cjet79
Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds
Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds
User ID: 124
cjet79
1yr ago
With two kids of my own now I get the tricky balance. I was not really ever spanked, mostly cuz you didn't need to spank me to punish me. You could tell me I did something bad or wrong and I would feel terrible. My brother apparently laughed at my parents when they spanked him. They found it far more effective to take away the toys he liked.
cjet79
1yr ago
This is the first time I've heard of TTV that I can remember, so I mostly don't care about them. Grifters and liars exist out there. There are whole industries around "essential oils" and "crystal healing" that you could have written about and exposed. Why did you choose to write about TTV specifically? My guess would be because they touch on a wider and more important topic which is the sense of "fairness" people have about the 2020 election.
Since I neither know or care about TTV, I chose to instead just write about the topic that I think makes TTV important.
If I thought the topic was quite literally only about TTV I would have just yawned, minimized the thread, and moved on without commenting.
cjet79
1yr ago
Can you conceive a scenario where unrestricted immigration could lead to severe problems?
Yes, I can also conceive and witness problems caused by unregulated relationships. Does it change my position? Not really an inch on either issue.
cjet79
1yr ago
I consider this a good practical argument, and specifically something I have said before.
cjet79
1yr ago
I don't think announcing the release of a covid vaccine days after the election was in any way illegal. It was probably enough to sway the election.
I don't think implying to major social media networks that the Hunter Biden laptop story was fake was illegal. It was probably enough to sway the election.
I don't think investigating Trump for nearly 3 years for collusion with Russia that ultimately turned out to be nothing was illegal. It was probably enough to sway the election.
I don't think freaking out over covid and insisting that the country completely shutdown and tank the economy was illegal. It was probably enough to sway the election.
None of these things were illegal, but they were all very very dirty and despicable. If they had just done one of them I might chalk it up to coincidence. But all of them happened, and other people can probably list their own examples. With so many events I strongly doubt they were all coincidences. I also say this as someone who never has and never would vote for Trump. I usually get sick of election politics about a year before the election. But I fully get why people have the unwavering sense that the election was stolen, while not having a single shred of "evidence" that applies to a court case.
He Gets Us, my lord and savior favorite blogger Scott Alexander has written a piece about love and liberty
Scott is somewhat famously (formerly?) not a libertarian. Reading a piece by someone that understands my base impulse and aversion to state power was very refreshing. I feel like I have to bury that emotion deep down to have discussions with most of the people around me. The revulsion you might feel about someone proposing a government enforced redistribution of the benefits of beauty, is something I feel about most redistribution schemes. The revulsion you might feel about a government licensing scheme for dating is the revulsion I feel towards nearly all government licensing schemes (I only say nearly all, because I leave myself room to be surprised in the future, not because I can think of an exception in the moment).
As a libertarian I tend to end up arguing with everyone (even fellow libertarians). In the last few years the most important argument I keep having with the left is about the nature of corporations and the shared marketplace. I think money is the one value nearly everyone shares, so making it the center piece and main value of the market allows the maximum number of people to participate in it. Once they have their money, they can take it out and go spend it on other things they value (and being able to spend it is why so many people value money!). I think DEI initiatives, environmentalism, certain parts of the labor movement, and social justice have been trying to undermine this for many years. I also don't think too many people on this forum disagree with me there.
No, as the always arguing libertarian, my disagreement with the right is on the topic of nationalism and immigration. Due to the recent wipe I lost one of the posts where I laid out some of my specific disagreements with nationalism. I have a much longer history on this forum of arguing in favor of immigration. Usually only for a day at most, and only a few responses deep, since I encounter a great deal of disagreement. I don't think I have ever laid out an "ick factor" argument about immigration, or in other words why immigration restrictions kind of disgust me. Mostly, I don't think it convinces anyone, but as Scott's article points out it is as close as possible to the true reason why I support open immigration and open borders. And in the future if anyone ever bothers to say "you want immigration for bad reason X" I can refer back to this post, and say "no these are my motivations".
I'll choose my own friends, thank you very much.
