness tooth and nail in every aspect of our professional and public lives, and took all the hits that that entailed? I doubt very many, and this is a place bursting at the seams with reflexive contrarians.
I can understand the logic of cutting off all funding first and then re-opening the spigot only to programs that reveal themselves as essential, so I will reserve judgement on this policy (if it even survives its first appearance in court) until we see how the second part is supposed to work. If it ends up taking long enough that most university and national lab research grinds to a halt and children in Africa start dying of AIDS because local workers are not allowed to hand over drugs that have been already been purchased and delivered, then I will consider it a grave blunder.
Now let's talk about the supposed conspiracy to force people into the suburbs. The largest American cities of 1920 were all built before the car. Many of them have a ring of streetcar suburbs. Most of them have lost population. There is a plentiful supply of dense urban cores in America with lower population than they had a century ago, and yet all the demand is for building more suburbs.
There is a reason many of those urban cores lost their population and it isn't just because the people there decided they wanted to move out one day because of changes in technology or lifestyle. Without the increased crime rates, race riots, and domestic terrorism of the 60's and 70's, America's cities would probably look much more similar to those in Europe.
I'm moving there for the same reason people hate suburbs: community. People talk about how suburbs are alienating and have no third spaces. I'm moving for the community, which is my wife's extended family. The third space was her grandparent's house. Now it is her parent's house, and someday (hopefully far in the future) it will be our house.
My understanding is that a family home is explicitly not a third place, because a third place is by definition a neutral public meeting ground with a semi-rotating cast of characters who have no obligation to be there. It might be possible to make one's house a third place by hosting enough open and regular events and parties, but that would be quite unusual, and would be made unnecessary if more typical meeting spaces e.g. coffee shops, bars, bowling alleys, dance clubs, etc. were common enough to meet people's need for socializing.
I don't think anyone's mind will be changed unless Trump actually goes to jail. Not sure if this is just me, but I have found the details of these endless investigations and trials mind-numbingly boring ever since they started six or seven years ago, and cannot get through reading a single article or post about them without nodding off. If the Democrats haven't figured out a way to lock this man up by now, I doubt they ever will.
On a related note, I find the contrast between the apocalyptic way this election is being framed online and in the media and the complete apathy and disinterest I see in the real world to be the greatest in my lifetime. In 2016 and 2020 I could see people around me marching/organizing/rioting/etc. but this time around I've just seen the demonstrations for Palestine, which seem more like an impotent tantrum than something that risks spiraling into partisan violence on behalf of a party or candidate with a real chance of seizing power. Other than that most normies seem to be minding their own business, getting on with their lives, or else wandering around in a sort of haze as though they never quite recovered socially from covid lockdowns.
I think liberalism is in for another rough century, but assuming it isn't rendered obsolete by AI-backed surveillance states of some sort, I think the same lessons that Europeans learned by 1648 will be re-learned by an even larger fraction of the human race this time around (tree of liberty, blood of tyrants, you know how it goes). It may take a couple more swings of the pendulum back and forth between right-wing and left-wing illiberalism and who knows how many deaths along the way, but people will eventually realize that trying to crush their ideological enemies underfoot has a tendency to backfire and that the revolution always eats her children. This is little consolation to those of us who have to live through it, but so it goes.
As far as historical examples of ethnic cleansing go, there's the expulsion of the Acadians by the British, pretty much everything that happened in the Balkans from 1821 to the present including the expulsion of Muslim Turks and Albanians from newly independent Christian nations and vice versa, Soviet deportations of Crimean Tatars, Koreans, Ukrainians, etc. to Siberia and Central Asia, the partition of Cyprus, and most recently the flight of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh after its conquest by Azerbaijan. The last time Western leaders condoned such a campaign was the removal of Germans from Eastern Europe, and in addition to being the culmination of the largest war in human history it was Soviet boots on the ground actually carrying it out, not Americans and Brits.
For such a thing to occur in America today would require either the rise of an authoritarianism as overwhelming as China's or a level of interpersonal animosity and cultural segregation much greater than I have observed in my travels (I can't speak much for Europe and suspect that their Muslim communities are more separate and alien to the majority than any immigrant enclaves here), and in either case the lines would be drawn in ways orthogonal to simple ethnic identification i.e. a government that could would deport whatever groups it found troublesome regardless of their background and any sort of civil war in the US nowadays would feature Hispanic Trump voters on one side and white progressives on the other and I'm honestly not sure which faction would be more diverse by the progressives' own standards.
If the paradisal order was so great, hunter-gatherers wouldn't have been getting stomped by farmers for the last 10,000 years.
At the time most of that stomping took place, your average farmer was stunted, malnourished, and sickly compared to his hunter-gatherer counterpart and beat them simply because they could sustain a much higher population of miserable peasants. Of course, if you are evaluating societies on a purely Darwinian basis of survival then whatever won out is superior, but that leaves out every moral and aesthetic consideration that informs most people's judgement of what makes life worth living.
