Tree
1yr ago
First, they are not people. And that’s not a dehumanizing comment about my opponents.
Second, the state constantly seizes real people’s shit, via the salami slicing technique.
Third, despite being considerably less than people, they are exempt from tax, so treated better than people.
Tree
1yr ago
It would be a good start to remove their tax exempt status, sure. Seizing the money sounds bad, but this is not money that rightfully belongs to an individual proscribed by a capricious state, it’s from a heavily-subsidized institution that in theory performs government-like functions. It could be seen as just correcting some accounting mistake in the financing of government goals, or as making them pay some tax arrears, or inheritance tax.
You’re a reasonable guy, Ben. Maybe you can tell me what the obvious, very good reasons against a 1%/y wealth tax is. All I ever hear is that taxes are bad, which okay fair enough, but that’s not specific, and liquidity problems, which I don’t find convincing. If you can’t cough up 1%, you’re either incompetent or bankrupt, and you shouldn’t be holding assets.
stuff that all of society benefits from, and almost nobody else wants to do.
That’s an argument from laziness, tainted with status quo bias. You want to fund science, fund it. There's no reason to delegate this power to universities, when it's clear their goals can very much diverge from the societally beneficial one. It's spelled out in the OP: they almost used the money society granted them to fight a titanic legal battle against the government for partisan reasons.
Your other argument is that since any one person or institution cannot fund all of USG, they shouldn’t be taxed.
Tree
1yr ago
I also support taxing churches. They are very similar. We give them these exemptions and the worst partisans use the surplus to fight a propaganda war against each other at great cost to the rest of us. It's like a polarization subsidy.
Tree
1yr ago
Wrong, they always had the power. The best part of the trump wrecking ball program is that it will put to rest the antidemocratic lie, widely believed on both sides, and the source of many problems, that the average citizen has no power and can be safely ignored by the elites.
It might even be worth it to smash some valuable things so people can re-learn that lesson. But these billions in endowments are not even valuable. Well, you know what I mean. It’s actually triple-good to seize those (teach a lesson, eliminate illegitimate unproductive source of polarization, fund the state).
Tree
1yr ago
Why does the american right tolerate these endowments? I would not let the state grab a single dollar from a red-blooded american as long as these mausoleums hold all this wealth. Every time you breathe, the state takes its share. But dead men’s money stays untouched in the ivory towers. Untouched by you, I mean. Thin men and thick women pay themselves sinecures from the ill-gotten treasure. Worse, these janitors conspire to turn it against the state.
Tree
1yr ago
What else is there to be envious of, his fucking watch?
And, you can’t take the hassle? That’s new. Although if I have to choose, I much prefer that reason for censoring yourself, than the implication it is to protect our fragile egos and ids. The latter could be interpreted as a challenge, or as passing the buck.
Tree
1yr ago
That only makes your refusal to let us know what men yearn for but can never admit all the more cruel.
Tree
1yr ago
Half an hour before you usually take the nap, darken your room so you can’t see daylight, switch on a small lamp and keep doing what you’re doing. Half an hour later open the shutters. It could trick your brain into resetting to the awakening pattern of “now it’s daytime, sleep is over, I should do stuff”.
Tree
1yr ago
I don’t understand the negativity. When I clean up my sheets, I like to think those dust mites getting boiled on the 70C program look on fondly on a life well lived in my bed. To me a little bit of suffering, a little bit of death, does not invalidate the awesomeness of living.
I don’t want to give insect welfare people any ideas, but if you assingn some utils to a dust mite’s life, it would make sense to farm gajillions of them for their utils. For a nominal sum, you could be creating entire universes of all singing all dancing beings. Accessorily, you wouldn’t have to worry about clipping a mite life here and there when you’ve been raising throngs of them from the ether.
Tree
1yr ago
You’re thinking of the Cagots, who were treated like pariahs for hundreds of years. No one really knows why, as they seemed similar in every way to the surrounding population, except for pariah status, which besides the strict social segregation restricted their trade to carpentry.
This has led one writer to speculate they were the descendants of a fallen medieval guild of carpenters (?). There’s the national myth theory that makes them the descendents of the muslim warriors who lost to Charles Martel when he stopped the islamic expansion in 732. There’s one etymological-based theory where they were the slaves of the ancient visigoths (“cani gothi”, dogs of the goths). There’s the reverse uno card theory that says they were the first to convert to christianity and the surrounding pagans kept resenting them for their virtue signaling long after they themselves converted.
But one of the top theories is that they were descendents of cathars. And the imo most likely, is that they were descendents of lepers, because a lot of the prohibitions involve touching.
Tree
1yr ago
Where did things like that go?
Since they disallowed banging the babysitter everyone thinks it’s pointless.