Growing up you might remember a time when you had friends not because of who you liked, but because of who your parents liked. Before age 7 it felt pretty common. Most of the time this was ok for me. I didn't have strong preferences for the kind of people I wanted to be around, and I was at the whim of whatever my parents wanted to do anyways. Having a kid to play with at least seemed better than just being in a kidless situation while they hung out with adults. But I specifically remember one time when it was not ok. One of my mom's best friend's from college had two boys, nearly matching in age with myself and my older brother. One of those boys who was a year older than me had a kind of roughness in play that I always hated. If we wrestled it was never really as friendly as it was with other boys. He'd distract me and steal my halloween candy. He'd show me "fun" like how it felt to have your wrist skin twisted in opposite directions. None of these sound too bad in retrospect, but at the time he was literally the worst person I knew. My dad was drunk one time, saw the kid picking on me a little too much and spanked the kid. The parents didn't like that, they didn't believe in spanking, and that kind of ended the friendship between the moms. I assume other people have their own sorts of "forced friendship" stories.
I am lucky to not have many of the opposite types of stories of "forced non-friendship". Where some authority figure in your life doesn't like one of your friends for a reason that you don't care about. Maybe that friend's parents aren't rich, or aren't the right color, or they where in the wrong neighborhood. I think I would have rebelled mightily against this, and sometimes when I got a whiff of my parents doing it for my own good with bad friends, it would sometimes make me want to interact with those people more.
In general humans are social creatures and we like to make our social groups as much as possible. We like to pick our allies and close friends, and we like to exclude those we don't get along with. This is the equivalent of "dating" to me. So when people come in and intrude and insist that I must be friends and allies with some set of people, and enemies with another I feel reactively disgusted with their impositions.
The Policy Implications of choosing your own friends.
Some of the anti-immigration people reading this have already picked up on the first story and shouted "aha! you agree with us, I don't want to be forced to associate with immigrants, but that's exactly what progressives are doing with open borders". To some extent, I sympathize, I really do. When every media property must have a diverse cast, when every college insists on affirmative action, and when government positions at the very top are filled based on race and gender. It certainly feels like an example of some of the forced social interactions I hated as a kid. I like to tell progressives to stop doing that, and I do! Stop affirmative action, stop race based quotas, they are bad for just about everyone involved (they are often only good for the charlatans that gain money and influence by peddling race politics).
But doing the opposite of a bad thing, doesn't make that a good thing. The progressives say you must interact and be friends with these people, but the nationalists say you must not interact or be with these people. I chafe at both rules, or the single rule of "I get to decide your friends". Since we cannot have unlimited friendships, and we don't have unlimited options, the rules are two sides of the same coin.
And for all their many advantages, in this one area the progressives are often at a disadvantage. Because enforcing friendships is actually incredibly difficult, and forbidding them is easy. Progressives might want you to be nice to immigrants, but that process can be sandbagged and slowed down at all levels (if you don't think this is true, then I guarantee that you do not know anyone who has tried to legally remain in the united states. It is a pain in the ass.)
The nationalists have had much more success in enforcing non-interaction. Physically getting into the US and other counties has only gotten easier in recent times, simply re-enforcing natural barriers was one of the main ways of forbidding entry in the past. But lately the US government has started to forbid interaction with the people that are already here. E-verify systems for workplaces have popped up everywhere, and e-verify for renting has also started to pop up in some places (its rarely required by law currently, but I'm an eternal pessimist about the expansion of government powers).
E-verify is one of the largest impositions on the market in recent times. DEI rarely says "hire 100% [our favored people]", but e-verify says exactly that. It doesn't matter how much better a foreigner might be as an employee or a renter. You can't hire them. "Can I pay double the cost and pay two employees for the work of one just to satisfy you?" DEI says yes, e-verify says no. And I know e-verify isn't required everywhere for every job currently, but again I'm a pessimist about the expansion of government powers, and so far e-verify has only expanded in scope not shrunken.
cjet79
1yr ago
You are right if course, but I'm pretty sure this philosophy is why sports broadcasting have been haemorrhaging money in recent years. Scratch that, why every form of entertainment has gone to shit in recent years.
