HighResolutionSleep
No bio...
User ID: 172
HighResolutionSleep
4d ago
This does work within the communities that practice it.
So in other words, it doesn't work.
The scope of the consideration here was solutions that might cause a widespread meaningful rise in TFR. If you're not invested in that, then sure, it not working isn't a problem for you.
HighResolutionSleep
4d ago
Only targets a small slice of the population, so unlikely to generate results worth the amount of aggro it will pull, which is what I was aiming for with my proposals. That's why I tried to make them as broad as possible while minimizing inflammation as much as possible while retaining effectiveness.
That's why I didn't recommend outright banning no fault divorce; that's a coup-complete solution.
HighResolutionSleep
4d ago
I hear what you're saying, but I guess my initial reaction is that I find it hard to take offense to a lot of what's being said. In all but the worst cases, none of it strikes me as being much worse than what's already imposed upon men as a matter of policy. But you're right, that doesn't make it good. There's very few posts that happen here or elsewhere I'd be happy to elect as my representative.
I've reflected a lot on the MRA phenomenon and my involvement in it during the early to mid 2010s. I'm increasingly of the conclusion that it was, at its best, an attempt to arrest a cycle of violence before its next iteration. Reconstructing a positive belonging for men was rightfully seen as a key element. It wasn't meant to be. From the early manosphere we got two winners that made it big into broader culture: incels and red pillers. And it seems like inceldom is now the favorite to win the whole bracket. Bone apple tea.
I don't know if it's just because it fits into a neat understanding, but I get the feel from a lot of these men based on the way that they present their ideas that they are more on the younger side. I think there's going to be more of them as the years go by. I believe that the tools and implements of nihilism and faithlessness that were used to dispossess men are now moving against their next victims in the form of women. The wheel of violence turns.
I think things will get worse, but maybe before they get better. Maybe once there's nothing left there will be room for something new.
HighResolutionSleep
4d ago
This post is a follow-on from a conversation with @Amadan, who observed that I wasn't reading his posts correctly. I thought that hiding an apology behind a button most wouldn't click through would be what the kids used to call a bitch move, so I decided to make it a top level post.
^^^I ^^^also ^^^didn't ^^^want ^^^the ^^^effort ^^^to ^^^go ^^^to ^^^waste
You know what, I went back and read through the thread and it turns out I was misremembering the order of things. I thought you rejected faceh's proposal about tightening college admissions with the browbeating comment. My mind gets a little clouded with this subject sometimes. I think I owe you an apology in the form of a bit more effort, so here goes:
My belief is that the TFR crisis can be broadly understood in terms of basic economics. Sure, there are a million billion variables that go in to the exact shape of the curves, but I believe the fundamental problem is that the supply and demand curves don't meet at a point that produces a longitudinally viable volume. Therefore, any proposed policy must influence those lines to move TFR upward. To put it bluntly, this involves coercing either bid up or ask down. Browbeating. And we need to do it while remembering the goal isn't just more children, but ones raised in wholesome environments that set them up for the social and economic success we need to operate our societies, so "pay women billion dollars per child" is out. I'll note that some of these solutions involve catching women up to around the level of browbeating that men currently experience, and I hope this doesn't run afoul of the standard because it doesn't involve much additional browbeating on men. Lastly, I'd comment that these are not my preferred solutions, mostly because they involve coercion, which is a game I believe when played under real cultural and political conditions will result in much male loss and few additional births to show for it—but more pragmatically because I believe they are impossible to implement on a timescale that matters. I think the only real way out is to quintuple down on our current strategy of hoping for technology deux ex machina.
However, if we were willing to implement some painful measures to buy ourselves some more time, here's what that might look like if it were up to me:
Demand side measures, or, how to sweeten the deal for men:
- Wholesale refactoring of no-fault divorce and the "best interests of children" doctrine. This is of special interest to men, who under current conditions hold virtually no protection against their investments into family being stripped away from them at any time and for any reason. Solutions to achieve this could be a list onto itself, but I believe the core of the idea needs to involve a rather humble proposition: what if we reformulated the doctrine of "the best interests of children" to take into account that save for extreme circumstances divorce is not in the best interests of children. The doctrine needs to be modified in whatever way necessary to accommodate this and to allow for the application of active deterrence against divorce. Sure, you can still divorce on a whim without any fault, but you're probably not going to like the terms if children are involved. To freestyle a lighter measure example off the dome, this could involve requiring filing parties to attend a humiliation ritual wherein they are browbeaten with every stat and fact known to mankind about how bad divorce is for children, and they must affirm personally and publicly: "yes, I am a complete piece of human shit, afflict all of these maladies on to my own flesh and blood for my own selfish gain".
