@ThisIsSin's banner p

ThisIsSin

One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe

1 follower   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC

				

User ID: 822

ThisIsSin

One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe

1 follower   follows 2 users   joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 822

Slow and gradual reform by the standards of history is decades.

I'm not so sure. Justinian reforms took less than 10 years from start to finish. They were so successful that they're still in use today.

Unless you count "slow and gradual reform" as "the entire government collapsed and reformed, but the country's name didn't change"- and seeing as how most countries (or rather, the government that claims those same borders and the same name) have only existed for 30-70 years I think "no reform, then massive radical reform" matches history a little better.

it’s being used as a cope

Why do you believe men feel the need to use it as a cope, and why is there anything to cope with?

please give it back instead of making us build a second one for no reason

The conservative then proceeds to holds up a mirror. "Just build your own foreign aid organization."

Gay is an identity (something you are).
Banging other dudes is an action (something you do).

Men do, women are, so men naturally assume that when you ask them this, you're asking them to apply the woman's label. Unless you're a man predisposed to Gayness (which forms part of the problem with Gays, from the average man's perspective), that is inaccurate, insulting, and outright dangerous.

Of course, that also means they won't be part of any discussion when women and Gay men are trying to create an identity to describe this phenomenon, so it's not like the mistake theorists in those groups are even going to get a chance to know that. And the conflict theorists do it intentionally because male-coded sexuality bad.

The line between encouraging acceptance and being porn-brained creep is not thin

But their calculus isn't following that line; instead, it's just a sliding scale of "fuck you".

No kid is going to think that's sexual; but they are going to realize it's objectively ugly and obnoxious, and suggesting they should accept ugliness/obnoxiousness from certain types of privileged adults in their lives because it's correct to do so is the actual problem (and the ultimate goal) here.

That is just as destructive as the sexual misbehavior when men do it, for the same reasons; conservatives are failing to punish that, trying to frame women's (and womanly) bad behavior through the lens of men's (and manly) bad behavior (which is what those who use "groomer" are attempting to invoke), and most people instinctively understand that description isn't correct, which is why it fails.

not whether the outside observers who may or may not wail about it are cowards

You misunderstand.

That wailing is not genuine; it is merely an exercise of power to force you to serve their moral ends.

Whether their moral ends are objectively correct in this case is not relevant (stopped clocks right twice a day, and all that)- the rescuer is perfectly justified in refusing their request on those grounds. And yes, that means it is the bystanders wagering the kid's life, if that bluff is called he dies, and that's the way it is; shame on the bystanders for using a drowning kid as such a bluff.

"Won't someone please think of the children?" is never about the children and never has been: it's about the power.

Sure, but this is just re-iterating that statists/moralists are conflict theorists and work on a zero-sum mindset (where resources they need to survive are gained by manipulating other human beings in various ways) and libertarians are mistake theorists who work on a positive-sum mindset (where resources they need to survive are gained by manipulating reality directly).

So a libertarian wouldn’t worry too much about things like the power differential between an employer and employee, or between a strong person and a weak one. Or between a teacher and student.

Mindset difference- if you think you can always find another one, or are skilled enough that you can find another one, then your outlook on life is going to tend toward liberty. If you don't think you can do this, or are not competent, then you bend toward moralism because you need to convince someone else to protect you from the harsh reality that you may need to pay more for a service than you would like to afford (typically couched as "abuse of power"- the libertarian answers that you can't abuse power you don't have, the moralist answers that this actually means "protecting the useless from the useful", the libertarian asks "why do the useless deserve that?", and that's why they're as far away from each other as they can get on the political compass).

I don't think it's a conscious thing for a lot of people; they instinctively know where their strengths, weaknesses, and interests lie, and their worldview emerges from those initial conditions. And the people who are conscious of it tend libertarian anyways (because if you're capable of that you tend to be smarter -> benefit more from liberty than the average man).

