bolido_sentimental
No bio...
User ID: 205

People of the Motte, I am engaged to be married. AMA I guess. Reaching this state was a surprisingly long journey - I'll be 35 on wedding day. I have been dating off and on since I was 18, and at that time I never would have imagined that I'd still be playing the game 15+ years later. Glad to be finally be checking out, hopefully for good.
I can't help but wonder how checking Culture War Roundup threads every day for the last 10 or so years, may have contributed to my ultimate change from rootless, callow 20-something to homeowning family-seeker. This was previously a classic path that people tended to follow, but relatively few of my peers ended up following it. I often wonder if being a SSCer/Mottizen has actually been a good thing for me, or whether I'd have been better off never knowing about the things we discuss here. Nevertheless, though you do not know me, there are many of you to whom I'd send a wedding invitation if I thought we had room for it; and indeed it will be an interesting culture war occasion to observe, as many blue tribe + red tribe friends and family will meet for the first time. But of course on the day, I'm going to really try not to think of it in those terms lol.
Anyway, as far as Friday Fun: my fiancée and I have been doing jigsaw puzzles lately, while listening to the "oldies" station on AM radio. I think for many people, if you see this activity on a list of activities to do, your eyes may pass right over it - it seems so boring that it doesn't merit serious consideration. But seriously, it's actually really satisfying when you get the whole border put together, or when you get on a roll with a big section of the puzzle. Are jigsaw puzzles what they call "lindy"? In any case, I realized there must be a reason why they continue to sell jigsaw puzzles in every Target, Wal-Mart, Meijer, Big Lots etc. in America. Consider giving it a try if you want to do something easy and analog for a while, as a nice little break from technological recreation.
I actually voted for Joe Biden in 2020, specifically because I thought his election would cool the culture war. In hindsight, this displays an unbelievable level of misunderstanding of the sources of the culture war and its continuing escalation.
I have often wondered if we will eventually reach a state where you can only navigate to destinations you can enter into your car's navigation computer; so that if you wanted to go off road or to somewhere you aren't authorized to go, you simply could not do it with the car.
I just had the realization that maybe I, a middle-class man, could be having lots of kids (a desire of mine) if I would just go meet a nice working-class girl; and that I've maybe subconsciously been trying to "date up" this whole time. I am a fool!
(This is actually not sarcasm.)
When I was 14, George W. Bush was president. I don't know about the average, but there was a definitely a phase around the time American Idiot came out where it seemed like all anyone in my high school was doing was dunking on W. And this was in Tennessee.
This could definitely have been my personal bubble though. In 2004, I didn't know what a "bubble" was.
On Free Association vs. Exclusion, or: can white people just do stuff together?
Yesterday I went to church. I would estimate that there are about 150 people at my church. There are exactly three people of color there:
-
One black teenaged girl, who I believe is the adoptive daughter of a white couple there.
-
One old guy called Antonio, who I think came from Argentina a long time ago.
-
A Hispanic woman who is the wife of an old white guy.
The demographics of this church are, basically, the demographics of the immediately surrounding neighborhoods and of this demonination nationally: the people who go there go there because A.) they live close by and B.) they think the EFCA has good teachings to offer about God, the world etc. Everyone comes there of their own free will; all are explicitly welcome. We have never turned anyone away - I am one of the greeters and I try to take seriously my responsibility to make anyone that arrives feel welcome.
Still, when thinking about this, something apparent to me is that this church has no racial diversity. Are we under a moral obligation to try and change that?
If we are: why is that? How did we incur it? Is it not enough to be welcoming, do we need to actively change our demographic composition? What if, as seems to be the case, there are hardly any non-white people that want to come to our church?
If we are not: why is that? Other voluntary organizations come under pressure to diversify, all the time - see "knitting too white," "hiking too white," etc. Would our church not qualify because it's too small? Because it isn't a business? Because we do not have any status to award? Because we have no social media presence?
There is a black church less than four miles away - I cannot imagine them ever coming under pressure to diversify, even though they have the same level of diversity as my church does. Why should that be? I can already think of the Conflict Theory explanation - but what would the Mistake Theory explanation for that be?
