@aqouta's banner p

aqouta


				

				

				
4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:48:55 UTC

Friends:

@aqouta


				

User ID: 75

aqouta


				
				
				

				
4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:48:55 UTC

					

No bio...

Friends:

@aqouta


					

User ID: 75

You can't demand an attractive, young, chaste wife with similar social background when she can earn 70-85% of that income and do whatever she wants.

Unless of course she wants babies, which is kind of the whole point. That's the missing enticement.

People who even know about TFR as an issue are also usually concerned with dysgenics. I'm not really sure critiquing people for not acting like it's an issue makes sense, if we're going to accept flooding low iq people we might as well get the immigrants for free and pocket the money we'd spend on the nonproductive years of the kids. And really what are the individual actions you'd expect from people concerned with LFR? My investments take into account the likely lack of growth in certain markets, that's about all I can personally do beyond discussions.

I've always found the word reactionary rather useless if not actively harmful. Opposition to a proposed policy doesn't magically transmute into an entirely different faction the moment it gets passed. It's just an artifact of trying to map complex ideologies onto a spectrum. But I guess that critique applies to all the other words used as well.

What healthy political system do you propose, then?

The one we have now but where we all recognize that changes made before we were born are legitimate targets for conservative critique. Which may just be the one we have now but I certainly don't want the proposed one where it's not considered conservative to undo changes that happened a long while ago because then if there are truly bad changes that age long enough they're impossible to undo.

Can we at least give some of the due necessary to the reasonable arguments for waving liability? In the middle of an ongoing pandemic that threatens million of lives you actually do have a pretty good case that a potentially dangerous vaccine is more useful than no vaccine at all and that is realistically your alternative if pharma companies feel as though they need enough rounds of testing to mitigate this additional liability. If they were only give to the very high risk populations and had some huge greater than 10% chance of complications that might still be a good play. The calculous is much different when forced on everyone but that's a different objection.

All the crypto people I know weren't touching FTX with a 50 foot pole. Crypto people tend to mess around with decentralized exchanges.

People regularly give their life willingly to cults. This is the population that eats tide pods for clout. I am not convinced that many prepubescent children can even understand what they're giving up when they agree to something like puberty blockers. I'm not going to ascribe this belief to you but it's frequently asserted that 18 year olds can't understand loans and thus college debt forgiveness should be taken more seriously, are we really supposed to believe the people who still sometimes believe in Santa understand the repercussions of lifetime pharmaceutical dependence?

ESPECIALLY when you put all this against the backdrop of the Crypto market being called out as just one big complicated casino.

Bring evidence in proportion to the inflammatory nature of your comments. crypto contains multitudes.

Anyways, the subscription model is more equitable for the content creators, but at the same time...how much money should one make writing the kind of stuff that Freddie deBoer writes?

This was an angle I was considering going, what sounds right to me for the upper echelon writers was something like $350k+/year or so sounds fair to me if compared to white collar intellectuals, they're at the top of their pareto distributions. If you compare them to rock stars or other entertainers then you could justify much higher. It does seem like one thing the internet has definitely done is make potential audiences wide enough to elevate what once might have been a cushy newspaper columnist job to heights that before were once in a generation levels.

"the idea of your immuntable map of your body" is what we call gender identity. It is an illusion.

There is no epistemically robust way to show this and I think you're still stuck on trying to unify support for neogenders with the more grounded body integrity disorder adjacent feelings that seem associated with traditional binary transgender people, especially those from before the recent memetic expansion. There is no unifying theory, they're just using the same word for very different things, basically as a proxy for the subjective component of having a sex and as a generic word for aesthetic expression.

This is why I unironically think block chain verified accounts that have a negligible one time minting fee to prevent spammers is eventually going to be a big deal.

Not really, Mexicans aren't founding cities in the wilderness, they're trying to join an existing society. The rest of the post goes into this.

Us talking. To be clear I don't think it's true that our democracy is a sham, but that's a very large subject and if it's the difference of our beliefs I don't currently have the time or interest to crack it open. For the most part it seems to me like the electorate gets what a large majority wants and is willing to loudly hinge their votes on. If the demand and anger was there to destroy the equal outcome status quo then it would fall.

These were not the tactics used in the mid 70s, this is an extremely new phenomenon.

Yes, a left handed person and right handed person cannot possible experience the other's qualia directly. But yes after trying both methods of writing they can without much consequence choose a preference. If we're bringing this back to gender than I've already conceded the ground that people can decide that they prefer to be flush with estrogen or testosterone as they see fit, I have no qualms with this so long as it brooks no costs or at least trivial costs on broader society. What I object to are the claims that this is anything but a recreation.

There is a version of liberal freedom of form that you espouse that seems something I could coexist with but it feels like two liberals in mao's China discussing whether a public option is communist just before the liberation army breaks down the door and puts a bullet in both our heads. We're barely even discussing the same subject as the trans advocates.

But there was some rich gay dude who would save 'em if you married the guy.

Hold up, you're significantly changing the situation by making it a homosexual relationship. I can have children by marrying a very ugly woman, I cannot have children by marrying an unpleasant man.

Active and widespread racial discrimination seems like a pretty popular theory.

If you were totally unable to transfer ownership would that really not reduce your belief in the value of a game at least on the margin? If it took zero extra effort for me to get a version of a game on steam that was able to be resold over one that wasn't I'd definitely take the transferable one, I'd probably pay some increased amount for it.

I just stop by the store after work and grab enough for a few meals, a couple steaks, some veggies and other needs. Not sure why this seems weird.

Actually no, the solution is usually wait a few years and industry will solve it. That is unless you do something stupid like get regulators involved. Or more often even than that it's not even a problem where a solution is a reasonable thing to expect. How do you 'solve' a couple dozen people being unlucky enough to be struck by lightning every year? You don't. End of story. Any attempt would be idiotic.

I think we've done wide polls before which I wouldn't be against but I kind of oppose having positions in it. If for no other reason than the behavior of "Well 74% of us believe this so why do you think you're smarter than us all" Which is egregiously obnoxious. As well as the simple act of registering a position might make people less willing to deviate from their previous position.

I think we must have lost each other somewhere in the abstraction because this response makes no sense whatsoever to me. The thing I'm trying to point out is that if your political system has a progressive side that wants to make periodic changes and your control structure is a conservative side that tests those changes and attempts to reject ones that could threaten the status quo as of the last ~30 years then you are vulnerable to a periodic change that happened more than 30 years ago that will never the less be ruinous. A healthy political system needs to be able to look critically at the status quo from a conservative perspective.

I take the view that we're still very much riding the wave from the French revolution and it's not quite certain we're going to get to keep this new fangled liberty thing. The population disarming themselves in the year 2000 might not actually bare its wicked fruit until the year 2050 or 2100 the next time there is a WW2 sized shock. Hell, some countries seemed on the verge of dissolving basic rights because of a pandemic, wait until there are credible accusation of spying by a real rival super power.

And yet here I have linked a reliable zero emission project worth somewhere in the ballpark of $60 million being built in california of all places.

Understandable to a theoretical neutral observer. It doesn't require a bunch of assumptions that are difficult or impossible to investigate.

fair enough.