@Southkraut's banner p

Southkraut

Vibe of vibes, saith the Preacher, vibe of vibes; all is vibe.

7 followers   follows 5 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:07:27 UTC

"Behind our efforts, let there be found our efforts."


				

User ID: 83

Southkraut

Vibe of vibes, saith the Preacher, vibe of vibes; all is vibe.

7 followers   follows 5 users   joined 2022 September 04 19:07:27 UTC

					

"Behind our efforts, let there be found our efforts."


					

User ID: 83

In addition to what all the others wrote, and keeping in mind that leftists are an increasingly rare but still essential resource on the motte, why not leave?

You can enjoy living in a bubble where you're right and everyone around you is right, everyone agrees on everything and there needn't be any controversial debates in which, god forbid, there might not be one side that is clearly correct and another side that falls in line after being shown the obvious truth. Instead, if your American bubbles are anything like our German bubbles, you and the well-aligned people around you who already know what is right and what is wrong can heap fire and brimstone on the outgroup with impunity. Not, mind you, that discourse on the motte is always better than that. But it'll feel good. It'll feel good to be right, and among other right-thinking people, and to hate the wrong-thinkers together. You can bond over your shared hatred, and if that ever gets boring, have a little purity spiral and ostracize some of your former own who didn't stand sufficiently far on the right side of history. And when you're done hating, you can go back to educating those around you, teaching them the latest and greatest in sociopolitical innovation.

Leftists do this. Rightists do this. Apolitical people who stumble into political bubbles and just try to fit in do this. Why shouldn't you do it too?

Paywalled, but I believe you. Guess my 3 minutes of flipping through headlines this morning did not give me a complete picture of the events.

Anyone who doesn’t think this was clearly telegraphed is kidding themselves.

So clearly telegraphed that Iran failed to notice anything and kept their VIPs in high-rises instead of bunkers?

Compared to pre-modern people who received any sort of public welfare?

I dunno, maybe it's me who's in a bubble, but this attitude has been pretty universal as far as I observed. Tthough it's usually implied rather than stated outright; especially since the entire topic is usually avoided.

you don't get tired doing it

Speak for yourself! I often have trouble keeping myself awake at the wheel.

That said, I'd like to add to your list of advantages: You can drive long past the point where injuries or sickness prevent you from walking notable distances.

No.

To some extent, when dealing with the topic of whoring, we must embrace the monstrous, one way or another. Here are our options:

  • Tell the kids that whores are disrespectable they will ruin their lives if they whore themselves out, be it for money or attention, because they will be considered at least damaged goods if not somewhat subhuman by most people anywhere and ever. Also tell men with low sexual market value to shut up and stop complaining, they're not getting any and that's final. The shaming is ubiquitous and relentless.
  • Tell the kids that whores may fulfill an important function, that their work is valuable and necessary to keep low-status men satisfied, but god damn if you become one you'll be disinherited and booted out of the house because whoring is still disrespectable and it's the lesser humanoids who should do it, not real people! The shaming is somewhat more limited, but still strictly in effect.
  • Tell the kids that everything is permitted, you can do no wrong, fuck anything that moves, there are no consequences. They subsequently ruin their lives and cannot comprehend how this cruel world does not support them in their brave life choices. You don't shame, but others will do it for you, because not everyone lives in the anti-shame bubble.
  • Tell the kids to do their whoring in style and with discretion, pragmatically and as befits mid- to high-status people. Do it by disguising it as serial monogamy, or "dating", or just do it in private and make sure none of it ever becomes public knowledge. Or just do it in the classic form of medium- to long-term monogamy, they wouldn't be the first trophy wives. You don't shame for the behavior itself, but for a lack of adroitness in engaging in it.
  • You somehow brainwash / reeducate / social engineer all of humanity so they buy into the sexual liberation meme and fuck without a care. Abolish all categories of infames. Restructure the world so that nobody can ever do shamefully wrong because everything is right. Shame on you if you actually believe this to be viable.
  • Abolish the deeply-ingrained, natural and timeless practice of shaming people and instead skip right ahead to capital punishment and damnatio memoriae, for whore as well as client. Nuke the entire institution from orbit. There is no shame when the would-be shamed party ceases to exist.
  • Do it like most western societies do it at present, by mostly just looking the other way and pretending not to see anything. There is no shame when...hey, wait, why are you plastering your whoring all over social media!?