H1B, O1

H1B depresses wages -> political power for Blue voters, so that's working as intended; and the O1s you want no matter what anyway (it's a vital part of the brain drain pipeline, and I'd expect exit controls from countries that generate a lot of these before any limit from the US, perhaps as part of a response to economic sanctions).

Refugee intake will likely go down

Deleting the paragovernmental organizations that bring them across will help with this.

Criticized the diversity visa

It's been what, 3 weeks?

I am left only to appeal to their self-interest.

Do you prioritize defending against the future foreign enemy, or the current domestic one?

If we prioritize defeating the domestic one, we will at least have the resources and the willing soldiers (and industry to support those soldiers) to defeat the foreign one if and when he appears.

The reverse is not as true; if we refuse to defeat the domestic one we will not have the resources or the personnel to defeat the foreigners we simply prioritized less.

Also,

If the United States

The NGOs are more than capable of funding these operations on their own (perhaps with fewer administrative staff if they want the altruism to actually be effective). The fact they will not suggests they just want it done with the tax dollars- and if they wanted it done with the tax dollars they should have adjusted how much of a domestic enemy they wanted to be (which they didn't).

let's introduce a national artifact that everyone "should" have.

I get that "let's not turn into Europe" is a thing, but there's at least one New World nation that has a wide variety of ID cards (from various levels of government) and doesn't have a problem with this.

Canada doesn't have a national ID card (the SIN doesn't really qualify, nor does the birth certificate or the passport), thus not being able to answer "papers, please" isn't a crime here. None of the various government-issued IDs really have anything to do with biometrics, either, besides a general description of your person (including whether you're human or subhuman, useful when it isn't physically obvious, and lots of these ID cards are issued to subhumans for a variety of reasons anyway).

When you go to deal with the Federal government (for instance, when voting), Provincial IDs are acceptable.

It doesn't, and shouldn't, need to be anything fancier than that. Forging these cards generally isn't a problem since the advent of cellular networks and general anti-forging techniques, and the biggest market for these cards is subhumans who require an ID stating they're a real human being anyway.

If he brazenly defies the courts

laughs in Heller and Bruen

Yeah, it sure does suck when nobody respects court decisions and just does whatever they want in active contempt of those decisions.

I think cruise control is useful for those times where it would take the average driver effort to maintain a constant speed- specifically, avoiding fines when the design speed of the road is sufficiently divorced from its limit (especially if those fines can be levied automatically).

Adaptive cruise control (and the lane-keep assists) is mainly so that you don't crash while you're navigating through your car's shitty infotainment menus, keeps you driving straight when you are flash-blinded by modern headlights, or when you are texting.

Used prices are still ridiculous

Buy a Mustang. Ford still makes them, and they're still relatively cheap new; both things that depress their used prices (to the point I'd actually consider them undervalued). They're luxury, but not luxury enough that people are priced out of new.

3.7s are the cheapest models because "muh V8" and "the Ecoboost is faster", but you still get 300HP, 30 MPG on the highway, on 87 octane, with very little tech stupidity.

Aside from nuclear, hydroelectricity is the closest thing to free electricity you can actually get. You just need to have a lot of rivers, and a lot of shitty land, which is why 65% or so of the Canadian power grid runs on it (another 20% is nuclear generation). It's always on, it's trivially load-following, the fuel is free, it doesn't pollute, and disasters are rare (though when they do occur, they are nuclear-level bad).

Jew Jitsu?

I dunno, seems more like Krav MAGA to me.

Just because leftist authoritarianism has been given a huge punch on the nose does not mean that we are not in danger of rightist authoritarianism.

But we believe we can defeat rightist authoritarianism; we have a playbook, past victories, and technological solutions upon which we rest.

We might be right they'll work again, or we might be wrong; we might be right about the reasons they worked, or we might be wrong- but the fact the playbook exists, and that it worked once before, gives us that confidence. Right or wrong.

...I'm so tired, Steve.

