Critics are out in force, arguing that...the state sabotaged the program by not efficiently distributing treatment resources to addicts... I do sympathize that better public services and addiction resources that people actually trusted would help
Object level conversation already lengthy below, but want to take this in a tangent... about this reverse moral proscriptive perspective of government. It's not quite horseshoe theory because it inverts around pure liberalism.
On the one side, you have this idea that the government can prohibit or regulate certain behaviors. Rules against drugs, prostitution, gambling, buying alcohol on Sundays, etc. have traditionally existed within a concept of appropriate government power. These things may be associated with social conservatism, but more broadly the whole range of government's regulatory power is not broadly understoods as allowed only narrowly through a liberal perspective but as a (varyingly constrained) right of the democratic government to govern.
In the middle you've got a liberal ethos, where we should be maximizing personal freedom, only intervening where it threaten's another's freedom. Here most government regulation would be understood as only justified through protecting freedoms.
But then you get to the other side where you allow behaviors but demand socialized payments for the costs of those behaviors. Here the idea is flipped from the right to regulate to the obligation to provide additional services. Instead of saying, 'hey you can't gamble" to the gambler, we say, "hey, you have to subsidize the externalities of his gambling" to his neighbor. The druggy has the right to drugulate, but I don't have a right to not pay for the addict's access to hotlines, resources, etc (let alone the costs I have to pay for the infrastructural externalities).
I'm struggling to find the right words to describe this framework, but it's definitely a phenomenon.
And I want to add that very rarely would any individual be maximally inside one of these three frameworks across their political beliefs, but rather it's about the proportion and scope. All forms of general welfare do exist inside of this third frame, but it's traditionally seen as something to be limited and something that ideally comes from true disadvantage and need, not as a ballooning response to greasing self-destructive 'freedoms'.
To go full circle:
I do sympathize that better public services and addiction resources that people actually trusted would help
I completely disagree, and this is a runaway bad idea. If you want to make something legal / unregulated, then it stops being the government's job to prop it up against it's bad effects. Leave that to charity and NGOs.
If drugs are illegal, then I'm all for also pouring tons of money into helping people who use them. I'm all for a flexible justice system that can substitute help and supervised second chances for punishment and imprisonment. But if drugs are legal, then suck it up and use your freedoms responsibly. Don't demand the rest of the public to pay for the government to be the 'cool parent' who bails you out for the rest of your life.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
So, separate a couple things out.
-
The fact that she was deviant and horney and naive enough to do this, is certainly a flag. "Youthful indiscression" is a bit of a euphemism or handwave or cope, because most youths don't make that kind of indiscression. I would be wary that this kind of outside-the-norm behavior is not some isolated trivia but representative of unreliable behavior traits that could be easily avoided in most other women. I'd be curious whether, aside from this she really is super normie now and what exactly that means. Sex norms and appetite vary widely with young women.
-
What's exactly her disposition now? Does she find prostitution morally wrong? (does Bob)? is this a repentance situation or a "not for me" scenario? These are very different starting points. Has she done actually 'work' to change? Has she had a transformative epistemic outlook, or was it more like, whoops! that went to far, etc? Would she disapprove of her daughter doing the same? If she's "reformed" and frames her past perspective as a moral failing and a cautionary tale, I'd probably leave it alone with Bob. Sinners deserve forgiveness. If she's still open-minded and women's choicy about it, but it's just not for her... I'd really talk Bob out of this one.
-
On a personal, disgust level, yeah I wouldn't personally be able to handle it. It's possibly worth mentioning that to 'normalize' the disgust reaction and give Bob an out to interrogate whether he's accurately evaluatoin his own. But I wouldn't take it to far.
In sum, the current nature of her today and her position on her past mistakes is super important to judge the context. Plenty of people are repentant of their past and it's good that they find people who can forgive them. Other people get fucked by overlooking severe lapses in discernment. Overall, I'd consider how she feels about prostitution in general today as more important than what's she's done in the past. Based on what you've written it's impossible to tell which is which here.
If forced to choose, I'd rather marry a hardcore born again trad-wife who stood firmly against sexual misconduct but had dabbled in the past and repented than a progressive minded virgin, who was outspoken about the right to sex work and rejected sexual prohibitions as patriarchical and unjust.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I believe this in many cases, but it is overstated. Dog HBD is real... And some early life traumas like premature mother separation don't seem overcomeable imo
iprayiam3
1yr ago
+1 to @AhhhTheFrench. We had a high anxiety dog like that who had been poorly bred and separated from his mother too early. Lots of expensive training, lots of systems. Nothing really fixed it.
