SophisticatedHillbilly
No bio...
User ID: 1964
SophisticatedHillbilly
1mo ago
I love this poem. Any more you'd like to share?
SophisticatedHillbilly
2mo ago
For additional evidence for the signature farming: the existence of companies like Fieldworks, or the fact that you can find the job "Political Canvasser" on job search engines and it pays $25/hour. Not a lot of places for that money to come from but PACs.
SophisticatedHillbilly
4mo ago
Exactly. It's bad any way you slice it.
SophisticatedHillbilly
6mo ago
Yeah I live on less than 20k a year at the moment and I'm very comfortable. I even eat out occasionally. Frankly I could cut costs a bit more if I wanted too.
SophisticatedHillbilly
6mo ago
In a democracy generally? I don't think so. In our current state? Probably yeah.
I guess I just don't move problems that are in the "We could solve this if the leadership actually attempted to solve it" bin over to the "Literally impossible to solve" bin just because there's currently no political will to solve it.
COVID didn't work because it didn't really threaten the people who mattered. There was a small chance of dying for many of them, sure, but no chance of losing their high positions (which is far worse.) A proper war would do it I think, or a real severe resource shortage. Maybe a civil war even.
SophisticatedHillbilly
6mo ago
There are a lot of rules against building houses, and I don't consider building houses ever being a problem exactly. Wouldn't surprise me if Prohibition was similar, just one group pushing their strategically optimal set of values, damn the societal consequences.
SophisticatedHillbilly
7mo ago
It seems like everyone always leaves out the possibility that China just... takes Taiwan. Like if the US does get spread pretty thin and China takes the opportunity, that doesn't automatically mean WWIII happens. Frankly, the thinner the US gets spread, the lower the odds of Taiwan being sufficient to trigger the war.
If the US is totally dominant, then China will wait and so no war occurs. If the US is severely weakened, then China will simply take Taiwan with minimal US intervention, and no world war occurs. It's only in some weird middle ground, where China perceives the US as spread too thin but the US still commits to defending Taiwan, that there's any risk of something major.
Of course, I've never been the worrying sort, and I'm not as opposed to war as the average person, so maybe I'm just underestimating the odds.
SophisticatedHillbilly
8mo ago
Also fair, though I'd just say that I read a lot of his works in chronological order, and I don't remember ever being confused on what was meant by the Cathedral. I think he did a good job of gradually introducing facets of a very large term, though I understand why some may find the style obnoxious (personally I enjoy it).
SophisticatedHillbilly
8mo ago
I'd say it's much more like how if you try to read later works by a philosopher they are frequently a brick wall of incomprehensible terminology and seemingly nonsensical reasoning, but only because they spent the earlier works defining terms and explaining ideas, some of which are compacted from essay-length down to a single word, and they aren't going to go back over the basics every time they mention a concept.
To use an example closer to this community, if I were to say "The Molochian tendencies of the Red Tribe and Blue Tribe are a result of the toxoplasmosic interplay between competing egregores" it requires reading like 4 of Scott's essays to understand.
SophisticatedHillbilly
8mo ago
I don't doubt that what you and @07mk is true, but it's worth acknowledging that a situation where 1Cp gets sold for 100X is far better than a situation where 100Cp get sold for 1X. I don't doubt some will continue to want real stuff, but the point is that it would be possible to reduce the amount that is produced.
SophisticatedHillbilly
10mo ago
There are two prongs to this:
1: Yes, citizens spreading their ideology is legitimate. It can also be evil, if the ideology is evil. Whether legal or not, evil should be combated, especially when it personally influences one's children. The debate then is whether the LGBT ideology is evil. It would also be legitimate for citizens to spread Nazism, but that would be evil, and I would like it fought however possible.
2: The issues around schools are entirely separate from what is considered for citizens to do. It is legitimate for someone who works as a teacher to spread their ideology, but not in their capacity as a public school teacher. It would not be acceptable for a public school teacher to secretly teach their students about God, hold prayers, tell them to hide it from their parents, bring in crosses for the kids to wear etc. The same goes for any LGBT ideology.
SophisticatedHillbilly
10mo ago
Which shouldn't be exceptionally surprising. Men aren't significantly more likely to molest children, I believe, once you account for reduced reporting rates among male victims of female molestation.
This seems to line up with that, taking into account the naturally higher rate of homosexual attraction among women, which pads the numbers somewhat.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
This is exactly the type of thing I’m hoping to do, thank you. I’ll dive into it.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1mo ago
My main issue with this line of thought is that we aren't running out of people, and reducing the population by 75% or more seems positively wonderful. The US was plenty capable of a very rich and successful society with far fewer people than today.
Why would we want more? Do you want 1.2 billion people in the US, with the accompanying congestion, resource usage, and garbage? Why is 330 million the magic number? Surely 75 million is sufficient?
Sure actively lowering the population would make me question your motives, but if people just prefer cruise ships and video games to reproducing, why do you want to stop them? Why not just have kids of your own who get to inherit a cleaner, more open world with beaches that aren't packed with strangers?
SophisticatedHillbilly
1mo ago
Abortion bans are mostly worthless without contraception bans, as least as far as impact-on-tfr goes
SophisticatedHillbilly
4mo ago
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.
SophisticatedHillbilly
6mo ago
Yeah the only way housing is coming down is if building housing becomes immensely faster/easier/cheaper (which will never happen because homeowners won't allow it) or if the population goes into decline (which will never happen because the powers that be will never allow our Ponzi scheme of an economy to collapse.)
