MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
I mean that’s how power works. If you read ancient history really up until the late 19th century, violence was very much a part of the politics of the era. I don’t see why our era is different other than a fairly stable system in which power could and did change hands often enough to make all voices feel heard more or less. If that changes, or the elites leading the major factions believe that they will be disempowered for a long period of time, I think you’ll see a return to older and less civilized versions of politics in which shooting a political enemy is a viable way to force your way to a seat at the table.
Power games between the elite are how power is distributed in any society. If they can’t get there by peace, we’ll have wars.
I don’t think my point is to be “unaware”. My point is to turn down your level of exposure to the toxoplasma of outrage — and just as import, if you want some degree of normalcy— make it a social norm in your non-political spaces that we do not talk about politics here in places where the purpose of the group or activity is not political.
I don’t think our differences are completely irreconcilable. If you talk about big picture end goals, most people want the same things. Prosperity, health, safety, relative freedom, and an educated populace. If you gave that list of goals to anyone from communists to libertarians, from old school democrats to NRx bros, I think they’d all agree on those things as end goals. We actually have two problems: too much political news, and too many people who have made politics their personality. Neither of those have anything to do with solving the problems that exist in policy. In fact they prevent solutions as everyone is convinced the other guys are evil. And that thus compromise is evil. And here we are.
I think honestly we talk about politics as identity and warfare, in ways that paint the other as an enemy, talk about the stakes as if they’re of earthshaking importance. And on top of that, everything is political, or if not by nature political, it will be used as a vehicle for political messaging.
This creates a supersaturated solution of political angst. Theres all this pent up emotion about things people are told are super important, that their enemies are working to destroy. Honestly, expect this to get much much worse because people are encouraged to see their problems in political light with those guys over there are making your life worse.
Near term, I think we need to actually disengage. Consume less news, stop following political opinion-makers and listening to political commentary. Go get a real hobby or three. Find a non political group of people — and in a space that explicitly doesn’t allow political commentary or discussion. If we go back to that, I think we’ll muddle through with a minimum of actual deaths. If everyone leans in and gets more engaged and more attached to causes, you can expect more shooting.
Actually what’s worse is that because of this constant Israel = Bad rhetoric, there’s actually less incentive to not go for broke. Gaza was “genocide” on Day 1. Exactly what does Israel get for not doing exactly that — other than more attacks? Why not simply raze everything and put up Israeli 7-11s where Gaza and the West Bank are now, rather than waiting for the next one? Why not settle Judea? Why not go crazy if you’re crazy anyway.
So history won’t change. I’m just like waiting for anyone to take a fair honest look at the ME. Israel isn’t perfect, but I think most people are hopelessly naive about just how warlike the Arab world can be. It’s just a bunch of war and honor cultures that are hopelessly aggressive against Jews existing in the region. Iran isn’t France, and Palestinians are not Hopi. Jihad is a major part of the current theological understanding of Islam, and not the internal kind of jihad.
How could anyone be surprised by that outcome? What man looking for a wife wants a woman who was a prostitute and doesn’t have remorse for doing it? Like how does he come to trust her to not have sex with random men when he’s not watching her?
I’m not convinced you couldn’t get American workers to do it. Much like construction and hotels and housekeeping and so on — Americans used to do all of it. And keep in mind that you have ex-cons and teenagers trying to build a good work history.
I mean I agree with that, but also that, as a culture we’ve kinda given up on even the idea of certain behavior being shameful or holding ourselves to a decent standard. In the case of Aelia this would include not being a prostitute, and certainly not promoting it online. But even in other areas, it’s like all of our ideas about how one ought to behave are seen through the idea of “it doesn’t bother me, therefore it’s fine,” almost to the point that pointing out these obvious deviations from desired behaviors are not to be noticed let alone remarked upon and only a scold would think of telling the person to stop making these bad decisions even if they are horrible for them, people around them, or society at large. And 8 think this is ultimately the cause of a lot of social rot.
I don’t think we can ever get back to small communities or whatever, but I think especially for public figures, calling out bad behavior is generally useful in maintaining some decency in society.
I see shame as the most powerful tool in the social toolbox. It needs to be used sensibly, and using it too much and too trivially is going to make it harder to use it for the things it needs to be used for.
