justmotteingaround
No bio...
User ID: 2002
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
If you feel consigned to your home after sunset, you're more likely to need psychiatric medication than moving boxes. On average, people are moving to cities, and aren't afraid of the dark. I've never known a city dwelling woman to carry any means of protection. Fertility rates have remained about 10% lower in large metro areas than rural areas for over a decade. Not being able to imagine something 10% less frequent is caused by a broken imagination.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Avoiding those bad things requires agency, and women demonstrate more of it than men in those contexts. This is true around the world. In general, males show greater impulsivity in both humans and lab animals. Nobody has argued for a broad societal reconsideration of whether men are adults. People would laugh that argument out of the room.
Is there a problem with women claiming a sexual encounter was consensual, and arguing for a take-back some time later? Absolutely. Does it follow that we should seriously consider whether women are adults? No. Thats insane.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
I probably agree with you a lot here. But it would be laughable to argue that these outliers at the margins are a serious reason to question if men are adults.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
what precedent is it setting?
As I stated, legislators can eschew medical/expert consensus for anything they please. Imagine the scientific consensus states that natal males in womens contact sports poses an injury risk. Well, Srkmetti would provide precedent that elected representatives can ignore that consensus. Is mifepristone safe? Thats now up for legislators to decide on their own. Does MDMA provide a therapeutic benefit to veterans with PTSD? Etc.
you should be arguing for the total abolishing of the regulatory state.
No, I want both internal and external experts to study things without their findings being handwaved away by politicians with an ideological agenda. Or course in this scenario, I don't trust the APA, AMA, and WPATH view on gender medicine. But experts will be mugged by reality far faster than case law. The cass report led to a reversal in the UK; science slowed down gender medicine in the Nordic countries. It takes far too long to get bunk science out of the legal system because the legal system is unscientific; relies on case law (eg bite mark analysis). In general, trust experts more than politicians because experts are responsible for the modern world.
justmotteingaround
11mo ago
The justification for the high costs will be similarly analogous. For the death penalty, you want to execute as few innocent people as possible. In principle, no innocent people would ever be executed. In real world practice, a legal death penalties always puts innocent people do death in rare circumstances (governments are incompetent, Juries composed of Everymen, etc).
Likewise, the real world of deportations are far more complex than a simply wishing that the correct people are deported in the correct way. Laws are frequently squishy. A few million cases a year are clear, and people are quickly deported (roughly 10k per day). The others have to be argued. Removing barriers before understanding why they are there is an understandable impulse, but a dubious policy.
Granted, in both circumstances activists are incentivized to run up costs. That seems like more a feature than a bug. The US government is set up to protect people from the government.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
But if you entertain one groups racial grievances you have to entertain all groups racial grievances. That door gets shoved wide open. Yes, in more recent times some whites have been vilified and discriminated against in some awful cases. Welcome to the club. Now lets slam that door in Ibram Kendis face, dismantle such programs (as Trump recent initiated), and move towards a legally colorblind, merit based society. Organizing around race mistakes the map for the territory in most cases. The political needs of whites aren't inherent to them being white. Not all whites are equally susceptible to opioid addiction or welfare dependency. Whiteness certainly doesn't explain who those people are. And whoever they are, they have agency and thus responsibility. Government help is not out of the question, but skin color is a bad heuristic. And keep in mind that all this grievance is in the face of increasingly median prosperity, while bring the most decisive voting block, over-represented in positions of power.
justmotteingaround
7mo ago
Unfortunately old comment but over the years no woman has ever mentioned carrying protection. Hundreds if not thousands of women over decades in major American cities. I've dated a dozen or so. I don't recall the idea even being mentioned, though it probably has. I moved out of the US in 2019. Crime has an absurd socioeconomic divide. My crime bubble is probably 5% of the modal white American. I grew up in a small, isolated town of decent prosperity. I'm 40ish and have never been the victim of anything other than petty crime, and even that rare. Same with my friends in all places AFAIKT. Its one data point, but its an honest perspective. So rarely have I seen crime that it is not something I think about. I'm positive it exists and am happy to pay for competent policing everywhere. Criminal (In)Justice was a good read on the geography of crime. Without any forethought, I have live where crime isn't. And now I shall knock on wood.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Take away the subsidy and let ABC, NBC, or CBS bid on the broadband. Use the money to pay down debt.