As an example, if we extrapolate current trends in fertility, the median Motte user will be outbred and replaced by individuals with lower IQ and religious sects like the Amish and Hasidic Jews, whose descendants will most likely be either disinclined to or incapable of maintaining our current industrial civilization. Would that then make them better than us? (I know there's a half dozen ways to yes.chad this, but I'm just curious if you hold any of those positions)
The recent success of semaglutide bodes well for a long-term resolution of the obesity crisis, and fertility rates in developed nations are also in the process of restoring themselves through natural selection. While heavy-handed state intervention (e.g. Romania's ban on abortion under Ceaușescu) may offer some temporary reprieve, such solutions appear in practice to be brittle, vulnerable to changing political currents, and easily overwhelmed by the broader incentive structure of modern societies.
Today's version of "learn to code" is "learn a trade." There is a dearth of electricians, plumbers, carpenters, welders, etc. right now and there are well-paying jobs available for those who choose to enter those fields. The other part of the answer is just that the last generation of coders came of age during a gold rush and now those mines have run dry. Not everyone is born in time to be a 49er.
All the same, the US is probably still the best place in the world to start a business doing whatever you can imagine. Want to breed exotic fruit trees in Florida and sell subscription boxes to rich patrons with adventurous palates? Want to figure out the secret recipe for Roman concrete and start a construction company building docks that don't degrade in seawater? Want to build a fleet of nuclear-powered asteroid mining robots and take control of a functionally infinite supply of rare elements? Want to join the Vesuvius challenge with your superior ancient scroll-deciphering algorithm, become the greatest classicist who ever lived, and then go on tour with your AI buddy Plato reciting all the lost works you discovered to a captive audience? In the rest of the world they ask why, but in America we ask why not?
Think what you will about the migrant caravans knocking at our southern border, but the fact that so many people choose to make that perilous journey, not only from utterly destitute countries, but from China, with its gleaming cyberpunk "cities of the future" and zero crime or homelessness and growing power and influence throughout the world, tells you what the American Dream still means to people.
I don't have any specific advice about long-term prospects. I'm preparing myself mentally for the singularity, societal collapse, and everything in between, and just count myself lucky that I'm around to watch the fulcrum around which the rest of human history will turn. We're all stuck on this crazy ride together and might as well enjoy it.
I attended public schools in wealthy districts, then a magnet school whose admissions policies are occasionally a matter of public controversy (yes, that one). My high school classmates were without a doubt the smartest people I've ever met, and I say this after having spent years around STEM graduates of elite universities. There was no shortage of advanced coursework to keep us nerds from getting bored, and we were given more freedom than we would have had at a typical school e.g. we could eat lunch anywhere, including off-campus, free periods were provided during the day for clubs and activities, and an independent research project was expected of all students. The teachers were generally competent and reasonable, and a decent fraction of them had PhD's in scientific disciplines.
When I was there the demographics were about 50/50 white/Jewish and south/east Asian, with every other group a rounding error. There was a clear divide between kids with tiger parents who had been pressured into attending and those like me who wanted to be there and whose parents were comparatively uninvolved, with the former having an overall negative experience and the latter loving it. I did not witness a single fight throughout my schooling, which I think would come as a shock to older generations or people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Some kids drank or did drugs (weed and LSD, mostly) but my friends and I were squares even by that school's standards, so I don't know the details. Everyone in my graduating class went to college, so even kids whose parents weren't able to help much with the application process obtained the requisite knowledge from their teachers or peers.
It seems odd to me to associate this type of charity with rationalism/EA specifically when it has been a common practice for centuries for religious institutions to collect a larger fraction of congregant's income than the US spends on foreign aid and at least in theory distribute it to feed, clothe, and house destitute strangers. If giving away your posessions to the poor were an inherently suicidal worldview, then the world would not be full of Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists instead of Nietzschean neoreactionary twitter pagans.
It is a crime against humanity to shaft their futures and potential livelihoods for social engineering.
Are their livelihoods actually negatively affected by being denied admission to Ivy League schools? My impression is that by future income and most other material measures of success there isn't any effect. In the same way, when Jews were kept out of Harvard all their Nobel Prize-winning scientists went to CUNY instead, and didn't seem any worse off for it.
Harvard at least seems to think that the Supreme Court decision changed things. Looking at the admissions data for some other schools, it seems that the results are all over the place, most likely because each tried to achieve their desired racial mix via novel methods and haven't worked out all the kinks yet.
In any case, I thought the whole point of getting rid of affirmative action was so that we would stop caring about things like "[race] makes up [percentage] of the population and so deserves [percentage] of the seats." If you just wanted the racial spoils system inverted in favor of white people, then a lawsuit on behalf of Asians whose goal was admissions purely by test score was probably never going to achieve your goals.
Really we'd all be better off if there were a clearer distinction between admissions at technical schools like MIT and Caltech, which would do fine on a purely meritocratic exam system, and places like Harvard and Yale, which if they had any balls would say "We are private institutions and will admit whomever we damn well please, because our job is to groom the future rulers of this country, not churn out a bunch of programmers and engineers who will never hold the reigns of power." I thought perhaps the disruption of the pandemic would allow for reforms of that magnitude, but sadly the higher education system seems content to stumble along with kludges and half-measures until its bubble inevitably bursts.