- Wholesale refactoring of filial duty and the taxation model used to achieve it. This is of special interest to men, whose earthly contributions to the human union lean more heavily in the direction of provisioning. Put simply, social security and other forms of elder welfare need to be either phased out or replaced with something far less permissive to the old and intrusive to the young. Obligations should be limited to flow within the family unit as much as possible. This would both incentivize family formation and grant more interpersonal and civilizational stake to the reproductive generation, something sorely lacking under current conditions.
- Requiring of female duty to the well-being of children, in basically any form whatsoever. As it stands, there's very little from women our civilization actually demands for the benefit of children. She can drink, snort, and smoke however much as she likes while carrying her child and nobody can actually stop her. I'm gonna be honest with you guys, I don't know what moral platform our society thinks it has to demand even a single hair off a man's head while it tolerates this behavior from women. The benefits to children are straightforwardly obvious, but it would probably also do well for the morale of men to know that women's participation is an adamant expectation rather than a whispered plea. This would extend to limiting the provision of single mother benefits to the worthy.
- A sea change in the tone by which our society speaks to men regarding their place in it, particularly in how it relates to his role as husband and father. I'm not going to start enumerating examples because once I do I'll never stop, but I'll point you in the general direction of concepts like the man cave and the world not owing you (male) anything.
Supply side measures, or, how to sweeten the deal for women:
- Far steeper penalties for dereliction by men. The penalties are already plenty steep if you compare them to what women presently suffer, but not nearly steep enough if the aim is to make women's investment into family formation less scary and shield children from harm. The penalties for up and leaving should be made ruinous and inescapable. Again, measures to this end could form a list onto itself. Would essentially be a modern form of shotgun wedding, but done by faceless bureaucracy instead of by patriarch, so much easier on modern sensibilities.
- Child support needs to be massively increased in the average case. This can be done by calculating support based on a basket of goods agreed necessary or beneficial to children's developmental success, rather than income. Some men won't be able to afford it. As I've remarked in the past, we have a persistent need for materials such as lithium and rare earth metals, and I think these men can help mine it.
- In lieu of ill-advised cash bonuses per birth, subsidies for necessities that improve the lives of both women and children, such as housing and food stipends, attached to the child and their guardian, of course. These interventions need to be both greater in volume and more selective than current programs, in order to maximize both reproductive incentive to adults and benefit to children. This is of special interest to women, who due to reasons of physicality are often most impacted by these needs.
- Expansion of pregnancy-related protections. Needless to say, measures where the well-being of mother and child intersect should be expedited. Regionally, however healthcare ultimately shakes out in the US, women should be exempt from whatever the hell is causing them to walk away from hospitals with not just a child but tens of thousands of debt. Due to the defined scope of this exercise and the well documented negative fertility interactions, measures where women and employment intersect should be deemphasized. If we do anything at this intersection, it should involve keeping women out of the workplace for longer during and after pregnancy, but in a way that doesn't involve direct subsidy by unrelated men. Ideally this should range not just from the big stuff but also to the small stuff like being allowed to park in disabled spaces and drive in carpool lanes; we ought to search wide for easy opportunities where slipping such privileges into existing infrastructure would be sensible, beneficial, and dignified for all parties.
If you haven't noticed, there's a strong pair of themes that run through these propositions. They mostly involve offering men a more durable ownership share in family formation, and women more durable guarantees regarding child-rearing. I know some readers are probably bursting at the seams to point out that a lot of this is just traditional marriage and romantic norms with extra steps. Why don't we just stop beating around the bush and go back to what works? Uh huh. How's that been working out? Mainstream conservatism has taken notice to how unpopular this position is and has largely adapted to this reality by promoting what I've take to calling neotraditionalism: offering a model of male obligation without the durable ownership. Good luck with that.
But this does cut to what I believe is the core of the issue. I think that advocating for any program that even smells like the above would get you accused of being a cryptopatriarch in a cool minute. The basic problem is that our civilization is emotionally allergic to a key active ingredient of the medicine, and that's not something any amount of sugar-coating can help. Take the religious shell away and put it in a container that's as secular and facelessly bureaucratic as we are, and I don't think it makes a difference to the overall reaction. There's also the question of societal patience. This is separate from the consideration of TFR and its consequences. As many including some here have contentedly noted, the current crop of men don't seem to bear an eagerness to form and maintain families that's just waiting to burst out given a few tweaks in policy and culture. This isn't something my program would change. I don't think any ever could. Men as a class have been subject to a campaign of demoralization and dispossession that began decades before I was born. Undoing this may very well require awaiting a completely new generation of men to come of age. This would require a level of patience with the male sex our civilization transparently does not possess, not even remotely close.
These are insurmountable problems. There's nothing to be done.
Would you like to hear about my $100T longevity moonshot instead?
HighResolutionSleep
5d ago
Don't presume to project incorrectness onto me contrary to what I expressed.