Thats an entirely different argument. If thats where the goalposts are, then Reason types would be on board, as it isn't about one man labeling something "fake news". The context is very different from what is being proposed team Trump which sneaks in viewpoint discrimination under the guise of free speech.
If he is actually consistent of free speech, then there wont be objections by reason types.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
If 1.5ppm causes 2-5 points of IQ loss, how much does 1000ppm in toothpaste cause?
You're claiming this is a huge scandal on the level of leaded gasoline. Given what the report found, that seems hysterical.
2-5 IQ points are very important. Getting fluoride via toothpaste is superior solution.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
I think the way you use the word "science" conflates the method and the process with scientific institutions.
To be clear, I mean the institutions, because of the method. The institutions are more error prone than the method, but I'm arguing the institutions, on average, approximate reality better than legislators.
It's not like the avenue of legalizing it is completely sealed off
I never said it was. My argument is that it takes inordinately longer.
medical procedures (surrogacy, euthanasia)... how does banning this particular field of medicine set some dangerous new precedent?
It is necessarily a precedent because thats how case law (but not science) works. Again, Skrmetti would more permanently and more broadly allow legislators, not doctors, to determine if any procedure is safe, beneficial, etc.
I mean, that's a staple argument of all sorts of human-nature-denying idealists since forever.
This is a non sequitur. Its still a false dichotomy because you can have a regulatory state, informed by or deferential to some degree of scientific consensus, and imo this is the lesser of two evils. One need not deny human nature to argue this. The argument anti-ideological. It inveighs against scienceism - which is anti-science exactly to the degree it exists.
The question here is why did it need to be comissioned politically
The answer is irrelevant to the arguments I'm making because they commissioned science to be done, which is exactly what I'm arguing for. Science should not be conducted in the court room. I concede that science is imperfect. I'm arguing that its superior to the precedent set by Skrmetti because case law and consensus have different mechanisms.
I don't understand why you're so torn over this.
I think its because there is an inherent tension between rationality/technocracy/utilitarianism/ whatever the fuck I'm arguing for, and freedom of thought, which I also argue for. I'd argue that the limiting principles on peoples beliefs are less bound by reality than expert belief. Exceptions prove the rule because you'd make money betting they're less frequent. Experts could recommend putting lead in the water, but my argument is that their epistemic processes will get the lead out of the water faster, on average, than public opinion/legislators which enshrine a leaded water program. However, expert consensus should not trump the will of the people. The reductio that people should be able to vote to put lead in the water, or reintroduce chattel slavery, or trans all the kids, strikes me as a potential problem.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
How is this not already the case?
It functions as balancing act of political and scientific consensus, and I'm much more of a political doomer than a science doomer. MDMA is exactly the kind of situation I want to avoid. They held hearings on the scheduling in the 1980's, and sought scientific input. Neurotoxicity studies where central. They've since been critiqued. Recent interest has dubbed it a "breakthrough" therapy for PTSD. Like weed, MDMA remains a schedule 1 making it extremely difficult to even study. Like weed, it'll likely stay a schedule 1 drug for decades and decades and decades and decades after therapeutic uses has been discovered. GHB has a similar history, but a therapeutic formulation was granted strict control under schedule 3. So while its possible to penetrate regulatory caprice, it usually takes longer. Case law is slower. Numerous examples. Stem cells being particularly egregious imo.
abolishing the regulatory state
Strikes me as a false dichotomy. Science has varying degrees of confidence. In this case, WPATH etc are peddling what I believe to be bullshit science with bullshit confidence.
The Cass Review...