Emphasis added by me. If you'd left it at the first sentence I would say I don't disagree or have much of an opinion (since I don't watch sports). I just disagree with the stronger claim that all entertainment has gone to shit.
I would not be surprised if sports is extra shitty, partly because they intentionally put up barriers to entry in order to squeeze every penny they can out of the broadcast rights.
cjet79
1yr ago
I enjoy video games, stand up comedy, podcasts, and youtube videos. Low barriers to entry hasn't stopped enshitification, but new entrants in the art just take over.
cjet79
1yr ago
Meh, its a thing with football itself. A decent portion of the game clock time is spent not playing the game. Not even counting how often it is paused, or that there are long breaks like half time. Whats the camera gonna do during all that break time? Gotta do something, might as well look at the most famous people at the game. As someone who doesn't really care about football or find it super interesting, this has always been a plus for me. I can go to a party where people care about football and still interact with the people that like football for about half the time, and then be on my phone the other half the time.
I was watching the last Chiefs vs Ravens game with someone that was actively annoyed at Taylor Swift coming on screen. They are a political junkie. They work at a think thank. They've been involved with politics for many years. They could probably come up with a multitude of reasons why this is a political annoyance. Wasn't my impression though. They were eager to see the actual game, and any of the interruptions were annoying to them. There are basically only two outcomes for things between football plays: immediately ignoring the thing, or immediately hating it.
The smart ad money should ironically be on the people that don't care about the games at all.
Think about it. You have a football fanatic that is definitely going to watch the game. The TV will be on in a semi public setting. The non-football fanatics will have lost interest in the game very quickly.
The game stop (like it does every thirty seconds). The football fanatic is on the edge of their seat waiting for more action (which usually happens). Everyone else is bored on their phones. The football fanatic is denied their fix (a commercial, or a cut to some celebrity in the stands). The football fanatic exclaims in anger or frustration built up from watching the game. Everyone else is temporarily jerked out of their phones. Boom! Play the ad, get two audiences instead of just one.
One of my favorite ads in recent football memory is for Tide. A laundry detergent. They basically did an aggressive campaign of being a part of every commercial break, and tricking you into thinking it was an ad for a different product. But Tide isn't really a great product to advertise for men watching football. However, its the perfect product to advertise to wives, mothers, and girlfriends who have men watching football.
That is my pet theory for the Taylor Swift ad spots.
cjet79
1yr ago
I went to the Udvar Haazy(sp?) air and space museum in the DC area recently. It was very fascinating to look at the relative sizes and complexity of different generations of fighter jets. The main thing that really struck me about the WWI and WWII planes is just how freaking small they were. The WWI planes definitely seemed like a lawn chair with an engine and some paper wings held together by string. The WWII planes were interesting as a comparison point for the modern fighter jets. They seemed obviously way more sturdy, but also so tiny.
I went and looked this up, but it fit my eyeballing estimates:
The b-17 had a max takeoff weight of about 32 tons. The F-15 had a max takeoff weight of 33.5 tons. An empty b-17 is heavier, and so its the average b-17. Compared to the Grumman F8F Bearcat (WWII fighter plane) with a max takeoff weight of 6.5 tons.
cjet79
1yr ago
There are material costs, and then there engineering/design costs.
I think one of Musk's original reasons for going into the space game was that he realized material and engineering costs for rockets should be comparable to airplanes, but rockets were way more expensive. So presumably there was room for a lot of improvement either on the material or engineering side.
cjet79
1yr ago
I feel an overwhelming sense of "so what" upon reading this.
It has an intense feeling of navel gazing. And while I am not wholly opposed to navel gazing, I'm usually only interested in reading it when the navel gazer has proven very interesting in other subject areas. I go to check your profile and see if you were someone I read much in the past, and lo and behold your entire history is deleted. You are actively and intentionally a nobody in reputational terms on this website.