The modern West is in bad shape precisely because it no longer uses shame. No job? Fine. Do lots of drugs? Can’t read or speak in complete sentences? Rob people, break property? Even lower level stuff like going out in public looking deranged/half-naked/just-rolled-out-of-bed? We no longer think a person should feel ashamed of themselves for doing that. As a result, we have wide swaths of society that no longer bother with anything but the bare minimum, and some even expect to be rewarded for that. Like, Yes, you got off drugs and applied for a job at Wendy’s. It’s an improvement, sure, but it doesn’t mean much.
I don’t see nihilism in what he’s talking about. What he’s talking about is how the systems in the modern West actually work, and exactly how they’re pretty much the same as the structures that have always existed and probably always will. SSDI like almost all welfare has never been aimed at tge comfort or betterment of tge people that receive it. It’s a pass through so they can afford to buy consumer goods. Which is why they have to use them to buy things or pay rent to a private individual. Government cheese and public housing and public clinics staffed by government hired doctors don’t get the money to the producers as fast. And most welfare systems cut people off the minute they have any assets. If you have money in the bank, you’re going to lose benefits rather quickly. It’s meant as pacification of the poor and a pass-through handout to business interests.
I see the same in his talking about the 2008 shutdown. He’s talking about the news and how it’s designed to tell you what you already believe, to create drama instead of solutions, and to basically prevent you from thinking about the issues. And the entire point is that it keeps you from understanding what is going on. Which is control. It wants you to feel involved and feel like you’re important enough to be in the seat of power. It’s sophisticated ego-stroking, and TBH it’s very seductive as ego-stroking to pretend that it’s of earth-shaking importance that you, personally are informed by the best sources, are engaged at all times, and that it’s urgent that you, yes, you are intimately and personally involved. TBH, I think in general the reverse is true, and that most of the problems in America would be solved if fewer people cared about politics, especially since the vast majority (on both sides BTW) are using politics as a substitute for religion and in some cases personality.
I think I agree Theres a bit of a moral hazard in too much welfare, especially uncoupled from the need to push people to do what they can, and to avoid bad behavior. If someone is generally capable of working, I don’t think they should starve. That’s insane. But if the person is clearly making bad, antisocial decisions, cutting off the gibs would force them to behave. Or for that matter force them to make their kids behave, attend school and do their homework. They should contribute as they are able, and they should be making sure their kids get a decent education. And staying out of crime, drugs, and so on. If you’re doing those kinds of things, im perfectly willing to pay to keep them from starving. If they’re sitting home on gibs, doing drugs, not making sure their kids are getting educated and not getting into trouble, they don’t get the gibs. It should be a hand up to hopefully being self sufficient, not a hand out to keep them comfortable doing nothing.
I’m not seeing the hate. There are problems with e-bikes and mopeds, and I think the infrastructure simply isn’t set up properly to make biking safe for cyclists and the cars around them. Trying to put bikes on the same roads as cars doesn’t work because of the speed and size differences and when the acceleration is added in, it’s hardly shocking that bikers end up getting the short end.
I’m not sure all of the behavior is antisocial on purpose. Cyclists are in a difficult position— too fast to be considered pedestrian, but also much too slow to really safely ride with cars and certainly don’t have the same kind of rider protection that cars offer. Some of the bad behavior might well be because following the rules is sometimes worse than not.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=A5A9RSHS7es?si=_-o10eeIryBiuOsV
It’s called vintage dollhouse.
I mean im not convinced that most people have a singular self in the sense that they have a core. Identity forms quite often from reactions to things or events, roles taken on, etc. so it seems one can use those deliberately by finding a not terrible set of identities and using them.
One example of a fairly sane YouTuber is a woman in her thirties who has turned her life into what life would have been like in 1940. Of course she’s very well aware of tge LARP, she mostly does the aesthetics and trying out the fashion and lifestyle. She’s pretty grounded. It’s obviously apolitical, which I think helps because it seems once political stuff enters the equation, you’re going to end up radicalized in one way or another.
But then why aren’t the more upscale places and homes more colorful? If anything, they’re much more neutral toned than the middle and lower class based places.
My theory is that somehow color got associated with low class or cheap. In order to not look cheap, you do neutrals.