I'm sorry. I can't take the topic entirely seriously when it leads with one of the the least deserving examples possible. Aella, an ostensibly intelligent woman who decided to build her entire name and reputation on doing things that humanity at large considers shameful is surprised when large parts of humanity would rather shame her than praise her.

SSDI abusers are generally past prime reproductive age, so the impact on long-term demographic dysgenics is nearly zero.

True. Which is why I prefaced this entire tangent as such; an excuse to ride my hobby horse of the more general public welfare topic.

I'm not sure why this would be the null hypothesis.

Not the. Just mine.

Fair points on your part. I won't argue against your historical analysis. That said, I still don't think situational barely-subsistence welfare at the discretion of local elites in pre-modern societies corresponds very exactly to universal high-standard-of-living welfare administered by nationally uniform buerocracies in terms of long-term demographic dysgenics.

Sorry, but actually having nice things is not on the table during culture war.

the best way to use it is to not use it at all

Yes.

A tangent.

I keep gravitating back towards my own null hypothesis - public welfare is a bad idea through and through, and no matter how many epicycles its proponents attach in attempts to sanewash it, it will never be a better system than not having public welfare. I know this means that I effectively espouse the need to pay out the ass for private insurance, and that there will be a very large parts of the population near the bottom end of the socioeconomic spectrum that will look very disagreeable even to my middle class sensibilities. A low-wage class, a serf class, a dehumanized mass of barely viable specimens, or outright unviable ones kept alive by their barely viable associates, or unviable ones in the process of honest-to-god starving on the streets. But what will the world look like with another few centuries of public welfare and, I assume, no eugenics? The same low-viable population, only grown unchecked by economic pressure thanks to welfare always bailing them out at significant cost to the productive elements of society.

I keep being told that this is baseless, that the unproductive poor will be elevated by education, or that they will naturally stop breeding, or that each subsequent generation is a blank slate and those non-viable traits will not persist over long timeframes. Or, of course, that AI will fix everything for everyone anyways. Or that there's no point in worrying because the planet is doomed and we may at least die in solidarity and upholding basic standards of living and human dignity for everyone on the way.

But I don't see it. I just don't. What I see is ever-growing burdens placed on those who create value, to the benefit of an ever-growing proportion of those who do not. I'd call it injustice if that made sense to anyone nowadays, when "justice" means that those who don't work are sustained by those who do, forever, no strings attached. Until society as a whole produces nothing but parasites and their sustenance - and then either collapses or finally puts a stop to these dynamics, much later and more grievously than had it been done earlier.

"Do you want to see people dying in the streets?", one might ask me. No I don't. Of course not. But it strikes me as quite possibly the lesser evil, in the long run.

Random thoughts: This is a return to normal. The 20th century saw an excessive standardization of all work as office or factory work, i.e., external workplace work where employed and salaried workers work under direct supervision. Employers now realize that this needn't be universally enforced. You can in fact just hire people to do their job, let them handle the details, and judge them based on their effective output. It may take some bossware to make it function for jobs that rely more on putting-in-hours than on getting-things-done, but that's a fairly minor hurdle.

What was once the craftsman's workshop adjacent to his living quarters, the farmer living on his farm, the daytaler sleeping right next to tomorrow's task, is now the employee working from home. It's a revival of an older and universal theme that was briefly obscured by some of the excessive outgrowths of the industrial revolution.

What happened to the option of text on a plain background as album art? Is fancy imagery that essential for marketing?

I mostly use it for three purposes:

  1. Voice chat with friends.
  2. Ask questions about software that I can't find the answers to on Stack Overflow.
  3. Receive updates on niche computer games.

And even for those two latter purposes, Discord is more annoying than useful most of the time. It's like 4chan on crack, with the lack of anonymity doing far more to encourage attention-whoring than to discourage shitposting. It is, as you said, loud, chaotic, nonsensical, a maelstrom of inanity, people screaming over each other, incomprehensible memes, an unceasing discharge of shitpost. It's a chatroom from hell, for zoomers. Everyone's an autistic transsexual furry and has a caricature instead of a personality. It's incoherent, anathema to attention span, outright hostile to any attempts at having a conversation. Anything that doesn't fit on-screen with the latest messages in a given channel may as well never have been written.

I hate it, but still use it because for many purposes, it's the only way to obtain specific pieces of information.

Its most-appreciated feature as far as I'm concerned is the option to mute channels.

