This is horrible. Putting any child younger than 3 years into such a facility is equivalent to putting them part-time into orphanage. Infants and toddlers do not have emotional regulation to handle that and they need regular skin-to-skin contact with mothers and to lesser degree with fathers. Otherwise they can develop similar symptoms to those of institutionalized children with all the baggage - learned helplessness, closing into their internal world as they know outside help is not coming even after hours of crying etc.
Agreed, there is moderate social stigma around putting children younger than 3 years into any facility (as it should be in my opinion). During socialism, there was a program for daycare for children 1-3 years old called jasle - and they still exist, but are generally frown upon. There is also incentive structure put in place where the government provides assistance to stay-at-home mothers up until the child is three years old, which gets cut if the mother returns to work or the child is put into daycare. Preschool is generally accessible only for children three years old or older with some rare exceptions.
"Jews being in power" wouldn't mean anything unless you believe they are specifically serving Jewish interests to the detriment of non Jews.
Yes, there are a lot of arguments around that, for instance like arguments related to pro-Israel foreign policy, which is more specific interest in line with US Jewish diaspora as opposed to general public interest.
This is also nothing new, there are a lot of politicians who promote their ethnic, religious or tribal interests over general interest. This is the whole point of contention with identity politics - be it black leaders promoting policies like reparations from white people, native American leaders clamoring for various concessions or even feminists requiring sex-based privileges like sex based quotas in various institutions etc. What's strange with saying that and why should Jews be exception? If disproportionate number of key government positions would be held by Ilhan Omar and Somalis, I would not find it strange that they would promote pro-Islam or pro-Somali policies.
I am not sure what you want to say here. Let's use another example: Would you say that there is a difference between saying "The people in power in San Francisco are progressives" and "Progressives are the people in power in San Francisco"?
I think this phrasing is used all the time. It is absolutely okay to say that let's say that MAGA movement is now in power, while also acknowledging that not all MAGA members - even those living in trailer parks - are in power. What is your point?
georgioz
24d ago
Agreed. Actually the first link about Oprah contains another 22 celebrities promoting childless lifestyle. This push definitely exists.
I think this depends on what you view as "role model". Would you for instance say that Andrew Tate is a role model? Even if I disagree with his prescriptions, I would definitely agree that he is a role model for large number of young men, even though he is incessantly criticized from left and right, often more from especially socially conservative right. But in my eyes he is still a role model influencing millions of young men toward his vision of society, manhood and masculinity. It is the same here with what the OP talks about. A carefree hermit surfer/pineapple gatherer is in this case a role model for sizeable chunk of population despite the fact that people like you criticize it.
The key issue here is that it is hard to criticize any of this from the standpoint of prevailing culture that puts individual rights, personal and body autonomy on the pedestal. It is almost impossible to mount effective counteroffensive against these alternative lifestyles. What if somebody wants to work part time and pour his attention toward his hobbies and enjoying his life? He is just living his life and he can leverage the modern live and let live ehtos in the same way this ethos is used to defend all sorts of now normalized alternative lifestyles such as childlessness or DINK life.
Except that every single number you can think of related to marriage or motherhood is going to shit. Just name it: divorce rate, support of abortions, childlessness rate, age at marriage/first child, rate of single mothers and everything else. I can even grant you that "society expects" something from women - except they don't listen and do their own thing apparently. No role models involved, women just adopted these changes from ether.
georgioz
26d ago
The dynamic is that someone (like JD Vance) attacks the childless cat women as destroyers of society, then others defend them, and that defence appears to some as if the childless cat women are being elevated into heroes.
This is weird - are we not arguing that childless cat women by choice are destroyers of society? This was argued since time immemorial, the only difference is that nowadays the defense of this lifestyle has more success.
georgioz
26d ago
You have number of adcovates for childlesness: Oprah Winfrey, Jennifer Aniston, Helen Mirren and many more. You have people promoting DINK lifestyle, there is large number of feminist journals and magazines promoting childlessness.
No, 40 year old childless cat ladies are not viewed positively.