Why? The only post left remaining is one about leaving reddit and making it more of an echo chamber.
cjet79
1yr ago
Quoting an AAQC from someone else who commented here and then subsequently chose to delete it:
Don't speak in venues where you don't want to be heard. If you're banned, leave. The same goes, especially so, for reddit - you can stay outside and watch the little fishes flit about, but joining them for a swim is forbidden. Nonetheless, it's still possible to cast stones in from outside of the community and observe how the ripples propagate through it. After all, it is a "hive-mind."
The message of reddit is no longer the actual thoughts of its users: it's the message of reddit as medium - that is, a highly restrictive diet of information curated by those wanting to impose a particular reality tunnel on its users. By banning cogent rebuttals to its own view of the world, and elevating vigorous affirmations of the same, it creates the semblance of public discourse where there truly is none - only distorted, exaggerated angles and highlight reels that present a particular perspective, an optical illusion of sorts. A warped, fish-eye lens of discussion.
Participating in such media only lends credence to the illusion that "everyone is there" and that these "discussion forums" actually represent a healthy and diverse range of views. Surely, our stance must be correct, because otherwise someone would have upvoted "the real answer" in the comments? Much better to leave the system to its own designs to make more apparent what it truly is - a false representation, a simulacrum of discourse.
However, I get the feeling that there are many who fear silence and solitude and the inevitable gaps in the (externally visible) narratization of their selves this creates (though, watching others attempt to fill in the gaps can be quite illuminating). You have to say something, after all - otherwise, do you even exist, unless you have an active presence, take a stance and a position, on reddit, Twitter, & other fora (it's also interesting to consider this in light of what happens when you have that speech taken from you)?
cjet79
1yr ago
This comment was an antagonistic and low effort reply.
You have been warned and banned for this type of thing before:
- https://www.themotte.org/post/739/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/155911?context=8#context
- https://www.themotte.org/post/805/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/173812?context=8#context
- https://www.themotte.org/post/805/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/173836?context=8#context
3 day ban.
cjet79
1yr ago
This comment was an antagonistic and low effort reply. Warning you not to do this.
cjet79
1yr ago
Privacy is obviously important. I don't want some rando, or worse, some personal enemy to rifle through my all of my digital data looking for ways to harm me. But the abstract privacy concern takes the form of a Motte and Bailey between the two. Google, Facebook and friends mostly act on your private data in the aggregate, but the privacy advocates generate worry that your intimate conversations or pictures are being personally viewed.
There is a very thin line between "enemies" and "neutrals" when it comes to protecting your digital privacy, its one irreversible data exchange away from belonging to both of them.
I generally don't take too many steps to protect my own privacy, because I consider it a lost cause. If some enemy wants to go after me I'm pretty sure I'm fucked. Because enough "neutral" parties have collected enough data on me that is only loosely protected. There is a certain point where tech savvy adults have this realization about their online activities. "Oh shit, all of this stuff in aggregate could totally be used against me and fuck me over." Plenty of them react by trying to lock down the data about them. I don't think I blame them for that reaction, even if I kind of agree with you that this is a pointless endeavor. Its a bit of a horror show to realize how quickly an unscrupulous asshole could fuck over your life.
I work in web-development and GDPR has been a huge annoyance. I think its brought us closer to a Balkanization of the internet. Many large companies in the US were able to comply with the regulations, many small companies weren't. The obvious choice for the small companies was just to stop offering services to Europe. At some point the inter region disparities in law could force even the big companies to pull out. I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. Let each country or region have the internet it deserves based on the laws they impose on it. The sophisticated users will resort to using VPNs (at least until those get fully banned).
cjet79
1yr ago
But where do you find friends?
Anywhere and everywhere. If you have an excuse to talk with someone its a potential avenue of friendship.
College, work, rec sports, neighbors, friends of friends, non-profit work, etc.
Some cheat codes:
- Try and just be friends with at least one super social person, and then piggyback off their many friendships. I'm currently lucky to have a set of super social next door neighbors. We've met quite a few other people through them.
- Volunteer to help an organization's recruitment. Its painful if you are an introvert. But it gives you an active excuse to be friendly and approach people. As a guy this matters, because it removes some creep factor.
