fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
No bio...
User ID: 3415

I guess what I'm trying to understand about your view is why knowing the scale doesn't matter.
Bigger country = need more bombs = less bombs to deter China. Why isn't that important to understand?
I guess you can respond by saying "well we should simply make more bombs", which is correct, but the political party who is more willing to make bombs is currently in power and they're not exactly going hard on increasing defense production (happy to be proven wrong here, I would like USA to be stronger vs China than it is).
If Ted Cruz overplays America's hand due to ignorance, we all suffer
I am actually somewhat in favor of more paternalism, but it's hard to have that not go absolutely fucking sideways
These are logistics, and it is not the place of US Senators to do the logistics work of the US military.
Doing another Ceteris Paribus, I would much rather my elected officials understood the scope/scale of the military conflict they are pre-commiting the military people to executing on.
For a more tangible point, every missile fired at Iran, and every defensive interceptor used to protect American assets against Iran, cannot be used for a war against China. The bigger Iran is, the more of those you will need. T
here is a serious opportunity cost to committing to a war, especially when you are in a cold war with a country that is expanding its military faster than you.
Maybe you think it's more important to smash Iran than be maximally prepared against China, in which case fair enough.
But to confidently say "I don't care if the people in charge of deciding to start a war don't understand basic facts about the scope and scale of the war they're committing us to" I think you should have much higher standards for your elected officials.
I got nothing for that, fair enough
Honestly I ask myself that every time I see a fat person. I have my own shitty habits but that level of self-destruction blows my mind.
Great points
My observations are obviously effected by my biases, you see what you expect
Oh no worries, I was just making sure I wasn't missing anything
You introduced me to the fact you can see gross up/downvotes, you can do no wrong by me on this day
Your points are fair, but I guess to rephrase my point as a question
If Christianity dominated times were so much better (or not worse for women/minorities/whatever) than why does only a rather small portion of western society (a good chunk of the GOP, and tiny fractions of other right-leaning western populations) want to go back?
Why isn't "make $COUNTRY a Christian theocracy again" a winning political strategy?
I'm not here to defend liberalism uncritically. Many issues you illustrate here are 100% correct. Alienation is one of liberalisms most profound legacies (I think this is probably a feature to the elite, not a big).
But I'm not with you on a bunch of them. I'm significantly more free than I would be in basically any other time, and I'm a white straight male, so the delta for literally any other mix and match of traits here is even higher.
I actually have a chance to improve my station in life, which was famously not something peasants did frequently.
I could marry a black woman and not risk her being murdered.
I can say things that piss people off without being ostracized or jailed or killed (although this is steadily getting worse).
I can vote despite not being rich or owning land.
It is easier than ever to literally move around the world, both temporarily and permanently. I'm pretty sure peasants frequently literally weren't allowed to leave? Also if they moved somewhere else they'd just be destitute.
I have no idea what medieval effective tax rates were so I'll defer to you there. I also don't consider taxes to be a horrible burden though. They buy me amazing healthcare, functional infrastructure (which enables a lot), infinite amounts of the cleanest drinking water in human history, much lower chances of dying a violent death, on and on.
Did peasants own land? I assume it depends on time and place but I thought that was the whole point of Lords.
I am quite happy with the quantity and quality of my relationships, but that is something out society is struggling with.
I'm so confident that peasants got drafted. Isn't that what peasant levies were? Did fighting age men get to opt out of wars? If so, why did any go?
I don't consider the quantity of paperwork I do to be a freedom constraining issue in my life lol. Although I used to be an accountant so my bar is low.
I really can't imagine how I'd be more free in basically any time period that isn't now, not excluding the post war boom in North America when life as a western man was straight easy mode
Thank you for articulating my thoughts much better than I was, what a banger
Follow up question now that I can see vote breakdowns, which comment are you referring to with the +18 -24? I assume you mean my response to the ICE question that starts with "It's stupid theatrics."?
I am seeing that as net +21 (+30 -9), is there vote fuzzing or something?
Fair point on opinion vs debate. I did not consider that support for his comment could be both "I am glad you shared an opinion" or "I agree with your opinion".
Asking for what? Or, what was I asking for?