HighResolutionSleep
5d ago
It's the modern guys who have, I assure you, here on the Motte and elsewhere, been more or less explicit about wishing women had to settle in order to eat.
They didn't make it up themselves. They picked it up from the broader culture, and slapped a coat of And That's a Good Thing! paint on it.
Okay, but what's your solution that involves browbeating both men and women?
Too many to count; the issue is that, like face guy's proposals, you'll reject them because they involve some measure of browbeating prescribed to non-men.
HighResolutionSleep
5d ago
men being of genuinely lower quality and women not actually needing to settle to avoid starving.
I think of all the modernisms about the history of men and women that breaks my heart the most, this is probably it. Women only did it to not starve.
Whenever I feel like I might not be doing enough, I remind myself that inadequacy is impossible to escape as a man. If the men who came home from World War fucking Two weren't worthy, then it simply isn't achievable and never was.
I don't think the solution is to "browbeat" men, but I think moral disapprobation on both sexes has been implemented, historically. That horse is out of the barn. Give me a solution that doesn't reduce to "Women need to settle or starve." Or just "browbeat women instead."
There's nothing to be done. You can't have a solution that isn't just browbeating men that doesn't involve some level of browbeating non-men. It's impossible.
HighResolutionSleep
7d ago
Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names
Unsung feature of making these mistakes: you don't have to deal with users like these.
EDIT: This is a joke, right?
HighResolutionSleep
17d ago
Right. This is an asked and answered question. We already throw men into Definitely Not Debtors Prison if they refuse to participate. What reason do we have to believe this couldn't be trivially scaled up and out?
My position on this issue is that men as a demographic should be extremely careful when proposing coercive measures to solve this problem, as virtually all of this coercion is all but guaranteed to fall on their own heads. Men can be conscripted, both into war and child rearing, and women cannot. If you peel back the (philosophically) liberal live-and-let-live sentiments many in our culture harbor, you'll find nothing but contempt and scorn for what little freedom men have in this domain. Do you think this is likely to change any time soon?
HighResolutionSleep
20d ago
Ah, well. I guess there's nothing to be done. Men too awful. Good for nothing. Never did well. How could we ever hope to build a demographically stable future while carrying such worthless dead weight?
Hey, good reason to go for broke with longevity right? Maybe I can find support here for my $100T regenerative medicine campaign. Men being impossible isn't a problem if they're unnecessary for securing the future.
HighResolutionSleep
20d ago
The problem is that there's often an unspoken third item:
- Don't be angry or upset about it, or move to organize against it. That's gay.
HighResolutionSleep
20d ago
We really need to do a "you halves he picks" analysis on these types of proposals. You guys define just how hard the millstone of racial and sexual discrimination grinds on the have-nots, but I get to pick who they are. If it's truly no big deal, you won't mind it pressing down on women and minorities, right?
HighResolutionSleep
20d ago
Cool, so it's okay if we took these policies and turned them on their heads? DEI for white guys? I mean, truly talented women, blacks, and browns can just succeed anyway. No biggie, right?
HighResolutionSleep
23d ago
I thought we were talking about something else; sorry to interrupt.
HighResolutionSleep
23d ago
Americans are not a curated performance designed for the consumption of a particular audience. I've heard this isn't a flaw unique to my people.
HighResolutionSleep
23d ago
Well, the good news is that if you'd like to stop hearing what Americans think of you, you'll have no problems curating an accurate block list. What's stopping you?
HighResolutionSleep
23d ago
I think national identification should be opt-in. This seems to me to be straightforwardly the best possible world. It would protect online anonymity for those who want to preserve it at maximum capacity, short-circuit bad faith "doxxing" objections, and allow those who wish to pass themselves off as belonging to a particular nationality to prove it.
If someone want to present themselves as American, I'm pretty sure replying to their post with "nationality kept private" on their profile would pack about 90% of the same rhetorical punch as the actual information being there, while carrying almost 0% of the downsides.
Sure, my country might have been founded by anonpoasters, but due to technological limitations, those reading The Federalist could at least be reasonably certain that they were American anonpoasters.
HighResolutionSleep
23d ago
As I'm sure you're painfully aware, we Americans are almost categorically unashamed to boldly declare our nationality to anyone who will listen. It's a complaint I hear a lot of.
So, per the original complaint, you're unlikely to have unidentified foreign influence contaminating your information space, at least from Americans.
HighResolutionSleep
29d ago
You can't switch from a Big Mac to a NY Strip and call it inflation, it has to be a fundamentally comparable good.
Cool, so base the numbers on comparing like goods and stop fucking with them. How is a bureaucrat supposed to measure how much more better the Philly Cheese-steak is? This also doesn't solve the double counting problem. The BLT doesn't count for less dollars in the GDP line go up so shut up data.
