Tree
1yr ago
It’s a supermarket simultaneously raising its prices while rolling out an anti-competitive new policy where you can’t buy there if you also buy from the competitor. It assumes that the supermarket has infinite leverage, that it is so unilaterally indispensable that the customer has no choice. This kind of blackmail works until it doesn’t, like russia banking on europe’s gas dependency.
Psychologically, people prefer a less competitive supermarket to being coerced in that way. I think you overestimate your leverage, and how “rational” your customers are. I’m way more pro-american than average, and even I think US allies should tell trump to take a walk.
Tree
1yr ago
But better yet would be if these countries join the movement themselves, align their policies with the (IMO more forward thinking) American policies
I assume you mean heavy tariffs against china in a futile bid to turn back the time and reindustrialize. I don't understand how diminishing trade between US and allies is supposed to convince them to end their trade with china. When one supermarket's closed, you go to the next one.
Tree
1yr ago
The people in the town who can vote, voted by a nearly unprecedented margin "Yeah nah, it sucks". Like, that's not a lie with the specifics off. There was an actual vote, with actual numbers! We can check!
You’re grasping for the truth, clamoring for something to hold on to. It doesn’t prove that having haitians sucks. Springfield just voted that way, allegedly. And the legitimacy of the vote is something Trump has repeatedly attacked. He claimed ‘the actual numbers we can check’ were false. In that lie, those were the specifics that were off, which you dismiss here. In order to justify one lie, to diminish the truth-value of one statement, you have to rely on on the truth value of another statement, which your side has already destroyed. Lying’s been sawing the branch you’re sitting on.
I’m not a fan of haitian immigration. I’d just like to understand what you two (deep blue and deep red) are doing. You both apparently think lying is fine and advantageous for you, but immoral or counterproductive for the other.
Tree
1yr ago
Your understanding of ‘the truth’ probably came from another guy’s statement where ‘the specifics were off’ too and it didn’t matter to him either. You denounce democrats when they lie, make their lies responsible for loss of trust in their institutions and their electoral defeat, but lying in favour of your side, that just works?
Tree
1yr ago
judeo-roman wars, islamic conquests and ongoing jihad, ridda wars, shia-sunni wars, crusades in the levant, fourth crusade against constantinople, albigensian crusade, northern crusades, hussite wars.
Before the catholic-protestant wars, the best one for folamh3’s argument is the islam-christianity war, as a constant, religiously motivated conflict which never really ended and kept eastern europe and the mediterranean bloody for a thousand years.
Tree
1yr ago
Not only is his art exquisite, but by cutting out the middlemen art galleries, like tesla, he has revolutionized the industry with his efficient way of doing business.
The ‘no staying power’ critique is revealing. It’s up to you if you’re going to keep thinking of a piece of art. When those critics get hit with the raw emotion of a Kincade, they immediately try to forget it.
I’m even more anti-taste than scott, in that I’ve decided that nothing you or anyone else could say is allowed to affect my tastes in any way, because that could reduce my enjoyment of mass-produced accessible art. There’s no upside to discriminating between good and bad art, unlike good and bad science or policy. So I consider this discussion pure edgy cocktail party bullshit without any stakes.
Tree
1yr ago
If there’s energy, (whether from solar panels, a greenhouse or a nuclear reactor) people can live there. I’m positive star entrepreneurs could find lots of people willing to live in a cage, eating reprocessed gruel facing fearful odds for a hundred generations, because I’m not far from considering it. A lot of polynesians drowned, but in the end they got to most of the pacific.
No need for terraforming, just dig the equivalent of an antarctic base. Who needs fresh air anyway. Modern youth’s predilection for browsing dank memes over going outside will pay off on mars.
Tree
1yr ago
Any Faang engineer can get married, given effort and low standards. Actually, that goes for almost anyone.