North Korea
Putin visited Pyongyang this week for a summit with Kim Jong-Un, signing a mutual aid pact and securing a vital supply of munitions for the war in Ukraine. South Korea is considering responding with their own arms deal, because apparently Koreans are some of the only people in the world who still know how to make artillery shells.
The Philippines
China and the Philippines continued their naval game of chicken around Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea, in a dispute that the Filipino government could at any moment drag the US into by invoking its mutual defense treaty.
Lebanon
Israel seems ready to launch a military offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon, which would likely lead to a dramatic escalation in violence throughout the region, with more missile and drone exchanges with Iran and even at first glance unrelated nations caught in the crossfire.
Saudi Arabia
Over a thousand pilgrims have died from extreme heat on the hajj. And here I was worrying about political violence this year instead.
Belgium
The EU plans to impose tariffs on the import of Chinese EV's, following America's lead. Time will tell whether this saves domestic manufacturing or if we in the west will end up like the Soviets with their Ladas looking enviously across the iron curtain at all the shiny new vehicles their government wouldn't let them have.
It seems to me that it's the fraction of angry young men you have on your side that matters more than the absolute number. If your side has all the kids, then you will have disproportionate power regardless of how many octogenarians hate your guts.
N=1 of course, but the suburb I grew up in had precisely one thing within walking distance besides single-family homes: a gated community center with a pool and gym. There was one bike path that I could have theoretically taken to school if I wanted to cross a highway, but that was it. Any trip to the grocery store, cafe, restaurants, arcade, parks, doctor's office, dry cleaners, pharmacy, or shopping mall was done by car and children had to be chaperoned by their parents to any sort of activity outside of visiting their immediate neighbors.
I didn't mind this at the time, but from where I am now I envy those people who got to grow up traveling independently to hang out with their friends, explore their community, and learn the skills of life without adult supervision. I don’t feel like I have a hometown in the sense that those people do, just an endless sprawl of houses with no distinguishing characteristics, unique architecture, local culture, or collective memory.
Anti-Indian sentiment within the Anglosphere seems mostly confined to Canada and the UK, increasing in the former noticeably in the last few years because of the enormous ongoing immigration wave and diplomatic disputes over the relict Khalistan movement-in-exile. Indian-Americans are a cut above most other immigrant groups as far as education, income, and general "merit" go, even compared to Indians in other countries, so they don't tend to draw a lot of flak. Perhaps if India achieves a similar global status as China, Indians here will go from being ignored all the time to occasionally being harassed due to geopolitical events before being ignored again.
Is the whole race and dating thing really that fucked?
In the last few years the gender imbalances in interracial relationships seem to have evened out a bit in the US, at least with respect to Asians. I assume the increased prominence of Korean music and pop culture around the world had something to do with this. It will probably take popular perceptions a while to catch up and the stereotypes that were validated by the old OkCupid data are still alive and well, usually played for laughs but sometimes tinged with real resentment, particularly from the groups at the bottom of the totem pole i.e. Asian men and Black women.
I wouldn't be surprised if the way people speak or express emotions on their face over a lifetime affects how they look, as well as things like diet and lifestyle, all of which will differ between countries. Rishi Sunak for example has a face that looks very British to me in a way I can't fully articulate, despite his ethnic background.
In my experience, there are a substantial number of ideologically captured researchers working in hard science fields where it doesn't affect their output very much, but who would consider moving to Europe if they felt the government was sufficiently hostile to their politics. Losing these people would result in serious brain drain, even if it would probably make the social sciences more productive.
Why is this judge's decision not simply part of the process by which "the country" decides who to let in and who to expel? Are the president's desires the sole legitimate expression of the national will? We have a government of laws, not of men, or at least that's how it was intended.
I think Ukraine can win the same way Finland "won" the Winter War i.e. inflict disproportionate casualties against a numerically superior opponent for years on end, and after being beaten into exhaustion sign a peace treaty in which they give up 10% of their territory and accept forced neutrality. On paper this is a loss, but it kept them out of the communist bloc and they ended up a western-aligned NATO member without suffering economically or politically the way Poland or Czechoslovakia did in the interim.
At the end of the day, it's the Ukrainians at the front making the decision to fight or not, and as long as they're shooting at our geopolitical rivals I have no problem with arming them. So far, their revealed preference is to hold the line, and the moment that changes it will be clearly evident in the form of mass protests, mutinies, or defections, and their government will have no choice but to sue for peace. It's not my place to tell them how many of their lives are or aren't worth sacrificing for their cause, whatever they think that cause is.
- Prev
- Next
The concept of '15-minute cities' came up a few weeks ago, but since then it appears to have piggybacked off a local dispute in Oxford to become the locus of the latest so-called 'far-right conspiracy theory'. The proposed measure certainly codes as dystopian to me on this side of the pond, even as someone who is generally supportive of new urbanist ideas, but I can't speak to how it plays in Europe.
I've often felt that the culture war battle lines on these urban planning issues have not been as clearly drawn as those on gender, immigration, or abortion, mostly due to a lack of attention, but that time appears to be coming to an end. Though seeing as we already can't build anything, I suppose it isn't much of a loss.
More options
Context Copy link