Tree
1yr ago
Germany's problems are not dysgenic fertility. They are: low fertility, and terrible immigration policy. Why does the alt right conflate everything together? It does not matter that the lower class is reproducing more than the higher class if both are not at replacement level. Dysgenic fertility is a first world problem, so to speak – our problems are far more serious than dysgenic fertility. It’s like worrying about disproportionate drowning in the desert.
Why would all else be equal in high risk aversion world? It’d be a wasteland. People would almost never change jobs, or create companies. Capital would be far less productive, it’d be all tied up in swiss bonds. It’s true as the one-eyed in the land of the blind you would personally do very well. Hell, you could even become the world’s richest man by exploiting all the riskophobes, ie selling insurance (buffett reference).
Tree
1yr ago
So be it, I believe you when you say your preferences differ, I’m not all that invested in team tit.
Obviously the lesbian separatists have far more political, as well as personal, motives for their claims.
And I don’t know much about those bimboficater mods, but they seem to be a reaction to forced uglification and outright hostility to male sexuality (or as they call it, objectification) in gaming, but we don’t need to get into all that.
For whatever reason, the "tit men" always seem to be desperate to assure themselves that everyone secretly shares their preferences, and they are just the only ones being honest about it
Because when your friend is within hearing distance of his flattish girlfriend he will always proclaim he loves small boobs above all others, when it contradicts everything you thought you knew about the man.
people with socially shunned sexual preferences.
If liking big tits, as common and prominent as it is, is a socially shunned preference, then every expression of male sexual preference is socially shunned. Which it is, to a degree, see never-ending objectification complaints. Stuff like : You like asian women, that's fetishism. You don't like asian women, that's racism, etc.
Tree
1yr ago
How would you go about justifying those ?
Because it’s not just AI on the opposite side, there’s that study about enhanced strippers making more money, porn actresses, insta models, why is page 3 for a nice chest such an institution, size of the breast enhancement industry, etc.
I don’t think you could find as many arguments in favour of your thesis as the blog’s, but assuming you did, and you wrote it all down, it would still be considered rude and ‘creepy’ to write such a long blog on sexual preferences. It would be ‘marginalizing’ to non-preferred women no matter what the preference ends up being, like ranking women 1 to 10 is controversial independently of the scale used. So some guy would inevitably show up to defend women and say it's all wrong and call the writer of this alternate thesis a nerd and a loser.
Now if you tell me this consideration consideration has nothing to do with your opinion, then I’ll grant the possibility that the blog is only applicable to ‘tit men’ (they'd still be a majority though).
Tree
1yr ago
Without the cinematic parts of washing his hands, calling jesus innocent, saying his blood’s on their heads, it’s normal roman governor behaviour. He’s there to maintain peace and render justice onto the barbarians, there’s zero dereliction of duty in that account. And I don’t appreciate those so-called “christians’“ tarring of a roman senator as a weak-willed incompetent.
Tree
1yr ago
Yeah, they are constrained by reality and acting ability, it's considered classier to be famous for something else than your bust.
What is your thesis, exactly? That men prefer B-cups?
Tree
1yr ago
definitely not 'movie star' like say, Monica Bellucci or Jennifer Conelly.
It’s quite a coincidence that the women men consider the most attractive (or “beautiful” to be polite) ever, and those two are good picks, also happen to have large... tracts of land.
Something that needs to be said more often is that keira, boobs or not, is just too thin, it's already slightly icky. There’s no point in being that skinny, it’s undesirable and it’s unhealthy, in that order.
Tree
1yr ago
According to not-the-gospels Pilate however, Jesus had done wrong and his blood was gladly taken on, as befits the role and dignity of a roman magistrate.
The Gospels' portrayal of Pilate is "widely assumed" to diverge greatly from that found in Josephus and Philo,[85] as Pilate is portrayed as reluctant to execute Jesus and pressured to do so by the crowd and Jewish authorities.
John P. Meier notes that in Josephus, by contrast, "Pilate alone [...] is said to condemn Jesus to the cross."[86] Some scholars believe that the Gospel accounts are completely untrustworthy: S. G. F. Brandon argued that in reality, rather than vacillating on condemning Jesus, Pilate unhesitatingly executed him as a rebel.[87]
Paul Winter explained the discrepancy between Pilate in other sources and Pilate in the gospels by arguing that Christians became more and more eager to portray Pontius Pilate as a witness to Jesus' innocence, as persecution of Christians by the Roman authorities increased.[88]
Bart Ehrman argues that the Gospel of Mark, the earliest one, shows the Jews and Pilate to be in agreement about executing Jesus (Mark 15:15), while the later gospels progressively reduce Pilate's culpability, culminating in Pilate allowing the Jews to crucify Jesus in John (John 19:16). He connects this change to increased "anti-Judaism". wiki
Tree
1yr ago
I’m not too worried about dysgenic effects at this juncture, we have so little children that I’d take even lower class stock. Besides ,such subventions already exist in a similar form with dysgenic effect, in germany we have ‘children’s money’, which is at 255 euros/month/kid for the poorest (297 if you work), then you get the same in tax credit as you go up in income.
