@SophisticatedHillbilly's banner p

SophisticatedHillbilly


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 December 04 20:18:48 UTC

				

User ID: 1964

SophisticatedHillbilly


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 December 04 20:18:48 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1964

It seems like traits like the ones mentioned should be selected for within a mere couple of generations though. If the slightly-too-neurotic and slightly-unhorny women aren't having children, then the problem is self-solving. Seems like a waste of resources to gene-engineer away a problem that is on its way out.

πŸ™„ πŸ€“.

And Gold was slapped down pretty hard in the 60-70s, and God was dead by the 90's. That leaves conquest, which we've all decided is illegal for whatever reason. We need a new combo, and "Cash, Grass, and Ass" doesn't seem to be cutting it.

This is one of those "you don't hate journalists enough, you think you do but you don't" moments for me honestly. I sometimes forget that I have to retroactively apply my hate for journalism into the past, and this is a good reminder. Journalism as a whole really never was much better, it was just harder to see how bad they were. This is regarding the 1992 article of course.

Yes, but only from my own personal exposure. No writings on it would have been convincing to me.

Me and groups of up to 6 people all experiencing the same things, both together and separately, convinced me.

I am content for such things to remain not well understood, however.

Not trans, but my own take on it from talking to trans and not-trans-but-considered-it people:

One of the most common precursors to people going trans is an inability to mesh with one's own gender in social settings, especially in group settings. The guy who can't handle male social dynamics and ends up bullied or simply alone. The girl who can't wrap her head around female social games and thus is effectively exiled from female social contact.

I think of one moderately autistic woman I know who struggles very hard with this. Her natural responses in social situations lead her to being pretty inevitably hated by groups of women after enough exposure. This bleeds over into work, and has major negative professional impacts.

When interacting with men, on the other hand, she gets along great. It's not a sexual thing either, just that when she gives direct, blunt responses it's appreciated instead of hated.

I suspect this is why it correlates so strongly with autism. They struggle to fulfill the convoluted and difficult rules of intra-gender social interaction and find the (much looser) rules of cross-gender interaction more welcoming. They then falsely think this means they'd be better at intra-gender interaction as the opposite gender, rather than that they're simply benefiting from easier rules

From my experience living in Miami: All other ethnic groups in that Latin American exclave of a city think of Cubans as corrupt, selfish, and insular. The same way /pol/ jokes about certain races every time there is violent crime, Miami jokes about Cubans whenever there is white collar crime or corruption in the city government. A native Miamian once put it as "dude they're our Jews."

Rs don't complain about them because they vote R and are staunchly anti-socialist.

As an aside, it was wild to experience the levels of racism in Miami first-hand. In no other major city in America can someone shout the N-word at an event full of white people and get laughs and applause. That doesn't even touch on the intense inter-hispanic racism

I remember most of my memories in the same way that I remember that I remember the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. My memories are simply facts that I know, same as any other information.

This has the benefit that my memories have little emotional impact. The primary drawback seems to be that my memories have little emotional impact.

I will say that while my memory is quite good, my voluntary recall is very bad. If anything comes up that is even a few steps removed from being related to a memory, then that memory will come to mind, but if it doesn't, I have no way of actively thinking of memories in general easily.

I have a small handful of memories that play as videos, but they certainly aren't historically accurate videos.

That means that anywhere from 5% to 30% of children born to completely average parents are equal to a member of the upper class. Given the massive population difference, it won't take long in any system with significant upward mobility and low downward mobility for the upper class to be heavily comprised of underperforming children-of-statistical-anomolies.

Bloodlines are great ways to discriminate, but only after multiple generations succeeding in a row. High social downward mobility is a must.

Exactly. It's bad any way you slice it.

I flatly disagree with this, though I'm sure data is hard to find.

This is one of those traits where there's really massive variance, and it's likely both genetic and cultural. I have been in groups where nearly everyone had an extremely low baseline level of horniness as a teen (this includes people I am close enough to that I know they are not lying for social reasons) and within groups where everyone admits they were psychotically horny as teens.

These two types of people tend to self-sort pretty strongly from a young age, and they tend to understand each other poorly.

That's perfectly reasonable from an individual perspective. I suppose my concern is more with the "layabout poet son of a hedge fund manager" who ends up being handed a sinecure sort of job, or worse, one of actual importance. If that person gets paid $200,000 a year to be worthless, they have already had a worse impact on society than almost any petty criminal. The impact is double if their lineage somehow gets them into a position they're less-than-capable in.