The Redpill view of attractiveness is imo very confused. Let’s say that women only cared about status, and men about looks. That still leaves two hierarchies of people with corresponding attractiveness, and nothing fundamentally different in the attractiveness model of the sexes. You say women can sense men’s status, but men can rank women on looks just as easily. And men all prefer a better-looking girlfriend, does that make them hypergamous? If half the men are too low status to be attractive, then half the women are too ugly to be attractive.
The main difference you identify is that most men would accept an offer of casual sex from most women anytime, while women only accept the offer from george clooney sometimes. This says more about the sexes relative enjoyment of casual sex than attractiveness.
I think desire for marriage is a lot more balanced between the sexes. You brought up that indian ‘divorce rape’ case (btw, I know the manosphere uses it, but it’s a terrible name. It comes off as a cheap attempt to ‘equalize’(‘you rape us we rape you’ – but of course most men don’t rape anyone so they don’t deserve this ‘retaliation’, plus rape is illegal, while this uses the legal system to fuck men over, so it’s more like the opposite, etc), and on that subject we agree.
Which leads to my question: let’s say promoting female chastity really does increase marriages … Why do men want the kind of headache that lead to that guy’s suicide anyway? I suggest that before we think of stopping our female overlords from fucking george Clooney, we stop giving them the legal right to steal all their husbands money and send them to prison.
Tree
1yr ago
Most dudes are unattractive to be begin with which is why we have more female ancestors than male.
That's really not the reason, it's the massacre of patrilineal groups through the ages. The vast majority of men reproduced. But if it was true, I guess we'd all be Ken's sons while women would be descended from hags, so we'd win the intersexual beauty contest easy (but who would be the judges?).
You seem to be saying most men are so ugly we need to force women to date them, which is funny, and a little insulting. Those poor women lol. I’d be merciful and let her choose celibacy if it came to that.
Tree
1yr ago
It’s extremely difficult to prove causation even if there was correlation here.
It could be modernity, or the million other things that have changed, it could even be the other way around: in the 60s, 70s and 80s promiscuity was celebrated and people had more sex, now with these sexual hangups, we see the rise in sexlessness.
Personally I think the lack of sex is more due to quality porn and entertainment and general ‘lack of needing others’. Men don’t need women to fulfill their sexual urges, women don’t need men to provide for them anymore, it’s way less boring to stay alone in your room than it used to be, and so on.
The Rise of The Incels sounds like a fantasy, whatever instability there is in the west does not come from incels, who seem more pacified with each porn-induced orgasm, a well-known soporific. By contrast, you imply the islamic world’s sexual restrictiveness has made it stable? I would dispute that.
Everything else aside, I just don’t like infringing on individual liberties, consenting adults and all that. I don’t think there was someone I forgot to ask.
Tree
1yr ago
But can those alcoholics down a hundred bottles in a night? Any harm from promiscuity, if it exists, is comparatively tiny, harder to find and subject to more ifs.
Tree
1yr ago
online trad redpill mra types always pretend that high status people marry whores regularly.
? No they don't. They say 'betas' marry them after high status 'alphas' 'pumped' them. Through the transitive property of the woman, this makes the 'beta' the 'alpha's bitch (imagine the woman in a sandwich where they all face the same way), reinforcing the sexual hierarchy they obsess over.
Tree
1yr ago
Female promiscuity is completely harmless, as this stunt again proves. If you assume a linear no-threshold model of harm and she does fine after hundreds of men, likely ending up married to some banker or politician, then obviously sleeping with only a football team can’t possibly be harmful at all, the equivalent of one banana of radioactivity.
Tree
1yr ago
Friendly reminder that the internet always, always advises dumping. Now they don't even need any disagreeable behaviour, pedigree suffices.
Tree
1yr ago
Thanks for the sauce.
So I can only read the synopsis, but it appears the strongest conclusion of that study is that the authoritarian style is the worst. Then it compares a bunch of other parenting style categories (directive, authoritative, democratic, permissive, disengaged) which seem ill-defined, prone to bias and an invitation to p-hack.