EDIT: It also doesn't solve the problem that, in a lot of cases, consumers stopped buying the Big Mac because it was outlawed.
Gas is impossible to game, a gallon is a gallon
Unfortunately, you cannot eat or live in gas.
HighResolutionSleep
29d ago
Right, but that doesn't change the fact that the car is now, in fact, more expensive than it was before, which is what a measure of inflation is supposed to capture.
This fraud is revealed when the same discounting principle isn't applied to, say, GDP, or other "good numbers". Oh yes, you bet your ass the extra dollars get counted there. With this neat trick, you get to double, triple, maybe even quadruple count the benefits of a technology or innovation.
Things in the past were going well enough for the common man that there wasn't much to notice here, but now that John Everyman is getting squeezed from all angles, the official numbers are starting to look suspicious. Hard to ignore the dissonance when your typical bag of groceries jumps 20% and the official numbers are still like "3% :)". Becomes clear that the numbers aren't about you or people like you. There's so much witchcraft that goes into these numbers anyway that they are essentially a matter of interpretation rather than fact, and it's becoming clear to a lot of people that it's a picture painted by a club they're not in. And yeah, I guess if you're an upperclassman like Scott is now, it's easy to believe everything's great. But if you're a member of the Rent Food Gas class, you have been getting obliterated.
It's actually difficult for me to believe the level of condescension that these people are speaking to the working class. I couldn't imagine biting the hand that feeds me that hard. Maybe we need a little bit of rising Bolshevism to remind these people who actually runs the place.
HighResolutionSleep
1mo ago
Well, all I can say for sure is that I've never met one asking about the hospital bills I never paid, and that debt collectors are notorious for collecting on things they have no business doing so. Consult your local and state laws.
HighResolutionSleep
1mo ago
Personally, I'm speaking from two different articles of personal experience:
- Knowing both a nurse and an EMT, who have seen the internals of hospital billing and know how the sausage is made, both of whom have advised me to not pay hospital bills if I do not feel like it;
- My doing exactly this multiple times, and suffering no negative consequences whatsoever.
I don't know the parameters of how these reddit people were sought after. Perhaps I've seen so much success because I establish myself as a nonpayer immediately. I've heard from sources on the internet sounding credible that there's some arcane legal black magicks wherein one can be bound to a largely fictitious debt by sending its conjurer so much as a single dollar. Some sign on penalty of perjury that they are owed an imaginary debt on the hopes the legal ritual will coerce payment from targets. I'm sure there's a lot of Weird Tricks that people can use to extract money from hapless victims.
However, my personal experience with medical bills has been as follows: I go to the hospital to get something done, I get something in the mail that says something to the effect of "after your insurance paid 100 gorillion dollars, your remaining balance is 10 gorillion dollars, please send check or money order", I throw this demand directly into the trash, and I never hear about it ever again. It goes to the same black void as the jury summons. One time I got three invoices, from three different organizations, demanding three separate pounds of flesh for one thing I got done at a hospital. I ignored them all, and never heard from any of them ever again.
I'm not saying that this is applicable to all bills one can receive from a hospital, or that this maneuver could be pulled in any American jurisdiction, etc. I'm just saying that people getting demands from hospitals should consider their nonpayment options, if available.
It's been said that you can't con an honest man, but this may be another wisdom that modernity has turned on its head.
HighResolutionSleep
1mo ago
From what I've heard, they can certainly "send it to collections", in the sense that they can give it to an internal department to harass you about it. But they can't actually sell it to real collectors who ostensibly have a legally enforceable debt that they can collect from you, and who ostensibly have a legal justification to put marks on your credit score. I'd be curious to know if these individuals you know actually got marks from this specifically.
An even if they do, there's an entire playbook for effectively telling these people to fuck off. I've never had to use it, because in my experience, it never even got to the harassment part. Once again I will say that your experience may vary depending on many, many factors, but I would just urge anyone reading to appreciate that fact that just because someone shoves an invoice at you doesn't mean you have to pay it.
HighResolutionSleep
1mo ago
I would like to stress that I don't know the exact conditions under which this works—so please take this strategy at your own advisement and peril—but I have had multiple hospital visits in my life so far and have gotten away with paying exactly $0 by simply ignoring demands for money. These were organizations that had all of my info, my insurance, knew where I worked and lived, etc—and so far I've experienced no durable negative repercussions.
Your mileage may vary.
We lack a crystal ball through which we can show prospective divorcees a differential analysis of their children's future, so I'd say keep it general but factual. I don't expect this to be a comprehensive solution or anywhere near; some people will simply not care, others will be convinced that their parenting skills are the exception. We'd need to come up with other interventions that target those cohorts, and beyond.
More options
Context Copy link