Yes, if you did not notice, the childless career woman was the latest democratic candidate for presidency. There is growing acceptance or removing of stigma for number of topics related to child rearing, marriage and other traditional duties of women during last few decades - be it acceptance of childlessness, popularity of DINK movement, acceptance of single mothers or growing support for abortion. It is all wrapped up as celebration of personal freedom, autonomy and individualism.
georgioz
26d ago
I don't even know how to properly address the "science" question that people seem to want to throw at religious people as a Catholic. There is nothing in Catholicism which is incompatible with wanting to pursue science and we Catholics would consider scientific inquiry a good thing. The big bang, evolution, whatever els, etc. these things are all not just "allowed" within the doctrine, but encouraged.
I absolutely agree. In fact I would even argue that Christian/Catholic science is actually the most genuine one, in fact Thomas Aquinas was famous adherent of empiricism with claim that truth cannot contradict truth - meaning that if truth of Faith and truth of Reason are in contradiction, it means either faulty reasoning or incorrect interpretation of scripture.
I would argue that this view of truth is crucial for scientific endeavor as they promote true and free research even if it is let's say supposedly against some religious dogma. In this sense Catholic science is much freer than let's say Soviet Science or often even modern ideological progressive science which is much more heavy with (self)censorship.
There seems to be a revival of non-religious conservativism, often called as Cultural Christianity. One such example is for instance Carl Benjamin AKA Sargon of Akkad - a self declared atheist who nevertheless is socially conservative, and lately even started going to church on Sunday. This is also very common for Jews, as judaism is more open to legalistic forms of worship, but I also find it quite common right now amongst former atheists.
It may also be one of the reasons why Orthodoxy is now on the rise, as they have more space for orthopraxy/lived theology/theosis as eventually leading to redemption as opposed to Catholicism and other churches, which put faith above all else.
georgioz
26d ago
It’s not some new thing caused by the awfulness of modern women
I am not sure. In the past being a spinster/old maid was considered as negative. Nowadays 40 years old childless women are viewed as empowered role models. This is by definition two sides of the same coin - for every solitary woman there is a solitary man. The only difference is social stigma - seasonal worker who earns just enough to survive is still viewed negatively as if it is his own character flaw, while for women it is either empowerment if they like it or they are victims of society if they are femcels. If you normalize antisocial female behavior, it automatically impacts men who are supposed to be in relationship with those women. Of course it also applies the other way around, so the genders can blame each other in vicious spiral. Welcome to modern gender relationships.
georgioz
27d ago
Trucks still have legal limit of 45 seconds to overtake each other even in Germany. Which of course can seem like a lifetime for impatient people on the highway.
Also a bit related to #5, commercial trucks should not be cutting smaller vehicles off, with or without signaling, ever, and I do have a lot of sympathy for people who speed up into their spaces to avoid having stuff flung into their windshield from a poorly secured truck, even hay is pretty annoying, but the gravel trucks have big signs saying "not responsible for cracked windshields," and indeed it's pretty hard to prove to the police. I once had a crowbar fly off a truck and impale my windshield, nearly killing the front passenger.
This is a result of stupid regulation - at least in EU - where truck drivers are subject to constant surveillance where their telemetry is recorded an they have to show it to random inspection at any time. Also they have different speed limits depending on cargo, mostly between 80 to 90 km/h on highways. Additionally they have strict limits when it comes to maximum time they can drive and how much rest they need to have regularly. If you are a truck driver who is stuck behind another truck driving 6 miles per hour slower, in the end this may end up with you not reaching your destination today, meaning being stuck on a highway for extended time and not making it home.
Also I am not the truck driver, but have some respect for them. They make our society work especially in times of Amazon and international trade. I think it distasteful for people to get angry at them, when it is the rules that makes their lives shitty.
Also, a lot of this could be resolved by increasing stupid 70mph speed limit (113km/h) on highways to 80 or 85 as in Europe, so you can catch up if you are inconvenienced for 30 seconds behind a truck or other vehicle.
Why do you care about what he cares about? So what if somebody has a chat about poor body hygiene of somebody else - what is it to you? Do you often go around snooping on conversations you are not interested in, so you can deliver some petty sermons about the fact, that you do not like their conversations and that they should talk about something else?
I learned about it from tweet by Yudkowsky, his defense got pretty bizzare at some point. I think he said that he sniffed Aella and she does not stink or something like that. Bunch of other people also tweeted some platitudes about how Aella is amazing, or how bad it is that she has to go through all this when she was molested as a child etc.
georgioz
1mo ago
Agreed. I bet that any famous personality has ton of haters no matter what side they are on be it Destiny or Joe Rogan or Hasan Piker or Tim Pool. Some of these people read out loud their hate male for fun from time to time, or they just describe what is happening - e.g. Tim Pool is swatted every couple of weeks and hate is through the roof. I don't think it is good, but it is part of what is going on. Why should it be different for women.
georgioz
1mo ago
I tried to drag this board into a conversation about cars. I won’t make that mistake again, but a point of discussion centered around all of them being way less colorful than they used to be..