The only people who could be confused by this are a very small minority of women and asexual aspies.

Perhaps, but we can just say that "guys are generally real fucking ugly, so I find seeing them kissing to be at least twice as ugly" (contrast the universal cultural response to lesbianism, especially when they're attractive).

This isn't rocket science.

Doing X would convey signal Y, and I don't want to convey Y.

Sure, but there's a difference between "being physically close would convey homosexuality, and I don't want to convey homosexuality" with "homosexuality would convey faggotry, and I don't want to convey faggotry".

It may indeed be the case that some people simply do not like homosexuality- that much is true- but there are far more for whom faggotry/bottom-bitchery is the real problem. Since the 1980s (and to a point, earlier) homosexuality and faggotry have been synonymous, partially due to tokenism and artificial elevation, and partially because some of them really are that way (and being the expendable gender yet channeling every single negative female stereotype you can think of is just... not generally a recipe for success among the average man).

The average person didn't think about it from week to week

"Look at how oppressed these faggots are!!1!" is very much an active attempt to shit on every man who doesn't do that, much like "look at how oppressed these eunuchs are!11!" is on every ex-man or ex-woman who's keeping it on the down-low. When you start mining the commons for offense, this hollowing out is the result.

The barbell-shaped distribution strikes again; you get hypernormalization on the "nope, definitely no hint of teh gayness here" side or the "I'm going to stick my desire to suck 5000 dicks tonight right in your face, hope you like paying for my AIDS drugs" side. Sure, at least you can be in the missing middle of the barbell (gay marriage was the right call), but that requires threading a needle that we were better off not needing to thread in the first place.

Random other theories to explain the relative lack of intimate male friendships:

This is all just bog-standard androphobia though. Though, a lot of this was also sacrificed on the altar of "homosexuality is something you are, not something you do"; what I'm not sure about is which came first.

The entire incentive-based argument against male homosexuality is that you must have a woman: much like diamonds, this drives up demand and keep society working around the drive for resources to afford them.

The concept that you can just say "no", or at least not have to suffer zero close contact outside of what you buy from a woman (and by extension, her father)? Not surprised everyone else would be opposed to that.

For all I might fault the gay/furries for at least they seem to have a healthier attitude towards this- maybe it's easier when you're in a costume. Probably explains the obsession with cute anime girl avatars in VR, too.

are you identifying as a traditionalist

No.

saying that progressives of today will think of resurgent [neo]traditionalism as "what happens when you shove alt-right liberalism down the throats of six-foundations who'd [now] have become progressives"?

With any luck, yes.

and am not sure what you're pointing at with "sustainable"/"unsustainable"

Let's say I'm a young man and have the ability to work for a few years and be set for life by answering a particular question. Of the set of things that could prevent me from doing that:

  • care/harm: is answering this question actually productive (will people give me profit for answering it)?
  • liberty/oppression: am I allowed to marshal my resources to take advantage of the answer?
  • fairness/cheating: is corruption going to drain resources I need to take advantage of this question's answer, or steal it entirely?
  • loyalty/betrayal: if I find someone willing to work under market value, how much am I permitted to take advantage of that?
  • authority/subversion: am I unable to consider the result of this question because old men or women worked against it in the past?
  • sanctity/degradation: am I unable to take advantage of the answer to this question because it's a repugnant conclusion?

From the perspective of the question-answerers (or people who believe themselves temporarily-embarrassed millionaires question-answerers), the last three are a damping force- a conservative force, if you will. They tend to be frustrated by damping forces simply by being someone who fancies themselves able to be correct more often than the average person, and from that perspective that's theft taxation parasitism.

As your mindset drifts further and further away from zero-sum it becomes easier and easier to see those people that way; as your mindset drifts closer to zero-sum, enforcing those last three things are what will make sure you get yours.

