Tollund_Man4
No bio...
User ID: 501
I know an Irish traveller (not mixed) who has quit the culture and done very well for himself becoming a programmer, but yeah the generalisation is still a very accurate one.
Roma gypsies seem completely set in their ways while Irish traveller ways have changed quite a bit over the decades, the culture may have become even more criminal as a result (though maybe reading John B. Keane plays has given me a mistaken impression of how it was in the 50s), but change opens up the space for a few ambitious people to make it out.
I remember looking into this a while ago and the short answer is that it's impossible to say because the data cannot properly differentiate between ethnic Germans, naturalised migrants or their children
Luckily the Danes have done this. They've got categories for convicted persons from "Denmark", "Western Countries" and "Non-Western Countries" as well as "Persons of Danish Origin", "Immigrants", and "Descendants" (of migrants).
I would say that kowtowing to something you don't agree with just to avoid the social shaming is fundamentally unmasculine behaviour, and partaking in some masculine hobbies and even having a wife (plenty of weak men have wives) doesn't make up for that flaw any more than wearing a dress makes you a woman when you've got an Adam's apple. I don't think I need to argue the case that there are big social consequences to men who don't hold their tongue in the face of absurdity. There's an inherent friction involved in being a man, but you're not supposed to hide from it.
And isn’t power pretty masculine?
Not necessarily, there are neutral and feminine forms of power, and the aristocracy were often ridiculed for being effeminate.
But the climate is such that, right now, any political / social leader who stands up as says "Let's talk about the plight of young men" is ridiculed into oblivion.
With the notable exception of Jordan Peterson.
In Ireland you've got traveller gypsies (distinct from the Roma), who despite making up only 0.6% of the population account for 10% of the male and 22% of the female prisoner population. And this is with them being underpoliced given that it's fairly hard to catch them since they've got tightly knit communities across Ireland and the UK to disappear into and if they come to your house telling you not to talk to the police you're best off taking that advice.
That linked article also mentions New Zealand, "where Maori people accounted for about 14 per cent of the population" and "represented 50.8 per cent of prisoners".
doesn't evoke the sort of fear or intimidation compared to American policing
In the UK's case at least, that's on purpose. In Sir Robert Peel's Policing Principles the point is stressed that the need for force in policing increases in proportion to the loss of respect and approval from the public towards the police. The 5th principle even mentions the importance of preserving public favour "by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor".
That's what I was thinking Thomas Sowell's Culture series of books (Race and Culture, Migration and Culture, Conquests and Culture) is a good example of this.
HBD in its modern form can be traced to much-demonized Jensen's 1969 article "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Achievement?"
I'll have to give this a read sometime, thanks.
Part of the problem is that was integrated into the curriculum, as far as I'm aware, just without attribution. Education increases in rote learning and falls in g-loading (and simple IQ requirements), which narrows achievement gaps, technically – at the expense of people with «Level II abilities».
So would the ideal be a two track system which allows for the level I path without removing the option of level II style learning for those who are able for it? I wonder if this is how it works in Italy, I know they divide their highschools into academic, technical and vocational paths.
Maybe I just don't understand HBD but does accepting it mean giving up on looking for improvements via culture? If not then there's still plenty of room for nagging.
So everyone who aims to discuss about the nuclear power plant plans is rewarded (even if nobody really understands them), and everyone who wants to talk about something everyone can understand is punished (nobody wants to talk about what they can easily understand).
There's a higher bar for talking about something everyone can understand given the fact that there are far more people able to spot errors. If I wanted to write a post on economic theory I'd expect every mistake I made to be exposed pretty quickly. With more complex or niche stuff the errors are harder to spot, there are fewer people who feel confident enough to call them out, and readers will feel like they're learning something even if they are unable to judge its quality.
Although to defend this place a bit, for people who want to discuss complex issues this place might be one of the few open forums on the internet where they can do so productively.
My first thought was America, where everyone has access to a quantity and quality of weapons guerrilla forces in other countries could only dream of. Interesting how you get to the other side of the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum when you include the condition that the armed populace have to be under the command of army officers.
Assuming, for the moment, that I can achieve that with ease, is there any evidence that women can tell that a man is a virgin? How would they do so?
The same way you can tell that someone is inexperienced in any domain I would imagine. But then again, it's not uncommon for sole guys to lose their confidence and go through dry spells where they give off the same vibe.
Nostalgic footage" videos ranging from early 1900s street scene footage to compilations of everyday 70s and 80s scenes in east Asia
CR's Video Vaults is a good channel for old Irish stuff in this vein. They're usually only a couple of minutes long.
