SophisticatedHillbilly
No bio...
User ID: 1964
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
Yes, far too many rightists try to ascribe to "Jewish control" what is actually just firm ideological control. The media isn't controlled by shadowy forces as much as it is just staffed top-to-bottom with die-hard true believers in American Progressivism.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
When you face something ‘systemic’, you need the strong and long reach of the arm of government to be able implement solutions that are 1) unprofitable to do, 2) can’t rely on community consensus to generate the will and 3) need nation state backing - all of which are unworkable on a local level.
Which issues does the US currently face that require a government to have the level of power that the US currently wields that could not be better solved by simply allowing people to act freely?
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
I believe this applies to me. I have gone from: highly introverted (and I mean never spoke unless spoken to, never attended a single social event, etc) to extremely extroverted (arranging the social events, and being a hub of my social circle instead of a spoke.) The shift was part gradual, part lurching, and quite difficult. The largest shifts were when I joined an improv troupe, acted in a play, and began going dancing at clubs. No drugs, no alcohol, nothing of the sort was involved.
Basically I think the crux of it was forcing myself to do things that were completely contrary to my nature for an extended period of time (constantly for months). Eventually the nature gave out and adapted to the situations it was forced into. Any extended period where I went without social contact resulted in me getting reset very quickly. It has to be maintained for years to stick.
After a couple years with basically 0 days without extended social contact, something flipped in me and I actually enjoy it now.
Why did I do this? I deeply believe that wide social connection would cure effectively every social ailment of the postmodern era, and was determined to make my own little piece of the world a bit better. It has largely worked, though the work never stops. Such is the nature of good things.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
Their plan for prosperity is: 1. Get rid of Israel. 2. Things magically get better
I think this may be demonstrating a major disconnect in mindset. Simply put: material prosperity is not a terminal value for most groups of people, and for some may barely be a value at all.
It's like mentioning how the Amish could be more prosperous if only they used modern technology. Of course they could! The explicitly think that's a bad thing, in a way that many valueless post-modernists seem to fail to understand. Have you considered that maybe Palestinians just genuinely feel that being free, impoverished, and Islamic is actually better than less free, wealthy, and progressive? Having actual values beyond "have money" doesn't make them Satanic.
I'm not even pro-Palestine (far, far from it actually,) but this read of them is just so far from any traditional Islamist I've ever met that I had to say something. If you're one of those people with no values beyond "win," don't forget that other people actually have other values, and say hi to Moloch for me.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
to support Taiwan, similar to how it went with the Ukraine
I agree with your overall point entirely, but this gets me thinking: would the western public have supported Ukraine if the US military/intelligence community didn't make sure that happened?
Most people's position on the war doesn't seem to be rooted in serious principles, and I have no doubt that if the regime pulled a Eurasia/Eastasia flip tomorrow, most of the public would follow.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
I do feel like the place has lost a lot of fire in the last year or so, and especially on leaving reddit. I don't mind so much, but only because in my contrarian nature this has made me more fiery, and I think it has otherwise made it somewhat worse.
I almost feel that there are fewer conventionally successful people around nowadays, but that could just be a case of fewer people mentioning personal details. I'm certainly not helping that figure, however.
Focus has definitely gotten tighter onto whatever issue is popular on X, which saddens me. My favorite posts have always been those from the public defender guy about law, or foreigners about their local issues, or other topics I would never have discovered.
Overall though I'm impressed how things have kept on chugging along. I was worried about total death on moving.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
If you just keep shelling, we'll find out if Iran can figure a way to sink a carrier group.
And if I remember correctly, wargame scenarios from the early 2000's (when the Navy was arguably in better shape) showed this exact scenario going very very badly for the US. So much so that they had to redo the wargame from scratch with heavy restrictions of the Red Team general to save face.
That's what it was, the "Millennium Challenge." On further review, the range limitations in the exercise were definitely a factor, but it's still not inspiring.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr 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
2yr ago
True, and I think conservatives are generally outclassed. On this we agree entirely.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
The idea that there are literally 0 remaining possibilities to counteract them is such an absurd way of thinking that frankly it took me a bit off guard. The idea that the current state of affairs, the institutions around us, are not only perfectly stable in a practical sense but even theoretically invincible is such an extreme claim it would require mountains of evidence. I reject the premise, and frankly I don't even expect the current system to resist takeover for another 100 years, let alone 2000.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr 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
2yr ago
Currently that is the case, and my only response is "Yes, and if Conservatives cared enough they'd be stealing our money to fund pet causes too."
But it wasn't always true. The early progressive movements were largely funded by progressives, progressive sympathizers, and donations by those who supported the associated causes. Conservatives could do the same, but they don't. An expected counterpoint would be the funds seized from the trucker protest but 1. That's not America, and 2. You have to actually put money towards building power structures (like the Federalist Society), not just in response to a single politically hot event.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
How confident are you the pollster isn't compiling a list of political enemies? What do you gain by answering honestly? If the answer to the first question is "less than 100%" and the answer to the second is "Nothing," why would you ever answer honestly? It just seems like the obviously wrong decision (for non-Kantians, at least.)
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
Honestly I don't believe this entirely. The issue of try-try-try again-pass is real yes, but as Brexit shows it's an advantage inherent to the "Anti-Status-Quo" stance rather than inherently an advantage for progressives.
The problem is that conservatives believe you can just rest on your laurels and do nothing whatsoever to uphold your beliefs beyond voting, while progressives understand that to win you have to fight for your beliefs every single day. If conservatives tried half as hard to ban gay marriage as the progressives did to legalize it, it would be illegal.
Progressives collectively throw hundreds of billions of dollars towards their social goals, have numerous people whose entire lives and careers are dedicated to furthering the cause (many of whom abandoned more profitable avenues to do so) and have millions more who make art, put the values into their work, make public displays of loyalty, etc. Conservatives aren't even in the same ballpark of effort and commitment.