SophisticatedHillbilly
6mo ago
In my experience of living in multiple Red areas that were (or are) undergoing development booms, it's that Red Tribe people generally are effectively YIMBY, or at least YIEBYBINMJTTYWTDWYL (Yes in everyone's back yard because it's not my job to tell you what to do with your land.)
As a very strong example, I once lived in a rural area gradually on the edge of becoming suburban. The state and county has long had a policy of "fence me out" in regards to animals. That is, if I have animals, and you don't want them to wander into your property, then fence me out. You can't make me build a fence, it's my land after all. There was a lot of conflict over this with the newcomers, and eventually transplants pushed to change the law. Locals never tried to block the new development, but they did try to block any changes that made things more restrictive or added rules. Eventually they were outnumbered, and now it's pretty typical city government with your standard NIMBY rules, and the culture I love continues to vanish.
It's one of the many reasons people say "don't bring California with you" when people move from more populous areas.
SophisticatedHillbilly
6mo ago
Fair. I guess my impression is that state governments are nearly just as broken, or at least we'll on the way. Plus, the things that do require federal approval are rather important.
I mean there's: nearly all large scale farming and mining, most (all?) energy production, pharmaceuticals (both new production of old drugs and new drugs,) and many imports, just off the top of my head.
It's not like all that will stop with a broken government, but the anarchotyrranic effects will only get stronger.
SophisticatedHillbilly
6mo ago
Well yes, that's the point of the boil-the-frog style gradual centralization. I don't expect them to achieve it anytime soon. More like 100 years from now.
SophisticatedHillbilly
7mo ago
I don't entirely disagree with this, though I would say it occurred largely because conservatives didn't care enough about their own values to maintain them. They could have done what progressives are doing now, but failed to do so, and instead let sinful behavior take control of the most powerful state to ever exist.
The solution now is to find new tricks, new takeover methods, that the opponent doesn't see coming. It is a war after all. You can't just reuse the old methods identically, but there are consistently functional principles that are timeless.
SophisticatedHillbilly
7mo ago
My point isn't disagreeing with that at all. In that example you cannot 100% measure homicide-guilt, so proxies, as listed in the quote, are fine. Additionally, considering multiple proxies simultaneously is fine as well. A white person dressed trashy is less likely to be a criminal than a black person dressed trashy, yes, and so you can definitely factor in both the race and dress proxies simultaneously. If we ever had a perfect legal system that always caught every criminal (or even say, 99.99%), then the use of those proxies would immediately become pointless, as you could instead just check whether they've been convicted.
But for the qualities that are most important in official contexts we have plenty of measurements we can take instead. Between IQ, Big-5, a simple psych questionnaire, and a skills test, a bureaucrat/hiring-manager can know nearly all you'd need to know to make a decision about any given individual. It doesn't matter what the base-rate IQ of blacks is if Jerome sitting in front of you tested at 130. It doesn't matter that whites from Germany are known to be hardworking if Matteo tested at 10th percentile conscientiousness. With the accuracy we're capable of attaining in our postmodern era, the generalities frequently worsen predictions rather than improving them.
The problem we have now isn't that we overuse measurements, but that we ignore them because we don't like the conclusions and so weigh the scales to get outcomes that are deemed more acceptable. This is effectively using generalities backwards, which is definitely worse than using them forwards, but still worse than just looking at individuals and getting some stats.
SophisticatedHillbilly
7mo ago
But the article linked in the post you linked mentions that 4% of the female population had a sexual experience with an animal, with much higher rates among certain sub-populations (particularly farmers). I mean that's not exactly the 5% I mentioned off the cuff but cut me some slack. That just becomes more significant when taking into account that actual practicing zoophilia isn't even required for the overall point.
As to that data, my understanding is that the data is pretty all over the place, women fantasize about animals more often, men actually engage in the actions more frequently (but typically don't fantasize about it even if they do normally fuck animals,) and the actual rates of interest in it are pretty close.
The points about the pathetic-man-fetish are all valid though, and I'm not too attached to the overall point anyway, though I expect for anyone who does care about it, any nitpicks are unlikely to remove the emotional damage of "there are attractive women who have fucked dogs but wouldn't touch you with a 10-foot-pole."
SophisticatedHillbilly
7mo ago
Not him, and don't necessarily support his claim, but I think the logic goes something like
- ~0% of women want to sleep with your average incel (definitionally)
- Some percent, say 5%, of women want to have sex with a dog.
- Therefore there is a not-trivially-small group of women (millions!) that would prefer some dog action to poor old incel.
I think it's less about the idea that it has a major impact on the marketplace (though the complete non-existence of dogs would probably have some infitessimally small impact) and more just one of those realizations where people are hit with the fact that they are literally less fuckable than a literal dog.
Of course, this all falls apart if the focus is on "average looking" rather than "beta," as it only works if talking about incels specifically.
My own view is that what I laid out above is roughly true, but mostly just the fault of the bottom-tier men for sucking that badly. It's not even really a bad or shocking thing. As you said, furries exist, and they're a much larger group than loser-philes.
Sadly no. My extended family is all more likely to fall on the other side of the law, and I haven’t made any lawyer friends, nor have any of my friends, to my knowledge. You have a good point though, and I’m going to need to find a way to foster that relationship. If you have any advice on how, I’ll take it.
More options
Context Copy link