I mean, how do you use it in a way that's actually practical, fun, and not overwhelming?

Practical and not overwhelming: Do like I do; minimize your interactions with it, try to block out the most annoying parts while getting the information you want. Give up on it in cases where this does not work; it's never worth the effort of diving deeper.

Fun: Become one with the mob. Embrace the brain damage. I can't imagine there's a sane way.

I'm curious, Mottizens: what speed would you drive at in perfect conditions (straight, flat, sunny, minimal traffic), in a 70 mph interstate?

I don't know what an interstate is, and 70 mph only makes sense to me after conversion to 112 km/h. So let's just call it 120 km/h, which is a common Autobahn speed limit.

If this is the legal speed limit, then let's be real, I'm a civilized contrarian who obviously spends every second at the wheel trying to bend the rules without needing to pay a fine, so I drive 130 km/h (around 80 mph).

If it's only a suggestion and there's no fine for speeding, only an elevated risk of fiery death, then I'll go faster under ideal conditions. I'm comfortable driving around 150 km/h (93 mph), but might briefly go faster only to see what my (very boring) car is capable of.

For reference, the fastest I've ever driven was around 200 km/h (124 mph) downhill, once.

Been getting a little time in, actually. Not much to show for it; I'm mostly just experimenting with procedurally instantiating objects in Unreal and marvelling at how they don't behave how I expect and at how difficult it is to do anything with the Unreal editor.

This is just a sneer, isn't it?

Can you put some meat on it?

Can you name any specific and forseeable advantages that space manufacturing may have? And if so, would they be significant enough to offset the disadvantage of needing to ship things from and to space?

Sad. I hoped to see those two getting some things done (almost doesn't matter what, as long as "you can actually do things" gets signal-boosted). This kind of outcome isn't unexpected, but it certainly is disappointing.

Carrying the kid on my shoulders over several kilometers while both my knees have already given out, for one.

Being thoroughly struck by hayfever, my head one mess of snot and aches, dead tired from the antihistamines, and still spending the whole day outdoors because I can't stand to see said little monkey cooped up indoors.

Hearing "I'm bored" from the backseat for the millionth time.

I keep getting accidentally kicked in the balls by my child. It hurts, alright, but it's nowhere near the most painful thing I endure for the kid's sake.

Frankly, I keep getting kicked, smacked and elbowed in absolutely all my bodily parts. I think that's normal. Right? It's normal for every day to be an MMA cage fight against a little monkey.

I think a lot of political-extremists-by-night-milquetoast-law-abiding-citizen-by-day people, i.e. most people who comment on politics online, do actually sincerely believe that open war should be waged against their political extremist enemies, but at the same time it should obviously not be waged at the expense of the milquetoast law abiding citizen life they enjoy. It's easy to say that yeah, you support breaking out the long knives, but at lot less easy to go the extra mile to actually accept that you might lose everything you value and enjoy in the process.

So in my view it's not - not consciously - all just empty rhetorics and jokes to be in on.

Rather, the calls for violence come with the unspoken assumption that you and the people on your side can crush the despicable enemy without much resistance, because that's how people talk themelves up. Obviously my side will win, we're on the right side of history, our values are better, our enemies are idiots. But when someone nominally aligned with you goes through with acts of political violence, you suddenly realize that you aren't the well-regimented, organized and coordinated forces of good about to exterminate your weak and irredeemable enemy - you personally are sitting in comfort and luxury at home while your cause's champion is a deranged mass murderer who just killed a bunch of random people, picked a fight with the very establishment that guarantees your comfort and luxury, and got absolutely crushed by it. Your actual political enemies didn't even get to factor into it.

And there you are, left holding the bag full of needing to square that okay, that guy's intentions technically aligned with what you demanded, but obviously he's not supposed to

  1. be a lunatic who attacks random people instead of the enemy's champions
  2. be ineffective
  3. endanger your comfort and luxury (firstly by putting you in the establishment's sights for wrongthink, secondly by highlighting how suicidal your violence would be were you to commit it), which you aren't willing to risk no matter how infinitely evil your enemies are

Everyone who isn't Uncle-Tedding it by going off the grid entirely is a first-world citizen first, and a political extremist second.

Fair. I know there are plenty of angles from which Blood Meridian is just edgy cringe.

Fair points. I live in the countryside, so urban concerns are somewhat invisible to me.