SophisticatedHillbilly
No bio...
User ID: 1964
Testing, testing, testing. Unless it's too late, that is?
Not if you consider "successfull," to be "having genetic children that will themselves have genetic children." Not everyone agrees with that, but we're all descended from those who did.
Very different setup, but I've experienced the exact same issue before. Nothing fixed it until I replaced the CPU completely, but YMMV
Worth taking into account how these apps work though. If you go an extended period with no one swiping right on you, your profile's mmr drops, eventually into a bracket that has no real women in it at all, and your profile simply won't be seen. At that point you could change it to "7ft NBA star + astronaut" with pics to match and you wouldn't be able to match.
I disagree on a few core points: I understand blue tribe is their own thing separate from the Democratic party, hence my point about blue-tribe conservatives.
The majority of the country watches, listens to, eats, drinks, and generally has the values and preferences of blue-tribe. First generation immigrants do not, but second-generation do by a massive margin. Perhaps the one major exception is LGBT issues, but that does not disqualify them completely.
Minorities may have a fewmajor cultural differences with blue tribe, but they align far closer than they do to red tribe. Immigrants typically are not at all supporters of the small-government, pro-gun, pro-christianity, pro-self-sustainability, pro-private-property-rights, anti-elitist, anti-intellectualist value set of the red tribe. AADS are probably the closest match, but they try very hard to signal that they are not of the red tribe, and red tribe does the same in return.
Do minority groups behave exactly the same as blue-tribe whites? No, but they aren't meant to. Many cultural groups have different roles for different classes of people, and blue-tribe is no exception.
unnecessary unproductive labor, because the universal 40 hour workweek is expected
I'd argue that this is not because of demanding the 40 hour workweek, but because most productive labor is illegal. If mining things, growing things, and building things were less stringently controlled, then we could have more people actually producing instead of sitting in desks pushing pointless papers for 40 hours per week.
The alternative of cutting the workweek is fine if we just want to rest on our laurels I guess, but I'd rather let people advance.
A few points:
I think you may be somewhat underestimating the impact that the COVID election law changes had on turnout. Democrats are typically low-effort voters, and so gained hugely from the expanded access. Not sure how many of those changes are still in effect, but something to find out.
Good points on Jan 6 and Dobbs. I think some who are immersed in the conservosphere forget just how big those points are to the rank-and-file voters.
Additionally, I think conservatives have a habit of underestimating just how many blue-tribers the country has at this point. Like sure, they're mostly in a few cities or whatever, but it's probably 65-75% of the population of the country by now. The red tribe is vastly outmanned currently, though demographic trends will shift it back in 80ish years or so barring major cultural or tech changes. Blue-triber conservatives, meanwhile, tend to forget that they functionally don't exist as far as democracy is concerned.
Mormons would probably pull it off okay, especially since the hardliner Mormons still have steady tfr. Plus I don't think the tfr would keep declining once exposure to the monoculture is cut off.
Genetically, I'd choose the groups that settled the prior frontiers with minimal homeland assistant: the Borderers, Mormons, and certain Germanic groups. Pick some traditionalist subsets and go. How many people does a generation ship really need? 500? 5000? Either way it's so small that you're best off looking for weird small subgroup that is optimal for it rather than selecting people who are good at playing our society. High IQ is somewhat important, but not massively so as long as they're like 100 average at least, with a few especially bright individuals. I'm sure engineering a generation ship requires elite IQ, manning one likely does not. Probably a few solid Asian groups that would fit the bill, but I'd be hesitant given the lack of prior history of frontier-settling.
Beliefs-wise, nearly any cohesive religious group is fine. They do exist. It's not as if we live in a 100% atheist society.
Only a blackpill if you for some reason have no respect for strength or power, which would be odd given how important they've been for all of history.
I don't follow. What exactly is that no-cost intervention? Or is the point just that the question is: "Would he still hate black people if they are productive members of society?"
Honestly asking. I don't get what you're saying.
Edit: never mind, I get it now upon re-reading. Leaving this to mark my shame.
Going to second the reading aloud thing. My family would alternate who would read the stories between the best readers each night, and it remains perhaps my fondest family memory of all. We would read all sorts of things, but LotR and Of Mice and Men stand out to me. The former because it started a long obsession with Tolkien's work, and the latter because there is nothing quite like sobbing along with your family to a beautiful book as you try to choke out the words.
The issue is that controlling the executive is a team game nowadays, and so this could largely be resolved if the GOP was actually Trumpian.
Do you think Biden can control the executive? No. He has people for that. Trump needs people. The GOP is just really bad at playing to win, and even worse at caring about what their voters want.
I just want to say thank you for doing this. Efforts like yours are the sort of thing that creates meaningful, appreciable change in the world that talking about problems on a forum does not.
The only time I've ever had community was when I did something similar, and it seems that most people are just waiting for someone to reach out. They aren't antisocial, just non-agentic. To everyone reading this who wants community: try and do the same. Report back on how it goes!
where a lot of politically-charged matters have been started getting shoved through local direct democracy options, usually by a mix of obfuscating terminology and absolutely massive direct spending advocacy,
Having worked on paid local referendum campaigns, this is underselling both points.