I guess what I'm wondering about or driving at is, as my title indicates - is there any limiting principle to the drive for making groupings reflect the population distribution of the country as a whole? Are there organizations for which it would be unreasonable to ask this - or are there simply only organizations whose undiversity hasn't been noticed? I'm not asking this out of any animosity towards any racial group; we would really just like for everyone to come to our church. I just find myself wondering why similar bodies, who didn't choose their racial composition at all, nevertheless come under criticism for that, and some don't.
Flout, not flaunt.
I asked a girl out on Saturday, and she said yes. I have a girlfriend now. I met her at a local meeting of baseball fans about three months ago; we started hanging out one-on-one at the end of August. We got to know each other and things developed organically. Last night we went to Ikea, and then came home and played with my cat. It was wonderful.
To be honest, "lucky and fairly determined" may be exactly right. I'd been single for three years prior to this. There were about five girls I tried to make something happen with in the meantime, and it didn't work out - I either got a first date that didn't lead anywhere, or they turned me down outright.
The determination part comes in in two areas: one, you have to be determined enough to keep going. It definitely hurt when one girl that I'd crushed on for probably six or eight months rejected me in the spring. But you have to have a thick hide, and you have to decide to bounce back and try again.
Furthermore: you have to be determined to keep examining yourself and working on your shortcomings. Like: my celebrity lookalike is probably Mike Myers (Austin Powers). I'm a funny-looking dude. But I have to find a way to be appealing to women anyway. I try to do that by being a joy to be around. I laugh an smile a lot. I try to find the good in everything. I can be a reliable and capable problem-solver when I need to. I think there are many archetypes you could utilize in making yourself "someone others want to be with," but you have to follow through on one of them enough that you yourself start to believe in it. I genuinely self-believe that I can make any interaction with someone end with them thinking, "That was a blast, I hope I can see him again." But I wasn't born like that. I had to cause myself to be that person.
The luck part is definitely in A.) Meeting a real option and B.) Getting the genetic lottery outcomes that give you a chance. With A.), as many Mottizens have noted, meeting people is hard. It's work. You have to grind and go to all the stuff you may not want to go to. Somebody recently posted about how you need to self-delude yourself into enjoying some things, and that's right on. With B.), yeah, I got lucky in many ways, to be an eligible partner at all. I don't have Down syndrome. I'm a normal height. I have a nice build that's enabled me to create an acceptable physique. I try not to take those things for granted.
Anyway dude. You always make me want to respond to you because you bring up "being worthy." I don't even know what that means. I've never been to war, or hiked more than 10 miles in temperate landscapes. My moral history is extremely dubious. I am truly, truly just some asshole. I'm not even hot, you're probably better-looking than me. But human beings want to be with each other! If you can try and be someone that other people want to be with, why couldn't it be you? Have you ever considered what you can do to make someone happy? Not everyone is out for what they can get - not everyone chooses defect! I promise you that. There really are girls who want to choose cooperate.
I was surprised to see in /r/dankchristianmemes, a heavily upvoted thread about wanting traditional hymns, but not wanting "conservative/far-right ideals" in the church. All the comments are about how great it is that mainline Protestant denominations are affirming of all kinds of alternative lifestyles.
https://old.reddit.com/r/dankchristianmemes/comments/11i1mit/is_it_too_much_to_ask_for_both/
Honestly this really made me think. On Reddit, the gun people are leftist, the Christians are leftist, etc. etc. I spend so much time on Reddit that it makes me think leftism has literally taken over everything. Then I went to church this morning and realized there's an entire big population of people who don't use Reddit, have never heard of Reddit, and who still exist across the whole spectrum of political belief.
I need to get off of Reddit.
I am a native of Tennessee, have lived in Kentucky, and currently live in Ohio. None of these could be described as "blue states." Pretty much everyone that I talk to on a daily basis lives and votes in one of these three states.