We tried drugs, and it made him no less anxious but essentially drunk. He'd run into walls. Had to rehome him once we had kids.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
It seems much easier for Satoshi to simply also have a second (or third fourth and fifth etc) wallet with enough millions in it that there's no need to touch the original for most values of living large.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Every month I begin to see some of my female friends and acquaintances, generally middle-upper class women, getting married and having children (age=27 - 32). After the birth their social profiles become typical of a mother with a child; continuous social media posts of their children, mom's initiatives, kindergardens, lovely picture with their newly wed husbands etc.
I think you're compressing too much into a single life stage. There's no reason to think that the stage of life of newly-weds are much like mothers of babies, are much like mothers of school children. I got married in 2016, we had kids quickly, and my first only entered kindergarten this year. That's almost a decade of life and 80% of my wife's time out of college, to sweep together into one motion.
I wouldn't expect being newly married to change much at all, compared with having children, so mixing those two together seems confounding to whatever effect you're noticing. As a mother of 3, she has nothing in common from a 'stages of life' perspective with newly weds. I would consider a newly married woman to be much more similar to a single woman than to a mother.
If your pool of new moms is too small to notice a trend without also including newlyweds or mothers expecting, then I suspect you don't have enough data beyond an anecdotal impression. If the trend actually reverses or moderates if you look at only mothers, or only mothers of children older than 3, then there's your answer. If the trend seems just as strong without newly weds, then I see no reason to combine them in your observation.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Reminds me of an observation I read, probably shared on Reddit:
One day, your parents picked you up and put you down, and then never picked you up again
That hit me in the feels dawg
When my son was younger he liked me to play this game with his stuffed animals with him. Once it hit me profoundly that one day it would be the last time we played it. For a little while I was really conscientious to play it with him, but you know, you forget.
Anyway, 2-3 years later he still asks me to play and the game has simply evolved with his age. My misjudgment on the fleeting finality of a part of our relationship helped take the edge of this sentiment overall.
It's still sad and life is short and you don't get the stages back and all that. But.. life's a series of concentric circles that slowly bend into and inside of and around one another more than it being a line with checkpoints.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I get it... It's sad because she didn't give him any grandchildren, right?
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Buy a very cute dog of a smart breed, and train him to, on a subtle cue, 'accidentally' get the leash tangled around a woman and her dog. Then take him to a crowded park / trail and troll for hotties.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I can tell you the honest perception of my in-laws, is simply that Trump did a very good job as president the first time, and would have 'gotten the job done' if he had a second term.
They believe that he did build the wall, and did deliver on every other promise. Even arguments that he tried to deliver on X but the deep state stopped him, have been met with an insistance that he did deliver and that he will be smarter against the deep state this time around. There's no hatred here, there is percieved in justice, but that's not the driving force for them, and you could call it personal loyalty, to a degree but in their minds it's loyalty to a job well done. My in-laws beleive that Trump delivered a great first term and that the following are true: Trump:
- built the wall, and was well on his way to fixing immigration until Biden
- fought valiantly against lockdowns and Covid authoritarianism
- appointed good judges
- gave us the best economy
- kept us out of foreign wars
- had great foreign policy
- started to drain the swamp (I'm not 100% sure how hard they would go on this point)
Some of those things are more true than others. But to answer your question, I think some of voting for Trump is simply believing he was a known, great president, and while I think that's wrong, it doesn't need a completely different explanation.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
are early alert pregnancy tests creating a problem of people being upset over miscarriages they would never have been certain they had before?
We're expecting our fourth. When she was trying, she (probably) had a very early miscarriage that, to your point would have been just a slightly late period and never known. My wife got more bummed about it than I had expected.
But I will hypothesize that rather than your friend having a bruised ego about ease of conception, it's probably something more like the actualization of her existing child and observable uniqueness projects more intensely on the 'what could have been' of the miscarriage.
I think you're more intensely aware of, 'this is a unique, non-fungible individual'.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
My parents homeschooled several of my siblings (but not me). My sisters homeschool their children. It's all mostly unschooling. And the kids /adult so far have developed completely comparably with (occasional knowledge gaps here and there). My son is in school, but can do mathematical laps around his cousins a few years older than him. He didn't learn that in school, he's just precocious mathematically. I honestly think schooling mostly doesn't have a large variance on the average in terms of well-rounded development. It can have differences in social development and on the margins of any specific subject. The more you focus on outcomes based on subject matter, or social grease, the more I think schooling will have an observable statistical effect. The more you look at broad variance of human development, the less, imho
Not buying it. That's an extremely idiosyncratic and unituitively gerrymandered way to describe it.
Are you suggesting that polyamorous refers to the relationship model and the relationship model alone?