- When circulating petitions, we were actively told to lie to make the petition more palatable to whoever we spoke to, even implying that the bill did the exact opposite of what it actually said. I didn't do this, and I'd even just outright say "Oh, you don't want to sign this then" if it seemed they didn't support what it was, but others were all-in on the numbers game.
- Petitioners were being paid $50/hour to circulate petitions. I don't want to think about how much money was sloshing around that campaign.
Is there any school of legal interpretation that is explicitly outcome-blind? It's really the only thing I want in a judge, but none of the main schools seem to believe in it.
By outcome-blind I specifically mean that there is no sense that a ruling should be decided differently just because the 'correct' legal reading would result in something absurd or horrible. It seems like there's always this tendency to say "but if we rule the way that is obviously correct, it causes problems xyz and we can't have that" even among textualists and literalists.
I'm thinking of the "An AR-15 is not technically a gun" kind of ruling, or the "EPA gets to regulate every puddle" kind of ruling, or any of the various "such a precedent would eliminate most of the executive branch" kind of rulings. Though I can't link specific examples as I'm in a hurry and on my phone.
Just to throw in my vote: I personally love the ability to hit the left portion of the chain to minimize on mobile. I use it constantly. Don't care much about it on desktop.
But the promiscuity is a direct result of the homosexuality no?Heterosexual sex is less promiscuous solely because it involves women. And then the community effects are a direct result of that promiscuity.
In a hypothetical world where homosexuality is just "heterosexual relationship and sexual norms, but with 2 men" then sure, it would be not unhealthy, but that world fundamentally cannot exist as long as men have a higher sex drive than women and are willing to take greater risks in sex, which I can think of no way of changing.
In this sense, the pickup truck analogy doesn't work, because pickup trucks don't make people rural, or male. Homosexuality does make people more promiscuous, because it increases access to high-sex-drive partners.
There's an old sci-fi story (Asimov maybe) that I can't seem to find which involves the hunt for the most normal citizen of the country, who will then have his brain scanned by an AI, which will then compute the outcome of the election with 100% accuracy.
My ideal world would involve a jury selected similarly. We simply hunt down the most grill-pilled Iowan, the most relaxed Floridian, and so on, and form the jury from that pool.
Literally every single person I have ever taken shooting has gone at least 30% up the Overton Window towards gun rights after shooting them. Even the "guns should literally be forcibly confiscated from the entire populace" person moved up to "these are probably fine if reasonable checks are in place on issuing them".
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability"
I think it does currently in some circles, but generally uses a more all-encompassing definition of merit. The 120 IQ guy who can stay focused and always be on time has more merit than the 130 IQ guy who never shows up or gets anything done. The 100 IQ guy with masterful social charisma has more merit than the 105 IQ guy with anger issues. IQ is a big factor, but not the only one.
In this way, I think merit usually just means "tendency to produce value" in whatever way the institution produces value. Attractiveness for the porn stars, charisma for the salesmen etc. High IQ correlates with all other forms of merit yes, but not extremely strongly so, especially within the range 90% of people fall into. The average used car salesman is a whole lot more charismatic than the average programmer, while the programmer is much smarter.
Those systems tend to be framed as meritocratic internally though.
"Of course the aristocrats should run things, they are literally better than everyone else due to superior breeding (blood)"
"Of course we need to distribute things between the races, they are equal in their merits and so need equal rewards."
"Of course the most experienced people are in charge, they're the best at their job because they know it better than anyone."
Or for the credentialists: "Of course those with the highest credentials should run things, the credentials show that they're the best in their field."
Or for the IQists:
"Of course the smartest should be on top, smarter people are better than everyone else due to their superior inherent abilities."
I can't think of a system which a typical adherent doesn't frame as meritocratic. The question is always how to determine merit, which if you ever hired for a job you know isn't particularly easy.
I think this is where the class/income distinction is important. We need highly intelligent lower-class people, because we need highly intelligent people running industries like resource extraction which will never be high class. A role being difficult doesn't make it classy, and a society that siphons off its best production plant operators and logging magnates to become ad-revenue optimizers and theoretical history researchers isn't on a good path long-term.
The existence of said whiplash likely would have prevented the centralization. Less reason to invest in growing the power of the central authority of your opponent actually gets to use the power once in awhile.
This is especially true when what we know of reality contradicts these ideas of infinities. You cannot divide a line an infinite number of times. Even a line the length of the entire observable universe can only be divided 205.2 times before reaching 1 Plank Length, beyond which there is simply no smaller unit to divide the line into. Infinities are useful abstractions, but reality operates in discrete units.

With sufficiently good AI art, it won't be possible to tell the difference. If nothing else, it craters the value for anyone who would create the real deal for money. People would still exchange verifiably older images sure, but crushing the creation of new stuff is the goal.
More options
Context Copy link