Of course, most of those subventions are officially justified on the grounds that every child should have a “minimum” to live on, which some courts and left-wingers keep increasing like they do every other minimum. And when the right’s at the helm, they increase it for more natalist and family values reasons.
So it’s hard to get a big part of that into a randomized payout, but it kind of ruins the bonus psychological effect of gambling if it’s just tax credits over years.
What I want to do is psychologically trick people (the ultimate decision lies with women) into having kids. Not pay them the full cost, and even less enormous sums in tax credits so that rich women in banking and medicine who understand opportunity costs have children, just cheaply manipulate them for cents on the dollar.
(I’m trying to keep this fun for the thread’s sake, but I can’t help veering into the culture war, broadly defined.)
Side-note:
those who are poor and relatively high in negative risk aversion.
You could say the lower class are true risk-takers, mavericks and entrepreneurs, not scared bean counters like the middle class who insure everything and buy bonds despite having a stable job.
And yet, usually less risk aversion is correlated with higher economic status:
Although I’ve also read that it’s U-shaped, with the middle class most risk averse, like the cliché above. In that perspective, it’s likely that a randomized bonus has a stronger positive effect than a fixed sum, ie more bang for your buck, also and especially for the rich.
I was discussing the, imo, incoherent, common view of risk a few days ago. I don’t think you can call the risk averse “those with a modicum of future time orientation” – The main distinction between losers and winners in this game is: how much are they willing to pay for their risk aversion, or for their risk taking? Buying insurance or a lottery ticket both make you a sucker, of opposite risk aversions.
Tree
1yr ago
The state should do more lottery-based rewards. A one-time 20K subvention per kid, that’s boring, and everyone knows it doesn’t pay for the child’s maintenance. But 20% chance of 100K, now you’re talking, people will keep pressing that button for the dopamine hit, then the gambler’s fallacy comes into play, they’ll be sure the 5th, 6th, 7th time’s the charm, and when you win it’s like getting a free kid, so you can get right on making the next one since you were already psychologically primed to pay for the previous baby.
Tree
1yr ago
That’s a good defining aspect of the woke right.
The discrimination against whites and males, that is on the books, enshrined in government contracts, jurisprudence, harvard. Explicit. Not woke right.
To justify the octopus conspiracies otoh, they have pamphlets from the 19th century, hinting at early life bios of successful people, coded parentheses, jewish media interpretation, and aryan studies. It's all implicit mystery knowledge, like the tenets of scientology. You then become clear, awaken, put on the 'they live' glasses, get a superpower where you don't have to check early life section anymore.
Tree
1yr ago
Let me put it this way : one black muslim, five black christians, or a hundred poles. I'm not sure more than a trickle of black christians would make the cut at my ideal immigration level. Some igbos, yeah.
Part of the reason our immigration policy is such a disaster is an obstinate refusal by the elites to see things in anything approaching a utilitarian, cost-benefit way. Or rather, they decided that the 'humanitarian' part of immigration should not be sullied by contact with the 'useful' part (which demanded degrees, language skills, civic understanding of our society, etc). They're low decouplers, I suppose. The results are that our humanitarian immigrants are the least useful (= most damaging) immigrants in the world.
Tree
1yr ago
somali
black priest
Find the difference.
You and the average western intellectual could really benefit from adding that subcategory. It's not complicated, their tribal religion requires them to hate us ("The enmity and hatred that has arisen between us and you will last until you believe in Allah alone" Coran 60.4) and obey the moral code of a 7th century desert raider. This has negative consequences when you're trying to live with them.
Tree
1yr ago
I understand this is what is taught, I was taught it in uni. Nevertheless, I disagree.
This model of a man they have conjured to justify insurance, is neither a homo rationalis economicus (for whom it would be far too inefficient), nor your neighbour (who enjoys gambling).
There is no good reason to privilege the 'original state', your living standard now. Yes one (insurance) maintains it and the other (lottery) changes it, but why does that matter?
Some people live in a house, but they prefer some randomness in their life, so they take a 50/50 chance of living either in a mansion or a condo. It's fine. I mean I think it's a cool way to live, but it's an aesthetic preference, I would never advise people to essentially burn money to get that volatility (like economics profs are advising people to burn money to get rid of it).
You could say the neighbour is just gambling when he purchases insurance, it's just that he uses the high from winning to compensate for the psychic pain of the loss of his house.
What a doormat. It’s like the opposite of the maga failure mode where you’re so paranoid about getting screwed that you end up hurting yourself by damaging mutually beneficial relationships. Is it too much to ask for politicians with a healthy sense of self-interest, that don’t constantly feel either exploited or exploitative?
More options
Context Copy link