Take OP’s original example of the teenager who won’t get off the phone. Baumrind’s definition of the two dimensions she uses to define four of the categories (see table), via wikipedia :
Parental responsiveness refers to the degree to which the parent responds to the child's needs in a supportive and accepting manner. Parental demandingness refers to the rules which the parent has in place for their child's behavior, the expectations for their children to comply with these rules, and the level of repercussions that follow if those rules are broken.
If some parents confiscate the phone over their daughter’s tearful pleas, it’s easy for the social scientist working off this definition to count that as “not responding to their child’s needs in a supportive and accepting manner”. That by itself would make them either ‘authoritarian’ or ‘neglectful’.
Baumrind’s preferred style– “authoritativism” - is an “authoritarianism of the gaps” where you act authoritarian until someone proves a part doesn’t work, then you pretend that part was always part of the ‘bad authoritarianism’ while you’re just practicing good authoritarianism. Your secret sauce is that you love your children while the bad authoritarians of the past didn't.
So the expert advice seems to be: “be authoritarian, but not too much. Too much is definitely terrible”. Which manages to be both completely useless and maximally anxiety-inducing.
As to why some studies show ‘permissive parenting’ to be less positive than her gerrymandered position, it’s largely genetic effects, nothing causative.
Tree
1yr ago
Of course it’s fiction. But unlike countless other movies where the CEO sends an assassin after the hero, I find this one’s motive, means and opportunities frighteningly realistic.
As to the detail of the secret manual, I don’t find it that far-fetched. In my experience of the professional world, a lot of shit of questionable legality and morality goes on, but people have mouths to feed and everyone’s doing it, so they just get on with it. I’ve observed that most people, if their boss tells them to lie or to ignore a tax the company should pay, they do it without fuss. I'm not sure they'd put it in a manual though.
Tree
1yr ago
I think it'd be painful at the time, but I'd basically be the same person I am now - same personality, intelligence, looks, height... maybe slightly darker sense of humor.
Adoption studies usually find that you take way more from your biological parents than your adopted ones.
Tree
1yr ago
I read it as a pure bribe ; in exchange for six thousand dollars she will try to limit the alimony and other claims, which are in the hundreds of thousands.
Tree
1yr ago
Again, I consider the feral child analogy ludicrous, not carrying any weight.
Not enforcing any rules at all may be a similar form of neglect, lesser in severity, but still with consequences.
Do you have studies to back that up?
As far as I can tell, [beating] is ok, as long as the parent shows love at other times.
So beating is optional? That is a bizarre position to take. It’s either necessary, as people used to believe, or it should be avoided, for obvious reasons.
The experts have not turned the wheel, the experts have always said "Strictness and love," it's just interpreted through the popular self-help books differently through the generations.
I gave you an example of expert guidance, and it wasn’t popular interpretations of consistent ideas in a self-help book. They used to tell teachers that part of their job was beating children, and later told them to cut it out.
Tree
1yr ago
Is this language example an analogy? I’m not proposing to lock children outside in a stall for the first 12 years of their lives and never letting them hear a human word. And if it is an analogy, I don’t think a permissible parenting style is comparable to being raised by wolves.
People used to beat their kids. My father was occasionally severely beaten with a hose. Not because my grandfather drank – he didn’t – but because that’s what the parental-educational fashion was at that time. He would know, my grandfather was a schoolmaster. Teachers back then thought they could beat the stupid and evil out of children – and they had a duty to. At some point before he retired, he got a directive from the education ministry that teachers weren’t to do that anymore. He told me he had to let go of a few of the old-timers, who could not stop beating children – they had always done it this way, this was what education was to them, teaching children how to behave in a society that has authority over them.