I don’t see this as all bad, to some degree everyone is acting. You don’t curse in front of grandma even if you do in other places. You don’t dress the same for work as you do to just hang out. As long as the character you play is something of a decent human being, it’s probably not harmful.
But that’s quite often how trans comes off to me as a woman. They’re wearing super feminine things while tge cis women I know are rocking sweats and hoodies. Like one trans woman comes to work dressed in a pink or black dress and knee high socks and having his/her hair up in a ponytail with a ribbon. The actual women he/she works with are wearing hoodies, tee shirts, jeans or slacks. And the mannerisms seem to be trying too hard, like they’re consciously trying to be as feminine as possible, something other women don’t really do. At times, a lot of this feels exactly like what you’ve describing here, like someone took every stereotype of what women are like and chose to do all of those things. And I can’t help but mentally go into trans-racialism which isn’t a thing yet, but would explain better how this comes off. Imagine that I decide that internally, im black. So I start buying the kinds of clothes I’ve come to understand black people wear, I bring watermelon and fried chicken for lunch because black people like watermelon and fried chicken, I start talking in redicuoulsly bad Ebonics. At some point, you’d point out that you’re not only not acting like real black people, but you’re acting out a racist’s idea of what black people are like. Saying that you “feel like a black person in a white body, and all of this stuff im doing im doing because im an authentic black person,” is silly. And I really think in either case the question must be asked “what does being black/male/female/hindu etc. feel like?”
And at some level nobody else is thinking about their various identities in that kind of way. You’re living life, a perfectly ordinary life where you do things without thinking about them too much.
He’s publicly supporting a group of rioters. It seems like at best to be incitement, and given that he asked the LA PD to go and protect rioters, might well be more serious.
I don’t see these people as tactical geniuses. Up until this point, they’ve basically been able to thus far force Chuck Schumer to use his angry letter writing pen, have Cory Booker sit on the Capitol steps (before he voted in favor of a Trump nominee), and get a New Jersey mayor arrested. Even this isn’t a loss, he gets to look tough and make the governor of California display his impotence. All the while Trump can continue to work on getting his budget passed, arrest migrants in the court house (and now that judges are on notice, they don’t even try to sneak them out the back door). All of this is losing handily, no matter how many times they swear that it’s making Trump look bad.
I’m not entirely convinced that anyone can know the internal experience of any group that you are not a member of. You can approximate, sure, but my question to anyone claiming to be having the internal experience of being the opposite sex is “what does being that gender feel like exactly?” Like, im a woman and im not sure I could explain the feeling of femaleness to another person. And I’m certain I could never understand the internal experience of maleness. I could approximate, but my thought of what maleness feels like (interest in competition, visual based sexuality, practicality, and disinterest in arts) would likely offend males much like any other stereotype even if true in other areas.
So if the cops arrest my neighbor, and I see them gathering outside, I can get between them and my neighbor and not have interfered? As long as the cops haven’t officially declared they’re now on official duty they just aren’t? It like, cool, I can loot a 7-11 and have twenty big guys “protest” outside and keep the cops out. It’s just ridiculous to me to say crowds of people can surround a bunch of cops, prevent them from even starting their official duties, and hide behind the first amendment even if they’re throwing rocks (which is assault).
🍿🍿🍿
I don’t see how anyone intelligent can see the protests continuing when the NG can arrest and shoot people who interfere in a federal investigation. Nor do I believe that Newsom is going to avoid prosecution for siding with the protesters assaulting federal officers. They wanted this, they wanted to mess with the government because they have TDS. Now they can paint tge ground with the blood of protesters who want to LARP as rebels.
I’m with you, zero confidence that Americans will go along with this, because Americans have been raised up until maybe 15 years ago in a world of abundant wealth where hard choices didn’t have to be made. Or the can could be kicked until basically now. They aren’t used to “suffering for the greater good”, making do or doing without. So they aren’t going to tolerate such a thing. Add in the opposition making a point to blame the GOP for the suffering and promising to go back to the before times when the public could expect high standards of living, cushy office jobs, university education, and cheap consumer goods, and you will see the revolt.
- Prev
- Next
I think the red states are growing faster than blue the blue states, which given how close elections have been and how often the results follow the EC over the popular vote, that could be huge.
More options
Context Copy link