I tried to caveat my comment with "this is the vibe I get" and not "I am confidently saying I know the demographic of this community"
I did not realize you can see the upvote/downvote breakdown, thanks for that.
I really cannot emphasize how much I don't care about internet points lol. Anyone who complains about their downvotes, or brags about their upvotes should be bullied. This website doesn't even have a karma score (thank god) and I think would be better if it removed votes all together. A forum with threaded comments that can only be sorted by new is the ideal design, in my opinion.
Back when I was active on reddit, I made new accounts a few times a year and one of the main reasons for that was to never get attached to a karma score.
There are problems with your comment that should have been fixed
Always open to feedback
That's a great point, under this framework that doesn't really work, but it did happen.
Smoking has lots of negative externalities to those around you, which make it easier to ban I guess? I probably need another coffee to map this onto pre-marital sex.
I think applying the externality logic to pre-marital sex, pre-marital sex has much less obvious (and by definition, delayed by 9 months) externalities. So it's harder to drum up support by pointing to single mom's who may or may not have had sex out of wedlock, versus the person next to you on the airplane making your lungs miserable.
Might have double-negative'd that, idk
True Marxism has never been tried, Comrade!
This is exactly the bit I was riffing on.
I'm firmly in the camp of "both Marxism and Christian ideals have been tried and found lacking". If you think Chesterson is right, but the Marxist fanatics are wrong, I would be curious to see how that gap is bridged.
have better outcomes on a whole host of relevant metrics to the people yearning for Christianity
Unless you were a powerless woman, or a powerless minority, or a powerless person of slightly the wrong proclivity for various things including but not limited to sexual orientation and opinions on celestial mechanics (at relevant times).
I'd posit that if Christianity was the ideal human ideology that caused maximum flourishing, it wouldn't have declined. Or at least the places where it didn't decline would then be much better places (and presumably out-compete) than places where it did.
Again I'm really not whining, I didn't come here expecting it to be a "agrees with me" paradise.
It seems to me like right-leaning ideas are more popular here, which I took a stab at demonstrating. There's also at least enough right-leaning support here to go +15 while espousing violent right-leaning thoughts. If you were at +1, I'd assume ideological balance in the group, if you were at -15, there would clearly more left-leaning voters clicking than right-leaning.
your disapproval genuinely means nothing to me
I expect nothing less! No offense taken :)
I post because I like to hear myself speak, and I like bickering. If I wanted approval for my ideas I'd be on reddit, which I am not. Have a great day!
It was a widely distributed meme when it came out, I didn't generate this. Fair enough though.
I thought it was relevant as it actually does a shockingly good job at illustrating why common folks with AR-15s can still exercise power, despite not having access to tanks or airplanes.
I'm also not kidding, as a Canadian who's always sneered at US gun culture/shootings, reading this a few years ago, especially the final line, "Government is scared of you" basically flipped me from "mildly pro gun but unbothered by new gun restrictions" to "profoundly anti-gun restrictions".
Government should be scared of us, and it's not scared enough these days.
Yeah maybe, at this point we're both vibing given the scope of our discussion (the direction of human civilization).
Human history has been a fairly steady march of increasing liberalism, I think because humans like doing what they want and hate being told what to do. It's open for debate if that's actually been a good thing for us (some ways yes, some ways absolutely not) as a whole. But I have a hard time imagining people wanting to give up freedom and flexibility once they have it.
I could be wrong though, if I was accurately able to predict the direction of entire societies I would be very very rich, and too busy raising children on my private tropical island to post here.
I also added "and unpopular" to my sentence above that you quoted, as it wasn't precise enough before.
I actually agree, Marxism has been tried (and been found wanting). But I also firmly think that Christian ideals have been tried, and that Chesterson is wrong (albeit with great prose). There are 2.6 billion followers of Christianity. The world has been dominated by Christian nations for like ~400 straight years, waning over the last 60.
If someone wants to argue "okay but that wasn't true Christian ideals" than I think they should accept the same position on Marxism.
Sure, we didn't test a society with perfect Christian ideals, but that's what happens when ideals have to map on to real life. The value of an ideal isn't based on the hypothesized textbook perfect form, it's based on the real outcomes once you expose it to human society.
