iprayiam3
11mo ago
It’s interesting that everyone in this thread who’s changed their mind on this direction has also become a regular user.
It kind of undermines the strength of the point
iprayiam3
11mo ago
Maybe, but I think this only works for intentionally superficial interactions.
iprayiam3
11mo ago
This is such a stupid objection. First of all it takes a very small percentage to make a big difference when the total number is big. 20k is big. 20k is astronomical when you're starting pop is 60k.
If 2 Billion Martians landed on earth, and killed 20 million people, I'm not taking solice in the fact that that's only about a 1% murder rate.
Second, again the insane rapid influx of complete cultural and national foreigners is itself massive damage to a local human ecosystem. If I lived in a town of 60k and 20k people almost exactly like me, moved here from across the country without my town's consent in a matter of years, I would still consider it extremely destructive to my town's character.
iprayiam3
11mo ago
Demoralization is saying the community has been destroyed and the place is conquered. That is only so if you believe it is so.
This is silly and relies on the firm beleif that nothing is real. If you live ANYWHERE and your population increase by 33% in a couple of years, from ANY sort of transplant, than any local culture, landscape, services, infrastructure has been irrevocably changed. Maybe one wants to argue that this is a good change and in many cases it is.
But if the dramatic change comes from outside and against the will of the people, wihtout their explicit consultation and approval, they've been 'invaded' so to speak. At least, when it's gentrification, the people who stick around get a better, safer city out of it, and it's generally from their fellow Americans. When it's by true foreigners, it's ridiculous to pretend anything else but invasion.
You can't just absorb a 1/3 population surplus from a completely different country.
iprayiam3
11mo ago
Putting 20k foreigners into your town of 60k is a literal invasion. That community to the extent it exists has been conquered.
I am shocked it hasn’t come to violence.
How do the leaders and police officers sleep at night knowing they’ve cooperated with a complete surrender and probably gotten paid for it too
iprayiam3
11mo ago
Nevertheless, we see him more rarely, and get less quality time with him, than we would if he didn’t have children.
my relationship with them has cratered, partially because the stress of the experience and the extreme impact on their lives made them so stressed-out and insular. It also rendered them somewhat unrelatable to me; what could I possibly talk about with them nowadays?
You under-estimate how lopsided this is from the other side. Sure your brother loves you and would like to spend more time with you, but the tragic loss of extended adolescence, and 'hanging out' with friends and family is a drop in the ocean of purpose and life direction for parents.
The problem I have with these kinds of observations, and those made by childless women is that parents have experienced both worlds, but the childless haven't seen the other side yet. This used to be solved with social obligation, because the other side is scary. But its a transformative way of being that's not fully modellable on the front side.
I have very good friends who do not have kids, who I very much enjoy seeing when I can. Of course the time I spend with them and the overall depth of our friendship had diminished. In a world without time scarcity, sure I'd love to see them more. But in this world, I'm sorry, it's a rounding error. The time I do go out of the way to see them is mostly for them. It's not for me.
iprayiam3
11mo ago
0-1. You need to severely weaken some of the gender-egalitarianism in context and law. We have to be willing to cultural and legally treat motherhood as something unique. 0-2. You have to be ok with the solutoin not being universally fair or an over focus on liberal-egalitarianism. Some people will be losers in a sheme that actually works. Some groups will feel 'marginalized'. (not racial groups, but groups based on sex, gender-identity, and marital status)
- Give extreme tax breaks / financial incentive to married families with children in their 20s. This has to diminish on a curve, so that people are incentivized to start appropriately early. A couple welcoming a child in their 30s should receive less than a couple in thier 20s, all other things equal.
- Married mothers over 21 with children under 5, should receive free college & graduate school tuition.
- Force legal work schemes via incentives for 'mom-time' jobs, that work as an onramp into full time work. An example would be a 20 hour work week with benefits.
- Give married men with stay-at-home wifes financial incentives; Make it not just legal, but encouraged or subsidized to pay family man bread winners more than their childless.
Together, it should be an extremely common and stable path for a woman. Consider this example life path:
A woman meets a husband in undergrad, get married and start having kids in her early 20s while her husband works. The wife takes part time graduate courses for free, and has a secure internship in her desired field. As her second or third child gets out of infanthood, she starts working 'mom-time' in her late 20s. say, 15 hours a week, in her chosen field.