I am not sure if this proves what you think it does. If you look at the graph, the difference is basically in people selecting white as their color. I am not sure how it is in the US, but the last time when I was shopping for a new car, the white color was for free while everything else was €500 - 1,000 extra. I don't care enough about color to pay that, although I would prefer more vibrant color - if for nothing else then to be more visible on the road for more safety.
georgioz
1mo ago
Him and Trace changed after leaving, kulak changed a lot more but trace did too. There are plenty of alums that are popular on twitter, covfefe anon, cremieuxrecueil (allegedly trannyporn0).
I am a little bit torn on this one. For instance with Trace, I think he is more authentic after leaving his anonymous motte persona, except at least from what I observed he is now more into gay stuff and mormonism - probably stemming more from his personal experience and history. I think he was more interesting in his fictional anonymous personality writing about whatever here on The Motte, when he had to mold himself into The Motte ethos. In a sense rules here are also some sort of algorithm forcing some people into writing style, that may not be natural to them. And they may be better for it.
There are really only a handful of anti-trans people who literally believe people shouldn't be "allowed" to transition.
I think this just cheap consensus building, a semantic trap which rests a lot on what the word "allow" means. Not many people would for instance literally believe, that it should not be allowed for people to drink themselves to death or that they are not allowed to cut off their fingers or any number of other gruesome things. But these arguments would be more in line with thinking that alcoholism or self-harm is bad, and that the society should do everything to prevent it using shaming and other tools. Because any other measure to prevent it would be worse and not really applicable.
But many more conservatives and also liberals would be against let's say having "gender expression" as a protected characteristic in law or having transition being financed by taxpayers.
Yes, that is why I was talking about general attitude. In general men may view loneliness as more problematic, for instance according to Pew research 57% of 18-34 men compared to 45% of women want a family. That is why I previously mentioned that men are more likely to see loneliness as a bad thing and approach it from despair, while women may view loneliness as an empowerment and something they want.
I think this goes hand in hand with general trend where men have more societal expectations put on them when it comes to traditional gender roles - strive for high status, provide for and protect your family and your community especially women and children. While for women the gender roles were targets of more attacks, to the extent where some traditional gender duties like motherhood were dropped completely. To even talk about having children as duty for women is viewed as misogyny.
This also informs how the topic is handled - incels are universally reviled as failures of their own character, while femcels are victims of society in general and men in particular at best. But this may also change in the future and men will be more comfortable also dropping the societal expectations - like 40 year old guys just working part time and playing video games completely reneging on social pressure on their behavior, similarly how it is with women now. However I would not see it as cure for loneliness, just more acceptance of shitty situation.
Sure, but then this cuts both ways. In that sense MGTOw man who regularly goes to pub with his colleagues or who plays D&D with his friends or who organizes grill party for his nieces and nephews or who volunteers for summer camps for children is not lonely either.
Of course this can explain only part of the problem, loneliness is something deeper no matter how women or men try to rationalize it. And maybe in current culture lionizing single powerful women it may be easier for women to do that. The word "incel" has much more shame and negative connotation in it compared to femcel. A lonely childless widow may have more social status than lonely childless widower. Nevertheless in some fundamental way they are still lonely.
One statement I've found that cuts across the bipartisan spectrum is 'the internet made us all crazy'.
It may be one of the factors, but not necessarily the primary one. People in the past refused to date or engage with people of other religions or classes. What I think really happened in the past decade, is that for many secular people the politics basically became the new religion - especially for those more radicalized ones. Internet may spread the radicalization more effectively, but the underlying phenomenon is still the same.
Yeah, take any study for results of children in orphanages vs children in intact families. Putting infants and toddlers into daycare is nothing short of part-time orphanage.
This is only partly true, limited to rationalists trying to raise some supergeniuses. Parenting obviously matters especially in negative way - malnutrition, abuse and other negative effects matter very, very much and can have huge consequences. I'd argue that daycare for infants and toddlers is such a case.
More options
Context Copy link