Hey man, I'm not complaining, just observing. I didn't realize this was a common trope here, although that makes sense, /r/stupidpol has been hyperventilating about a right-wing takeover for nearly a decade which has never happened.
My only thought is that I feel like my takes garner more disagreement than agreement (which is why I am here), and none of the disagreement is because my takes aren't progressive enough.
I've actually been trying to expose myself to more right wing thinking. Partially because the left has been pushing me away, partially because I am so bored of echo chambers that agree with me, and finally because it forces me to challenge my ideas, which is good for my brain.
I haven't been around long enough to see any group surveys. My observation is purely vibes.
But you inspired me, so I did a really quick """analysis""" of all (18 at the time of writing) the first-level replies to the ICE question, and this is what I found:
Pro ICE comments: 44% (8/18) comments, with 47% (128/271) of the net upvotes
Middle/I couldn't confidently tell their stance on ICE's current actions comments: 39% (7), with 44% of the net upvotes
Anti ICE comments: 16% (3), with 9% of the net upvotes.
This tracks with my vibes, although is obviously not very comprehensive or rigorous. I note that my impression hanging out here is right-leaning comments do much better than left-leaning ones on average, and it feels independent of comment quality.
Edit, this was weak: You yourself got +15 upvotes saying things that I thought were quite uncool, and very right coded. I was with you for the first half, but "The more pain and terror inflicted in the process" and "I want the fascistcore club music as a squad of red-visored faceless commandos mow down the rioters waving Mexican flags." are things I think should get you disqualified from being taken seriously on the topic. I don't mean that as a personal attack (I'm sure you're a kind person to your friends and loved ones, etc) but holy shit dude, what the fuck? The fact that anyone (let alone a voting majority) agreed with you is a pretty clear demonstration of ideological lean here. If you posted this on reddit (obviously quite left leaning) you'd be at -100 and probably banned to boot.
I should also add, I do understand your anger and frustration, the recent mass-migration into Canada has been deeply upsetting and black-pilling for me. I am not here to debate your opinion on ICE or immigration, I don't care if our beliefs differ.
Chesterton had some bangers, I also thought of a slightly sneer-y remix I'd like to get your thoughts on.
"The Marxist ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried."
If you disagree with this, I'd love to know why?
Yeah fair enough, it's not the greatest argument
I was mostly playing devil's advocate because I found his line of thinking interesting and kind of a funny way to run an idea out to the extreme end
It turns out that it doesn't take a lot of education or healthcare access to drive to Walmart and spend 20 bucks on Plan B.
Yes exactly
Yeah my wording sucked, I was being snarky and pointing out the answer to this question is "it isn't and it failed"
My main point is that it's doubly difficult to analyze how effective various methods could be, given a society that has been pushing for ubiquitous premarital sex for decades.
That's very fair. I'm sure abstinence only sex ed (or other social pressure) would work way better without the sexual liberation movement, etc
I guess I'd also say that kind of supports where I'm going with all this? The cat is out of the bag, society has shifted HARD into embracing pre-maritial non-procreative sex. So any proposal that goes along the lines of "simply undo all that" is pretty unlikely to work.
Maybe we'll have a conservative shift back if Gen Z/Alpha burn out hard on Tinder, idk. But western society has been on a pretty steady clip of "don't tell me what to do" for the past few hundred years, so again, feels unlikely.
Trying to stop single mom's from existing by telling people who aren't moms yet not to fuck is going to result in the exact same number of single moms for at least the next 5-20 years even if the societal shift were vibing about were to happen.
We did a bit of a dosey do here.
I responded to a guy (who I now realize is not you) who was saying "don't have premarital sex" by being snippy, then you responded to my response with something that I actually agree with but was kind of different than what I was saying, so I felt slightly confused and restated what I was going at to clarify.
I don't think society is pushing "don't have premarital sex" , it obviously isn't. My point is that saying something like "our society should push not having premarital sex" is stupid because it doesn't work. It's basically "Santa Clause for Christmas I'd like a pony" level of policy discussion.
It would be better for the first 10-50 years, after that, open question.
Iran is pretty paternalistic and I don't want to live there.
More options
Context Copy link