(did you know people love to put flour in all sorts of random things? It's true!)
Same with milk once you start paying attention to it.
I haven't paid much attention to Peterson in a few years, but is he really that popular?
He's certainly up there.
But more to the point, when I did used to pay attention him, he never advocated the carnivore diet for others but just talked about it as something he and his daughter found useful.
"Advocate the diet for others" seems like an unnecessary qualification. Vegans excepted, the dietary lefties OP complain's about don't usually do that either. The annoyance is more sparked by their expectation to be accommodated than their trying to convince you to their diet.
That said, I don’t know whether the WEF actually promotes this idea, or if it was a one-off paper of no consequence.
The OECD have certainly promoted it. It was big news here in Ireland when we agreed to a minimum corporation tax rate of 15% along with 136 other countries, a 2.5% increase on the old rate.
I know mental illness has far higher rates amongst lefties. My guess is dietary restrictions and food allergies are much higher in lefties and if your not in that religion it’s something you never think of.
Possibly the most popular right wing thinker today, Jordan Peterson, advocates a meat only elimination diet for health reasons.
If pickiness about food hasn't been a thing amongst conservatives until lately, I'm sure lots and lots of them are thinking about it now.
I don't consider it strange, but I did make a comment to a girl I was on a date with that it was a nice surprise that she enjoyed walking so much. Instead of going to a pub we just walked and talked for a few hours along the coast. The weather wasn't great, but you can never count on the sun coming out here.
The compliment about myself I most fondly remember is when she said "I feel like if a robber broke into the house you could protect me".
Counsels and Maxims by Arthur Schopenhauer. It starts off with one of the most pessimistic statements about the impossibility of happiness I have read (will add an excerpt to this later) but quickly proceeds into some genuinely good sounding Stoic/Epicurean practical advice on how to avoid misery.
Influence is earned, not given
Influence is won and lost, and even the top dogs don't always get to set terms.
If Third World countries want to demand the West make good on its humanitarian promises, promises upon which the soft power of the latter largely depends, then either the West makes good or people learn not to take their humanitarian promises seriously. A space opens up for China to step in.
Given disparate birth rates over the world, a growing imbalance between countries who hold the actual power versus where most of humanity will increasingly be located could lead to increased international tension.
If that tension can't safely be ignored, then maybe the Third World countries are correctly assessing a growing power to make demands. In the age of mass immigration and poor integration a population disparity seems like quite the weak point.
The National Gallery in Trafalgar Square in London would be a great place to start, some of the best art Europe has to offer situated amongst miles of impressive architecture. I spent four hours there.
Sir John Soane's museum is also an underrated gem, with his personally curated set of antiquities (including an Egyptian sarcophagus) furniture, sculptures, architectural models and paintings (including some great pieces by Canaletto).
British conservative Peter Hitchens talks about this a lot, about the strangeness of courts siding with the promise breaker in cases of no-fault divorce.
In Ireland you've got John Waters (distinct from the American filmmaker), whose own bitter experience in the family courts means it is a common topic in his writings.
It comes down to your own personal value judgements.
I can think of more down to earth reasons. Bad habits aren't entirely self-regarding acts. If you're not a hermit than you're going to find yourself in positions where people you care for are in need of your help, and you can either succeed or fail at that. Sometimes failure is out of your control, but as often it's something straightforward where you can track the failure to a particular bad habit or the absence of a good one. There's a reason why communitarian ethics place such an emphasis on things like this.
I agree with your position, but there are others who think this kind of life is perfectly fine and legitimate. I've met a handful of people who would see no problem at all with this lifestyle.
I've met some people who have thought about it long and hard and have decided to take it easy, but I think it's rare that people are being honest with themselves, and the excuse making is often a more harmful habit than the behaviour. I've found it to be a useful mental trick to frame it in terms of affirming the trade-off and say something like "I love gaming so much I'm going to stay up all night doing it instead of studying tomorrow, and I'll do the same the day after too". I either end up finding my actions ridiculous (which gives inherent motivation to stop doing them) or I find that I'm happy with the trade-off.
but he's ultimately not really hurting anyone other than himself right now. And "hurting himself" in a kind of nebulous, philosophical way.
What's nebulous and philosophical about it? I could call it common sensical and immediately intuitive: you're becoming absorbed in cheap pleasures at the cost of living up to your potential.

I would imagine that someone involved in more serious crimes might be persuaded to avoid shoplifting if it at least means that the police arrest them.
More options
Context Copy link