Commissioned, but real science was done. Sounds good to me. NHS is a governmental body anyhow. I do think it will lead to a reversal in the anglosphere. Srmketti will be permeant.
Good! This is the part that I wanted you to explain how there's anything bad about!
Easily the most challenging critique for me to contend with, but perhaps I'm just limited. On what principle should I argue against people voting for representatives that promise to put lead in the water? On one hand, I do think people have that right. On the other hand, I'm just sitting here with my dick in my hand wondering how I can escape this principle.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Unless I'm missing something Skrimetti is just about banning / age limits on gender medicine. I don't see how it's qualitatively different from banning heroin or other recreational drugs.
I think I've been pretty clear that entire reason I'm against Skrmetti prevailing has noting - whatsoever - to do with banning flawed gender medicine. The precedent it sets can be argued in favor of the next Bad Thing(tm). Just sue the current bad thing for torts.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
TSD has always cut both ways. People literally think Trump was sent by god to stop pedophiles and prevent the obvious communist takeover of America or something. Of course he has all the normal age related cognitive decline for a 78 year old. Honestly, I think he's beating the median.
justmotteingaround
11mo ago
Indeed there are multiple things to track: the technology (precrime by ML) and the demographics which, according to you, "cannot be said". I commented exclusively on the latter - pointing out that it's a common enough topic of discourse to be memeified and reliably the subject of entire books.
justmotteingaround
11mo ago
Its wild that an algorithm can predict crime before it happens.
justmotteingaround
3mo ago
Populism is related in that I think it inherently contains a lack of skepticism. Everybody is just following the narrative with this admin, whereas the prior media trajectory was skepticism often to the point of conspiracy. Its early, but I promote skepticism always. Given that there was comparatively no interest in USAID prior, an about face inside of a few days speaks to mob mentality and blind allegiance to the party line. The media narrative is so far ahead of the details that $50M for condoms in Gaza hallucination was repeated ad nauseum by the admin itself. Of course the vast majority of Americans don't want 50 grand wasted on some trans Irish play, but that's $1 in every $100,000 of an agency that people are acting like needs to obviously be shuttered overnight. I'm not opposed to shutting it down, but relevant and true details matter. The oddities I want to question are manifold. The worlds richest man is personally auditing the entire government with apparent carte balance. Perhaps its for the best, but its worth questioning. The Epstein list was heavily redacted. Whats that about. Why are top lawyers at the DOJ from the Federalist Society resigning en masse claiming they're being asked to do illegal things. Why are Trumps personal lawyers, got appointed to government position, saying they're going to "protect Trump leadership" - which is not their job - vowing to "chase DOGE's critics to the end of the Earth". Seems odds.
justmotteingaround
4mo ago
Thanks, deleted and reposted!
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
focused on preserving the viability of Hamas tactics.
That's a very confusing way to phrase things. Are you're claiming that the US military was intent on helping Hamas? Or that, in practice, that was the effect of misplaced concern? If its the latter, then you would be agreeing with:
Lloyd Austin, December 2023. Whatever you think of him, that's pretty much what happened.
... which you claim you don't agree with. Maybe I'm missing something.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Atheism itself is not a system of beliefs. It cannot, in itself, be a moral parasite for the same reason not collecting stamps cannot be a hobby. Atheism in itself is devoid of moral content in the same way not collecting stamps is devoid of being a hobby. People often confuse atheism itself as having attributes it doesn't (usually nihilism or hatred of religion). Atheism is the mere belief that there is no god or gods. An atheist could take up the moral code of any religion, save a belief in a gods.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
That's kind of how I interpret it, but as written its nonsensical as is it misunderstands or misuses the term 'atheism' at a very basic level. Atheism doesn't necessitate any specific moral stance. Moreover, some religious are atheistic.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
My guess is the relevance is here:
2019 Background: PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) has used millions of tax dollars in a campaign to circumcise Africa under the guise of reducing HIV risks, based on some very controversial studies.