For the last three or four months, almost every person I know has been assaulting my ears, unsolicited, with monologues about how Trump is a racist, sexist and fascist, and he must be kept out of the White House. Literally - I'm not saying that as a stock example, I mean that people have actually used those terms, in series, in sentences to describe him and his politics. Additionally, multiple people have told me they wish the would-be assassin's bullets didn't miss their mark. These people include my dad - a blue-collar tradesman; my coworkers, at a blue-collar manufacturing firm; my mom, a retail worker; a close friend of mine who joined the Army; and a guy I know who works in construction. No matter their age, race, or who the winners' policies would be likely to benefit, there is a lockstep consensus, even though these are all people who are the types of people, in the appropriate states, that you'd expect to support Trump. The only exceptions that I personally have are my fiancee and her family, a close friend from church, and an old coworker. All other people are happy to start venting about Trump to me.
(Notably - and this is not meant to be boo outgroup - I never hear anyone talk about how the election outcomes, or the policy outcomes that follow from that, will affect them personally. One guy I work with did at least reference his neighbors who are voting for Trump because they don't want their taxes to go up, which he described as "greed.")
My subjective impression, is that this is primarily caused by the successful capture by liberals of so many institutions, resulting in leftism becoming the "default position" in America. When all the big companies, all the media, and all the artists and musicians push in the same direction, you have to be a serious non-conformist to push the other way; and that is an uncommon trait. With that in mind, I don't know how the Republicans ever win any elections.
It's largely been forgotten now, but Baltimore used to be a tremendous steel city, based around the Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point facility. It was the largest steel plant in the world in the 1950s. There were many other large mills and shipyards there, making all kinds of things out of steel. Here's a good article about this:
Baltimore was hit extremely hard by deindustrialization, and decent jobs have not come in the same numbers to replace the ones that were lost. I suppose the interesting followup question is why the population remaining in Baltimore reacted in such destructive ways.
The way it worked for me was like this:
- You go to your local staffing agency in the nearby strip mall. Every town I've ever lived in has several of them.
- You fill out some forms they give you, which include what type of work you can do. For me this was just, "labor."
- They call you in a day or two and say "XYZ Corp. needs some material handlers starting this Tuesday. They're paying $14.50 an hour and there's mandatory overtime. The shift is 2:30 to 11:00 PM. Stop by here before then and we'll give you your badge and show you the safety video."
- You go and do that, and then on Tuesday you start working at XYZ Corp.
Depending on the company, they might hire you on to their own paper after 90 days or 6 months or whatever. Or you might stay on the staffing agency's paper indefinitely. I supported myself all through my early 20s doing jobs like this.
The actual work consisted of such tasks as:
- Taking boxes from a conveyor belt and loading them into a truck.
- Unloading things, from a truck, and placing them onto a conveyor belt.
- Taking objects from a conveyor belt, and putting them into boxes.
- Inspecting bottles of mouthwash on an assembly line, and doing weighing and cap tests once an hour.
- Digging holes.
- Watching a moving belt of electronics recycling stuff and picking out trash.
- Assembling books-on-tape packages.
- Loading big metal components (I genuinely don't know what they were) into this machine that would put a liquid coating on them.
I met many people whose entire working lives consisted of these jobs. I almost was one myself. I remember reading Slate Star Codex on my phone in the break rooms of these places, lol. There was never a resume involved. A lot of times these dudes also knew about casual work on the side. I still remember my buddy Luis, who every Saturday morning at like 5:00 AM would send me a text that was just an address and a work task. "8737 Maple Avenue. Fence posts. Eighty dollars." He would always be pissed off at me at our next actual work shift if I didn't show up.
I do concede that if, when you're at that level of the economic ladder, you decide to go and work for, e.g., Kroger or T.J. Maxx or some other significant corporation, yes, they may ask you for a resume. I actually remember consciously thinking about what the options were: you could work in a call center, you could go do fast food, you could work retail, or you could take a factory/labor job. I hated talking to people in a "customer service" kind of way, so for me the choice was always obvious.
Strongly doubt it occurs to them. Almost definitionally, people in underclasses work in jobs that do not ask for resumes. I did a lot of those jobs when I was younger, and met a lot of people who, I am pretty sure, went their whole lives and will die having never made a resume.
This is one non-HBD reason that is often given for why big gaps persist across generations. Those people never meet or interact with anyone who can model the actions that result in middle- or higher class lives.