So after the beatings era, the experts came up with a new theory, where strictness was excoriated, damaging the child’s ‘true potential’ etc. In my opinion they were not any more correct than their predecessors (because parenting and schooling don’t really matter), but at least the unnecessary beatings stopped, and that’s a small win, because it’s unpleasant for both parties, and you could break something.
And now the experts have turned the wheel again and apparently children need strict rules or something. I am skeptical.
Tree
1yr ago
I did note that feeding and not-hitting-kid’s-head-with-rock was a non-optional part of parenting.
After that, I don’t trust this body of work about parenting styles. It sounds like another spurious explanation for group differences, of the kind that produces new and revolutionary interventions in schooling every few years.
Tree
1yr ago
There’s a lot of studies showing reciprocal intimate partner violence, which is not the preferred feminist finding.
Findings regarding bidirectional violence are particularly controversial because, if accepted, they can serve to undermine one of the most commonly cited reasons for female perpetrated IPV; self-defense against a controlling male partner. Despite this, many studies have found evidence of high levels of bidirectionality in cases where women have reported intimate partner violence. Wikipedia
Tree
1yr ago
How do you separate it from a genetic influence?
Most academics think parenting is very important, they’re into the rousseauian blank slate, nurture not nature. Is this your opinion as well, groups that fail are just badly parented?
Tree
1yr ago
And yet, by virtue of biological reality, they are committed to a shared project of helping the child become a good adult. The child cannot grow into a good adult without this relationship.
I’m pretty sure you can raise children in orphanages and they turn out fine (They may whine, more on that later).
You just assume that parenting matters. Why? I don’t think anything my parent did made me taller or smarter (aside from feeding me and not hitting me with a rock), so why would it have made me more well-adjusted (or whatever parenting is supposed to achieve) ?
I think the main reason for the
birth rate collapse
is just everyone obsessing about parenting. The idea that, if you fail to provide the exact balance of ”loving, but strict“(plus ridiculous amounts of money, time and attention), you should not have kids.
Adult children are always whining that their parents either were or were not strict enough. They, as well as parenting experts should be ignored, and apathy should again become the cornerstone of parenting. Before contraception, kids used to just show up, and life just went on as usual, with just slightly more crying and laughter.
Now that a woman has to make a conscious decision, it opens the door to all this anxiety and neuroticism and talk and judgment about what should be an easy, natural and popular path. What’s needed is less your strict authoritarian father than a deeply apathetic one, who just goes “I don’t care”, “It doesn’t matter”, “Have another kid if you’re worried about this one”, “Of course it’s not your fault our son’s a junky”.
The US military umbrella, while nice, is unnecessary against russia’s second rate military (insert joke about joining the ukrainian military umbrella instead).
If the US and China go at it, it would be far better for us to sit on the sidelines than to be stuck in the US supermarket. The manager’s already raising prices in peacetime, we’d better get out before he turns desperate and asks us to pay in blood.
What is the threat of ‘the US becoming hostile’? Is the US going to double the tariffs to punish us from walking away because of the tariffs? Or is the threat war, blockade, invasion? If so , then the normal human pride reaction would be to militarize, get more nukes, and cooperate with US enemies, not accept US blackmail.
But neither I nor the rest of europe appears to believe that is a real threat – what you interpret as an inability to build a large army, I view as unwillingness because of a perceived lack of need: see minimal percent of GDP invested in the military, lack of nukes despite know-how.
Tacitus famously said that the Secret of the Empire was that an emperor did not have to be made at Rome . In other words, that the senate’s power was a sham and the ‘first senator among equals’ was in reality a military dictator.
Is the US secretly a military dictator, even though we peripherals pretend it’s a business partner, or worse, a friend? To me the strongest argument against is that allied US countries who could retaliate militarily after a US invasion (France, UK) have no meaningfully different politics and geopolitics compared to countries who couldn’t (Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, etc). If anything, western nuclear powers seem even more eager to support the US, which is the opposite of what you would expect from 'hard' power relations.
More options
Context Copy link