The sole exception would of course be Christian Evangelicals, who do all the same things progressives do to to actually attempt to win. And would you look at that, they did in fact get Roe v Wade overturned! Turns out conservatives can win if they actually care and put their money where their mouth is!
My experience with it is from working with a mining company that surveyed a rather large area, including our property, looking for mineral deposits. It was a large array, probably around 10'x10', carried by a helicopter, and the results were impressive. Can't remember if they let me keep any copies of the study, but I'll dig and see if I can pull it up as it may have more details. It was definitely considered pretty cutting edge at the time, but it was like 10 years ago. Might have been more of a proprietary secret than I realized at the time.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
There are air-mounted magnetic imaging devices that penetrate deep underground and are used in geological surveys. They're helicopter-mounted and able to pick up the depth at which the material of the rock underneath changes composition, so would presumably be able to pick up on the metal used in the tunnels somewhat easily, though I can't guarantee that.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
So maybe I just don't understand what people have been meaning by having a Bronze Age Mindset, because to be BAP's position seems perfectly ideologically consistent. Them raping and pillaging is bad, us raping and pillaging is good. What's more Bronze Age than that? For anyone reading this forum, the Palestinians are not your allies and never will be, so it seems only natural the Bronze Age response is "slaughter them and salt the earth"
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
I'm massively in favor of restricting genocide to only include killing and mass prevention of reproduction, but do you have a suggestion for what to call the cultural equivalent?
If tomorrow the Taliban broke into my house, forced me to learn Arabic, stop eating pork or drinking alcohol, changed how my workday is structured, altered the system of government I live under, and prevented me from living with my girlfriend prior to marriage, none of that is genocide but is definitely A Big Deal and I would like a word for it being applied to my entire society collectively. Culturcide is decent but a bit ugly.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
Force sale of X% of shares he held by his estate on the open public market at whatever the price was at his death (or some randomized time before it to prevent gaming) and the government collects its cut as those sell. Seems like a simple enough solution but I'm probably missing something.
What percentage of the revolutionary militia were we expecting to be habitual wife beaters, exactly? I think we'll be ok without them.
Approximately all of them, based on current standards of domestic violence. Minor physical punishments (slaps, spanking etc.) were common for men to apply to their wives if they misbehaved, just as they were applied to children. You'll have to cast aside more than just the militiamen.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
Can any resident lawyers here provide some insights on the decision to attend law school? I have a mostly-worthless journalism degree that I somewhat aimlessly (though debtlessly) acquired with a 3.0 GPA, and have over the last year suddenly become highly motivated and interested in getting my life on track (Late, I know!). Feel trapped in a cycle of working poorly-paying jobs related to my major and I'm looking for something that will open some doors for myself after spending years passing them by.
I'm smart, and I'm pulling ~175 on practice LSATs, and I have enough outside interest in legal affairs to read state-level court rulings on my own time, but I'm on the fence about the whole thing.
Primary concerns are:
- The impression I seem to get from the internet is that lawyers are all miserable alcoholics who wish they had become software engineers. Why would I spend 3 years to become more miserable than I already am?
- Bimodal income distribution. If I can bump up my LSAT a few more points, I have a decent chance of getting into a top school, (especially with AA bonus points) but is it just not worth going at all if I don't manage to pull that? Not super interested in spending 3 years to graduate and then earn $65k.
- Debt. Law school seems unreasonably expensive. I doubt I can get many scholarships if I manage to squeak into a T14 level school, and while my score would likely net me large scholarships at a regional school, that just brings me back to the previous point.
It doesn't seem like a bad option, but in some sense only because I can't think of a better one with the hole I've dug myself into.
(For anyone who remembers by months-old post about mining, that is still progressing slowly. I'm able to consistently make small batches of metal from ore now, but upscaling it requires a minimum $50,000 equipment investment, and I have nowhere near that amount of money on hand. Ore from one location in particular is producing some sort of steel-like metal that is unbelievably hard and surprisingly light. High vanadium content is probably a factor, but there's a lot of other stuff in it. A supermagnet-producer took interest in some tests that demonstrate dense concentrations of neodymium, but again lost interest when it came to quantity caps.)
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
This doesn't factor in property crimes though, right? Is looting a store considered a black-on-white crime or no?
Depending on how the property crimes play out, I could certainly see there being a sort of viking-esque respect for the criminals who bring in the goods. I mean a competent drug dealer or large Gucci raid make surely make up a sizeable portion of the wealth coming into certain areas. If it's a large enough portion, many may be willing to tolerate the violence inflicted by those conquering heroes. I think of traditional Cavalier culture, where the men on top of the system were expected to inflict violence, and those below expected to tolerate it, because of the way the men on top were seen as providing for everyone lower on the totem pole.
It also makes me think of some Twitter posts I saw recently (but can't find now) where a user was talking about how they managed to buy a house with money they saved by "boosting" (theft) and other users sharing similar stories. Crime does pay.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
You have to also consider game-theoretic consequences between societies and not just within them. Even short of an internal collapse, a society with a higher proportion of unethical people will eventually be outcompeted due to inefficiency. Of course, this can take many lifetimes.
SophisticatedHillbilly
2yr ago
Things like this always make we wonder how much Republicans could drive policy by just adopting the opposite view of what they want as their stance. How many fewer dollars sent to Ukraine if the right demanded aid to Ukraine right at the start? Mostly just a silly thought, but the effect is so strong that sometimes I wonder.
Do they need "boots on the ground" in that sort of conflict though? Couldn't they just bomb and shell every square foot until there's effectively no one and nothing left? Of course, it isn't that sort of conflict (yet).
More options
Context Copy link