By 32 or so, her third child is in kindergarten and she is working 30 hrs a week with flexibility around picking up her kids etc. By 35 she's working full time and has an entire 29 more years of full time career ahead of her before she starts collecting social security.
iprayiam3
11mo ago
To take this a step back, my wife and I are constantly confused by the married couples who got married without being on the same page beforehand. I understand that things can change (especially from a no to a maybe to a yes).
But watching people start their lives together with a 'we'll see what happens' or even worse (which we've seen) - agree to disagree, is maddeningly self-inflicted strife.
iprayiam3
11mo ago
The fact that RFK is the counter enthusiasm on the R side is sad and desperate. We’re not building enthusiasm anymore to build the wall or drain the swamp or even fight inflation. It’s a crackpot lefty further watering down any sense of conservatism.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I don’t think so. At least not the part I quoted. I don’t have the sensibilities of a libertarian autist. No part of me feels the ‘just a tool’ or ‘licensciousness is freedom’ sensibilities. I’m just a Luddite with learned helplessness.
If I had a magic button I could push that would make all this disappear I wouldn’t shed any tears about lost freedoms or technological progress. But I recognize that authoritarian regulations aren’t magic buttons.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I try not to be too much of a libertarian autist, but I have a hard time not seeing this as a tool which can be misused like any other.
Yeah, my impulses are the opposite of yours. I fully recognize that there's likely no practical way to regulate it, and near certainly no way to regulate it in a way that won't end up worse than the disease, so I have little opinion on what 'should be done'.
But... it still feels completely self-evident to me that the world, society, and human culure is worse for this technology existing. It is what it is, I suppose.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
During the conversation on X between Musk and Trump, they floated the idea of Musk leading a 'government cutting commission' or basically a setup where Musk would come in and cut the fat from the government.
Musk brought it up 3 times, clearly hoping to get something on the record from Trump. It was clearly central goal of Musk's even with a little mini-lecture about inflation planned. Trump dodged a solid answer at all. On the third try the most he said was "I'd love it" to the idea, but not to Musk helping.
I'm not saying it won't happen, but it sounded like a Musk idea that Trump didn't bite on, and it would completely depend on his actual administration.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Sure. agreed. which is why I think she'll ride into November in the basement.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
There's rumor that it was pushed on his side to basically force him out quickly. I think that's plausible, but even the more benign reasoning, concerns about Biden's age related fintess were real, causing him to sink, and needed to be addressed quickly. Biden had already worn his honeymoon for 4 years. Kamala needs to sprint into November from the basement.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I think there's too much unpredictability. I could easily believe Trump crushing Kamala in a debate. I could easily see the opposite. Trump's not the best contrast to Kamala's weaknesses of vapid and ramble, while Kamala is a great contrast to both Biden and Trump re: not geriatric.
Either way, are debates really going to happen?
iprayiam3
1yr ago
so to be clear, I don't think it will last forever, but will last till november.
Rogd is a bigger issue in teen girls, and schools supporting this / putting them in risky situations by encouraging them to use mens rooms is definitely an issue, even if not as immediately off-putting as men using women's rooms. At the same time, they're two sides of the same ideology coin anyway. Putting tampons in mens room comes with letting biological men into women's rooms, and I think people get that.
It all falls under the 'woke teachers are grooming children' category.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
When was the last time anyone entered the presidential election this close to the election as a major party candidate? I really don't think we could draw too much guidance from primary candidate fades.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
I think there's a very reasonable chance that Trump bombs in any debate with Kamala. Trump was only good in his debate with Biden insofar as he wasn't a corpse. Trump will be the geezer this time and Kamala will get the 'not a corpse' halo instead
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Silvers model is now favoring Kamala, so are the most recent polls. I think Trump will only slide from here in the polls. There's nothing new to keep him up. He's at a ceiling between now and November.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
Economic trouble won't necessarily be blamed on Kamala per se, but it will lock in a perception of probably the weakest aspect of the past four years of Democrat rule: economic stife via inflation. I think a real downturn will turn out the vote for Trump. But it's not something I'm rooting for.
iprayiam3
1yr ago
It won't? Why not, she's only rising in the polls. What is the mechanism that will end her honeymoon before November? It's pure copium.
To his side: I don't buy that duty === illegal not to. I think that's a weak counter from you.
I also don't think his perspective necessarily means everyone should have to vote. I think it can just as easily be used to say: "The people who ought not be voting, ought not be complaining".
I think you can make a strong argument that a healthy community involves conscientious involvement and any political movement requires coordinated civic action; thus not voting is defecting.
I don't necessarily buy this argument, but I don't think it's remotely as vapid or axiomatic as you are claiming.
More options
Context Copy link