I keep trying to draw some sort of second-order conclusions from the Haitians eating cats thing. Is it supposed to sway people who were on the fence about border controls? Like, if it is true - then what? I imagine the leftist response to this story being absolutely confirmed would be:
0.) Continue to deny it anyway.
1.) When they have learned our country's norms they'll stop, it's not really their fault.
2.) Even if it's true, it's their culture and we should respect it, not try to change them to be like us.
3.) Either way the good they bring outweighs the bad.
Even my liberal dad admitted, he would feel concern about having 20,000 Haitians added to his community all at once. My impression as a private citizen has been that this reinforces something already true about America: the only way you can control who lives near you is to make more money. You have to continually move up the housing ladder so that you can live only near people who can afford to do the same thing; this is the only way to ensure you live near pro-social people. The poor people who were not able to leave Springfield when its industries crashed - they are "suffering what they must."
I've been thinking recently about the stickiness of reputations among brands, and about whether it's something that companies really have the power to shift or not.
Here's the specific example in my mind. You know how, if you browse the Internet for many years, you'll see certain apparently-organic consensus points occur again and again? Reddit is especially known for this, but it happens elsewhere too. Well, in all my years online, the one I've seen the most often, in the most places, is:
A. Cars are mentioned. B. "Get a Toyota or Honda. Those are the best cars."
The corollary of this line of thinking is: "(Not-Toyota/Not-Honda) is junk." I've probably seen this statement about every manufacturer, but it's most commonly applied to the cars of the former Fiat-Chrysler group, including Fiat itself and Dodge. Ford, GM, and Nissan also get it a lot.
I've driven many Toyotas and Hondas. They are indeed very good cars. I have nothing to say against them. However - based on modern manufacturing technology, on any given metric, how much better are they likely to be than the equivalent car by Subaru? Or even Chevrolet or Dodge? What's the base rate of mechanical failure across these marques? Does anyone know? More to the point - is anyone looking? I would imagine they are not at all, based on typical shopper behavior. I think they mostly go by reputation.
What I find interesting is that in some cases, reputations created long ago stick around forever; and in some cases they don't. For example with Dodge, I'm specifically aware of a big problem they had with a 2.7 L V6 in the '90s which had big sludging problems and hence an elevated rate of engine failure. Prior to that, as I understand it, their main reputation was making fairly staid, uninteresting, but fine commuter cars like the Plymouth Sundance, Dodge Aries and so on. They also made a nice line of minivans. Anyway - at least since the 2.7 L V6 problem, I feel like, subjectively, people no longer trust them; and may never trust them again. Say that Consumer Reports announced that a hypothetical 2025 Dodge Journey was the best in its segment for reliability and features. Would you even consider looking at one?
Conversely, some companies like Audi (the sudden unintended acceleration debacle) and Subaru (head gasket failures) seem to have mostly shaken off their negative reputations; at least, I don't see them taking serious stick online over those things, and the products sell as well as anything else.
Is this just locked in now? Even if Toyota and Honda just made 50th-percentile-reliable cars from now on, would anyone ever notice? If the best car you could possibly get at a given price point was actually a Volkswagen or a Volvo, and remained that way for a decade, how long would it take for sales figures to change? How long would it take for me to stop seeing "get a Toyota or Honda" in every /r/personalfinance thread about cars?
N.B. I'm not car shopping right now. In the past, if I talk about this topic online, people will genuinely reply, "Just get a Toyota or Honda, man," as if that's what I were asking about. I'm not getting anything any time soon. My current car is fine.
It's hard for me to compose an answer to that, because it's been such a constant part of my life for so long now. I can barely remember all the things I used to not know. (Additionally - it's hard for me to compose an answer, because I never have acted on my ambition to "lurk less + post moar" as an aid to getting better at argumentative writing. I guess it's still not too late.)
Here is my best answer, I guess. I discovered the SSC-sphere around 2013. I had just dropped out of a political science Ph.D program - I realized that, basically, trying to write and publish academic papers was miserable to me and I did not want to spend any more of my life doing it. Anyway, even with that pretty high level of education, I still believed such things as:
- "Christians believe in a magical being because they are deluded."
- "Republicans want to restrict abortion access because they hate women."