I am much more okay with garbage humans living garbage lives than with mediocre ones rising above their deserved station unfairly, if only because I believe that "who sits at the top" has immense downstream effects on basically everything.

I don't entirely disagree with your point, but:

Regression to the mean is a major issue here. The children of elites frequently do not have great genes, as the elites who spawned them was simply a statistical anomaly. They get to keep their elite status, however.

What we lack for the meritocracy you describe is downward social mobility. I want every high-class idiot out of their positions, but at the moment the upper class is far too secure.

If we had that then I'd be mostly fine with the system yes.

Yeah that first definition seems about what I was thinking. Thanks for the more detailed info.

It couldn't have been more then one or two thousand

My intuition was honestly the exact opposite, and I figured there'd be at least 10-20k of them. Basically every non-major-city settlement was centered around 1 or more plantations. Where in the north the town was the basic unit of settlement, in the south this was the plantation. It wasn't just the owners and slaves that lived on the plantations, it was a majority of the population. Seems you'd end up with a lot of plantations and plantation owners.

I don't assume you're going around trusting people that easily with things that important to you. Or am I speaking too soon? What's your social security number? I didn't think so.

There are many people that I do in fact share sensitive information with. Those people are not you. I'm sorry if you have no one trustworthy in your life. I have many such people, who are trustworthy because of their commitment to principle.

I fully agree that most people are not principled. I do not expect them to be, but I do not think being principle-less is any more acceptable because the majority of people do it. I am happy to simply prune my own social circle of those I see lacking in principle. Even having done so, I am left with a much, much larger circle than the average person anyway.

The whole point of having principles is that by being unmoved by incentives, you open the possibility of changing the incentives themselves. If enough people hold that lying is evil, then you push the cost-benefit balance away from lying. To follow incentives, or design with them in mind, is to cede the power of incentive-setting to those who won't budge.

almost every single one of those people have no qualms about picking up a $100 bill you just dropped

Speak for yourself and your own fucked up community. The people around me have gone a lot further for me than returning a $100, and I trust them deeply.

However, I understand your point, and the majority of the world's population is principle-less and incentive-driven. At the same time, I believe it is morally required to stand against incentives, and I think your way of thinking too often leads to a race-to-the-bottom mindset of "everyone else has no principles and follows incentives so I have to follow incentives too."

If you can resist that slide while maintaining your mindset, then frankly we're mostly in agreement.

The only human beings who have consistent principles are those you'd never want to live with or be governed by.

This honestly has not been my experience at all. Those with the strongest principles have consistently been the only people in my life worth keeping around. If someone doesn't have any values that they'll maintain when it's painful, then you're basically dealing with a particularly cunning animal.

Except the comparison point would have to be (welfare state with X GDP and Y demographics) vs (no welfare state with X GDP and Y demographics). Is there even a similar set of states we can compare? Given the impact of demographics and wealth on the type of state that the public builds, is it even possible to have one?

At this point no one is happy with what they have, but they don’t see eye-to-eye enough to agree on something new.

If this doesn't sum up the era we live in, I don't know what does.

Yes, all candidates have a portion of the base who is insufficiently motivated to get to the polls but can be convinced to do so.

From what I can find, tranq pistols can have an effective range up to 40 meters. That's firing an entire syringe. I wouldn't be surprised at being able to achieve 100 meters with a much, much smaller dart.

Also worth considering that range would likely be an engineering goal for a CIA heart attack gun. They aren't really focused on achieving range in typical dart pistols, because that would never be needed.

Not sure what meets @Questionmark's definition of "really furious, anxious progressive think piece," but there are a few I've seen around the net in the last week or so:

"The Case That Could Destroy the Government" https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-jarkesy-supreme-court/676059/

Then there's this one, which originally had the title "A new Supreme Court case threatens to sow chaos throughout the federal government" https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/5/2/23706535/supreme-court-chevron-deference-loper-bright-raimondo

Then there's another Vox masterpiece: "The Supreme Court seeks a middle path between following the law and blowing up the government" https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/11/29/23980966/supreme-court-sec-jarkesy-administrative-law-judges

And more or less every respectable news outlet had some opinion piece along the lines of Washington Post's "A conservative court intent on arrogating power unto itself" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/01/supreme-court-administrative-state/

For comparison, Reuter's most recent headline on the topic is "US Supreme Court signals it could limit SEC in-house enforcement," though I do think that undersells it somewhat.

Honestly, does this matter? If it takes 1000 years for a belief system to mature enough to perform well, then that's even more reason to stick to established systems.