People describe themselves as polyamorous all the time. Proportionally moreso than people explicitly identify themselves as monogamous. So we've got 3 options
- The word polyamorous should now have an extensively different definition when describing a person as when describing their relationship.
- People identifying as polyamorous should fit Aella's definition.
- People identifying as poly are essentially stating they are looking for a poly relationship via Aella's defintion
#1 upends the idea of "clean" defintions proving my point, #2 makes your objection moot, and #3 is observably false. The central concept of a person looking for a poly relationship, is not general permissiveness that the other person might seek outside relationships. (Yes some people have a cuck fetish, but that's not 1:1 being polyamorous and it's not even what Aella's defintion describes)
You might further object then, that the polyamourous person is seeking a reciprocal relationship of Aella's model defintion. But
4 Aella didn't describe reciprocally in her definition. She used you pronouns, which linguistically imply a personal defintion not a relational definition.
The definition of 'polyamorous' that I find cleanest, for me, is not forbidding your partner from having extra-relationship intimacy. should be:
The definition of 'polyamorous' that I find cleanest, for me, is not forbidding eithe partner or "one or both partners".
Describing it as your partner makes the claim that it's describing a relationship rather than a person suspect.
Regardless, even if Aella just used poor wording, her defintion isn't described reciprocally, so again should we take it as implied or not necessary. If not necessarily reciprocal, then we're back to the issue with #3. The "cleanest" way of defining something doesn't even capture the core part of what many people are looking for in a poly relationship.
5 If it is necesasrily reciprocal, beyond Aella not describing it that way, it's now fails to capture many actual polyamorous configuirations. Is 'mormon style' polygamy now not polyamorous? Or even worse, the girlfriends who have only the one partner are technically polyamorous, but the man with multiple partners technically isn't? This is a very backwards definition.
At the end of the day, wouldn't it be much cleaner, to, instead of hi-jacking polyamorous to mean something ideosyncratic, describe the relationship model with the already existing word, "open relationship"?
No? Because Aella isn't describing an open relationship, she's producing nonsense.
The definition of 'polyamorous' that I find cleanest, for me, is not forbidding your partner from having extra-relationship intimacy. It doesn't matter if they're acting on it or not, it doesn't matter if you don't feel like banging anybody else, as long as your partner could go have sex/love someone else if they wanted, then to me, that's polyamory.
I'll try to respond to more of your post later, but this definition is just nonsensical to the point that I can only assume it intentionally throws mud in the water.
Defining an orientation or proclivity based on non-nullifcation of your partner's activity is such an unintuitive and messy way to approach it. If you're not defining polyamory by what you like/do, you're not offering an honest definition. Aella is obfucating and virtue signalling, by trying to frame the core of polyamory about generosity toward others' preferences, not one's own.
Imagine if I said that the cleanest definition of being a fan of action movies is not vetoing your partner/friends from choosing an action movie on movie night. It doesn't matter if they like action movies or not, it doesn't matter if you don't feel like picking action movies when it's your turn to decide, as long as your partner could pick an action movie if they wanted, then to me, that's being a fan of action movies.
Does that defintion make any fucking sense? it's hard to be interested in engagement past such a goofy and self-serving opener.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
To be clear, the spinelessness (perhaps the wrong word) I speak of is strictly that he's too tempted by the upside of Trump losing on lawfare that he dances around outright condemnation of what's happening and won't put any skin into fighting with 'Trump' against this.
Like in a recent interview responding to Vivek pledging to remove himself from Colorados ballot, he made a comment to the effect of ' hey I'm going to compete on every ballot I can, whether or not Trump makes it on. That's the name of the game'
This is effectively admitting to 'playing' the rigged game. Ron appearing on a ballot that Trump doesn't is literally the name of the Democrats' game. It's not the name of the fair primaries game.
I loathe Trump, but Ron's refusal to do more to stand in solidarity against the Democrat bullshit reveals him as a flake, if his Ukraine flip-flop hadn't already.
I would still vote Ron over Trump all day on abortion conviction alone and for every other reason. But I'm now backing Vivek. (Not that it matters anyway.)
iprayiam3
1yr ago
In real life, I don't know anyone who has said anything positive out loud about Haley. Though in real life, people around me barely talk about the primaries. Of the people I know the opinions of, I'd say about 1/2 are in the tank for Trump and the other half went from really liking DeSantis to simply favoring him.