The trick is that parasitism is a valid evolutionary strategy- in the eyes of the unproductive, it's no less inherently wrong or right than productivity in terms of "mechanisms that mean I won't starve to death". And people can switch from productive to unproductive in the blink of an eye, too- you can be automated into uselessness, you can lose a limb, changing conditions of reality can destroy your niche- so... how many social taxes do you think is the correct amount?

a strange tendency

Artificial/forced representation inevitably converges on tokenism.

Maybe- the people into LSD in the 60s would be 70-80 now, which means that they're rapidly walking out of power into their graves now, and replaced by those who were instead high on the Righteous Anger of the 1980s.

I still don't understand why the average person would take that stuff, though; the equivalent of having weird geometric CRT burn-in on my field of vision and risking breaking the pattern-matching machinery inside my head is just not something I'm interested in.

My argument is that if you take the perspective that the beliefs are sincere and literal, everything starts to make sense.

Sure... but nobody's that self-centered that they'd destroy most of the compromises set up to channel disputes among maximally self-centered individuals, right? Besides, when I do self-centered stuff, I'm lucky enough that it usually has some productive end, and the woo woo shit I might otherwise be partial to/where I work towards what makes observable, repeatable sense is generally... not, so naturally they'd have a sense of that and know when to moderate it.

This is the model that "reasonable citizens" have; that's why they can be defeated.

This would be a fantastic look at the Culture War in a longer write-up.

This is the thesis statement of "right is the new left", and beyond Scott's writeup of it, I'm pretty sure every liberal on the Motte has penned at least one comment on this subject. The people who are on the right because they are traditionalists tend not to speak so much about this, for reasons that tend to be embarrassing to them; in 50 years, the people who are progressives right now will, hopefully, speak of us in the same way, for the same reasons.

This is why I use "traditional-[classic] liberal-progressive" and not "liberal-conservative", because the latter has always kind of been a lie that basically everyone on the political spectrum has, outside of the last 15 years or so, told if not outright believed. It's also why I find Haidt's Six Foundations to be useless at describing the differences between these people; while it's still informative, it's harmful to one's understanding of the problem[1].

The seismic shift happening right now is one where liberals turn away from progressivism because they've stopped being a net positive to support. Granted, the writing was on the wall for this since the late '70s (which was, objectively, the high water mark of liberal power in the Western world[2]), though the temporary resurgence of the traditionalists in the '80s, and then the economic boom from 1992 through 2008, covered up the forming schism for a while. But now the social issues that germinated in the 1920s and 30s have all come back, all at once.

It's probably worth noting that of {care/harm, liberty/oppression, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation}, the first three have a lot to do with exercising short-term unsustainable power over reality, and the last three have a lot to do with exercising long-term sustainable power over other human beings. Therefore, combined with the kinds of people who fit into the former and latter categories, we should expect liberals to care more about the first three, and it's why traditionalists/progressives care more about the last three. Liberals are the "annoying aspie kid asking why not 5000 times a day" political philosophy writ large; traditionalists are "angry dad", progressives are "angry mom" [3].

[1] Haidt's own methodology betrays this: caremaxxing is natural for one who serves "caring" as a God. If there were a moral foundation for "atheist/Christian", and you polled the Moral Majoritarians/traditionalists of the 1980s, it's natural they would have maxed out the Jesus-meter.

[2] Free love as iconoclasm, powering society with unlimited amounts of nuclear power Hell Energy, a general cultural attitude of shocking the squares, rejecting the country's justification for war halfway around the world, miscegenation, actual pedophilia, etc.- all gone by the mid-80s. The cultural power of those with the {loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation} moral frameworks was completely helpless in the face of all this, and it's something today's traditionalists are still butthurt about, and still insist is true of the progressives even though progressive thought inherently rejects all of those things in much the same ways (covered up by the universally-accepted untruth that liberal and progressive are synonyms).

[3] Given equality, traditionalist strategy is centered around subjugating young women, progressive strategy is centered around subjugating young men, and liberal strategy is centered around devaluing the contributions of the old. It's a natural consequence of how they work.