- Rec sports are great, especially team ones. Nothing builds to easy social interactions faster than some physical competition or team work with others.
cjet79
1yr ago
Would it still get dinged if I balanced it by saying the far left could probably do something similar?
You'd get double dinged.
Do you think Arjin's post down below also violates the rules? It's basically the mirror inverse of mine, but I notice you haven't modded it like you've modded mine.
It wasn't reported. But even if it had been I probably would have approved it. I quoted three sentences from you. The first sentence I quoted is what Arjin said a mirror inverse of. But your first sentence was mostly quoted for context. The next two sentences were the bad parts, and I don't think Arjin said anything like those.
That's basically what the election loss denialism came down to.
Some words/phrases aren't really good for fostering discussion. They are more about denigrating people you disagree with. In general use phrases that people would use to describe themselves, or if you don't like those phrases (which is common) try to use a neutralish term. And if you don't think there is a neutralish term, be prepared to defend the use of an aggressive/denigrating term.
Why let evidence get in the way of vibes and dunking on the outgroup!
Along with the previous denigrating term in the last sentence this sentence is basically saying "these people suck".
cjet79
1yr ago
There is little discourse that strikes me as stupider and less informed by these sorts of takes on "locker room culture" and male spaces.
A little too antagonistic. This isn't a locker room, we have norms of politeness here. You can defend locker room norms, but calling the attacks on them "stupid" is not really in line with what we expect.
cjet79
1yr ago
Nowadays, Trump could probably murder someone on live TV and a majority of the Republican voters would say he didn't do it. That's basically what the election loss denialism came down to. Why let evidence get in the way of vibes and dunking on the outgroup!
This is a bit too boo-outgroup.
cjet79
1yr ago
I've paradoxically kept my fun on a tight leash and never let it get too far away from me. I've dealt with some mild depression all my life, and fun is usually one of the only cures that works.
The key thing has always been friends. Finding and maintaining friendships has to be a full time priority (and keep a strong preference for IRL friends over virtual friends). Family can count towards this, but they should be a bare minimum. I'm also saying this as an introvert. I get exhausted hanging out with people too often. But friends once a week or every other week is still very important.
The things you do with friends matters less, but it should be something playful. And I mean "playful" in a very specific way. Slightly directed activities, loose goals, new situations. The goal here is to stimulate your brain and your body in new and unexpected ways. Playing a sport rather than going to the gym. Engaging in conversation and banter, rather than watching a show together. Visiting a new place rather than the same old haunts. It is best if these situations make you a little uncomfortable. Afterwards always try and have a story to describe the experience and sell it as something that was fun. You can tell these little stories to your parents and make them happy to still be in your life. Or just tell them to yourself. Either way you it will help you seal the memories as fun things you did. Even if they were not all that fun (those stories can be sold as, "well at least I know to never do that again!"). Over time you will train yourself to look for those fun stories, and to enjoy them even more in the moment.
Having fun in life and being happy in a fulfilled way is a long term project. Quick fixes exist, but those suffer from falling prey to the hedonic treadmill effect. Start finding friends and start making stories now. It might not feel like it is paying off for a while. But this problem you are feeling will not magically go away in a decade, it will only get worse.
If you want to hop on a video game with me and chat I'm available, you know my discord.
Ah yes, I'm not really a fan of democracy. But arguably any form of government is the end of libertarianism. Dictatorships can obviously be bad for libertarianism, but also some of the best examples of libertarian experiments are from dictators peacefully surrendering power. Oligarchies can become stagnant and instead of choosing to support vibrant market competition can decide to crush it in order to maintain their own power.
Libertarianism is when power is not exercised through governments and force, or when it is at least minimally exercised. The alternative avenues of exercising power are through persuasion/ideas, wealth, and social pressures. The three modes of government dictatorship, oligarchy, and democracy all line up with one of these methods taken to an extreme. They usually use government and force to reach into the areas where they are not as strong. Athens (democracy) killed Socrates (persuasion), and voted themselves the (wealth) of other. Feudal systems (Oligarchy) demanded loyalty from a warrior class (persuasion), and cheap labor from a peasant class kept down by religion and their peers (social pressures).
More options
Context Copy link