I've personally moved from strong support to DeSantis to planning to vote Vivek. Vivek says outrageous stuff and it didn't work on me until I couldn't avoid any longer contrasting it with Ron's complete spinelessness and clear hopefulness that D shenanigans will give him an unearned victory over Trump, consequences be famned
iprayiam3
1yr ago
This guy did not only risk 50k. He invested several thousand a month throughout. 8k/month in 2022 and 12k/month in 2023
iprayiam3
1yr ago
for example, take $50k and park it into 3x tech funds and make $500k as one guy on Reddit did[ 1]
That's not exactly what happened there. Guy kept investing throughout: 8k/month in 2022 and 12k/ month in 2023 (and by implication, several thousand amonth before that as well). He did not just park 50k.
So if the guy started the 2022 with more than 113k (and we have no clue how much investment it took to get here, except that this is down from a high) He could have piled in 200k from 2019 to get to 113. For the next half a year, he kept losing money, WHILE piling in 8k/ month for half a year. But from 2022 to the end of 2023, he's contributed 240k plus his >113k starting point. So over 2 years he invested 353k+ to get to 537k. Still a FANTASTIC gain in 2 years, but not remotely parking 50k as you suggest.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I don't disagree but what are some examples outside of engineering? Boring legal work?
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I very strongly feel that he should be unbanned until after the Hock. It's less than two months, and while he was pretty one note, it's not like he was trolling or wrecking havoc at large. In this one weird scenario, he's put enough real world skin in the game to be given a bit of leniency for a month and a half.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Well, I mean the former two adjectives. I didn't describe it correctly in one word. She still liked him, but in a completely changed way. The doting disappeared.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
This is pretty wild, but from my own experience a woman's pet love really ramps up when she starts getting 'ready for kids' and diminishes when the kids arrive.
My wife needed a dog when we got married (we had never even discussed it before). That dog was the world to her up to the day we came home from the hospital with a baby. Then it was just a nuisance to her.
My feelings towars the dog meanwhile never changed: he was always my bud and never a surrogate kid.
But in your case yeah shes going overboard, it's not normal and so I'm hesitant to tell you to shrug it off. But I'd also put money on the probability that it's related to her biological clock firing in weird ways.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
What made you decide to delay giving notice? Not that you're obligated to, either legally or morally, but with the human interests that you're describing, I would think it's the best approach unless you feared retaliation or early termination. Thinking about that a bit, I think my own feeling would be that if I didn't believe the company would engage in good-faith end-date timing with me, I wouldn't feel all that bad about them getting screwed over a bit and wasting everyone's time.
It's a bit of this, and a bit of wasn't sure on the exact timing of the next opportunity. I knew that it was time to leave, and planned to be out by a given time, but there was uncertaintly on both sides of the equation.
In terms of fear of retaliation, yeah. There's been a lot of instability in my current org right now, which is part of why I started making plans to leave. I already had one teammate who was clearly pushed out so they could reclaim her headcound. My fear was that if I had said, Hey I'll be out at the end of the year, they could have (reasonably) come back with, "No, why don't you finish up what you can in the next two weeks."
Then I would have been out ~2 months of pay this year.
Help me understand more clearly why this is 'deluded'? it might be wrong but deluded? You talk about your clients' poor theory of mind later, but don't offer any reason why, in their shoes they should know and beleive that you work just as hard for clients you believe are guilty.
I know it is a light hearted article, but the whole spirit of sneering and literal anecdotes of mockery and sarcasm with these people is good evidence that you might treat them psychologically differently. Maybe you really really would never work a little harder, polish a little more, fight a little better for a client you were sympathetic too, but that hardly seems deluded to assume.
When I recieved a serious speeding ticket, which I beleived was somewhat in err, the exact thought was in my mind as I debated how to discuss it with lawyers. Yes, yes, they're all going to fight for me to get out of it, and yes it's routine boring shit. But with even a chance of outcome unpredictability in the air, and knowing that I won't be there when the lawyer negotiates with the DA, is it really, not just incorrect but 'deluded' to wonder whether the lawyer, who's not getting any bonuses for better outcomes here, might advocate a little better for me if he likes me? (also I, a PhD, wasn't 100% confident exactly what the rules were about incriminating yourself to your lawyer. I can only imagine some level of lingering uncertainty with an uneducated criminal, especially if their lawyer talks to them with sarcasm and playful mockery that goes over their head.)
Even if that's not a conscious thought, we all want to ingratiate ourselves to people who hold some sort of power over us. You might see yourself as 'working for' this guy, but every time I interact with a doctor, a mechanic, or much less often a lawyer, I have a strong pang of recognition that my outcomes are somewhat at the mercy of this busy stranger's scruples. I become over eager to prove myself worthy of their esteem and extra consideration. Is it stupid and often counterproductive, sure. But your sneering about it to strangers on the internet only reenforces my perception that professionals are contemptuous of a lot of the pleebs they have to boringly 'serve'.
More options
Context Copy link