Links to a blog of an activists who writes books and makes documentaries to end circumcision. IME the intactivist bunch make radical claims well beyond anything the evidence supports, and bring up circumcision whenever possible in hope of ending what just might be the most barbaric practice mankind has ever conceived.
Do I support unnecessary circumcision of children? No, not really. But every time I look at the evidence, I can't see any reason to get worked up about the topic. I hope the bizarre practice dies out.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
It's certainly laughed at less than any proposals to lower the age of adulthood, which suggests the average person believes it should be higher.
Yeah you're prob right as the evidence for increasing the age it has one direction, but I reject the argument it nevertheless.
At the core, the argument of the linked substack by Kat Rosenfield, my argument, and classical liberalism reject the framework of OP and Pavlovich. Yes, men an women are different because of biology, but the individual reigns supreme. Society should consider Pavlovich and her defenders adults, with all consequent responsibility. I reject that they can retroactively change consent. They can cry about it, but it Rosenfeld articulates why it needs to fall on deaf ears. I reject man bad woman good and vice versa. Any deviation from this neutrality should be argued against, especially in the legal system.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Of course the sexes are unequal. This is undeniable. But I have yet to hear any argument why basic rights should differ. What is being proposed here is an anathema to classical liberalism. Sure, people are free to debate the cultural inequality of agency or roles between men an women, so long as they're treated equally under the law. If it wants to fit into classically liberalism, the individual takes precedent over group based rights.
Women demonstrate more agency than men when it comes to getting romance or finance scammed, abusing drugs and alcohol, or murdering people. Of course, it doesn't follow that we should take the vote away form men, or consider them children. Men are full adults, and are responsible for their choices. So is Pavlovich.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Any chance you take take all this info to a doctor? What was the cause of your stunted growth and approx how old are you now?
There is lots of low to no risk stuff you can do with training to increase tendon CSA. You can modify your current routine to keep volume/ stimulus the same while avoiding pain (ie more isometrics, plyometrics, different movements, less weight but slower reps, etc). But growing bones systemically sounds quite hazardous.
I had tendinosis in both wrists from an RSI while living in Mexico for a few months. I bought pharma HGH otc and gave myself 2IU per day for 3 months (I would/should have gone longer but I moved). I trained quite a bit. My wrists only hurt form typing. Outside of fantastic sleep, I didn't notice much. N of 1 and no control. My tendinosis did not resolve for several months after my last HGH shot.
Like the last amren article I read, its the woke right cobbling together a smattering of aborted syllogisms, half-truths, and outright falsities to advance even more identity politics. Its not completely devoid of truth and, especially towards the end, political insight. But on balance it comes off as whining. Whites are, in fact, increasing their real wages. Middle earning whites are dwindling, but only because they're becoming the upper earning whites. I have about as much sympathy for them as I do for laggard blacks: the government should probably help, but get your shit together.
My most pressing current thought is this guy needs to read more history. About 400 years ago, when the requisite technology was fresh, Dutch Jews whose ancestors had recently fled Portugal moved to proto-Brazil, then Surinam, then NYC, chasing state alliances and riches. Most people don't give two fucks about race, even if they think HBD is true.
Massive claim, and almost certainly a waste of thought.
Perhaps, but they are also wasting their time and thoughts. The smart ones overcome this concern and do well on average.
While its true that Progressive definitely scorn it in (jingoistic coded) whites, even reddit regularly vocalizes the inherent racism of modern Japan, let alone Israel.
Such a pessimistic an narrow view of what is possible. However, I think convincing readers that this is true is the point of this rhetoric.
Hysterical whining.
Pure bullshit.
I think this is the nexus of confusion. The author seems to have no idea how prescient, capacious, and wise the founders vision for a future America was, especially for the time.
This is the most deformed aborted fetuses of a syllogism. For one, I blame American Indians for their own regressive attitudes. Yeah, they're a conquered people. So am I, if we push the clock back far enough. Open a casino already. Second, Germany roared back to success post WWII. Its 1% of world population, yet one of the best places to be born. Wow. Such consequences.
More options
Context Copy link