@mitigatedchaos's banner p

mitigatedchaos


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 30 19:35:43 UTC

				

User ID: 1767

mitigatedchaos


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 30 19:35:43 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1767

I believe that's likely to be a future issue and cause a split within the contemporary left coalition as genetic technology improves, resulting in a shift in the makeup of the coalitions.

I have proposed the term "Biosocialism" to cover "the elimination of genetic inequities that are an obstacle to the formation of a global, classless society." Governments have an insurance-like incentive to reduce genetic diversity, and markets are also likely to be a homogenizing force, meaning that this is likely to be a future conflict. I think we might want to get a solid body of theory set up first, so that we're in a better position once various aspects of the genetics industry undergo political polarization.

You misread the post as referring only to elite college admissions, when actually it refers to incidents like race-based medical rationing based on a "white" vs "everyone else" system which is scientific racism much less sophisticated than conventional race science, major outlets referring to the existence of asians in engineering departments as a "problem", and explicitly race-based debt relief that had to be shut down by the courts. These are all mainstream, center/left-of-center sources.

This is just what ideas like "white privilege" theory and "race conscious" policy mean.

It is true that Republicans were opposed to Democrats in 2010, but this change, kicking off around 2014, is wildly disproportionate to what the Republican Party actually did.

This view is irrational. You are treating your tribal positions as the default.

The Democrats are a party of irrational, tribalistic, collective, intergenerational ethnic grievance, as seen by use of terms like "BIPOC" that make no sense as a scientific category. Their proposed interventions have no beneficial effects, and they have abandoned the modest evidence for modest success they used to have for their previous policy set in 2010.

This makes me immensely more comfortable with the manipulation of procedural outcomes to prevent the Democratic Party from gaining more power and resources than I was in 2010. Republicans playing hardball with the Supreme Court was apparently necessary for me to keep my human rights, as seen by the recent rolling back of "corrective" racial discrimination programs.

The Democrats could simply have some frank conversations to break their coalitional interest deadlock instead of doing this weird racialist nonsense that has even less backing than conventional scientific racism. They're not obligated to be, somehow, as inconceivable as it was from 2008, literally color supremacist.

Yeah that's the whole bit there - it's specifically designed to avoid direct reproductive coercion like that. Instead it just feeds people the environment limits early.

The other trick is that because whatever you didn't split with your kids/heirs while you were alive (+ x years for early deaths) gets redistributed, you're basically encouraged to have a kid/heir at some point.

That depends specifically on the resource type being allocated.

Basically you can store value in whatever resource class is not being allocated in this way. For instance, if every citizen receives an allocation of land or energy rights, you can store value as ownership of factory equipment even if you don't own all the land the factory is on.

Should note that for the record, I answer all requests from the left to silence the HBDers with "you first; show that you're serious about not supporting 'racial consciousness' and 'corrective' racial discrimination," so realistically I don't expect to take any actions to silence HBD discussion during the next 10 years.

Only people like tracingwoodgrains have moral standing to even make the request, and they're not powerful enough to make it binding at this time.

Not interest rates - the number of people getting the loans in the first place. Should have clarified that.

It has similar political problems, which is why the college loan situation in the US is unlikely to be resolved. Libs have proven willing to accept a higher non-graduation rate and higher debt, but probably won't accept a difference in how often the loans are issued.

I'm not discussing most other plans at this time.

In the meantime, the mainblog will soon be shutting down for a six-month hiatus.