- "The NSA wants to read all of our e-mails because they are evil."
I could give an unlimited number of other examples like that; and I was certainly 100% within the left-liberal bubble at that time, so the examples would be biased in that direction. Basically, exposure to the SSC-sphere enabled me to build a theory of mind for all kinds of groups and beliefs. Over the years, people in the Motte etc. have spent a tremendous amount of time and energy trying to understand what people really believe and why.
This is a continuous, lifelong process; I'm certain that I still have wrong ideas about lots of people's beliefs. And, my biases have shifted in the opposite direction, but they definitely still exist. But I just didn't think about it at all before - I believed what the people around me believed, and I didn't think about it. Now... at least I think about it, I guess. I no longer think "x believe that because they're idiots" or whatever. I try to understand how people arrive at their conclusions, because even if I oppose them, I still have to live with these people; and having some understanding makes it feel better, or if I want to act against them, I can do it more effectively.
The fact that Afroman lives in Adams County, Ohio is the craziest part of this to me. That's literally Amish country. Many miles from anything.
Miller's Bakery out there has one of the largest selections of jams and jellies that I've ever seen anywhere.
Welcome back @SkookumTree. A lot of us unironically hoped for the best for you in your absence.
Can you offer support for your assertion that white Appalachia mirrors Baltimore? It has never been my impression that the rates of violent crime or property crime are at all comparable between those places. To provide one example, poor, mountainous West Virginia had the lowest crime rate in the nation from 1971 to 1998.
I am currently reading this book. My very brief first thought was: I wish that she spent some time talking about the effects of therapy culture on adults. She does briefly, obliquely address this, but mainly to state that adults, having reached the age of majority, can make themselves crazier with excessive therapy if they want to.
Of course that's true, but I would've liked to see a greater exploration of the vastly-increased importance placed on therapy in recent years, the latent assumption that everyone needs it, its replacement of other social positions in people's lives, etc. Some of Shrier's research in the book is generalizable to that, but much of it isn't.
People of the Motte, I am getting married one week from tomorrow. AMA, I guess. And thanks to everyone for many years of life advice. I've been lurking since the days of /r/slatestarcodex, and I genuinely think that the things I've learned from some of you have helped me reach this happy juncture.
Also - any tips to make the wedding day go smoothly, as well as the first few weeks or months of married life? It's just a small wedding we're having - 50-60 people and a reception at the banquet hall down the street. All less than 15 minutes from home.
My impression is that the situation in Great Migration cities especially deteriorated after deindustrialization. If there were still good livings available for people with relatively low human capital or skills, I imagine the overall chaos would be a lot lower. I've never heard a good answer to the question of: "If we transition to a "knowledge economy," what are the people without useful knowledge supposed to do with themselves?"
Of course I don't dispute that the lever of "actually enforce all of the law, throughout the city" seems to have been abandoned.
Following on from this, I recently read this essay by N.S. Lyons, arguing that what the Right has to do is to, effectively, create a parallel society. Many of the commenters inferred that the most obvious way to do this is to use the church networks that already exist, albeit in many places weakened by years of people falling away.
I had that same realization some time ago, presumably like many other people. So I finally became an actual member of a local church within the last year, and have been getting more and more involved in its affairs. The idea is that, in addition to our religious practice, this will be our mutual support network: in a world where the state is against us, and nearly all large organizations are against us, we will at least have our little local group of people that are for us and for each other. Obviously, you can blackpill your way into finding this to be hopeless as well; but I can already confirm that at least right now, so far, it's a lot better than trying to face everything alone.
Right, there's also the tennis player Ashleigh Barty. She had an indigenous great-grandmother, and so via this 1/8th connection she became the "National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador for Tennis Australia." "I'm a very proud Indigenous woman and I think that for me taking on this role is something very close to my heart. I'm very excited," she said about this.
- Prev
- Next
My father has been a glazier for 40 years, and I've worked with him on occasional jobs here and there. He is self-employed, and primarily does storefront windows and doors for restaurants, banks, retail, offices, etc.
Pros:
Cons:
I can say I would be quite happy if children of mine went into it. It's honest work and actually quite deep and interesting.
More options
Context Copy link